To those considering an OW class...

[Thalassamania]

I was talking specifically about "mastery" of skills in an OW class. From what you wrote, that was your context as well.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but you can't expect a beginner diver to have "consummate skill" and "full command" of all diving after an OW class. That only comes with experience (unless of course you are arguing that an OW class should have at least 100 dives). .

Mastery is not my word, I’m told that its used in the PADI standards. If that be the case, no instructor has ever met PADI’s standards.

To answer your class name post:

I see where you're coming from. And in a way, I agree with you. At face value, these names are a bit misleading. By using them, every agency is basically saying "take X, Y, and Z classes to become the best diver you can be". However, course definitions and the materials (with PADI at least, since those are the ones with which I'm most familiar) delineate what each course is and what you will learn. In fact, the fact that courses are starting point for knowledge and experience is peppered throughout the written material and available online if you visit the primary source.

I'm not particularly crazy about the names either. But you gotta name the classes something. If you want to be philosophical about it, I guess CMAS's * system is the fairest way to name courses. The only way you will get a consistent naming system across the entire industry is government regulation.

And even if you have industry consistency, you're back to the same situation we are in right now. Dive Operators will not take a Diver 1 (Diver*, whatever) on dives they consider more demanding. Then you'll have people saying that "Diver** standards are too lax. Diver** is just a few more dives than Diver*". So it doesn't really matter what you call the class. It's still the same thing.

In the early 1980s there were training courses that were offered by many different agencies with relative agreement as to the course names and content. There was an Open Water Diver (approx 40 hrs and 4 to 6 dives). There was an intermediate class, "Open Water II" or "Sport Diver" (another 6 to 10 supervised dives, no book work). There was Advanced Diver (a bunch of book work and 6 to 8 dives). What PADI did was to just move the names down a rank, the intermediate class became advanced, and the advanced class disappeared to be replaced with the “Master Diver” smorgasbord.

This was done, boldfaced as could be, to gain competitive advantage amongst an unsophisticated clientele, if fact there were even adverts touting how much easier it was to become a PADI Advanced Diver than it was to become an Advanced Diver with any other agency. PADI knew that they were comparing apples and oranges and did it anyway. THey were, and are (witness the quesion of "mastery") liars.

Sorry to be so lenghty, I guess it boils down to this:
- If you split "diving knowledge" up, you'll never get universal concensus on how to break it up.
- If you don't, the industry will atrophy.

You can always keep telling people more and more about how to drive and the chemistry behind combustion, but you only become a good driver, by driving.

Bubbles... highways... same thing.

I don’t really care how many cards you break it up into, it’s the dishonesty of the first step that I can’t swallow. When you start in a lie, you live in a lie, there's no way out.

And BTW: I learned as much about driving (maybe more) in the classroom as I did on the track.

 

[MikeFerrara]

(emphasis mine)

I would add the following:

---
IF a student does not meet standards, yet an instructor allows them to continue towards certification, it's the instructor... not the agency
---

I believe this is the core issue in the instructor vs. agency debate. I would agree with the quote above as it is written.

However, the assumption behind it is that a student MET agency standards. Sadly, this doesn't happen as often as it needs to. I have personally seen and heard about many situations in which instructors take shortcuts and allow a student's initial shortcomings to stand as accomplishments and "mastery." If you ask the instructor, they followed standards.

I would be surprised if even the staunchest suporter of the agency camp would disagree with the above.

Since an agency does not micromanage its instructors on a day to day basis, subjective things like "mastery", are misinterpreted (sometimes willingly) by the careless instructor. However, they are not following standards when this is done.

Thus, in these circumstances, it's the instructor, not the agency.

I don't completely disagree but PADI knows what kind of classes are being taught. I know they know because I've told them. LOL

They use terms like mastery on purpoise. They know what they're doing. If they wanted to the couls easily be far more specific about exactly what it is that a student must be able to do. Other agencies do it. It's a loop hole that is put there by design, IMO.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I wouldn't know about all the agencies.

PADI sends scantron QA questionaires to students. At first, every single one of your students, then the percentage that get it goes down with time. It includes a good number of questions to assess that instructors are following standards. I think any more than what is asked would be too unwieldy and no student would take the time to go through it and mail it back.

I don't recall ever seeing anything about mastery on it, though. Though frankly, that wouldn't be the best forum for it since a student would (pressumably) know less about the meaning of "mastery" than the instructor.

Even when mastery is defined, I think the major problem comes down to irresponsible instructors diluting it and letting things slide.

The point I was trying to make earlier is that no matter how specifically and directly you define standards, it is the instructor's responsability to implement them. This is not what ends up happening in your average "bad class." This is the instructor's fault.

EXACTLY! When it comes to mastery, they turn a BLIND eye. As I indicated in my last post, I don't believe this is an accident or an oversight. It's the design. PADI has enough pro writers and lawyers that they know exactly what they are asking of instructors and students and they know exactly what they're getting.

But, lets say that an instructor really does require mastery freom his/her students. Great, they need to hover in any position for 30 seconds. What did they master? Can they do a good job of diving now? I don't think so. We could pick dozens of similar examples from the standards that make the same point...ascent and descent, buddy skills, dive planning, finning technique, trim and on and on. If they master the skills required by standards, they still aren't anwhere at all because the standards just don't ask for much.

 

[Thalassamania]

f they master the skills required by standards, they still aren't anywhere at all because the standards just don't ask for much.

But, from what I've observed, they don't even begin to master those skills.

 

[rakkis]

But, lets say that an instructor really does require mastery freom his/her students. Great, they need to hover in any position for 30 seconds. What did they master? Can they do a good job of diving now? I don't think so. We could pick dozens of similar examples from the standards that make the same point...ascent and descent, buddy skills, dive planning, finning technique, trim and on and on. If they master the skills required by standards, they still aren't anwhere at all because the standards just don't ask for much.

Alright. By what you're saying above, the industry needs to add more dives and more skills during initial training. A diver with 10 dives under his belt is certainly better trained that one with 4 - and one with 20 is even better. But where do you draw the line? When is enough enough?

 

[Thalassamania]

Alright. By what you're saying above, the industry needs to add more dives and more skills during initial training. A diver with 10 dives under his belt is certainly better trained that one with 4 - and one with 20 is even better. But where do you draw the line? When is enough enough?

Fifty odd years of experience at several dozen major universities says that 12 is a good number. Break them up into two courses, Dependent Diver and Independent Diver, if you want, but get in about 100 hours of training with 12 open water dives.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Alright. By what you're saying above, the industry needs to add more dives and more skills during initial training. A diver with 10 dives under his belt is certainly better trained that one with 4 - and one with 20 is even better. But where do you draw the line? When is enough enough?

It's a good question but I don't think it's a difficult one. If we want to prepare divers to independantly dive in shallow water under easy conditions, I think we can list the skills that they need.

The OW course, as is, includes most of them except they don't really teach those. Even a shallow dive in easy conditions can get pretty fubar if the diver isn't able to move through the water column with control, stay with and aware of a buddy and handle problems that are likely under those conditions in a real diving context. Kneeling and replacing a mask doesn't mean anything. You need to be able to do it midwater, while diving and while maintaining buddy contact. Getting neutra at some point during dive 4 doesn't mean anything. If you aren't swimming you should be hovering. It would be easy enough to write some performance requirements for the tour (diving) portion of the dive. It's simple enough to write performance requirements that require basic skills to be done in a diving context rather than while kneeling on the bottom. It's easy enough to get rid of this "hover in any position" nonsense and teach and require trim.

Throw in a few things that aren't currently included at all like gas management and you have a diver that, while inexperience, can perform the physical act of diving. As it is we certify divers who literally can't dive. They can breath under water but they can't really dive at any depth under any conditions.

 

[Tigerman]

You can make the textbook require what the hell it wants, theres still going to be people that cant dive who get their certifications anyways.. It IS infact all up to the instructor wether or not hes gonna write the evaluation correctly or not!

 

[Thalassamania]

You can make the textbook require what the hell it wants, theres still going to be people that cant dive who get their certifications anyways.. It IS infact all up to the instructor wether or not hes gonna write the evaluation correctly or not!

I could not disagree more. In thirty years of teaching diving I refused to certify exactly one entry level student (and he could do the skills, he was mentally unballanced with a substance abuse problem that made him a danger to himself and his team) and two Instructor Candidates (one could not pass the written tests, one could not perform the requisite in-water skills, both declined to take our Master Diver Course and ITC Prep Course which were free because they did not think that they needed it). Sure there will be instructors who will not meet standards, and when the standards are actually something worth respecting the demand that they be enforced will be must stronger. As it stands right now enforcing standards is akin to writting jaywalking tickets on a road that has a parking lot on one side and a beach on the other.

 

[PePaw]

Well, I think it's time to ask if we REALLY want someone just considering getting into diving and an OW class to read this thread or not ?
Seems it's just turned into another PADI bashing outlet. Something the author specifically states that he did not want to happen in his original post.

I'll say this, it's a busy hectic world we live in. The wife and I took from September through December just trying to arrange our schedules to take the course we did. If (like you fine folks seem to be advocating), we had to try and set aside weeks or months to do our training, well we wouldn't be divers today. Loving the sport, wanting to learn more and do more and yes putting our dollars into the hobby.

Let's all face the fact that the world we live in is market (and numbers) based, and not try to bash an organization that at some point recognized that fact. It's those "numbers" that drive further product development and increase the accessability and AFORDABILITY for all of us.

I was PADI trained. I believe that my initial training was well done. I believe I know my limits and can dive safely. I now love the sport and want to become a better diver. Heck I just want to get in the water as often as possible, meet people, go places and do things. (Wonder where I heard that before?)

The bad divers will kill or injure theirselves or just drop out. The rest...like yourselves...will continue their diving education and expierience and grow this hobby for the future.

Sorry, i'm far more comfortable standing quietly in the corner. But after the last few pages of post felt the need to say something.

It's just my two cents and probably not worth much more than that.