Diver Training: How much is enough?

[DaleC]

From my limited perspective, all a C card means is that the bearer demonstrated the minimum physical and mental ability to satisfy the requirements associated with the C card at one point in history.

Sort of minimizes the importance and relevance of the certification agency. In an era when some worry about external regulation, placing so little responsibility on the agency for diver proficiency just begs for big brother to step in, doesn't it?

We can't have it both ways. we can't say "leave us alone because we are certified" and then claim "certification says very little about the ability of the diver".

 

[DCBC]

...From my limited perspective, all a C card means is that the bearer demonstrated the minimum physical and mental ability to satisfy the requirements associated with the C card at one point in history.

I wanted to thank you for your input and agree with your statement: "all a C card means is that the bearer demonstrated the minimum physical and mental ability to satisfy the requirements associated with the C card at one point in history.." The question comes down to the definition of what the minimum physical and mental ability is required?

I assume by this that the term required has something to do with what is reasonable under the circumstances. To define this, it seems logical to define the environment in-which the diver will be subjected. I believe that this would define the Standard which outlines the conditions in-which a C-Card could be issued. Considering that Divers learn and dive in various diving conditions, should there only be 'One Standard?'

It's logical to assume that someone who's learning in warm clear water with minimal natural hazards (diving in supervised conditions) would not be required to learn what another Diver would to dive safely in more hazardous conditions. I believe that a problem can exist when different diving environments are not recognized by the certification standard, or there is little appreciation for the safety differences involved. In other words, the reasonable level of knowledge and skill required for certification is directly dependent upon the conditions in-which the diver will dive.

I certainly don't have a problem with C-Cards being issued at today's current Standards, but it's prudent to understand the diving environment which these standards were designed (an ideal vacation like shallow environment). As the conditions change, so must the Standard. The Standard should reflect what is required to dive in the diving environment present and not one that may be several thousand miles away...

 

[Rooster In Ohio]

Sort of minimizes the importance and relevance of the certification agency. In an era when some worry about external regulation, placing so little responsibility on the agency for diver proficiency just begs for big brother to step in, doesn't it?

We can't have it both ways. we can't say "leave us alone because we are certified" and then claim "certification says very little about the ability of the diver".

I think you are correct - the relevance as to which agency issued the C card at a fixed point in time declines as the time following certification increases and the diver either maintains, increases, or loses his or her skill set. And much like a driver's license (with the exception of a vision test), periodic re-certification is not required such that a diver that becomes a 10-dive AOW wonder in Mexico next week can go back to the Midwest, frame his C-card, and not pull it off the wall for 30 years (at which time he will still be a certified AOW diver!!!). Unlike a driver's license, no one is handing out tickets or revoking C cards (two points for steping off the boat with your gas off, 10 points for going OOA, etc.!).

The relevance would probably matter more if C cards required re-certification from time to time, but then we are back to the "in it to make money" argument.

My wife and I commented on this same fact several times as we watched divers that could not assemble their own gear jump blissfully into a non-life sustaining environment and commence to swim (sic) around without a care in the world, for their buddy or otherwise. I would hate to be an operator, especially at a resort, and have to routinely deal with divers whose skill set does not measure up to the certification they hold, whether due to inferior "check the box instruction" (I have seen and experienced it) or due to diminished skills. And I say this understanding that I am very much a novice but with a decent head on my shoulders and an interest in practicing what I have learned, learning more, and improving my diving abilities.

My $0.02, respectfully submitted.

db

 

[The Chairman]

I certainly don't have a problem with C-Cards being issued at today's current Standards,

Clear and convincing proof that DCBC's account has been hacked.

In the final analysis, we have an industry that expects it's participants to accept responsibility for their actions. It's why we have our clients read/sign releases. We aren't the only industry to do this. Probably far more dangerous is the equestrian industry. Look at this release for riding a horse (not the complete document: CLICK HERE to read the rest.)

IMPORTANT NOTICE BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT YOU ARE GIVING UP CERTAIN LEGAL
RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN CASE OF
INJURY, DEATH, OR PROPERTY DAMAGE, ARISING OUT OF YOUR RIDING
OR USE OF THE OWNER’S HORSE AND/OR PARTICIPATION IN EQUINE
ACTIVITIES AT (Name of Stable, Facility or Owner)
____________________________________, INCLUDING INJURY, DEATH, OR
PROPERTY DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF YOU OR
(Name of Stable, Facility or Owner) __________________________________________.
READ THIS AGREEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING IT. YOUR
SIGNATURE INDICATES YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF AND AGREEMENT TO
ITS TERMS.
By signing this form, I hereby acknowledge on behalf of myself that I have familiarized
myself with the activities that I will be allowed to participate in, and that I do hereby
acknowledge and agree that I will participate in these activities without restriction or
limitation. I recognize the inherent risks involved in riding and working with horses,
including but not limited to:

• Bites, kicks, abrasions or contusions from horses.
• Being thrown or bucked off by horses.
• Scratches or other injury from stalls or enclosures.
• Scratches or other injury from grooming tools and other equine equipment and tack.
• Allergic reactions to animals, hay, or other allergens.
• Tripping in holes or on materials or equipment.
• Slipping, falling, or otherwise being injured in the barn, in stalls, or on the grounds, which can be slippery, muddy, wet, or contain or present other hazards.

So what are we to do? The status quo doesn't really seem to be broken, not even according to DCBC. More people are hurt/injured/killed through inattention and carelessness than any other factor. IOW, you can't fix stupid: not even with duct tape. In the end, it's up to the individual to assess their dives before they splash. No one else can accurately answer the question: "Is this a safe dive for me?"

 

[Zen Diving Inc.]

I'd be interested to know just how many divers have been injured/killed due to initial training in environment (A) then diving in environment (B) (excluding cave diving) with out further training prior to...

 

[nimoh]

I wanted to thank you for your input and agree with your statement: "all a C card means is that the bearer demonstrated the minimum physical and mental ability to satisfy the requirements associated with the C card at one point in history.." The question comes down to the definition of what the minimum physical and mental ability is required?

I assume by this that the term required has something to do with what is reasonable under the circumstances. To define this, it seems logical to define the environment in-which the diver will be subjected. I believe that this would define the Standard which outlines the conditions in-which a C-Card could be issued. Considering that Divers learn and dive in various diving conditions, should there only be 'One Standard?'

It's logical to assume that someone who's learning in warm clear water with minimal natural hazards (diving in supervised conditions) would not be required to learn what another Diver would to dive safely in more hazardous conditions. I believe that a problem can exist when different diving environments are not recognized by the certification standard, or there is little appreciation for the safety differences involved. In other words, the reasonable level of knowledge and skill required for certification is directly dependent upon the conditions in-which the diver will dive.

I certainly don't have a problem with C-Cards being issued at today's current Standards, but it's prudent to understand the diving environment which these standards were designed (an ideal vacation like shallow environment). As the conditions change, so must the Standard. The Standard should reflect what is required to dive in the diving environment present and not one that may be several thousand miles away...

I think PADI (and probably other agencies as well) have attempted to address this with specialty certifications such as drift diver, night diver, altitude diver, etc. However, the agencies are not in a position to enforce it, and it is left up to the diver to decide if they want to get these certifications before undertaking such dives.

 

[Rooster In Ohio]

I wanted to thank you for your input and agree with your statement: "all a C card means is that the bearer demonstrated the minimum physical and mental ability to satisfy the requirements associated with the C card at one point in history.." The question comes down to the definition of what the minimum physical and mental ability is required?

I assume by this that the term required has something to do with what is reasonable under the circumstances. To define this, it seems logical to define the environment in-which the diver will be subjected. I believe that this would define the Standard which outlines the conditions in-which a C-Card could be issued. Considering that Divers learn and dive in various diving conditions, should there only be 'One Standard?'

It's logical to assume that someone who's learning in warm clear water with minimal natural hazards (diving in supervised conditions) would not be required to learn what another Diver would to dive safely in more hazardous conditions. I believe that a problem can exist when different diving environments are not recognized by the certification standard, or there is little appreciation for the safety differences involved. In other words, the reasonable level of knowledge and skill required for certification is directly dependent upon the conditions in-which the diver will dive.

I certainly don't have a problem with C-Cards being issued at today's current Standards, but it's prudent to understand the diving environment which these standards were designed (an ideal vacation like shallow environment). As the conditions change, so must the Standard. The Standard should reflect what is required to dive in the diving environment present and not one that may be several thousand miles away...

This is a very good point. I notice you hail from Halifax. I've been there, and you couldn't get me to wade past my knees on PEI in the middle of August - that is some cold water!!! We received our OW and AOW certifications in Mexico where my 0.5MM skin suit was the heaviest thing on the boat. We live on Lake Erie where gloves and a 7MM or drysuit is necessary to sustain core temperature. Clearly, the shop in Mexico didn't make us wear gloves let alone a 7MM or a drysuit when performing skills - but I think it is obvious that skills are more difficult when wearing gloves and more substantial protective gear (my wife really had a hard time the first time she wore a hood and golves - it made her feel extremely claustrophobic - and neither of us would have ever thought of that until we were exposed to it). I've made a practice of keeping my C cards in a sheet of clear plastic so they can see several at once and I always keep the drysuit card next to the AOW - the consensus seeming to be that, if you dive in a drysuit, you're "really" AOW.

On the flip side, a person who received certification in this part of the world might receive their OW and drysuit C cards simultaneously but not pay attention (or even receive meaningful instruction) with respect to currents, dangerous sea life, or other matters which just are not present in a fresh water lake.

Perhaps the issue is not one of certification but rather one of familiarization. Based on my frame of reference, a Marine deployed to the Arctic is still a Marine, but his command doesn't just hand him skiis and overwhites as he gets off the plane and point to the tundra. Instead, his command provides the opportuninty for acclimitization and specialized training consistent with the new environment and related new equipment. As divers, we generally don't answer to a command (the exception possibly being an operator that won't take a diver on its boat until the diver demonstrates certain proficiencies), but we usually are offered the opportunity to acclimitize and obtain formal or informal training relating to the new environment. That doesn't mean that a warm water AOW diver with NITROX certification that plans a trip to Tobermory is no longer an AOW diver or cannot use NITROX - the underlying skills of gas management, boyancy, buddy and environment awareness still apply - but the diver will need to acclimitize to the very cold water and become proficient with the additional gear he or she will need to use for protection from the elements. Or get very, very cold.

My $0.02, respectfully submitted.

db

 

[DaleC]

In the final analysis, we have an industry that expects it's participants to accept responsibility for their actions.

I agree with this statement but would question whether some agencies (keeping it generic) do a good enough job emphasizing the negative aspects of diving or minimize this in order to push the fun-safe agenda to increase revenue.

I occasionally see divers that are in no way fit to be in the water. Perhaps some that should never be in the water. Is the filter at the certification level fine enough to catch this or are they allowed to pass through regardless. If the filter is real and effective then I think there are teeth in the notion that it is up to the diver to take care of themselves post cert. If not, how can they be expected to do so.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think you are correct - the relevance as to which agency issued the C card at a fixed point in time declines as the time following certification increases and the diver either maintains, increases, or loses his or her skill set.

As a case in point, a few weeks ago I taught a pool refresher class for 7 divers. The session was made very challenging for me because of the incompetence of two of the divers, a couple, with the wife being particularly unable to do just about anything. They really should have taken a full certification class rather than a refresher. I spent most of the pool time getting them, and especially her, through basic skills while the rest of the divers swam around independently, getting reacquainted with neutral buoyancy. Most of them really didn't need the class--they would have been just fine without it.

The couple that were in such need of help that they were NAUI certified. The rest of the divers were all PADI certified.

Did I conclude that their NAUI training was terrible, vastly inferior to the training the PADI divers had received? No. I assumed that the fact that they had gotten certified, done a few dives, and then packed all their equipment away for years had rendered their initial training nearly meaningless.

 

[DCBC]

In the final analysis, we have an industry that expects it's participants to accept responsibility for their actions.

The Client comes to the LDS/Instructor to learn what is required to dive in a particular environment in a safe manner. There is a fiduciary responsibility and an element of constructive trust that's created between the parties. I believe it reasonable that the Course Training Standard addresses any and all risks that would be reasonably expected under the circumstances. In other words, that one Standard cannot apply to any and all situations where training is being undertaken.

---------- Post added January 25th, 2013 at 01:45 PM ----------

I think PADI (and probably other agencies as well) have attempted to address this with specialty certifications such as drift diver, night diver, altitude diver, etc. However, the agencies are not in a position to enforce it, and it is left up to the diver to decide if they want to get these certifications before undertaking such dives.

I don't believe that it's a matter of enforcement rather than the responsibility of the Agency to ensure that what is required for certification relates to the diving environment where the training is taking place. If you are certified in an area where tidal flow is a concern (for example), that certification should require the Student to be able to be knowledgeable in tide tables. If this isn't required in the training standard, how can the Agency reasonably insure that the diver is aware of this hazard? Do you think this reasonable?