 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / October 2005Becoming a PADI open water scuba instructor is much too easy
Becoming a PADI open water scuba instructor is much too easy considering the amount of responsibility that is involved. Instructors conduct everything from Discover Scuba through dive master, and yet one can be certified in as little as four days. The requirements for becoming a PADI instructor are minimal. Instructors are obliged to having completed only sixty logged dives. Medical clearance by a physician, recent CPR training, and having held a diving certificate for a mere six months will suffice in allowing one to become a PADI instructor. There is no need to worry if one does not have the required PADI Assistant Instructor certificate, as long as they are in good standing with another training organization. After these requirements are met, the short program begins. Forty more dives are added to the sixty, as well as underwater workshops. Presentations, self-study, quizzes, and some lectures are done in preparation for the final Instructor Exam. This exam is an assessment of the student's knowledge and skill levels, not only inn diving but in teaching, professionalism, and attitude. These standardized tests and are graded by PADI's own Instructor Examiners. With the passing of the examination comes the Open Water Scuba Instructor certificate, granting the right to conduct a range of diving programs, from basic beginner's courses to dive master programs. It seems to me that all of this information and experience can be absorbed in as few as four days. There is a tremendous amount of information to learn, and teaching abilities that can only be obtained with time. By trying to reduce this time to a minimal four days or so, one would assume that something is being left out. In a profession such as instructing scuba diving, there is a considerable amount of danger involved. It is not only the student's safety that could be affected by this condensed course in instructing, but the instructors as well. I think taking the extra time to ensure skill levels and teaching abilities are impeccable, not just acceptable, is well worth the price. > Becoming a PADI open water scuba instructor is much too easy > considering the amount of responsibility that is involved. Instructors > conduct everything from Discover Scuba through dive master, and yet one > can be certified in as little as four days. Why? It's not hard to teach OW, and most scuba deaths are virtually suicides anyway. > > Becoming a PADI open water scuba instructor is much too easy > > considering the amount of responsibility that is involved. Instructors > > conduct everything from Discover Scuba through dive master, and yet one > > can be certified in as little as four days. Took me a year to get my divemaster cert from Walt. Wouldve been the same regardless of his org, as he uses a "mentoring" approach. Doing the courses & instruction were straightforward, but before he signs off he wants to see us working with classes. Well worth it, IMO. > Why? > > It's not hard to teach OW, and most scuba deaths are virtually suicides > anyway. I thought it was because they weren't DIR, or at least weren't using a long hose. Dennis > > > Becoming a PADI open water scuba instructor is much too easy > > > considering the amount of responsibility that is involved. Instructors [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I thought it was because they weren't DIR, or at least weren't using a long > hose. I dunno. There's a rumor going around that DIR is more of cosmic plane. -- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. <snip> > > I thought it was because they weren't DIR, or at least weren't using a > long [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There's a rumor going around that DIR is more of cosmic plane. The Zen of DIR Dennis > -- > Popeye > "If one does as God does enough times, one > will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. What's your point? If you don't agree with their training philosophy, go somewhere else. I worry because the "Put Another Dollar In" guys and the minimalist dive instructors are causing my life insurance to go up and driving the safety of the sport down. It's like the "no helmut rule". Sounds like no one would care (except Darwin) but it does effect all of us. > What's your point? If you don't agree with their training philosophy, go > somewhere else. > It's like the "no helmut rule". Sounds like > no one would care (except Darwin) but it > does effect all of us. Well, if you could keep your head off the top of the cave, you wouldn't need a helmet... > I worry because the "Put Another Dollar In" guys and the minimalist > dive instructors are causing my life insurance to go up and driving the > safety of the sport down. It's like the "no helmut rule". Sounds like > no one would care (except Darwin) but it does effect all of us. Got a cite for that preposterously inaccurate supposition, or are you Canadian? -- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. > I worry because the "Put Another Dollar In" guys and the minimalist > dive instructors are causing my life insurance to go up and driving the > safety of the sport down. It's like the "no helmut rule". Sounds like > no one would care (except Darwin) but it does effect all of us. Getting older is driving your life insurance to go up. > Getting older is driving your life insurance to go up. Yep, quit getting older and your life insurance will go *way* down... > I worry because the "Put Another Dollar In" guys and the minimalist > dive instructors are causing my life insurance to go up and driving the > safety of the sport down. It's like the "no helmut rule". Sounds like > no one would care (except Darwin) but it does effect all of us. If your life insurance is up from when we were all self taught, you need a new insurance agent. And what's this "no helmut (sic) rule" yer talking about. My diving this morning was in a Lerios helmet and Nick Toth was standing right there. m MOTORCYCLE Helmut rule... florida no longer requires them and although it helps out Darwin, it is driving up the car insurance rates.... BTW... Diving <100 ft drove up my insurance 20%... over 100ft >50% increase... >> I worry because the "Put Another Dollar In" guys and the minimalist >> dive instructors are causing my life insurance to go up and driving [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > m >MOTORCYCLE Helmut rule... florida no longer requires them and although >it helps out Darwin, it is driving up the car insurance rates.... Are you sure about that? In spite of [deleted] laws, air bags INCREASE insurance rates overall. Because it is MORE costly to treat the resulting injuries than it would be to pay a death benefit. I would guess the same to be true of motorcycle helmets. 'Course some say that motorcucle riders don't have anything for a helmet to protect.  SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > In spite of [deleted] laws, air bags INCREASE insurance rates overall. > Because it is MORE costly to treat the resulting injuries than it would > be to pay a death benefit. That is because you guys may not have compulsory seatbelts. That is way charges in airbags are bigger and thus able to do harm. Matthias >> In spite of [deleted] laws, air bags INCREASE insurance rates overall. >> Because it is MORE costly to treat the resulting injuries than it would >> be to pay a death benefit. > > That is because you guys may not have compulsory seatbelts. > That is way charges in airbags are bigger and thus able to do harm. Guess again. We have compulsory seatbelt laws. It's cheaper to bury a body than it is to heal a significant injury. Lee >>> In spite of [deleted] laws, air bags INCREASE insurance rates overall. >>> Because it is MORE costly to treat the resulting injuries than it would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >It's cheaper to bury a body than it is to heal a significant injury. Exactly. I you survive an auto accident ONLY because of air bags, you are very likely to have seriously significant injuries. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not the cost of air bags is justified by the few lives they save (compared to much more cost effective seat/shoulder belts). Air bags add to the cost of a new car; they add to repair cost and collision insurance cost; and the add to liablity insurance cost. And that is why becoming a PADI open water scuba instructor ... wait, this has NOTHING to do with becoming a PADI open water scuba instructor! How DID we get here from there???? and who cares..... SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. >>>> In spite of [deleted] laws, air bags INCREASE insurance rates overall. >>>> Because it is MORE costly to treat the resulting injuries than it would [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Air bags add to the cost of a new car; they add to repair cost and >collision insurance cost; and the add to liablity insurance cost. Carol calls me. "The air bags went off" WTF?!?! "They went off when I bumped the car in front of me". Well under 5 mph, did about $1000 damage to the other car, $4000 to ours. $2000 of which was the airbags. >And that is why becoming a PADI open water scuba instructor ... wait, >this has NOTHING to do with becoming a PADI open water scuba instructor! >How DID we get here from there???? and who cares..... We used to play that game at parties, round about 3 am. Signaturedillon Anyone who says grown men don't cry has never taken a differential equations final. >>>In spite of [deleted] laws, air bags INCREASE insurance rates overall. >>>Because it is MORE costly to treat the resulting injuries than it would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Guess again. We have compulsory seatbelt laws. You do? I thought there were states were they don't have. Anyway, I am friends with the guy who runs the machinery where they make the charges and initial charges, and he told me that the charges made for the U.S. were bigger. Same stated his CEO. > It's cheaper to bury a body than it is to heal a significant injury. It depends on expected life time, income, taxes paid, social insurance.. But I never thought the airbag was designed to do that. Triage airbags. Nope. Matthias >>>That is because you guys may not have compulsory seatbelts. >>>That is way charges in airbags are bigger and thus able to do harm. >> Guess again. We have compulsory seatbelt laws. > You do? I thought there were states were they don't have. There may be some. Charlie and I live in Florida and Florida has them. > Anyway, I am friends with the guy who runs the machinery where they make > the charges and initial charges, and he told me that the charges made for > the U.S. were bigger. Same stated his CEO. Perhaps that has something to do with the number of pickup trucks and SUVs here. I don't know about you, but I figure a bigger, faster airbag might be a good idea when the vehicle I'm most likely to hit weighs in at a couple of tons. >> It's cheaper to bury a body than it is to heal a significant injury. > It depends on expected life time, income, taxes paid, social insurance.. > But I never thought the airbag was designed to do that. Triage airbags. > Nope. An airbag is designed to keep the victim from becoming a body. Lee >>>It's cheaper to bury a body than it is to heal a significant injury. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > An airbag is designed to keep the victim from becoming a body. Indeed, but they were designed to work in conjunction with seatbelts. The accidents involved not wearing a setbelt, so that the impact of the bag working on a not belted passenger included a much longer "throw distance", hence greater acceleration. Matthias >>>>It's cheaper to bury a body than it is to heal a significant injury. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > distance", hence greater acceleration. > Matthias Plus you tend to slide underneath it during impact. > I worry because the "Put Another Dollar In" guys and the minimalist > dive instructors are causing my life insurance to go up and driving the > safety of the sport down. Are there actually any stats that indicate that the safety of the sport is going down? >From what I remember, diving safety has been improving/been stabilized for quite a few years now. As for the OP - the PADI system has been designed such that it can be taught by pretty much anyone. As long as they follow standards, the student is assured of a decent course (which is not the same as a great course, taught by an instructor who knows a lot, but in the grand scheme of things, not bad at all). I was at this airport somewhere a whole ago where there is this coffee machine operator whose job is to take the coin, put it in the slot of the vending machine and hand the customer the coffee. The PADI instructor fulfils more or less the same role: s/he supports the teaching system, doesnt drive. The IDC does a very good job of showing candidates how to teach safely. Besides, being a good diver has only a sight relation to being a good instructor. Vandit > I was at this airport somewhere a whole ago where there is this coffee > machine operator whose job is to take the coin, put it in the slot of > the vending machine and hand the customer the coffee. The PADI > instructor fulfils more or less the same role: Beautiful. > Vandit > > I was at this airport somewhere a while ago where there is this coffee > > machine operator whose job is to take the coin, put it in the slot of > > the vending machine and hand the customer the coffee. The PADI > > instructor fulfils more or less the same role: > > Beautiful. I dont suppose anyone will believe me when I say that I really meant this in a positive way :) Vandit >> > I was at this airport somewhere a while ago where there is this coffee >> > machine operator whose job is to take the coin, put it in the slot of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I dont suppose anyone will believe me when I say that I really meant >this in a positive way :) Serving coffee was probably a bad example in this instance. 8) JF Don't Get Stuck On Stupid > >I dont suppose anyone will believe me when I say that I really meant > >this in a positive way :) > > Serving coffee was probably a bad example in this instance. 8) Ah crap. Here comes the QA! Vandit >> >I dont suppose anyone will believe me when I say that I really meant >> >this in a positive way :) >> >> Serving coffee was probably a bad example in this instance. 8) > >Ah crap. Here comes the QA! How goes it? You still living on the same islands? JF Don't Get Stuck On Stupid > How goes it? You still living on the same islands? It goes. I wouldnt go so far as to describe it as "living" - but yes, I do spend 6 months a year there. Cheers, Vandit >> How goes it? You still living on the same islands? > >It goes. I wouldnt go so far as to describe it as "living" - but yes, >I do spend 6 months a year there. Good for you. I'm sure more than a few of the folks here are just a wee bit envious. JF Don't Get Stuck On Stupid > I was at this airport somewhere a whole ago where there is this coffee > machine operator whose job is to take the coin, put it in the slot of > the vending machine and hand the customer the coffee. The PADI > instructor fulfils more or less the same role: s/he supports the > teaching system, doesnt drive. That's the DM's job. The instructor is supposed to know more than that. > The IDC does a very good job of showing candidates how to teach safely. I can get that kind of training out of a book, for a lot less money than is charged for an instructor led course. > Besides, being a good diver has only a sight relation to being a good > instructor. Absolutely true. While I expect any good dive instructor will be a good diver as well, the two are not necessarily related. If I had to chose one or the other, I'd take the good instructor every time. Lee > > I was at this airport somewhere a while ago where there is this coffee > > machine operator whose job is to take the coin, put it in the slot of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's the DM's job. The instructor is supposed to know more than that. I exaggerate a bit (not much, though) and I agree that a good instructor SHOULD know more than that. However, with the PADI system, you dont NEED to be a super-experienced diver in order to teach the course competently. Just learn to teach the system, and you're almost there - the rest will come with experience very soon. > I can get that kind of training out of a book, for a lot less money than is > charged for an instructor led course. Not really, Lee. The IDC is quite useful, actually. You get to work with different divemasters, all whom usually have a few neat tricks (I learned a couple of nifty techniques from a DM last month myself), and you really are drilled into learning to anticipate and correct problems. This level of practical training cannot be had from a book. I dont know which IDC the OP has seen that runs in 4 days, but most of the ones I know run from 9-14 days. > Absolutely true. While I expect any good dive instructor will be a good > diver as well, the two are not necessarily related. If I had to chose one > or the other, I'd take the good instructor every time. True - so would I. However, I imagine that back in the days of the dinosaurs, when you learned to dive, things were different - you would probably have given diving knowledge a lot more priority than ease of manner, tactfulness, etc. And this, IMO, is is a testimony to how good modern teaching systems are - and which is why the PADI instructor requirements are good enough to ensure safe instructors. That being said, there are a lot of instructors who may be able to teach a competent and safe course, but who inspire absolutely NO confidence whatsoever on the part of the student (or onlookers). From a business point of view, I shudder to think of a dive shop that actually hires such people as their instructor. This is not limited to PADI, but also to other agencies as well. Vandit >> I can get that kind of training out of a book, for a lot less money than >> is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you really are drilled into learning to anticipate and correct > problems. Useful for the instructor, perhaps. That's not what I was referring to. Training that is nothing but a series of steps through a planned program, can be done just as well from a book, video, whatever. Students have a right to expect more from an instructor led course. That's what students pay for and that's why we've been saying that the instructor counts more than the agency for as long as the agencies have been around. > True - so would I. However, I imagine that back in the days of the > dinosaurs, when you learned to dive, things were different - you would > probably have given diving knowledge a lot more priority than ease of > manner, tactfulness, etc. Ease of manner and tactfulness may be characterisics that help instructors do better, but being a good instructor is more than that. If I could define it, I'd be one. I can't, and I'm not. I'm a darned good example of a good diver, who would not be a good instructor. Back when I learned, the quality of the instructor was even more important than it is today. The detailed lesson plans and teaching aids didn't exist. You either got it from the instructor, or you didn't get it at all. Lee > >> I can get that kind of training out of a book, for a lot less money than > >> is charged for an instructor led course. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > pay for and that's why we've been saying that the instructor counts more > than the agency for as long as the agencies have been around. Ah, I misunderstood. The "instructor-led course" you are referring to above is the open water course, not the IDC. Nevermind my earlier response then. You are right - there is more to a course than just hitting play on the video (as I said, my description was a slight exaggeration). My opinion on this is: The extra benefits - ie, of dealing with a human - can be got across in a *compentent* manner with the present standards. To make it a *great* course requires more, but that cannot really be captured by any tangible standards. For example, I can teach an underwater naturalist dive or specialty in a reasonably competent manner. But I'm not really a fish/reef person, and the difference between me teaching it, and one of our instructors who *is* a real fish addict, teaching it is palpable. Which is why I let him teach it, and not me - even though I daresay I could do it in a competent manner. > Back when I learned, the quality of the instructor was even more important > than it is today. The detailed lesson plans and teaching aids didn't exist. > You either got it from the instructor, or you didn't get it at all. Zigackly. My point. Vandit >> > I was at this airport somewhere a while ago where there is this coffee >> > machine operator whose job is to take the coin, put it in the slot of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >the system, and you're almost there - the rest will come with >experience very soon. In my IDC, the "competent" divers had a tough time of it. They were expected to be superior divers in order to give the demonstrations. >> I can get that kind of training out of a book, for a lot less money than is >> charged for an instructor led course. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >know which IDC the OP has seen that runs in 4 days, but most of the >ones I know run from 9-14 days. Mine ran 7 weekends, plus we were offered a free IE review. >> Absolutely true. While I expect any good dive instructor will be a good >> diver as well, the two are not necessarily related. If I had to chose one [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >are - and which is why the PADI instructor requirements are good enough >to ensure safe instructors. I still have qualms about the 100 dive minimum. It depends on how that quantity is obtained. During the spring and fall, I'll get in one or two dives a week. During the summer,it's usually four. And I'd say that murky lake diving helps develop skills a lot better than Cozumel. The same goes for other environments like quarries and PNW. When I was actively DMing, I'd sometimes do 8 dives in a weekend. As an instructor, I'll usually do 5-6 unless I'm teaching 2 or three classes. But it's all about the quality of the quantity. I can rack up 100 dive in four vacations. >That being said, there are a lot of instructors who may be able to >teach a competent and safe course, but who inspire absolutely NO >confidence whatsoever on the part of the student (or onlookers). From >a business point of view, I shudder to think of a dive shop that >actually hires such people as their instructor. This is not limited to >PADI, but also to other agencies as well. I've always strived to make students into better than "competent" divers. If they meet the minimum criteria, I have to pass them. But I try to emphasis skill development within the bounds of the cirriculum. And I'll be renewing my insurance in January. I've got a teaching gig at one of the local shops, one that has a better than average chance of staying open. >Vandit Signaturedillon Anyone who says grown men don't cry has never taken a differential equations final. >>However, with the PADI system, you dont NEED to be a super-experienced >>diver in order to teach the course competently. Just learn to teach >>the system, and you're almost there - the rest will come with >>experience very soon. > In my IDC, the "competent" divers had a tough time of it. They were > expected to be superior divers in order to give the demonstrations. Where did you do your IDC. I may have to recommend them. >>>However, with the PADI system, you dont NEED to be a super-experienced >>>diver in order to teach the course competently. Just learn to teach [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Where did you do your IDC. I may have to recommend them. Here in Austin. From a guy by the name of Ralph Ericsson. That Ralph. Signaturedillon Anyone who says grown men don't cry has never taken a differential equations final. > In my IDC, the "competent" divers had a tough time of it. They were > expected to be superior divers in order to give the demonstrations. That's great - I am sure there are lot of really good IDCs (actually, cannot think of too many bad ones), but for the discussion at hand, my point was that the current standards ensure that the worst you can have if you go by standards is a "competent" instructor. Key phrase - if you go by standards. > Mine ran 7 weekends, plus we were offered a free IE review. 7 weekends is 14 days. Pretty much standard fare. The 1 or 2 IDCs I know that run 9 days are like bootcamp - 12-14 hours per day. > I still have qualms about the 100 dive minimum. It depends on how > that quantity is obtained. No it doesnt, IMO. You dont need to have done the Doria in order to teach Open Water. 100 dives gives you reasonable exposure to the diving world, and when coupled with the teaching materials and standards, ensures that you can teach a good OW class. > I've always strived to make students into better than "competent" > divers. If they meet the minimum criteria, I have to pass them. But > I try to emphasis skill development within the bounds of the > cirriculum. Again, we are talking worst case - no one is implying that ALL instructors try to just scrape through with minimum effort. Vandit >>I still have qualms about the 100 dive minimum. It depends on how >>that quantity is obtained. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > diving world, and when coupled with the teaching materials and > standards, ensures that you can teach a good OW class. Does that imply that for an OWSI it isn't that important to be a good diver, as long as he's a good teacher? >>I've always strived to make students into better than "competent" >>divers. If they meet the minimum criteria, I have to pass them. But [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Vandit SignatureMichael Wolf ----- Cthulhu For President. Why settle for the lesser evil? remove stopspam to reply > > No it doesnt, IMO. You dont need to have done the Doria in order to > > teach Open Water. 100 dives gives you reasonable exposure to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Does that imply that for an OWSI it isn't that important to be a good > diver, as long as he's a good teacher? No, it implies exactly what I have written: 100 dives gives enough diving exposure that you can teach an OW course properly (provided you follow standards). You dont have to regularly be able to dive 100m with hypoxic mixes in order to teach recreational diving. The other thing I said was that is *POSSIBLE* to not be a good diver and still teach a competent OW course. That, as the cunning observer will grasp, is not the same thing as saying that being a good diver is not important. Cheers, Vandit >>> I still have qualms about the 100 dive minimum. It depends on how >>> that quantity is obtained. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Does that imply that for an OWSI it isn't that important to be a good > diver, as long as he's a good teacher? I'd agree with that. The best coaches are rarely ones that can do it better than their best students, or ever could. >>>> I still have qualms about the 100 dive minimum. It depends on how >>>> that quantity is obtained. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >The best coaches are rarely ones that can do it better than >their best students, or ever could. But you don't see Bill Parcells running a down and out. You do see me doing a full flood and clear. In order to teach the skills, you have to be able to demo them. Signaturedillon Anyone who says grown men don't cry has never taken a differential equations final. > But you don't see Bill Parcells running a down and out. You do see me > doing a full flood and clear. In order to teach the skills, you have > to be able to demo them. There is a big chasm between being able to do demonstrate each exercise, and being a highly skilled, highly experienced diver. You dont have to be be the latter in order to be able to demonstrate skills (or, for that matter, teach OW theory). The current instructor standards by and large churn out people who are fully capable of teaching an OW course well. I just staffed an IDC last month, and there was a girl there with 100 odd dives who will make an absolutely fantastic instructor -- she had a good sense of humor, knew how to support and encourage students, knew how to make briefings interesting, etc: skills which are VERY crucial to quality of teaching and which have nothing to do with number of dives or ability to swim end to end inside a U-boat or whatever. Cheers, Vandit >> But you don't see Bill Parcells running a down and out. You do see me >> doing a full flood and clear. In order to teach the skills, you have [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >and which have nothing to do with number of dives or ability to swim >end to end inside a U-boat or whatever. Does she have good bouancy control? Being able to do briefings, support and encourge students, sense of humor are all good traits. But I know plenty of people with those skills. None of them are divers. I never said anything about being about to swim a U boat or anything else technical. Nor did I discount someone with only 100 dives. What I did say was that it's the quality, not the quantity.. >Cheers, >Vandit Signaturedillon Anyone who says grown men don't cry has never taken a differential equations final. > Does she have good bouancy control? After 100 dives, pretty much everyone has adequate buoyancy control. And even if she doesnt have the perfect buoyancy needed to swim 1 inch from the bottom of a silty wreck with no mask, so what? Does that mean she is unable to teach buoyancy? Do you have to be better at a particular skill in order to teach it effectively? Is the guy who coaches Marty Brodeur a better goalie than him? Even if you have to be better, after 100 dives, virtually everyone will have buoyancy skills that are way better than those of the students they are teaching. > Being able to do briefings, > support and encourge students, sense of humor are all good traits. But > I know plenty of people with those skills. None of them are divers. My point is that 100 dives is adequate to cover all the diving skills needed to teach effectively - the bulk of the factors that make a great instructor come from inter-personal skills. I know plenty of people with good buoyancy control who are not instructors. Neither of us is saying only one of these attributes matter, so the point here eludes me, to be honest. > I never said anything about being about to swim a U boat or anything > else technical. Nor did I discount someone with only 100 dives. What > I did say was that it's the quality, not the quantity.. Nowhere in your argument have you postulated what specific "quality" sets apart one dive from another, or even how/why that matters. Note - I am NOT saying that instructor A, with 95 10-20m dives and 5 30m dives is going to be *knowledgable* as instructor B with a lot of deep/tech/cold water/low vis experience. What I *am* saying is this: instructor A should be able to teach a competent (at minimum) OW course. And if instructor A has the right interpersonal skills, s/he may even be a better OW instructor than a disinterested/autocratic instructor B. > Anyone who says grown men don't cry has never > taken a differential equations final. Hehe... true, true. I still have horror flashbacks from college days. Cheers, Vandit >>>Does that imply that for an OWSI it isn't that important to be a good >>>diver, as long as he's a good teacher? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > doing a full flood and clear. In order to teach the skills, you have > to be able to demo them. I'd agree with that. And in teaching the skills, ya do them with deliberate, exaggerated, motions. Bill Parcells can demo a down and out, he's just no good at it when the ball's a bullet and the defender's gonna hit ya just as the ball does. m > > I worry because the "Put Another Dollar In" guys and the minimalist > > dive instructors are causing my life insurance to go up and driving the > > safety of the sport down. > > Are there actually any stats that indicate that the safety of the sport > is going down? One could point to Dive Industry statistics and claim that the per-capita rates have been steady or going down for years. Of course, the problem's with trying to quantify how many dives are taking place per year. However, the degree and frequency with which life insurance companies are choosing to charge more for customers who have 'risky' (their term) lifestyles, which very specifically includes recreational diving, has not gone down and in some cases, has gone up. So who are we going to believe: the guy trying to sell scuba diving, or the guy who sells life insurance, who happens to more frequently be charging more for divers than in the past)? FWIW, adding some modeling sophistication and looking at the relatively recent lower minimum age standards from PADI and accounting for natural system inertia, it wouldn't be at all surprising if dive accident rates begin an upturn over the next decade IMO, particularly as the 1970's and 1980's vintage divers (back when training was "strict") start to retire out of the sport and the overall diver talent pool begins to shift to the "you don't need to know how to swim" trained generation. -hh > FWIW, adding some modeling sophistication and looking at the relatively > recent lower minimum age standards from PADI and accounting for natural [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > out of the sport and the overall diver talent pool begins to shift to > the "you don't need to know how to swim" trained generation. I would actually draw the opposite conclusion. Given that the number of "can barely swim" divers far exceeds most of the old divosaurs, we would have seen an increase in accident rates from the mid-90s (ie, when this group started booming) if this newer category was indeed at higher risk. The fact that we havent* indicates that they really arent at any higher risk. (* -> this is, of course, subject to what the stats say. As you said, the guys trying to sell diving have an axe to grind and may not be the most reliable, but the guys selling insurance also have an axe to grind along with maybe lacking full knowledge about diving, and so may not be the most reliable either. Lies, damn lies and statistics) > -hh wrote: >> FW, adding some modeling sophistication and looking at the relatively [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > from the mid-90s (ie, when this group started booming) if this newer > category was indeed at higher risk. There are too many variables to decide. First, you have to support that there are more "can't swim" generation than dinosaurs in the population. I'm not sure you can do that. Remember, it's not how many you certify, but how many dives are done that count. Next, you have to define the kind of diving done. NAUI didn't put a limit on my max depth in 1969. PADI puts a 60 foot depth limit on their entry level students. You can hardly compare my 130 plus profiles with their 60 foot profiles. NAUI taught me decompression diving back in 1969. You can hardly compare even my minimal deco dives with their no deco dives. Next, you have to consider equipment. I learned with a plate, harness and double hose regulator. No SPG, no watch, no depth guage, no octopus, no BCD, but with a honking big knife. The agencies don't get to claim their training is better just because the equipment is. You also have to define accident. Running out of gas at 130 feet plus is not quite the same as running out at 60 feet or less. The same goes for equipment malfunctions, etc. > The fact that we havent* indicates that they really arent at any higher > risk. Prove the fact and the numbers, and somebody might agree. > (* -> this is, of course, subject to what the stats say. There's the "but" in the issue. Lee > There are too many variables to decide. Yep. Am I offering proof? Not at all. I am merely looking at my perceptions of the diving world and making an educated guess. No claims to it being the absolute, infallible truth at all! > First, you have to support that > there are more "can't swim" generation than dinosaurs in the population. > I'm not sure you can do that. (snip other good points) I reckon that these days, far more people diving in tropical locations and on holiday than at home. I think most of us would accept this as being a fairly reasonable assumption. Of the people diving in tropical location, I'd say most are casual divers. Again, no proof - simply an educated guess based on what I have seen around the world. So from the above 2, I think odds are high that number of dives done by casual divers far exceed number of committed divers. However, you are correct - what this doesnt take into account is safety for comparable activities. The dives done by casual divers are different from the dives done by you. But that doesnt matter - divers who are going to start doing more challenging dives will undergo more training, at which point any deficiencies in their current training will be addressed. I think it is safe to say that most people are adequately trained for the type of diving that they do (in a large part b/c they do a lot easier profiles with much better equipment). Granted, that is not the same thing as saying that most people these days are trained to the same extent as folks like you were. But if they are not going to be doing the sort of dives that you do, do they really need to be trained that much more? This is a topic that has strong arguments both in favor and against. Vandit (snipping only for space)> However, you are correct - what this doesnt take into account is safety > for comparable activities. The dives done by casual divers are > different from the dives done by you. But that doesnt matter - divers [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > really need to be trained that much more? This is a topic that has > strong arguments both in favor and against. As I understand it, scuba deaths remain at a relatively consistent number year after year. If I'm interpreting correctly, of those that can be confirmed to be so, around 25% are attributed to heart attack. The majority of deaths were more experienced divers. This would seem to suggest that training practices are adequate, but that being unfit and/or over-confident can kill. (geez, I just scared myself) > Vandit > (snipping only for space)> However, you are correct - what this doesnt > take [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > (geez, I just scared myself) Last I checked, IIRC,, two years ago, it was 35% one year and under, 35% ten years or more, and "other". >> Vandit > > First, you have to support that there are more > > "can't swim" generation than dinosaurs in the population. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So from the above 2, I think odds are high that number of dives done > by casual divers far exceed number of committed divers. There will certainly be some 'statistics of large numbers' where a million casual divers doing 2 dives/year will have an influence on the overall population and any resulting statistics of "all" dives performed per year. > However, you are correct - what this doesnt take into account is safety > for comparable activities. The dives done by casual divers are > different from the dives done by you. In other words, a notional higher risk due to lower skills could very well be being masked by a concurrent shift to lower risk dives due to "easier" dive conditions & profiles typical of warmwater. FWIW, I'm of the opinion that these "can't swim" divers are very highly predisposed to limiting their dives to vacations at warmwater tropical destinations which generically results in a lower risk versus the generically more taxing local coldwater dives performed in low viz, currents, fishing line, non-artificial shipwrecks, etc. I also see that it can be particularly problematic when subpopulation(s) effectively self-selects, as it hinders variable separation. > But that doesnt matter - divers who are going to start doing > more challenging dives will undergo more training, at which > point any deficiencies in their current training will be addressed. Granted, training does help, but at some levels, its not nearly at all what it is cracked up to be: I'm reminded of 3 dive instructors (who were all qualified to teach Nitrox) who I overheard a few years ago at a tropical resort: one had a new Nitrox dive computer and had just done a dive with it on air (eg, set to 21%) and yet all three were completely mystified that a non-zero Oxygen Clock reading showed up. > I think it is safe to say that most people are adequately trained for > the type of diving that they do (in a large part b/c they do a lot > easier profiles with much better equipment). A fair statement IMO. However, I attribute it more to simple luck than to good dive training that they've not ventured out of their "warmwater comfort zone". > Granted, that is not the same thing as saying that most people these > days are trained to the same extent as folks like you were. But if > they are not going to be doing the sort of dives that you do, do they > really need to be trained that much more? This is a topic that has > strong arguments both in favor and against. This is where the Agencies play a role and the answer is simple: there is sufficient documentation of the claim "qualified for the conditions you were trained in", but neither PADI or anyone else issues OW C-Cards that have these conditions embossed on the plastic card. As such, these statements are a cop out that's nothing more than legal CYA's for them to deflect any potential liability if they are sued, for they've not backed up them up materially in any meaningful fashion. -hh > FWIW, I'm of the opinion that these "can't swim" divers are very highly > predisposed to limiting their dives to vacations at warmwater tropical > destinations which generically results in a lower risk versus the > generically more taxing local coldwater dives performed in low viz, > currents, fishing line, non-artificial shipwrecks, etc. I would hope so, but how many times have you seen questions from absolute newbies about who to dive with in ?Cozumel or the Caymans. > Granted, training does help, but at some levels, its not nearly at all > what it is cracked up to be: I'm reminded of 3 dive instructors (who > were all qualified to teach Nitrox) who I overheard a few years ago at a > tropical resort: one had a new Nitrox dive computer and had just done a > dive with it on air (eg, set to 21%) and yet all three were completely > mystified that a non-zero Oxygen Clock reading showed up. Hey, most rocket scientists don't settle for the money to be made as a dive instructor. The few that do, are the cream of the instructor crop. Lee > In other words, a notional higher risk due to lower skills could very > well be being masked by a concurrent shift to lower risk dives due to > "easier" dive conditions & profiles typical of warmwater. Yep. My personal guess is that this is actually what is happening. > FWIW, I'm of the opinion that these "can't swim" divers are very highly > predisposed to limiting their dives to vacations at warmwater tropical > destinations which generically results in a lower risk versus the > generically more taxing local coldwater dives performed in low viz, > currents, fishing line, non-artificial shipwrecks, etc. Agreed. The same factor that makes them casual divers also predisposes them to avoid anything challenging or uncomfortable. Which is fine by me - each to their own. > Granted, training does help, but at some levels, its not nearly at all > what it is cracked up to be: I'm reminded of 3 dive instructors (who > were all qualified to teach Nitrox) who I overheard a few years ago at a > tropical resort: one had a new Nitrox dive computer and had just done a > dive with it on air (eg, set to 21%) and yet all three were completely > mystified that a non-zero Oxygen Clock reading showed up. One of the above three may have been the guy who certified me in stage deco/advanced nitrox, incidentally :) It is all a self-fulfilling spiral. If you dont need to be uber-trained to do warm water diving, it stands to reason that you dont need to be uber-trained as an instructor to teach it (that *was* sarcasm). In many ways, it is a blessing that PADI's teaching system is so comprehensive, b/c if we had to rely on the instructor (ala days of yore), it'd be frightening. In a way, that may be a good reason to stick with PADI as opposed to SSI or NAUI (I've crossed over to SSI, and was invited by the same instructor above to cross over to NAUI - he was a NAUI instructor trainer!) > A fair statement IMO. However, I attribute it more to simple luck than > to good dive training that they've not ventured out of their "warmwater > comfort zone". You're right that there is a certain amount of luck involved. But a natural predisposition to stick to easy diving also helps - the ones that are casual divers will only dive where the water is clear and things are easy. The ones that get hooked more seriously typically learn quickly enough. > As such, these statements are a cop out that's nothing more than legal > CYA's for them to deflect any potential liability if they are sued, for > they've not backed up them up materially in any meaningful fashion. No arguments from me on this one. Vandit > You're right that there is a certain amount of luck involved. But a > natural predisposition to stick to easy diving also helps - the ones > that are casual divers will only dive where the water is clear and > things are easy. The ones that get hooked more seriously typically > learn quickly enough. This brings me back to one of my favorite rants of old. The single most significant weakness in today's dive training is that it fails to teach students to effectively assess risk. It is this lack of rick assessment skill that is most likely to lead to increased accidents in the future. The student who dives the walls of Cozumel just out of his entry level course, does not understand the risk. The instructor and his rescue students that could not navigate back to the boat in Brac (confined water divers) did not understand the risk. The people who stick their heads in wrecks and caves and promptly get lost, do not understand the risks. The people who have died diving the Doria on air and could not find their deco bottles when they exited, did not understand the risks. With the tools available today, including equipment, books and internet discussions, there's nothing exceptionally difficult about any of the recreational diving going on today. Anybody that understands the risks, can learn how to avoid them. While it may take a person of a bit more than average intelligence to do it without formal training, most of the divers I know, and all of them I trust, fit that definition. The key is, and in my opinion, always has been, understanding the risk before it rears up and bites you on the butt. It's not the risk that you know that most often kills. It's the risk that the victim never suspected was there until it was too late. Lee >> First, you have to support that >> there are more "can't swim" generation than dinosaurs in the population. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and on holiday than at home. I think most of us would accept this as > being a fairly reasonable assumption. Probably true unless, of course, you live in a tropical location. > Of the people diving in tropical location, I'd say most are casual > divers. Again, no proof - simply an educated guess based on what I > have seen around the world. This is a tough one. Last time I was on Cayman Brac, everybody on the boat was DM or better and most were about as old as I am. Quite a few of the people that post here are also long time divers who do more than a little dive travel. It's possible that you're right, but the only people that have even halfway good information are the operators that bother to look at the date on the card presented to them. > So from the above 2, I think odds are high that number of dives done by > casual divers far exceed number of committed divers. > However, you are correct - what this doesnt take into account is safety > for comparable activities. The dives done by casual divers are > different from the dives done by you. But that doesnt matter - divers > who are going to start doing more challenging dives will undergo more > training, at which point any deficiencies in their current training > will be addressed. Another assumption. I didn't get more training to do more challanging dives. Neither did many of the people in this group. Why should we believe that most others will do so? In my experience in local and Caribbean dive locations, quite the opposite seems to be true. People with no more than open water cards are diving in places that, only a few years ago, were restricted to advanced or better. The fact that they are not dropping like flies, seems to support your position, but only if most are new divers. > I think it is safe to say that most people are adequately trained for > the type of diving that they do (in a large part b/c they do a lot > easier profiles with much better equipment). I think this is true, but the question is not whether most are adequately trained, but whether the percentage of adequately trained has increased or decreased. > Granted, that is not the same thing as saying that most people these > days are trained to the same extent as folks like you were. But if > they are not going to be doing the sort of dives that you do, do they > really need to be trained that much more? This is a topic that has > strong arguments both in favor and against. Personally, I don't think someone is adequately trained until they have received at least the information and experience normally associated with Advanced. I think the agencies broke one course into two to allow them to sell the entry level courses cheaper, increasing their market, and to sell one course for the price of two to those who would come back to do it. Lee > Becoming a PADI open water scuba instructor is much too easy > considering the amount of responsibility that is involved. Instructors > conduct everything from Discover Scuba through dive master, and yet one > can be certified in as little as four days. Those 4 days will be heavy, as PADI standards say the IDC (OW Instructor course) will take 90 hours and normal 2 days for the IE(exam) > The requirements for becoming a PADI instructor are minimal. > Instructors are obliged to having completed only sixty logged dives. Before certification it used to be 100, so this must have changed lately? > Medical clearance by a physician, recent CPR training, and having held > a diving certificate for a mere six months will suffice in allowing one > to become a PADI instructor. This used to be 1 year, so is this changed as well recently? > There is no need to worry if one does not > have the required PADI Assistant Instructor certificate, as long as [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > think taking the extra time to ensure skill levels and teaching > abilities are impeccable, not just acceptable, is well worth the price. So as with any organisation, no course is better then it's instructor. Marc
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.