Wreck penetration and queuing

[boulderjohn]

That is spoken purely from the instructor liability point of view. Would you after teaching that your provided training is not adaquate to engage in overhead environments give a student thier OW temp card and then say lets go penatrate something and do a little deco because your limitations do not apply outside the training environment.

Here is a logic lesson for you. Please read it carefully.

You seem to think there are only two choices--either I tell students that they must dive like students forever, or I tell them to go out and commit suicide. What I do is explain that there is a lot of different diving out there, and they need to make good choices as to their ability to go forward with something new. I give examples. The course mentioned above, for example, provide guidelines for he various levels of difficulty and danger for overhead environments. It does not tell them to plow headlong into caves.

You might find what follows insulting, but it is not intended to be so. Please read it careful and find the intent.

One of the most powerful books I ever read was Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership, by Howard Gardner. He analyzes people who were effective and ineffective leaders to determine why, and the key is effective communication. In a diverse society, he determines, the key to success is communicating effectively with one specific segment of the population, the segment that too many potentially great leaders fail to address at their level. In fact, they ignore them. These are people whose world outlooks and modes of thinking are still frozen at what child development specialist Piaget said was characteristic of the 5 year old mind. These people think in terms of black and white, right and wrong, good guys and evil doers. When they hear people talk about shades of gray and complications, it sounds like lying to them. In fact, you do have to lie to them to be effective. You cannot admit that a situation is complicated and has many facets--you have to pretend there is a right side and a wrong side, and you are on the right side. These people respond to shouted slogans and bright lines of demarcation, but they cannot even see anything in between.

The argument you just made is characteristic of such thinking. I don't believe you are such a thinker, but that is how you just came across. If you can conceive of a situation in which well informed people look at the pros and cons of a situation in diving and then make a decision, then we can talk. If you think there is either a right or a wrong in major categories and people must be told which is which in every case, then we have nothing to discuss.

 

[NAM001]

John yuor first paragraph demonstrates just what i have been saying. only 2 choices to look at things. there are many choices but bottom line is ther is only right and wrong. Yes right or wrong. The aspect that makes this a mutifaceted issue ins not the right or wrong its how you handle the rights or wrongs. (in your words ...choices) Your position is that there is very right, right, kinda right, kinda wrong (but i can get away with it. wrong and no one is looking,,, and deadly wrong. Dont get me wrong. i dont hold the instructor responsible when a diver gets hurt from stupidity. Its the divers fault. Your responce about you dont tell them to go heading into caves is not the issue, the issue is that you dont re inforce the issue and tell them not to. So from your position you are 100% right. What they go out and do is not your fault in a court. People dont get hurt in court though. BTW i am not specifically familiar with the reference you have cited but i do have over 7 years on a podium teaching electrical and electronics and never have I ever told the students that these rules are for the training facility and when you grad you can do make your own decisions on how to do it safely.

When the Insurance man comes to your door to validate a divers training level for a death claim and you show him the divers training record and the ins man says he died out of air in deco at 100 ft and all he has is an OW card. Your answer is that you train students to dive with in thier training limits, you acknoledge the limits with them, and to exceed them requires additonal training and skills not covered in basic OW curriculum. And he says what limits do you speek of. and you say .........? The same ins man goes to the site where the accident occured and says did you know he was only an OW and the site says here is the waiver and his agreement to limit his diving to the limits of his training. And those limits would be what.........? Thie ins man goes to the widow and says that her husband was not covered because he was diving beyond his documented trained limits which were what........? The widow says that that cant be true cause he has been diving for 20 years. The ins man says sorry he only has proof of training to this aspect of diving, if you find some form of further training record for him please call and we will pay the claim. and the training leivel required to dive to 90-100 ft would be what....?

I by the way jsut talked to the other half who just got her OW. She recalls a section on the trainee folder. The one that has the medical info and cert levels held. A section pretaining to OW trainees that required initialing items pertaining to the diving limitations based on the curriculum completed which included depth overhead ndl deco and some other stuff. and and a statement sayng the completed training does not cover teh skills need for such diving.

That isthe list of trianing limitations.

This is not a difficult matter, Its too bad that few instructors will acknoledge training limits and even less operators will verify that the planned dives are with in the documented traiing level of the diver.

Other than that we will just have to agree to disagree.

Here is a logic lesson for you. Please read it carefully.

You seem to think there are only two choices--either I tell students that they must dive like students forever, or I tell them to go out and commit suicide. What I do is explain that there is a lot of different diving out there, and they need to make good choices as to their ability to go forward with something new. I give examples. The course mentioned above, for example, provide guidelines for he various levels of difficulty and danger for overhead environments. It does not tell them to plow headlong into caves.

You might find what follows insulting, but it is not intended to be so. Please read it careful and find the intent.

One of the most powerful books I ever read was Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership, by Howard Gardner. He analyzes people who were effective and ineffective leaders to determine why, and the key is effective communication. In a diverse society, he determines, the key to success is communicating effectively with one specific segment of the population, the segment that too many potentially great leaders fail to address at their level. In fact, they ignore them. These are people whose world outlooks and modes of thinking are still frozen at what child development specialist Piaget said was characteristic of the 5 year old mind. These people think in terms of black and white, right and wrong, good guys and evil doers. When they hear people talk about shades of gray and complications, it sounds like lying to them. In fact, you do have to lie to them to be effective. You cannot admit that a situation is complicated and has many facets--you have to pretend there is a right side and a wrong side, and you are on the right side. These people respond to shouted slogans and bright lines of demarcation, but they cannot even see anything in between.

The argument you just made is characteristic of such thinking. I don't believe you are such a thinker, but that is how you just came across. If you can conceive of a situation in which well informed people look at the pros and cons of a situation in diving and then make a decision, then we can talk. If you think there is either a right or a wrong in major categories and people must be told which is which in every case, then we have nothing to discuss.

 

[Redshift]

As with most things scuba, the answer to most of your questions would be "it depends". Diving is very circumstantial ... environments, people, agencies, and just about everything else associated with the activity differs depending on who you're talking about and where they're diving. That's why so much of the information provided on ScubaBoard ... or even in a typical dive class ... can't be universally applied.

I agree, it depends. It depends on the divers, the place, what the actual "dive beyond training" is... So saying it's fine because it's not training anymore is a bit too much. The same way, it shouldn't always be said "no, you're not trained for this". I think I've said it somewhere on a previous post, I'm not against divers with no overhead training doing swimthroughs or going to some easy caverns. What I am against is the disregard for training limitations and implying that the established limits for training should be forgotten after certification. It's not so simple and I think "it depends".
I like divers gaining experience through diving and not just courses and I think some specialties are useless and just a way to make money. I like some agencies that state limits for diving, but at the same time allow those limits to be extended when diving with someone more experienced (DM, instructor).

I don't believe that, as a dive professional, I'm under any obligation outside of classes to "operate under that agency" ... that agency tells me how to structure my classes in a way that not only provides a safe environment but covers me from a liability perspective. The agency tells me how and what I can teach as a representative of the agency ... but they're not my parent, and when I'm diving on my own time I'll make my own decisions about what's appropriate. As an example, my agency is quite adamant about "no solo diving" ... no exceptions in their standards. And yet I solo dive quite a lot ... I just don't do it in class, and don't promote it to my students. For those who are curious about it, I'll explain that there are agencies out there with different philosophies and recommend that they seek out those classes or learn it as I did ... through technical training that goes into far more depth on issues of redundancy, dive planning, gas management, and situational awareness than the recreational solo classes do.

I didn't say diving on your own, I said "professionals operating under that agency" i.e. working, but not necessarily instructing. Will a dive center and its guides disregard the guidelines because they are just for training and take untrained and uncertified divers on deep dives, with mixes, rent them all kinds of equipment, etc? It may happen some times, but more often than not, even for dry suits or boat dives they are trying to require certifications!
When it happens it's usually to known divers or after check dives where they are evaluated. And that I agree with. But it's different from an OW diver arriving to a center and being taken straight to a 40m dive because that's the actual limit.

and recommend that they seek out those classes or learn it as I did

But that's the position I think most people are taking here. You recommend further training because the initial training doesn't cover that type of diving and it's not as safe and simple to just ignore training standards because they are "just for training" and say if they want to do something, just go and do it.
Several training aspects have been mentioned that are not sufficient or can't even be applied in some types of diving or are not taught at some levels. So it only seems logic to me that divers should be shown that their training has limitations and that the limits during training should be observed even after. And at the same time shown how they can improve and learn more.

No.

When I am working as a professional for either of the agencies for which I teach(...)

When I am diving on my own(...)

I didn't say diving on your own, as already explained in the reply to NWGratefulDiver.

 

[Bob DBF]

What I am against is the disregard for training limitations and implying that the established limits for training should be forgotten after certification.

Training limits apply to the trainer. An OW card certifies you are able to plan and dive within recreational limits with your buddy (or decide not to). The real problem is that, in most cases, the diver is not trained to accomplish what the card certifies he is able to actually do.



Bob
-------------------------------------

That's my point, people, by and large, are not taught that diving can be deadly, they are taught how safe it is, and they are not equipped with the skills, taught and trained to the level required to be useful in an emergency.

 

[boulderjohn]

John yuor first paragraph demonstrates just what i have been saying. only 2 choices to look at things. there are many choices but bottom line is ther is only right and wrong. Yes right or wrong. The aspect that makes this a mutifaceted issue ins not the right or wrong its how you handle the rights or wrongs. (in your words ...choices) Your position is that there is very right, right, kinda right, kinda wrong (but i can get away with it. wrong and no one is looking,,, and deadly wrong.

Thank you for explaining your position.

 

[Michael Guerrero]

If you're going into a wreck that you need a line for (i.e., not just swim throughs) you or your buddy should run your own line. You may want to go to a different part of the wreck too since you don't want to foul someone else's line, get caught in it, or have them cut yours.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

How novel ... an on-topic reply ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[NAM001]

Here is a link. look at the adv rec trimix and notice the end of the course discription where it says

This program qualifies divers to dive to 48 msw (160 fsw) and to perform decompression stops utilising EANx decompression mixtures with an oxygen concentration no greater than 1.5 pO2 for a maximum duration of 15 minutes. There are other aspects also like max END of 100'. these are training limits. Limitations to you diving based on the training provided. I go to a depth of 200' i would be diving beyond the limitations palaced on me by my training which is 160' 160' is a training limitation. No less than 21%O2 is a training limitation. Max END of 100' is a training limitation. Max deco time of 15 min is a training limitation.

Trimix Diver Training - IANTD Courses

 

[boulderjohn]

Some random thoughts in relation to this thread....

1. There is an interesting and contentious discussion going on in a thread in the Cozumel forum. It is not about overheads, but it is partially related to the key issues in this thread. Here is a post in which the owner of a dive operation explains the difference between training standards and diving standards. The writer also points out that the training agency has no authority over what a diver does outside of training.

2. What would happen if PADI--or any other training agency--did have some authority in this regard? Let's use our imaginations and think what they could do. Let's say that PADI were to tell dive operations around the world that they will lose their affiliation with PADI if they took divers into simple prepared wrecks or small swim throughs without technical training. That would include especially 5-Star facilities that are supposed to follow PADI rules carefully. Now imagine that you are a PADI 5-Star resort in Cozumel, with at least 75% of your customer base coming to you for those famed swim throughs. Or you are an operator in the south Florida area running trips to the wrecks on the artificial reefs there. Or you run a business in Truck Lagoon. Or you are an operator in Aruba taking divers to the wrecks there. Perhaps you are in Maui or Oahu visiting the lava tubes regularly. In any of those cases, you are facing the loss of your greatest source of income as your customers flock to a competitor with no such restrictions. My guess is that you would do what I would do--affiliate with a different agency.

 

[EFX]

But that's the position I think most people are taking here. You recommend further training because the initial training doesn't cover that type of diving and it's not as safe and simple to just ignore training standards because they are "just for training" and say if they want to do something, just go and do it.

I don't think any instructors in this thread are advocating this position. The fact that people ignore or forget their training doesn't imply that someone is actually teaching this or even implying it.

Several training aspects have been mentioned that are not sufficient or can't even be applied in some types of diving or are not taught at some levels. So it only seems logic to me that divers should be shown that their training has limitations and that the limits during training should be observed even after.....

If I recall, and I don't have my books in front of me, that both PADI and SSI say you should dive within your experience and training.