Catalina Diver died today w/ Instructor

[CompuDude]

Except that if the valve is fully on, the numbers DON'T flicker down and then back UP - the psi value remains the same or goes down slightly.

If the valve is partially on or is completely off but the hose is still pressurized, the numbers will flicker down AND UP if you breathe on the reg. That flickering tells you the valve is not fully open, even with a computer. It is certainly true for my Sherwood Wisdom.

And you're comfortable extrapolating the behavior of your one computer model to all makes and models of AI computers (including wireless) from all manufacturers?

 

[Ayisha]

Except that if the valve is fully on, the numbers DON'T flicker down and then back UP - the psi value remains the same or goes down slightly.

If the valve is partially on or is completely off but the hose is still pressurized, the numbers will flicker down AND UP if you breathe on the reg. That flickering tells you the valve is not fully open, even with a computer. It is certainly true for my Sherwood Wisdom.
Looking at the gauge while taking a breath and evaluating the effect does work with computers, at least some of them. I check my valve just before I splash though, just like Thal. I learned both those tricks on SB.

red bold added

And you're comfortable extrapolating the behavior of your one computer model to all makes and models of AI computers (including wireless) from all manufacturers?

Well actually, you quoted some of my post, which clearly states in two places (bolded) that what you claim does not happen with computers does in fact work with mine, and at least "some" cases. I never made any statement about all computers.

They don't really respond quickly enough to give much indication, beyond flickering numbers as you breath... which, it turns out, is normal.

red bold added

You, in fact, are the only one making a blanket statement about computers. You even make a blanket statement about what is NORMAL "flickering" for air-integrated computers. Both statements are certainly not universally true and quite misleading.

 

[Thalassamania]

OK guys, we get it, now may we let it go? Please?

 

[scubafanatic]

They don't really respond quickly enough to give much indication, beyond flickering numbers as you breath... which, it turns out, is normal.

Yet another reason why I have an analog SPG backing up my wireless "convenience" unit.

...me too!

 

[stedel]

I know that you are responding to Bubbletrubble here, but what you are saying (and the way that you are saying it) cries for an answer. You describe an incident in which a diver got away from whilst, "doing a mask flood exercise, he could not clear his mask, I had a hand on his BC, I saw his eyes go wide and grabbed him before he even started moving, he got his legs under him and we were on the surface of the pool in very short order. There are things beyond ANYONE'S ability to control."

I have to agree with you that once the gorilla you describe was moving there was nothing that anyone could have done to stop him, so it was a damn good thing that you were very shallow water, else the incident might have had a very different outcome.

All that I want to remark on is that in forty-odd years of instruction I've never had a student "bolt" on me. I, personally, would see having that happen, in and of itself, as a serious failure on my part, even if the student was unharmed physically. I would feel that I had not carefully, step by step, each tiny step a success, prepared the student for the performance of the skill; and I'd feel that it was a failure on my part if I did not detect incipient problems and deal with them long before they turn into a "bolt," or, in fact, long before they turn into anything that the student might even see as a failure on his or her part.

Have I avoided this sort of problem just through perspicacity and skill? Probably not, there may well be an element of, "luck of the draw," here. But when I teach I try my hardest to stack the deck in my favor, and that is why I only teach Scripps Model 100 hour courses.

So, let me see if I've got this right, if, after demonstrating/teaching a skill to a student, the student then demonstrating several times in both shallow and deeper confined water that he/she has mastered the skill (by performing the skill flawlessly with no perceptible difficulty several times) the student then has some sort minor problem on a subsequent repetition of the skill and panics, that then indicates a "failure" on the part of the instructor to have either adequately trained the student or a failure to detect some "incipient" problem before it develops into panic, this simply denotes an incompetent instructor? I suppose I'd just better toss in the towel because sometimes "***** happens." The only way to avoid all problems is to just live in a padded cocoon and even then a plane could fall out of the sky or a meteor could strike. It is utterly unreasonable to expect any ordinary human being to be able to anticipate any- and every- thing after taking all reasonable, appropriate, customary and prudent steps.

 

[Thalassamania]

So, let me see if I've got this right, if, after demonstrating/teaching a skill to a student, the student then demonstrating several times in both shallow and deeper confined water that he/she has mastered the skill (by performing the skill flawlessly with no perceptible difficulty several times) the student then has some sort minor problem on a subsequent repetition of the skill and panics, that then indicates a "failure" on the part of the instructor to have either adequately trained the student or a failure to detect some "incipient" problem before it develops into panic, this simply denotes an incompetent instructor?

I think it means that the instructor missed something, if that spills over into "incompetence," well ... that's your call.

I suppose I'd just better toss in the towel because sometimes "***** happens."

I think that's a cop out.

The only way to avoid all problems is to just live in a padded cocoon and even then a plane could fall out of the sky or a meteor could strike. It is utterly unreasonable to expect any ordinary human being to be able to anticipate any- and every- thing after taking all reasonable, appropriate, customary and prudent steps.

Anytime that a student is injured as a result of a plane falling out of the sky or is hit by a meteor (or has an equivalent, "act of god" kind of problem) I'll excuse the instructor from all responsibility. On the other hand, anytime that an instructor has a student "bolt," I'd suggest that the problem lies either with the abbreviated nature of the course being conducted or the instructor's SA (or both).

 

[drbill]

Thal, I think what you say certainly pertains to an instructor with OW students. I don't feel it applies as strictly with already certified divers who are taking "advanced" courses. An instructor should expect a certain level of competency on the part of a certified diver, especially one with some additional experience.

I don't feel any instructor can "adequately" (based on your criteria) watch all divers in an advanced class where exercises may be performed over a wider range of the water column than OW exercises which are done in very shallow water, usually with the students on their knees. Also should a medical or other emergency trigger a sudden bolt, I don't see how you can expect the instructor to be within response distance for every student in the class.

Not being an instructor, I'm not aware of standards for any agency. What is the required ratio for an AOW class? Perhaps it is adequate for the instructor or any assisting dive professionals to respond to any of the students should something occur.

Of course we agree that current "certification" classes are largely a joke compared to the type of training you give... and the type of training I received in the 60s.

Hmm... I'd consider a sudden medical situation like cardiac arrest to be an "act of God" and certainly not the instructor's fault, but then I wonder how far away the student could get under such a situation. I've only experienced a stroke... and I foolishly continued working on a Cousteau documentary for 10 days afterwards before someone insisted I seek medical help.

 

[Thalassamania]

...I don't feel it applies as strictly with already certified divers who are taking "advanced" courses. An instructor should expect a certain level of competency on the part of a certified diver, especially one with some additional experience.

I've been giving that one a lot of soul searching over the last few weeks, and I'm not really sure, one way or the other yet. I grasp your argument, I grasp the predicament that an AOW instructor finds himself in. I have a limited suite of experiences to stack that situation up against (All the NAUI advanced courses that I ever taught were designed to bring recreational certified divers up to Scripps Model 100 hr. standards, certification as an Advanced Diver, and later Master Diver, was only an afterthought convenience for the researcher). I suppose I wind up with rather ambivalent feelings, on one hand I can see that within the commercial confines of the industry as it is structured today an instructor running an AOW has to take on faith something that we all seem to know is rather shaky: the ability of a "certified" diver to perform even the most basic skills; on the other hand I must admit to having some problems with anyone who knowingly buys into the aforementioned known problem who does not take sufficient care to protect their students from themselves and what they do not know that they do not know ... if you know what I mean.

I don't feel any instructor can "adequately" (based on your criteria) watch all divers in an advanced class where exercises may be performed over a wider range of the water column than OW exercises which are done in very shallow water, usually with the students on their knees.

I suspect that the folks I mentioned before would take issue with you on that, as I would also. If I couldn't do that, especially given the problem outlined above, I, at least, would not be able to teach an advanced class in good conscience.

Also should a medical or other emergency trigger a sudden bolt, I don't see how you can expect the instructor to be within response distance for every student in the class.

Could be because I teach with a buddy pair of instructors and two buddy pairs of students.

Not being an instructor, I'm not aware of standards for any agency. What is the required ratio for an AOW class? Perhaps it is adequate for the instructor or any assisting dive professionals to respond to any of the students should something occur.

I really don't see the depauperate standards of the training agencies as representative of anything except what one may bet away with under the absolute best conditions with students that present no problems.

Of course we agree that current "certification" classes are largely a joke compared to the type of training you give... and the type of training I received in the 60s.

I guess that the real bottom line, who takes the rap for that, the instructor who trained the diver in the first place, the diver for not knowing the actual (as opposed to presented) limits to their training, the AOW Instructor who did not "adequately" checkout the diver (which can take a day), the shop that did not schedule the time for adequate checkouts, the agency that promugated the standards, or some combination?

 

[ItsBruce]

This part of the discussion makes my head hurt. And trying to articulate a coherent position myself makes it hurt even more.

Everyone seems to agree that a diver is responsible for his or her own self.

Everyone seems to agree that when one goes to a resort and goes on a dive with a DM who is acting as a dive guide or shepherd, one should not expect the DM to guarantee their safety or well-being. (Each diver is responsible for himself or herself.)

I think that everyone would agree that if one followed the chain of causation back far enough, one could say that someone could have done something that would have prevented the injury that occurs at the end of the chain. For example, if the football coach in high school had been a better coach, I would have taken up football instead of scuba and would not have been injured in a scuba accident -- so it is the football coach's fault I got the bends. Or, if a diver dies because a meteorite falls from the sky into the water where the diver is practicing a skill with an instructor, one might blame the instructor for not having watched the sky and done the necessary math to have known where the meteorite would strike.

I also think that nearly everyone would agree that while you can follow the chain, there is some reasonable spot at which to cut it off. My blame of the football coach is not reasonable.

So the question is what is: What is the reasonable point to cut the chain?

In my own mind, when a student is practicing a skill under the instructor's immediate supervision, i.e. 2 feet away with "eyes on," and bolts when something goes wrong, I tend to say the instructor was inattentive and may not have provided an adequate foundation for the skill. (I think I cut the chain at whether a prior instructor adequately taught the skill.)

If the instructor is directly supervising a student performing a skill, with the remainder of the class kneeling on the bottom and waiting their turn, and one of those students bolts, I have trouble faulting the instructor. Sure, one might say the instructor should have either anticipated the bolt or failed to adequately screen the students to eliminate those who might bolt, but that is too far away on the chain for my taste.

... Saying all this has not made my head hurt any less ... isn't that a symptom of DCS?

 

[H2O Photo Pros]

I have a question for all of you instructors here. Ive taught for 6 years now. Our school requires every student to go through at least 6 pool sessions. We do not run what I like to call the "wham bam thank you mam" OW certification course (which is what I went through years ago) that is completed in two weekends with only one pool session. Our classes include 6-8 group pool sessions, followed by 1-2 private sessions with your instructor BEFORE going into open water. This is one of the underlying problems in this industry, very few stores/instructors take the time to REALLY make sure the students are comfortable in the water before certifying them. A mere satisfactory completion of skills once or twice is not sufficient, thus leaving certified divers scared of going out on their own, and unprepared for what really can happen underwater

That being said, there have certainly been issues with students that were absolutely comfortable and competent with their skills in the 10 foot deep pool, that flipped out when the cold salt water rushed on their face during mask skills while in 30 feet of water. In such situations like that, which do happen, the instructors job is to react and handle the situation, taking control, etc... but to say that if such an event occurs that the instructor clearly didnt do a good job before heading into the open water is completely false.

Pool is pool...ocean is ocean. People react differently when they get out into the open environment, and you can only do so much to prep students for that. That is why the pool is called a "ocean simulator'...but it is still limited.

Current standards in my mind are a complete joke. The RSTC allows an instructor to take up to 8 OW students down WITHOUT an assistant. I dont care HOW good of an instructor you are, you cannot be there for every possible scenario and watch 8 students on your own and work on them with skills! My classes are limited to 4 without an assistant...and the moment I see problematic students in a pool session, I immediately bring in an assistant before heading to Open Water as to make sure everyone is safe.