Three strikes and you're out... I've now written off PADI

[Deefstes]

Good responses everyone. I half expected responses along the lines of "you can't fault the agency based on the few instructors", in fact, I even said so in my post But a good point that you are making is that, statistically speaking you are likely to run into more PADI klutzes than klutzes of other agencies.

I agree, my sample space is limited and my findings flawed, if you were to go about it statistically but I had to get this off my chest

 

[drdaddy]

Damn. I've been around long enough to have met three arseholes / idiots from just about every major agency (except GUE to be fair). Does that mean I should give up diving? (except with GUE, and you can be damn sure that will never happen).

Never? Never is a long time.

 

[Zippsy]

Never? Never is a long time.

I'm old. Never won't last long for me.



BTW, I wasn't knocking GUE. I just have only known one instructor and except for one transgression, I think he has been exemplary. And the only real "GUE" diver I know who I would call and idiot and a jerk failed his fundies (which moved the instructor up a notch in my book).

 

[ringmod65]

Here is the email for PADI quality control in UK, East Europe, Russia, Middle East & Africa.

Best.

 

[drbill]

My biggest complaint about SOME PADI instructors is that they had no idea what a Los Angeles County c-card was. I finally had to get a PADI card to satisfy some of them... from a PADI instructor in Cairns, Australia, who not only knew what the L.A. County c-card was but called it a museum piece!

 

[Deefstes]

Here is the email for PADI quality control in UK, East Europe, Russia, Middle East & Africa.

Best.

Thanks, that's useful to have. But I don't really think any of the above warrant an e-mail to PADI, except perhaps the second turd but then again, his irresponsible diving didn't affect me personally and he wasn't leading the dive.

Besides, I'm not PADI certified and their quality control is none of my business. I suppose I could take the time to let them know where their instructors are screwing up but why should I?

 

[ScubaSteve]

I suppose I could take the time to let them know where their instructors are screwing up but why should I?

To prevent someone's untimely demise from poor training or poor decisions when trusting their instructor

I know that is a bit dramatic but if everybody says "Why should I?" then the problem only gets worse and never better. I am sure if Padi knew of the problems, they would be more likely to address them than if they are never notified.

 

[scubafied]

I'm fairly new to this and could be completely off base here but if your CMAS instructor taught you that doing open water drift dives without a signaling device was okay, you may want to toss them into that boiling pot as well.

 

[Peter Guy]

OP -- While it is true that since PADI is the largest agency you are more likely to run into "arseholes" I'm not sure I would agree with all of the statements above. Now, to be clear, I am a PADI instructor and believe PADI provides me with a set of very good tools to teach students how to be safe, independent and good divers. Also, as a PADI instructor, I have promised NOT to say (write) anything that denigrates the corporation/organization so what I can write is, perhaps, somewhat compromised.

I believe that ONE of the reasons that UTD and GUE have such good instructors is that both of those organizations demand a lot from their instructor corps -- including the concept that an instructor must be "certified" to dive, and doing the dives, at a level above what they are teaching. I happen to believe that is a great concept and wish it applied across the board to all instructors/AIs/DMs etc. That is, IF one wants to be teaching students "recreational open water diving" (no-deco limits, 130 foot max depth, 40% O2 max, single gas) one should be trained to do something more than that AND periodically doing dives that exceed those limits. Were that to be the case for PADI instructors, for example, I believe there might be fewer of the people you (the OP) met and I believe that would be very good for the instructor corps everywhere.

 

[adelman]

Scenario 1:
We're diving in Greece where the dives were conducted by a Swedish PADI instructor. In between dives we just make idle chat on all things diving and the topic of safety stops comes up. I mention that we do most of our safety stops for 3 minutes at 5m because that's what our computers (Suunto) prompts us to do even though we have been trained to stop for 1 minute at 3m. He then launches into a scathing attack on our training because "you actually off gas quicker at 5m than at 3m"

Now I'm sure there's room for debate on what depth is better for a safety stop but that you'd off gas quicker at 5m than you would at 3m is patently untrue and only a complete fool would use such a bull**** argument to attack another agency's training.

Actually, it depends on your decompression model. You off gas dissolved gases fastest when at the highest gradient (shallow stop), but if you look at any of the bubble-models (RGBM, VPM/B) they want to keep you deeper. The dissolved-gas model takes you to the shallowest depth you can go to without bubbles forming, and holds you there while you off gas. The bubble models assume that micro-bubbles are continually forming and redissolving in your blood (and other tissues) during your ascent. By keeping you deeper, you keep these bubbles smaller, where they aren't going to cause problems.

Any technical diver would scoff at the notion of doing their deco at the shallowest depth possible.

So I wouldn't necessarily agree that you "off gas quicker at 5m than at 3m", but it is certainly a better place to be doing your off gassing. A deeper stop (which controls microbubble formation better) is going to work to prevent Type II DCS (neurological), whereas the shallower stop is going to work to prevent Type I DCS (muscular, joints). I'd rather take a Type I hit over a Type II any day, so I'd rather do my stops deeper (even if I had do keep them shorter as a result).

Regarding the necessity of safety-stops, you need to do them with EACH ascent. Certainly they aren't required, and if conditions dictate that it isn't safe to remain in the water (being circled by a great-white shark, being blown out to sea, low on gas), you should skip it and get out (you can fix bent, but you can't fix drowned). Consider this case -- you complete your safety stop and drop something, you bounce back down to 20m to pick it up. Can you skip your safety stop on this second ascent because you've already off gassed? No! One of the purposes of the safety stop is to let microbubbles in your blood complete their circulation and get trapped in your lung tissue where they will not cause DCS symptoms when they expand further during your ascent to the surface. When you drop back down, you compress these trapped bubbles until they are small enough to leave your lungs and go back into circulation. A slow (10m/minute) ascent rate and a second safety stop is just as important this time as it was the first time, to get these now-expanding bubbles to "trap" in your lungs again, rather than somewhere else in your body.

Is buddy-separation an emergency warranting skipping your safety stop? In my opinion, no, unless where is reason to believe that your buddy is going to need your assistance getting to or once on the surface.