Role of Standards in SCUBA Diver Training

[Thalassamania]

Sounds like you run a good course and have it well thought out. Having the instructor there I'm sure makes it much safer.

I do not believe that is the course he runs, that was the military course he took.

 

[Coldwater_Canuck]

I do not believe that is the course he runs, that was the military course he took.

I think you mis-read something, in the text I quoted part of it says "If the student wants an easy ride, I suggest other locations where the diver could go and tell them these would be more in-line with their goals.", which says pretty clearly the poster is the instructor, not the student.

 

[Thalassamania]

Sorry, I thought that you were referring to the 100 foot free ascent.

 

[lowviz]

Amen.

And it is far better to discover those limitations in a training environment than in a critical moment.

To this observation:

A more advanced student in my class was asked to descend to the platform, hang just above the deck and shoot a bag. Student shoots bag next to approving instructor, second instructor appears from nowhere, grabs top of bag, and dumps it just before it hits surface. Student watches bag slowly descend along with graceful loops of slack line. While student is watching this unfold, first instructor floods student's mask and puffs his drysuit.

The drill:
Touch your mask before re-establishing buoyancy, you fail.

-Can't seem to find this thing of beauty in the standards other than something like "ability to maintain proper buoyancy".

Training environment:
distressed student 10' above and below two higher than average-quality instructors.

 

[DCBC]

I was more so thinking about what you stated in the first post and the agency not covering you if you don't follow the standards rather than the actual reasonableness.

Not all agency standards prohibit free ascent training. In the case of advanced programs, it's often not mentioned at all. As long as the minimums are met, training agencies are content. Some however might denounce this type of training because of the dangers involved.

Personally, I believe in the application of common sense as the largest indicator of my actions. If I am certifying a diver to dive to a depth of 130 feet, it seems only reasonable to me that some effort must be made on my part to teach him to get to the surface unassisted if required. As we've also mentioned, free ascent isn't necessarily the best first option, but I believe it's valuable for a diver to have it in his "bag of tricks," if he finds himself out of other options.

It's also worth mentioning that an instructor is liable for all acts or omissions. In other words, it's not only what he does that can get him into trouble, but also what he fails to do that he is responsible for. I would much rather that an Agency abandon me, if my argument in court was a reasonable one, rather than an Agency supporting me and the judge ruling my actions were unreasonable.

Liability is all about establishing what is reasonable, given the instructors diving experience and established knowledge. If this is considered to be relatively high, it can bite you on the butt. You may be held to a higher standard of care, because you should know better. The standard-of-care in medicine is different between a family physician and a specialist, for example. The more training and experience, the higher the standard.

 

[lowviz]

... Liability is all about establishing what is reasonable, given the instructors diving experience and established knowledge.

Sounds closer to English law than US law.

 

[I Dive]

I'm curious about what it was that motivated you to join in this guys course in the first place

Ignorant and naive...


and secondly why you would return to him after the first experience?

Partly out of being stubborn, partly because I expected him to do better the following weekend, and partly because I had a feeling if I didn't get back in the water on SCUBA that following weekend that I may never SCUBA dive again. I'm not saying any of those reasons were wise, and had I known then what I know now, not only would I have told the guy off and never returned but I also would have immediately filed a complaint with PADI.

Even though I have nothing more to add, I'm required to type something outside of the quote in order to post...

 

[DCBC]

Sounds closer to English law than US law.

Yes, I am in Canada. My understanding is that in US law (although based upon English common Law) is derived from constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law). The most important source of law is the Constitution.

In Canada, you have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, statuary law and the common law (including case law). The highest law is case law. In other words, not what is written in statute, but how this is interpreted by higher courts (the intent and how this has been applied in the past).

 

[lowviz]

Yes, I am in Canada. My understanding is that in US law (although based upon English common Law) is derived from constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law). The most important source of law is the Constitution.

In Canada, you have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, statuary law and the common law (including case law). The highest law is case law. In other words, not what is written in statute, but how this is interpreted by higher courts (the intent and how this has been applied in the past).

-Thanks for the Canadian perspective, I should have been more aware of this. I have nothing to do with the legal profession, but it is interesting to see how the respective "laws of the land" form one's "conventional wisdom" and affect how we make important decisions.

 

[Thalassamania]

Not all agency standards prohibit free ascent training. In the case of advanced programs, it's often not mentioned at all. As long as the minimums are met, training agencies are content. Some however might denounce this type of training because of the dangers involved.

Personally, I believe in the application of common sense as the largest indicator of my actions. If I am certifying a diver to dive to a depth of 130 feet, it seems only reasonable to me that some effort must be made on my part to teach him to get to the surface unassisted if required. As we've also mentioned, free ascent isn't necessarily the best first option, but I believe it's valuable for a diver to have it in his "bag of tricks," if he finds himself out of other options.

It's also worth mentioning that an instructor is liable for all acts or omissions. In other words, it's not only what he does that can get him into trouble, but also what he fails to do that he is responsible for. I would much rather that an Agency abandon me, if my argument in court was a reasonable one, rather than an Agency supporting me and the judge ruling my actions were unreasonable.

Liability is all about establishing what is reasonable, given the instructors diving experience and established knowledge. If this is considered to be relatively high, it can bite you on the butt. You may be held to a higher standard of care, because you should know better. The standard-of-care in medicine is different between a family physician and a specialist, for example. The more training and experience, the higher the standard.

You and I do both have the additional problem that we teach to a standard that greatly exceeds that of the recreational community so we are faced with the question of when we should, or should not, apply that more stringent standard, the commercial one for you and the scientific one for me. That is one of the reasons that I do not teach "recreational" diving per se, but consider all training that I do to be under the scientific diving standards.