Posted by CalDiver on February 06, 2001 at 14:46:02:
In Reply to: Re: A question for MHK from FF posted by MHK on February 06, 2001 at 14:22:54:
I was at one of Karl's presentations at DEMA and didn't hear that one. In what context was this statement made (that helium is bad for you)? To whom, where, on what situation? Sorry, but I'm always looking for details on this kind of "he said" allegation.
Anyway, while I'm no PADI apologist, I saw the DEMA presentation, I went to a PADI Member Forum (the annual standards update) last night, and I sure as hell didn't get the idea that this was anything other than serious stuff. Lots of very experienced rec instructors wanted nothing to do with it, which, according to PADI's Regional Manager, was absolutely fine. Other experienced rec + tech instructors stated that they were pleased that they could bring their tech skills over to the PADI format.
In fact, last night there were individuals who represented themselves as IANTD instructors who, in answer to my q as to the comparative rigorousness of the basic, introductory level training programs, found not much difference. I'm afraid I'm not experienced at all in the tech field, so I can't tell you if their opinions were correct. Maybe you could set out the basic standards of other agencies; that would help us all intelligently analyze this issue.
Oh, where'd you find the standard that it's PADI's philosophy to advance questionable divers up the food chain? I know, I know, it's de rigueur to bash PADI becuase it's so big and... it (gasp) makes money! ... but seriously folks, if some instructors are doing that, it isn't in PADI's best interest, it's not in the industry's best interest, and so how credible is it to blame the organization? Someone want to weigh in on the financial benefit to PADI of intentionally passing incompetent divers to higher and higher levels, setting up eventual injuries and lawsuits?