It's a balanced argument and definitely not PADI-bashing...
David C - AOW/Translator
May 27, 2005 at 12:19:34
The CDNN editorial on the PADI Scuba Diver course makes a fairly balanced argument, with which I mostly agree. As others have pointed out in this forum, the crux of the argument is that supervision cannot be a substitute for adequate training. That's absolutely true.
Another problem the editorial points out is that people could use the Scuba Diver course as a substitute for full and proper entry level training. Like why do another course? The divemaster will take care of me (or something like that). I suppose PADI would argue that people who don't dive much don't need much training. But I can't agree at all with that argument. I mean, should we "dumb down" automobile driving courses for people who don't drive their cars every day and always have a properly licensed driver in the passenger seat to grab the wheel when they are about to have an accident?
CDNN did not criticize the PADI Open Water course, in fact, they seem to endorse it. And they also don't seem to have a problem with DSD - Discover Scuba Diving. I also agree that those are fairly good programs. For me, the problem with the PADI Scuba Diver course is that it doesn't really work as a bridge between the Discover Scuba tourist dive and proper entry level training.
I really agree that the certification agencies should set minimum entry level standards and not license people to go diving under any circumstances until they fulfill those requirements.