SSI Stress & Rescue Course vs PADI Rescue Diver

[Jarhead]

I thought that was what we already had. (If the instructor doesn't cut any corners). The difference is how far they go above the standards and where they place extra emphasis.

Jarhead

 

[notabob]

While the reasoning for a single standard for a rescue course among the different agencies is a good idea in theory, I'm not sure how realistic it is. Don't forget that it will require various agencies to 1st communicate with each other and more importantly agree. Further, while there are similarities between different agencies' philosophies and methods, enough major differences exist (based on my observations/research, not 1st hand knowledge) to preclude the agencies on agreeing on common methods. Adapting common methods for one course, namely rescue, would require them to teach other skills that those methods are based on in more basic courses (i.e. OW and AOW) in the same fashion as well. Needless to say, without government intervention (scary thought when it comes to diving), the chances of that happening are somewhere in between slim and none.

-Roman.

 

[Lawman]

I agree that it would call for coordination, but that's not
impossible. An example is the DAN 02 provider course.
That's a standardized course for everyone. There isn't
a PADI way and an SSI way to adminester 02. It should
be based on the best standards to ensure that everyone
gets the best possible training.

 

[notabob]

DAN O2 is a DAN course, not a PADI or SSI or NAUI course. It's taught by a DAN instructor, and not by by any other agency. Common curriculum for a rescue course across agencies would require that agencies change the way they teach the very basic and fundamental skills. Not from a practical perspective necessarily, since as we all know divers certified by different agencies manage to get along and dive just fine with each other (well, maybe not always get along ). The trouble, I would imagine, lies in potential legal consequences. Simple example - consider how different agencies teach hand signals. PADI OOA for example is different from another agency's. A lawyer looking for blood will find other reasons why a certain diver/agency/LDS/whoever is liable for damages because he was taught basic skills in one way and the rescue skills in another. A huge can of warms that agencies likely don't want to get anywhere near. Once again, I'm talking reality, not theory. In theory, I agree that a common rescue course would be a good thing.

-Roman.

 

[Lawman]

It really would make for less liability. The standard of
care [the breach of which is an element of negligence]
would be standardized for everyone. In other words, if
you did what the standard [in law it would be the Uniform]
course required you would be meeting the standard of
care. Everyone [including insurance companies] would
know what was required in a given emergency situation.
At present someone can do what they've been taught
and a plaintiff could have an expert witness testify that
even though they did what PADI or NAUI taught them
they still did the wrong thing and were negligent.
This isn't very clear but it's difficult to explain negligence
theory on a message board.

 

[Epinephelus]

Lawman once bubbled...
it's difficult to explain negligence
theory on a message board.

Ain't that the truth! You'd think that if you just turned and walked away when you saw a situation developing that could lead to injury, that would be negligence - and if you stuck around and tried to help, well, that wouldn't. But let it get into the hands of a plaintiff's lawyer and it's the other way around.
'Course these are the same folks who interpret "the right of the people" to mean "the right of the government."
Old Willy had the right idea.
E. itajara

 

[AquaGuy]

I took the PADI rescue course and it was 8 hours of class room and 4 hours of pool work. My dive buddy took the SSI rescue course and it was 6 hours of course work, 2 hours of pool work and 2 hours of OW work. The only real difference was he had to drag a uncouncious 300 lb diver from the ocean onto the sand and pulled his back out in the process. We did not have to do this in our PADI class. If I were to do it over again, I would probably have done everything SSI instead of PADI since SSI appears to have more "higher" standards
IMHO.

 

[WreckWriter]

AquaGuy once bubbled...
I took the PADI rescue course and it was 8 hours of class room and 4 hours of pool work.

Your PADI course was not taught correctly. The instructor cut corners.

Tom

 

[Lawman]

In my SSI Stress & Rescue class I was taught
to share air by giving the out of air diver my
regulator and for me to breath thru the octopus.

Is that what you were all taught?

 

[notabob]

The concern is not about a good samaritan ruled to be negligent in court because he was following one agency's methods or another. The concern would, in my opinion, be the agency itself being found at fault for teaching different philosophies and methods in different courses. Let's say, hypothetically, that agencies came to a consensus and a common rescue course was decided on and taught. A diver certified through that course performed a rescue and the ungrateful victim decided to sue. The plaintif's lawyer puts the rescuer on the stand after promising not to go after them (besides, Joe Diver is broke and has no $$ to sue for anyway) and asks the rescuer, "Is it not true that in the confusion of the rescue you may have become confused between the skills ingrained into you during your OW training and the different methods of performing those skills taught in your recent rescue class?" Diver, "Well, it's possible..." Lawyer, "Aha! It's possible! So PADI (or NAUI, SSI, whoever) and its deep pockets was negligent in confusing its students by teaching different ways of doing the same things. If it taught consistent methods, the rescuer may not have gotten as confused as he was in the heat of the rescue and performed a rescue that would not have resulted in my client's shoulder getting bruised."

As far as the rescuer's liability, most states in the US have what's called a Good Samaritan law, which protects a rescuer from being found negligent, provided he/she is not a professional (i.e. EMT, paramedic, doctor, DM) and is current on certifications. Someone performing CPR whose card expired 4yrs ago probably won't be able to count on the protection of the law. Professionals, of course, typically also have insurance policies that a lawyer can go after.

-Roman.