what makes a diving agency a diving agency?

[endurodog]

Peter great post. Would like to hear what you think the problems are with the instructors. Promise don't want to debate it but would like to hear your take on it. Can pm me if that's easier

 

[gcarter]

No one has said you can only judge it by sitting in on the instruction except for you. But when someone is stating that certian stuff isn't being taught when it is, it would be helpful if someone was to audit a class to see exactly what info is given.

1) Auditing a class is, by definition, sitting in on the instruction.

2) Adequate is subjective and I doubt auditing a class would change his definition of adequate.

3) Whether or not information is given does not mean it is adequately taught. That can be determined by observing the result and does not require auditing a class. Informing and teaching are two completely different things.

IMO the instruction I received was adequate although not likely to Thal's standards. But I still disagree with the statement I responded to. I understand the sentiment, but disagree with the words as written.

 

[endurodog]

1) Auditing a class is, by definition, sitting in on the instruction.

2) Adequate is subjective and I doubt auditing a class would change his definition of adequate.

3) Whether or not information is given does not mean it is adequately taught. That can be determined by observing the result and does not require auditing a class. Informing and teaching are two completely different things.

IMO the instruction I received was adequate although not likely to Thal's standards. But I still disagree with the statement I responded to. I understand the sentiment, but disagree with the words as written.

You made an incorrect statement that you suggested was made in this thread " but I disagree with the thought that one can only judge the quality of instrction by watching it take place." No one stated that. The auditing of a class, which yes includes sitting in on it, was a suggestion so those that say things are not being taught at all could see that they are being taught. The thouroughness of the teaching would no doubt still be debated. But your statement was wrong about what people were saying about judging the quality of instruction only by auditing. Auditing is a tool.

There is no doubt that Thal will never change his opinion on the quality of instruction now but he could argue it from a more well informed position.

The question about if the class is being adequately taught is another issue. When I was cert'd in 1983 it was in a NAUI class and was multi week class. My instructor was bashing all the sub standard training going on, besides his of course. I'm sure his instructors did the same. Just like is still going on here. Same arguements, different time.

 

[DCBC]

DCBC I'll answer your question if you answer mine, fair enough.

I can answer most of your questions with a statement. I would always prefer to dive with a highly trained diver but the preference is slight and I will dive with any certified diver. The level of there swimming ability or rescue skills would not make me pass on a dive with them as long as they are certified. Yes more training would increase diver safety.

My point is that Students are generally safer divers if they have a higher degree of watermanship ability, know how to calculate and project gas consumption for a planned dive and know how to rescue their Buddy. The fact that a higher degree of training may not result in maximum profits to the industry is the reason why the standards were lowered in the first place. The fact is (and from your answer it would seem that you agree) that diver's today are less prepared than they once were. Any instructor worth his or her salt can increase the margin of safety with more training. Lowering the training lowers safety. What is an acceptable level of safety is of course up to interpretation. Many will feel that today's standard is acceptable, others do not.

Do you really think that by increasing the training (which equals money and time) that more people will get in the sport?

No I don't. I see that my job as an Instructor is to provide training that will safely prepare a diver, to dive within a Buddy team, unsupervised in the local diving environment. To increase the student's fitness and confidence to dive in a hazardous environment. How many people that do or do not 'get into the sport' is of no concern to my instructional function.

Do you have figures to say that sport is having more safety issues than it did when training was longer or is this just your opinion? (you kind of answered that but refered to common sense which can be debated so please answer the question)

My comments are not based upon empirical evidence, but solely personal experience as an Instructor and dive charter operator. Clearly others who have direct knowledge of diving instruction over the past 30-40+ years would be in a position to disagree (as has already been stated by NetDoc). I say this because if you were not certifying divers back then, you would have nothing in-which to compare today's diver with.

The whole training debate has to take into account the overall questions of at what point are divers trained to a point that they have been given the "needed" training to participate in scuba and at what point are we getting diminishing returns. This all plays into how it effects the overall industry.

Again, the main people that are concerned about "the Industry," are those making money from it. I too have been in that position (as the owner of an LDS), but I have always separated by aspirations in retail sales from my responsibility as a SCUBA Instructor. I have lost several dollars because diver education took preference over profit.

 

[endurodog]

The fact is (and from your answer it would seem that you agree) that diver's today are less prepared than they once were. Any instructor worth his or her salt can increase the margin of safety with more training. Lowering the training lowers safety. What is an acceptable level of safety is of course up to interpretation. Many will feel that today's standard is acceptable, others do not.
.

That is the point exactly. At what point have we given a student enough training so that they are able to (within an acceptable margin) dive safely and at what point are we training beyond that to the point we are not getting divers in the sport. There needs to be that balance there so that we can keep people in the sport, so that business can make money, so that manufactures keep making stuff we want, so that we have a political voice for positive change (ocean, reef issues). Would Bob's issue in Puget Sound with the GPO gotten the play if divers didn't have a platform and numbers that were concerned.

Dive accident rates would be a prime indicator of the sucess or failure of that. While there is debate about the figures out there, there are figures out there and they suggest that accident rates have remaind stable or decreased. A great indicator of this in the United States is civil litigation (law suits). If lawyers got wind of a problem they would get the studies in line and go after the big pockets of the manufactures and the likes of PADI. A look at day time tv ads will let you know how aggresive those lawyers are and how far reaching they go.

 

[DCBC]

That is the point exactly. At what point have we given a student enough training so that they are able to (within an acceptable margin) dive safely and at what point are we training beyond that to the point we are not getting divers in the sport. There needs to be that balance there so that we can keep people in the sport, so that business can make money, so that manufactures keep making stuff we want, so that we have a political voice for positive change (ocean, reef issues). Would Bob's issue in Puget Sound with the GPO gotten the play if divers didn't have a platform and numbers that were concerned.

As I've mentioned, in my role as an Instructor I could care less about the sustainability of the diving industry or the media. My focus is on the student. If the industry fell flat, there would be places to learn how to dive and people with compressors in their garage that would pump clean air. The proof of this is historic; it was the situation when I learned. Diving companies still existed (I purchased my first wet suit by mail order). Diving clubs exploded and divers continued to dive. People were able to gain experience without having so many people looking to be paid. I point this out not because I support the fall of the diving industry, but a wealthy dive industry at the expense of insufficient training is a cost too high for me to support. I don't expect all diver training to revert to the 60's style of training, but that doesn't mean that I believe that standards can continue to be lowered at the expense of safety.

As I've mentioned the level of training that a diver requires to stay safe is dependent upon the diving environment that the students find themselves in. If 'Student A' has weak in-water skills, he may be competent to dive shallow, in no current or wave conditions, in warm water, hand held by a DM. If a standard is set to accommodate this fine. That standard however can't be the same as if that diver is expected to be in current, in 3-4 foot waves, poor visibility and water temperature of 30 degrees F. If however, I or any other Instructor put 'Student A' into such conditions I should have my Instructor's rating removed for gross negligence. Because of this, no one standard should exist within any Agency unless it meets the needs of the most hazardous conditions or it is a "minimum standard" in-which the instructor can add to. This added material would be a requirement for certification. How else can the safety of the diver be assured??? Most Agencies operate in this manner BTW.

Dive accident rates would be a prime indicator of the sucess or failure of that. While there is debate about the figures out there, there are figures out there and they suggest that accident rates have remaind stable or decreased. A great indicator of this in the United States is civil litigation (law suits). If lawyers got wind of a problem they would get the studies in line and go after the big pockets of the manufactures and the likes of PADI. A look at day time tv ads will let you know how aggresive those lawyers are and how far reaching they go.

They have already got wind of it. Governments are enacting legislation because certain standards have been deemed insufficient by the courts. Huge settlements have already been made. The writing is on the wall. The letters will become larger in-time until legislation occurs in your area, or "the certification industry" wakes-up. It's a matter of time. But this is only one man's opinion. You of course have the right to disagree; I can respect that.

 

[endurodog]

. Because of this, no one standard should exist within any Agency unless it meets the needs of the most hazardous conditions or it is a "minimum standard" in-which the instructor can add to. This added material would be a requirement for certification. How else can the safety of the diver be assured??? Most Agencies operate in this manner BTW.
.

(This is sure to fire up the masses)- Well PADI has different levels of cert and the different add on classes for different conditions. Be it cave, wreck, ect. OW has it's own limits also. So this is being done. (Flame suit on)

---------- Post Merged at 04:36 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 04:29 PM ----------

They have already got wind of it. Governments are enacting legislation because certain standards have been deemed insufficient by the courts. Huge settlements have already been made. The writing is on the wall. The letters will become larger in-time until legislation occurs in your area, or "the certification industry" wakes-up. It's a matter of time. But this is only one man's opinion. You of course have the right to disagree; I can respect that.

This is my understanding that all of the major certifying agencies are all meeting those standards so its not effecting those thigns except now the local govs are involved. What standards , if any, are you hearing that are above the standards given by the major agencies? Again my understanding is that these laws are in place to make sure that there is some legal backing a standard that all of the agencies are meeting due to instructors not meeting those standards because of laziness or greed. Not because the standards were not acceptable.

---------- Post Merged at 04:47 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 04:29 PM ----------

Here in the USA we will not see the gov become involved in the industry for the reasons that I have stated that training is working. If the standards and level of training that is in place right now continues to be adhered too, as it is, it won't happen. The accident rate thing would be a driver of that. There is not a problem with it so there will be no gov body enforcing it.

 

[Hepcat62]

(This is sure to fire up the masses)- Well PADI has different levels of cert and the different add on classes for different conditions. Be it cave, wreck, ect. OW has it's own limits also. So this is being done. (Flame suit on)

I think you're misinterpreting what DCBC is talking about. He's not talking about a student taking the "wreck diving course" before diving wrecks.

I believe that he's talking about, for example, requiring students to perform surf entry/exit skills in order to pass an open water class taught in southern California, or requiring students to successfully demonstrate a proper kelp crawl in northern California, prior to being OW certified. These are skills which are not included as performance requirements in the PADI OW curriculum, and would be "added on top" as additional requirements based on the conditions in which they were being certified. While I know many PADI instructors who do include these types of skills, I know relatively few who would actually stick their neck out and deny somebody certification based on an inability to perform them well.

Again, assuming I'm understanding DCBC correctly... I agree that this is a problem. Instructors should be able to deny certification based on an inability to perform required local skills that are not in the "base" PADI OW curriculum. As I understand it, whether or not this type of thing is allowed/approved/etc. by PADI is - at BEST - unclear.

 

[endurodog]

I think you're misinterpreting what DCBC is talking about. He's not talking about a student taking the "wreck diving course" before diving wrecks.

I believe that he's talking about, for example, requiring students to perform surf entry/exit skills in order to pass an open water class taught in southern California, or requiring students to successfully demonstrate a proper kelp crawl in northern California, prior to being OW certified. These are skills which are not included as performance requirements in the PADI OW curriculum, and would be "added on top" as additional requirements based on the conditions in which they were being certified. While I know many PADI instructors who do include these types of skills, I know relatively few who would actually stick their neck out and deny somebody certification based on an inability to perform them well.

Again, assuming I'm understanding DCBC correctly... I agree that this is a problem. Instructors should be able to deny certification based on an inability to perform required local skills that are not in the "base" PADI OW curriculum. As I understand it, whether or not this type of thing is allowed/approved/etc. by PADI is - at BEST - unclear.

You are correct about PADI certs that you have to issue the cert once all skills and money agreements have been met.

There is no way to cert someione for everything. You may wait many months Cozumel to get rough seas, or low viz. Some places you always have to wear a wetsuit, kelp is only found in a few locations. Cold water, warm water, currents, tides, viz, sea life, beach entry, boat entry, salt water, fresh water, muddy bottoms, silty bottoms and the list could go on. In the PADI OW book it talks about taking a dive guide for unfamiliar dive sites.

So is the suggestion that the certifications be more restrictive to dive type?

 

[Thalassamania]

Having skipped reading most of the post in this thread, I apoloigize if I am saying something that has been said before.

Anecdotal evidence is a very poor measure of data, but since the safety of diving is very poorly monitored and most of the reporting is done on a voluntary basis, it can be argued much like the recent republican(US) polling data. i.e you will see what you want to see in the data.

Most divers argue based on what they have experienced. Old salts remember how they were trained and the years of subsequent diving (where rare events tend to reenforce the idea of 'we were trained for everything.' Newer diver probably see the multi-level training as more long term effective, because they got the much of the same as the old salts by going through many classes (and likely some serious money). The newest divers don't know what they don't know yet, and that is a legitmate concern for everyone.

Diving has changed since the 1960's and the gear has changed considerably. The gear that people have access to is more varied and sometimes it is better designed than it was 40-50 years ago. In fairness to the newbies, despite having more gear to drag around, some of that gear makes diving easier and safer. But it also means that they have more crap to worry about on their first dives...

The problem is larger than that. Fatalities are about the only data that there is, and that is rather a poor measure. We know little about non-fatal incidents and the just plain old lack of comfort that leads to people not continuing to dive much beyond their entry level course. Most authorities point to a lack comfort in the water as a major cause of dropout, whilst many whom I'd term apologists, ignore this idea and maintain that is just a matter of short attention span in the general public.

You made an incorrect statement that you suggested was made in this thread " but I disagree with the thought that one can only judge the quality of instrction by watching it take place." No one stated that. The auditing of a class, which yes includes sitting in on it, was a suggestion so those that say things are not being taught at all could see that they are being taught. The thouroughness of the teaching would no doubt still be debated. But your statement was wrong about what people were saying about judging the quality of instruction only by auditing. Auditing is a tool.

There is no doubt that Thal will never change his opinion on the quality of instruction now but he could argue it from a more well informed position.

The question about if the class is being adequately taught is another issue. When I was cert'd in 1983 it was in a NAUI class and was multi week class. My instructor was bashing all the sub standard training going on, besides his of course. I'm sure his instructors did the same. Just like is still going on here. Same arguements, different time.

I bring to your attention an old post of Bob's, because it goes right to the heart you your problem here: "It truly does boil down to motivation ... if you believe something is hard, or unnecessary to learn, you won't learn it ... even if it's completely within your capability."

As one intimately familiar with entry level recreational diving training, having written the standards for such for a major agency, and contributed to several entry level diving textbooks, I find the suggestion that I need to "audit" an entry level course to know what is being taught rather insulting. Might I inquire, with no insult intended, what experience you draw on when you advance conclusions concerning what students are actually capable of in those courses that are out on the right hand tail of course quality?

What we were discussing was the admonition to divers are being certified to: "dive under conditions that are similar or better than those that the diver was trained in." and I answered your question rather clearly back on 10 November 10, post 266. I suggested that this phrase, and others like them, are rather meaningless legal boilerplate that, even with some enlargement and detail, still leave the average student in the average course, with no real means to make the required evaluation.

In fact, it should be the entire course that is bringing the student to understand what he or she is capable of and should or should not test his or her metal with. Must the temperature be exactly the same, or can we except dives that so many degrees higher or so many degrees lower? Must the sea state be the same? Or might we accept extension to one sea state up? Must the bottom topography be the same or must they have leadership personnel to hold their hand at each new dive site? How much more surf might they be expected to handle? How about the presence or absence of kelp?

You see, I am used to training divers to have a good subjective grasp not only of all those items and many, many more. What is most critical is a good subjective grasp of the interactive terms, which are often more dangerous. Face it, how many courses do you know that use the word "interactive term" in this sense? How many instructors do you know who understand it's meaning?

DCBC I'll answer your question if you answer mine, fair enough.

I can answer most of your questions with a statement. I would always prefer to dive with a highly trained diver but the preference is slight and I will dive with any certified diver. The level of there swimming ability or rescue skills would not make me pass on a dive with them as long as they are certified.

I, on the other hand, when faced with a diver who lacks the skill and knowledge to make a given dive, will take the diver out of the water and sit them down on the deck or the beach. Once I decide that a diver lacks what it takes to reasonably make the dive, and that may be basic swimming skills or rescue skills, the dive is over. Are you advocating making a "trust me" dive outside of training situations? I thought you were against that sort of thing.

Yes more training would increase diver safety. You would be a better diver and safer if you attended more training too but I would still dive with you even though your not trained to as high as level as you could be.

None of us is ever, "trained to as high as level as we could be" ... but that is not the question, would you dive with a diver when the diver's skills and knowledge were not up to that dive?

Diver retention is a lot more complicated than your suggesting it to be. The economy, an aging baby boomer population, the new generation of computer kids. I am active in several sports, dirtbiking being one of them. I have sat on the board for an enduro circuit since 98 and we have seen that sport have less attendance also. The board, and boards across the country have done many different things to "retain" people in the sport but there is that slow bleed in so many of these active sports and activities (diving) now days.

Perhaps you can come up with one but I know of no other activity that has the sort of drop out rate that diving does, save, perhaps, Russian Roulette where retirement is at about the same probability (1:6 per attempt) but less voluntary.

Do you really think that by increasing the training (which equals money and time) that more people will get in the sport?

There is where we part company, additional training equals both less risk and less likelihood of dropping out, those are the critical issues. Your take seems rather different, and I find the question irrelevant at best and distasteful at worst.

Do you have figures to say that sport is having more safety issues than it did when training was longer or is this just your opinion? (you kind of answered that but refered to common sense which can be debated so please answer the question)

The only figures that exist are for fatalities and less accurately for drop outs. Just because someone does not die, that does not mean that there is not a safety issue. Often the symptom is quitting, because they think that they will die if they ever do it again. Often a single choking clawing ascent is all it takes.

The whole training debate has to take into account the overall questions of at what point are divers trained to a point that they have been given the "needed" training to participate in scuba and at what point are we getting diminishing returns. This all plays into how it effects the overall industry.

You concerns are the "effects to the overall industry," mine are for the individual diver ... it is as simple as that. I was here before there was an industry and where it to disappear tomorrow that would have little effect on either my ability and desire to go dive, I'd be here after it was gone.

I was an avid tennis player from the 1970's-90s. During that time, no matter where I was, it was really tough to get a court. the standard procedure for the public courts was to arrive an hour or two before you were hoping to play, get your name in, and wait out the people who were also waiting. If the line was too long, you had to drive around to find a court with a shorter line. When signups could be made in advance in a central location, you had to get there early to get a good time. Today if I wanted to play, I would go to the nearest court expecting to walk on. If I drive by them, they are usually empty. Why is that?

I play golf now--easier on the knees. I live next to Boulder's municipal course. Twenty years ago we had to call in for reservations at the earliest possible time. We would put our phone on speed dial so we could call repeatedly, just as everyone else was. Today we can easily get tee times for almost any time we want, even on a Sunday. The local course is desperate for players, and all the courses are constantly sending out special offers. The latest industry statistics say that participation in golf is off 15% nationally from only a few years ago. Why is that?

IS the dramatic dropoff in tennis and golf the result of inadequate instruction leading to unsafe play?

Come on John, that sort of specious sophistry is beneath you. You know better.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Not to speak for Thal, of course, but I disagree with the thought that one can only judge the quality of instrction by watching it take place.

It would appear that there are those who purport to teach it every day, but who (despite that advantage) can not make that judgement.

]
Do you need to sit in a high school classroom to justify an observation that the system is failing by graduating illiterate and innumerate kids? Or do you just need to see them in action?

It doesn't matter what the intentions of an instructor are. If the result is substandard, by definition they have not done their jobs. They have either not taught the requisite skills properly or they have graduated someone who should not have been graduated. If what they have done is to the standards / curriculum, then that is where the fault lies.

You hit the nail on the head.

No one has said you can only judge it by sitting in on the instruction except for you. But when someone is stating that certian stuff isn't being taught when it is, it would be helpful if someone was to audit a class to see exactly what info is given.

No, it isn't being taught. A wain shadow of what needs to be said is included in the standards, is read to each and every class and is part of the signed documentation for the class. But that's even more of a joke than the idea that each and every student has mastered each each every skill.

While I'm not at all sure why I'm writing this, given that everyone's mind seems to be set on this, I'll just reprise what I've written too many times before (and not only me).

a. I was a product of "the good old days" of scuba training (go ahead, read my card, it says I completed a minimum of 30 hours of training in skin and scuba diving -- Diving History which translated into 15 weeks of classes, 2 hours a week). What we didn't cover could literally "fill a book" -- if for no other reason than our gear was so much simpler that we couldn't learn about BCDs, Dry Suits, Dive Computers, SPGs!!, etc.

b. I am also a product of today's "modern training" and actually learned how to dive with those items mentioned above in various classes that included some class room, pool time and open water.

c. I have the opportunity of teaching classes from "quickie Open Water" to classes spread over three weeks (and get paid more for the quickie classes than the 3 week ones, go figure!).

As a result of my experiences as both a student AND an instructor, it really has convinced me that, at least for the several agencies with which I've had instruction (NAUI, PADI, TDI, GUE, UTD) it isn't agency standards that are a problem. In every case, the published standards appear to me to be fine.

IT REALLY IS THE INSTRUCTOR CORPS that is the issue -- with the follow on issue of the various agencies needing to do a better job of policing their instructors. To the extent THAT is a failure of the individual agency, I'll buy that but it isn't the standards nor the materials.

Oh, and I absolutely disagree with "those who claim" the basic open water diver needs to be able to be an "advanced diver" before she can be a "safe diver."

Peter great post. Would like to hear what you think the problems are with the instructors. Promise don't want to debate it but would like to hear your take on it. Can pm me if that's easier

1) Auditing a class is, by definition, sitting in on the instruction.

2) Adequate is subjective and I doubt auditing a class would change his definition of adequate.

3) Whether or not information is given does not mean it is adequately taught. That can be determined by observing the result and does not require auditing a class. Informing and teaching are two completely different things.

IMO the instruction I received was adequate although not likely to Thal's standards. But I still disagree with the statement I responded to. I understand the sentiment, but disagree with the words as written.

I understand the sentiment also, but I find it overly simplistic, ineffective and unclear.

My point is that Students are generally safer divers if they have a higher degree of watermanship ability, know how to calculate and project gas consumption for a planned dive and know how to rescue their Buddy. The fact that a higher degree of training may not result in maximum profits to the industry is the reason why the standards were lowered in the first place. The fact is (and from your answer it would seem that you agree) that diver's today are less prepared than they once were. Any instructor worth his or her salt can increase the margin of safety with more training. Lowering the training lowers safety. What is an acceptable level of safety is of course up to interpretation. Many will feel that today's standard is acceptable, others do not.

I agree completely.

No I don't. I see that my job as an Instructor is to provide training that will safely prepare a diver, to dive within a Buddy team, unsupervised in the local diving environment. To increase the student's fitness and confidence to dive in a hazardous environment. How many people that do or do not 'get into the sport' is of no concern to my instructional function.

I agree completely.

My comments are not based upon empirical evidence, but solely personal experience as an Instructor and dive charter operator. Clearly others who have direct knowledge of diving instruction over the past 30-40+ years would be in a position to disagree (as has already been stated by NetDoc). I say this because if you were not certifying divers back then, you would have nothing in-which to compare today's diver with.

I agree completely, and this is more to the point. I doubt if any, but a few, here on the board know what the actual product of a competently delivered 100 hour program looks like and is capable of. The naysayers make the mistake of taking the additive approach and assuming that such a diver looks like their diver might after entry level, advanced and how ever many separately priced products need to be stacked on to get to 100 hours and 12 dives. What they miss is the difference in text material and lecture material (all of which are at college level rather than middle school, the difference in exercises (which go way beyond anything that they've experienced even in their instructor training, and the fact that all that time is spent in an integrated whole. While the separately priced product approach may yield a diver who is just slightly worse than the sum of the constituent programs, the integrated approach make it the quotient or even the exponentiation. But, lacking experience and background the naysayers continue to critique that which they know nothing about and likely can not even imagine, falling back as they do on descriptions of military training or some such other irrelevancy.

Again, the main people that are concerned about "the Industry," are those making money from it. I too have been in that position (as the owner of an LDS), but I have always separated by aspirations in retail sales from my responsibility as a SCUBA Instructor. I have lost several dollars because diver education took preference over profit.

While I'd rather that they not mix at all, you seem to have struck a more responsible balance.