50 replies to this topic

[TraceMalin]

We're a bit short of wrecks here in Belize (there must have been lots in the old days, but being made of wood in a very corrosive environment they've completely disintegrated).  So as an alternative to the PADI Wreck Diver specialty I thought we'd introduce the (W)reckless Diver specialty for reef divers.

Leave it to PADI to figure out a way of making money through lack of training.

Wait! Isn't that what they've been doing since the 60's? Peter, I think you'll have a long and successful career



Trace


Note: This discussion has been split out into its own thread. Please keep this discussion civil and courteous or it will have to be pulled as other threads on this topic have necessitated being pulled in the past. Thank you.

[Walter]

Isn't that what they've been doing since the 60's?

Actually, no. They had an excellent program through the mid 70's. Yes, I do have copies of PADI standards from 1972 & 1977.

[peterbj7]

Isn't that what they've been doing since the 60's?

Actually, no. They had an excellent program through the mid 70's. Yes, I do have copies of PADI standards from 1972 & 1977.

So what happened?

[peterbj7]

Yet again this ***** computer deleted what I'd written as soon as I tried to move the pointer with the mouse pad. Am I alone in hating these devices? I never had problems with the earlier generations of pointers!!

Anyway, let me reconstruct my post, inspired by a moderator's view that adverse mention of PADI may constitute "bashing".

It was that "padi" (sic) has almost acquired the status of "biro" and "hoover" in becoming a generic term for rec dive training. I'm not saying whether I think that's a good thing - just that it seems to be happening. In that case, so long as a comment about padi (again sic - I mean the lower case) is not directed against current PADI management or individuals I don't think it can be regarded as "bashing".

I went on actually to defend PADI in (some of) what it is trying to do. It is a commercial organisation, and by all appearances a very successful one, so we must ask ourselves how they've been able to grow as they have. The answer is that either by their efforts or coincidentally at the same time there has been an enormous extension of the diving experience away from the "fanatics" who previously populated the sport to a wide cross-section of the population who are content to dabble. Inevitably there has been a dilution of standards.

What we have to ask ourselves is whether (a) we think this is a good thing; (b) whether they have made correctable mistakes; and © whether we could have done better. I presume that when we say "PADI" we are including all organisations adhering to the RSTC, though others may have views on that specific point.

I have seen other potentially dangerous sports opened up to wider participation, with similar views being held by the earlier and more committed members. Examples in my personal experience include skydiving and hang gliding. I guess from TV coverage that mountaineering is also up there (sorry, couldn't resist that!) as well.

So when WW warns against unfairly targetting PADI she is touching on quite a complex topic.

Views?

Edited by peterbj7, 04 December 2004 - 08:40 AM.

[Walter]

Peter,

I think your last post is way off base. When I say "PADI," I mean the Professional Association of Diving Instructors. I do not mean any other agency. There are VAST differences between agencies and between the standards of those agencies. I don't know of anyone familiar with diving who uses "padi" as a generic term. In fact, I consider your suggestion that such is the case to be bashing other agencies.

[WreckWench]

Note: This discussion has been split out into its own thread. Please keep this discussion civil and courteous or it will have to be pulled as other threads on this topic have necessitated being pulled in the past. Thank you.

[peterbj7]

Peter,

I think your last post is way off base. When I say "PADI," I mean the Professional Association of Diving Instructors. I do not mean any other agency. There are VAST differences between agencies and between the standards of those agencies. I don't know of anyone familiar with diving who uses "padi" as a generic term. In fact, I consider your suggestion that such is the case to be bashing other agencies.

My post was slightly tongue-in-cheek. I do (sometimes) hear people talking of "padi diving" when what they mean is recreational rather than technical. Of course you're right - it hasn't got that far yet. But it does seem to be moving in that direction.

But what of the RSTC? I've not read any of their material (is there any?) but I do know that the general format & content of teaching courses from different RSTC agencies appears to be very similar.

[ScubaHawk]

I got my OW thru Rescue with PADI, not because I went shopping around for "The School" but becaue they were the only game in town, and I liked and trusted the instructor. (Still do) I've heard a lot of PADI bashing on web sites but never while out diving. I'm still a newbie but I am honestlly curious as to what it is about PADI that inspires such wrath.
Their courses aren't going to prepare someone to dive the Doria, but they seem fine (remember I'm still new) for teaching Ma and Pa enough to go down and look at the nice fish on their vacation (Ma and Pa's vacation - not the fish)
I'm not trying to troll here or even defend PADI. But I would like to know the specifics of the PADI problem. I'm trying to position myself to enter the industry and will be working on my Dive Master's cert somewhere in the near future.

Aside Thought: If they are the (or one of the) largest trainers - they would have the most "bad" divers, . . . and the most "Good" divers, the most one legged divers, the most red headed divers, etc . . .

Thanks

[Diverbrian]

I myself don't have a bone to pick with PADI.

If you read some of the stuff written by Walter in other areas, he highlights the differences in training organizations.

The basic issue with most of the recreational agencies in this day and age is that they are designed to get divers in the water faster (for the most part) than they used to be. There are fewer confidence building skills and an attitude that you are paying for the certification.

This was one thing that impressed me when I began my dive pro and tech training. In both cases, you are not virtually guaranteed to pass the course if you have the skills alone. You are paying for the training. You EARN the certifications. Attitude is listed among the skill components. If the instructor does not feel that you will be safe diving at that level, they don't have to certify... Period... end of story.

In many ways the agency that did my recreational training could be considered worse. They won't let a dive pro work independently of an affiliated shop or charter. This is a two edged sword. It ensures the monitoring of dive pros by the shop/ charter to prevent "fly by night" dive instructors that are dangerous. But, it means that when I am working (which isn't often), I am working for the shop. That means that I use shop supported brands and do things in a manner that brings credit to the shop WITHOUT costing them money by spending too much time on it. That gives the shop a way to pressure me into doing what they want if I want to work as a dive pro in the local area.

The other agencies allow a dive pro to work independently. But, as I said this can be good (if you have an instructor who likes to add to his class and take his time without the pressure of teaching for profit like many of the ones on the boards) or bad (if you have a poor instructor teaching people who have no idea of good or bad training yet).

PADI also has a two-edged sword. They are probably the most structured of any of the dive training agencies. That ensures that if an instructor is following standards your class will basically be the same in Belize as it will be in the Great Lakes (with the exception of cold water work, LOL). The problem is that if you try to add to the standards and teach above them, you have to be careful. You have the left the realm of PADI's insurance and will pay up if you are successfully sued. Also if a student has the skills, but lacks a safe attitude, an instructor is supposed to certify. I know of at least one recreational agency whose benchmark for an instructor to certify is a student is NOT can they do the skills. It is "do I trust this person as dive buddy to a loved one". If you wouldn't, you aren't supposed to certify them.

My observation with instructors is simple. There are good and bad instructors with all agencies. I would take a good PADI instructor over a poor instructor from any other agency and vice-versa. I don't shop for instructors by agency (except that no self-respecting GUE instructor would touch me until I made some adjustments to my gear, LOL).

But, I can tell a PADI instructor within about five minutes of talking to them. A PADI instructor always seems to be concerned with how to fit a new idea into "the standards" on such and such dive in training. The other agencies train instructors that tend to ask whether it is right or trains better students and worry about the standards later.

Edited by Diverbrian, 04 December 2004 - 06:01 PM.

[peterbj7]

I apologise to people who've read this from me before.

I don't "PADI bash" because I think it's unhelpful. They are now the largest training organisation by far, and since they're overtly commercial it must be that a lot of people think they're doing something right. I do think there could be greater guidance to the instructor to teach according to the prevailing conditions, though even that is in there somewhere. I've seen students trained in UK waters (cold, murky, rough) to tropical water standards, which of course is wholly inappropriate. And although PADI does say that the maximum instructor-student ratio in an OW class is 1:8, it does say this ratio should be reduced when conditions warrant. Trouble is, is doesn't enforce that caveat, and I've often seen 1:8 tuition in 1 metre visibility. They have earned a fair amount of approbation from the UK's HSE for that. Worse, PADI make great play of saying that an instructor mustn't exceed PADI Standards, by teaching extra material or in a way that goes beyond the manual. And a student mustn't be stressed. I prefer the IANTD philosophy that you should teach the student as much as is necessary to produce a good diver, and that it is healthy and indeed mandatory to stress a student in the controlled instructor-student environment.

So it really comes down to the motivation and quality of the instructor, and this is where I do have an issue with PADI. It is way too easy for someone to become a DM or an instructor with very little experience. This has been said before on this site. I know instructors who attended a well known sausage machine in Florida as non divers and emerged 2 or 3 months later as instructors. Farcical. I also know a girl who is now an instructor having never dived anywhere other than a well known flooded quarry in the UK. Never even dived from a boat - I think she did use a small rib for rescue practice and that's it.

I didn't start my DM training until I had 300 very varied dives, and then took 15 months on an internship working with hundreds (well, scores) of students at all levels in UK and tropical waters. I then took a further two years before I did AI, and another year to instructor. Along the way I was tech diving. I'm not bragging, just saying that I think this is the sort of progression to think of if as a DM or instructor you want to be able to handle any situation that faces you.

[chinacat46]

I'm currently doing my DM training with PADI and I've learned quite a lot. I had 240 dives when I started the training. I agree that you can become a DM or an instructor with way to little experience but is this particular to PADI? I think it really comes down to the instructor and not the agency.

[Walter]

First, I really hate having this discussion, but always seem to get drawn into it to correct incorrect or misleading statements.

Second, none of the agencies are perfect.

Third, we often hear, "the instructor, not the agency makes the biggest difference between classes." While true, it is a misleading statement. The agency, in most cases, provides the basis for what the instructor does or does not teach. You cannot teach what you've never learned. The vast majority of instructors neither cut corners nor add material to their classes, they teach their agencies standards - no more, no less. This makes the agency's standards far more important than some would have you believe. Some agencies leave certification up to the discretion of the instructor, while others require an instructor to certify divers who've completed minimum standards even if the instructor feels the student would be an unsafe diver.

Next, often people will bring up the Recreational Scuba Training Council (RSTC) or recently, the World Recreational Scuba Training Council (WRSCT), telling how they set standards for all agencies and therefore all agencies have the same standards. This is simply not true. While the RSTC does set minimum standards for the industry, it is not true that it set standards for individual agencies. All agencies are not members of the RSTC, only members are required to follow RSTC minimum standards. For those agencies who are members, the RSTC sets minimums, all members are free to exceed thos minimums. For example, the RSTC eliminated swimming requirements for the Open Water (OW)course. The swimming requirements were replaced with a requirement that an OW student either be able to swim 200 yds (183 meters) or be able to snorkel 300 yds. This must be completed prior to certification. This opens SCUBA training up to non-swimmers. Yes, you can snorkel 300 yds without being able to swim at all. As far as I'm aware, only PADI has adopted that identical minimum requirement. YMCA, for example requires a 200 yds swim before I can even begin in water training. It requires a 300 yd swim prior to certification. This not merely the first of many examples of differences in training and philosophy. In the US, there are only 6 agencies who are members - IDEA, PADI, PDIC, SDI, SSI and YMCA. Peter, you can look here for RSCT info.

Next, there are differences in philosophy from one agency to another. One philosophy is:

Diving is fun and easy. It is possible to make the course easy as well if we eliminate skills that might possibly frighten anyone on their first day of class. If too many skills are included, it results in task loading which will interfere with a student learning necessary tasks and make them an unsafe diver.

A second philosophy is:

Diving is fun and easy. It is possible to make the course easy as well if we begin with simple skills, teach how to complete teach skill and allow plenty of practice time on each skill. Once a simple skill is mastered, other elements are added, allowing plenty of time to practice each element. When those added elements are mastered, still more elements are added in the same manner. By approaching skill development in this manner, we are able to teach quite complex skills in a manner that is easy for students. Skill which might seem frightening to a student on the first day of class are a logical and easy progression by the time those skills are presented in class. This gives a student confidence and the ability to solve problems without panic.

PADI follows the first philosophy, YMCA and NAUI follow the second. I'm not familiar enough with standards of other agencies to tell you which philosophy they follow.

Next, you'll often hear the concept, as we did earlier, that since PADI is the largest agency, they'll have the most poor divers as well asd the most good divers. I'm not sure what that point is aimed at proving, but it certainly does not address any real issues, it is merely a smoke screen designed to hide differences that do exist.

As Brian pointed out, SSI is the only agency (NASDS also had such a requirement, but merged with SSI in 1999) that requires it's instructors to be affiliated with a dive shop. The concept is that allows direct supervision of instructors to stop them from cutting corners. While the concept is a good one, there are three problems with it. First, there is no direct supervision of the instructor if he happens to be the shop owner. Second, the shop owner may or may not be an instructor. How is a non-instructor qualified to supervise instruction? Third, most pressure to cut corners in instruction comes directly from dive shops. I believe the fox was set to guard the henhouse.

So what happened?

The economic conditions of the late 1970's with interest rates over 20% put recreational activities, including diving, way down on priority lists. PADI decided to remove requirements, speed up training and make it much cheaper. Since we live in an instant gratification society, it was a tremendously successful marketing strategy. Prior to those changes, NAUI was by far the largest agency in number of divers certified, now PADI's certifications out number all the other agencies combined.

[Diverbrian]

One good comment about SSI's concept is that when it works, it works well.

Our LDS owner is a former schoolteacher and one of the few Instructor Certifiers in the state. He actually applies the pressure the way that it was designed and that is NOT to cut any corners. His philosphy is that his good name and reputation are at stake and a reputation for putting out poor divers would hurt that. I have seen him banish one instructor for poor instruction and pushing people through to advanced courses too fast and it happened more quickly than if agency bureacracy was involved.

But, having said that, I have spoken to one of our instructors who is talking about crossing over to teach in warmer climates (his retirement is approaching). I will just say that not everybody shares that concept.

And Walter is correct about another thing. No agency is perfect. They all have their flaws and strong points.

[maxdvr]

One good comment about SSI's concept is that when it works, it works well.

i do believe that is true.... i trained at an s.s.i. shop.... i had a lil concern about the speed of the course... i mentioned it to the shop owner/ head trainer/ instuctor trainer here in michigan..... he talked to his instructor and we spent a lil more time on a few things.... the problem was ..one of the people in my class was very uncomfortable in the water...not that he was scared ..but zero control over his body when wet... now /...i dont know if its an s.s.i standard... but we were required to tread water for 20 minutes.... no distance swim.... im sure flounder as he was know could have swam that far...but he did stuggle with treading water...alot... my class of 5 worked real close with him trying to ease him into comfort... i didnt do o/w with him as he was heading to cozy and gonna passport down there.... but if i were an instructor at that point ...i would have serious reservations about training someone who could barely float on his own in the water to dive... not sure if im still on topic...but i was very happy with the training i got... my dive buddy trained padi... we did alot of study time together before we ever went in the water ... and when we finally did get wet...we felt each of us were ready for the other... all worked out well...

Edited by maxdvr, 04 December 2004 - 08:54 PM.

[Walter]

dont know if its an s.s.i standard... but we were required to tread water for 20 minutes.... no distance swim

In that case, standards were violated and SSI's concept did not work in this case. You should report the incident to SSI.