The Philosophy of Diver Training

[Crush]

All of which points out that the minimum acceptable training level is Rescue.

I disagree - I trained to surface with an unconscious diver in my basic-OW with ACUC. Do do NAUI-trained divers. But not PADI...

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

All of which points out that the minimum acceptable training level is Rescue. For PADI this would imply that AOW was also taken. I believe NAUI will allow an OW diver to take Rescue.

That is correct ... with NAUI you do not need AOW in order to take Rescue. Furthermore, NAUI mandates that some level of rescue skills must be taught at every level. I think that's a good philosophy.

I disagree - I trained to surface with an unconscious diver in my basic-OW with ACUC. Do do NAUI-trained divers. But not PADI...

NAUI does train its basic OW divers to surface an unconscious diver. However, I recommend to all my students that they should, at a minimum, take the Rescue class. The reason is that the most important thing you learn in Rescue class is how to recognize the signs of an impending accident so as to take steps to avoid it before it happens. NAUI calls it the "Zero Accident Goal". You will also see it referred to in many ScubaBoard conversations as "Breaking the Chain". The thought being that most diving accidents are not the result of a single thing going wrong, but rather a chain of events that build on each other up to the point where a diving accident occurs. If at any point you take steps to "break the chain", the accident doesn't happen.

Learning rescue techniques is all well and good ... and those SHOULD be taught at every level of diving, appropriate to the class that you're taking. However, an even more important factor is learning how to prevent the accident from happening in the first place. That is the true value of a Rescue class ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Jim Lapenta]

SEI also mandates surfacing an unconscious diver. And like Bob I include rescue skills in all my classes. In my AOW course I added a Buddy Skills and Assist Dive to reinforce or in some cases teach additional rescue skills to the students. Things like a 100 ft assisted no mask swim, 100ft no mask air share swim, 100 ft no mask air share swim and ascent, loss of buoyancy ascent assist where the buddy has to assist with the ascent and support the other diver for 2 minutes at the surface while they sort out the problem (either by dropping weights, orally inflating the bc, or ditching the gear,etc). It also includes bringing the unconscious diver from depth, and towing them in while removing gear. At this point it is not a full blown rescue class but really gets them interested in one without having to spend classroom time telling them why rescue is so important. It shows them. And imparts some skills that could save a life.

All of these we do in OW class. But I was getting inquiries from potential students who had never done these. Or done them to the extent that I teach them. I've seen instructors lead students on no mask swims but did not see them require the buddy to do it. With the rationalization that the buddy was not ready to do that yet. If that's the case the students are not ready to be turned loose on their own. And when I do go over the skills that we will be doing I explain that these are the situations or events that can lead to them having to use them and go into how to stay out of those things. Ie as Bob said- stop the event before it happens. And some of it is so simple. Yet obviously not simple enough to bother teaching it to every student.

 

[DCBC]

SEI also mandates surfacing an unconscious diver. And like Bob I include rescue skills in all my classes.

I agree Jim. If an instructor is to prepare a diver to take-on the role of "Buddy," how else can this be undertaken other than to introduce practical rescue skills as part of the training.

There is much more to rescue than what is taught in the open-water/ scuba diver program, as NWGratefulDiver and you have discussed. It does provide the new diver with the basics, providing them with a solid foundation for future training.

We are all aware that one course cannot encompass all there is to learn, but the idea of a new diver gaining experience in an environment where he has no idea what to do to rescue his buddy is negligent in my view. Hopefully more instructors will see the benefits of this.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Wayne, I would say that you have no idea how true this is but you've been around long enough to know that it is. At least three of the incidents I researched for my Failure of the Buddy System presentation that resulted in fatalities involved new divers having no rescue skills.

One was fairly local and when the others came to the aid of the divers one was trying to hold the other up by the octo 4 feet under the surface because he did not know how to dump her weights or support her on the surface by at the minimum adding to his lift capacity by dumping his. Had he done either of these she most likely would not have died.

These are not difficult skills to teach or learn. What they do take is a little more time in the pool and classroom. And an understanding by the student that this is not all fun and games and excitement.

Course that can cut into profits and we surely can't have that happening. Somewhere there must be somebody saying a certain number of new divers dying is ok. Can't see any other reason to justify putting people in the water without some real understanding of how to help each other.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Somewhere there must be somebody saying a certain number of new divers dying is ok.

Of course there is -- either implicitly or explicitly. The only real point of contention between different training methods as related to safety is precisely arguing for the accident rate you find expectable.

All of the skills not taught in SEI which may come in handy to save one's own or another's life are, well, not taught. That means you're ok with how ever many people's lives the lack of those skills will cost.

With a small agency and the low rate of scuba deaths related to training to begin with, you may wait a long time to even find such an incident. This is compounded by the fact that certifying agency is rarely reported. But it is none-the-less true that you are at least implicitly accepting a certain death rate amongst your students. Otherwise your training would cover more material and in greater depth.

We can train people to the highest levels in OW, require hundreds of dives, and make the course last several years in order to even further minimize deaths. But ultimately some level of risk is always going to be there. Training levels, as they relate to safety, are set precisely based on what level of risk is seen as acceptable.

And you are not somehow exempt from that issue.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

I am having trouble understanding what you are referring to. SEI does teach those skills as does NAUI, CMAS, ACUC, IANTD, and BSAC. It is the ones who feel that rescue skills are not necessary at the OW level or the students told that they should have these but they need to come back and spend more money before they get them is the issue I have.

I have expectations of zero accidents among new divers barring medical issues or outside forces (being run over by boat, shark attack, sea snake bite, being kicked or mugged for air by a poorly trained diver, etc) and make an effort to see that my students have the knowledge to achieve that as long as they stay within their training, knowledge, and experience levels. Is that realistic? Maybe not but knowing that I did my best to give them the chance at it helps me sleep very well at night. This is one of the areas where my capitalistic views take a back seat to the best interests of the student along with not pushing gear they do not need, want, or can afford on them.

 

[FireInMyBones]

This thread has made me consider seeking out my instructor certification from a different agency. To be honest, I am afraid that some of the students I saw yesterday in a class I was a DM canidate for may die from being too eager to have fun, rather than pay attention to sound teaching. I am going to sit down with the instructor and ask them to keep and eye on those students in particular.

 

[Kingpatzer]

I am having trouble understanding what you are referring to. SEI does teach those skills as does NAUI, CMAS, ACUC, IANTD, and BSAC. It is the ones who feel that rescue skills are not necessary at the OW level or the students told that they should have these but they need to come back and spend more money before they get them is the issue I have.

SEI has a rescue diver and accident management specialty course according to their web site. Are you saying there are no new skills taught in that course, and that your OW students know everything that they need to know to successfully enact any rescue for their buddy? And they have every bit of information and skill they need to effect a self rescue from any contingency in OW, including catastrophic equipment failures?

I'm impressed. But I'm confused as to why there are any additional courses beyond OW in the SEI system:


from the SEI site

Open Water Plus Diver

SEI Diving's Open Water Diver course is designed to give certified scuba divers two additional open water dives. This guided experience is important for new divers who want more training before going out and diving without supervision.

So your agency is marketing a useless course?

Advanced Open Water Diver

The SEI Advanced Open Water Diver course is for divers who want to expand their knowledge and diving experience to include a variety of diving environments. The course provides an introduction to specialty diving, and features five open water dives, including a night dive. This course is highly recommended for all newly certified Open Water divers, to help them gain experience and comfort in the underwater world.

And when SEI says that AOW is highly recommended for all newly certified Open Water divers, to help them gain experience and comfort in the underwater world. they really don't need the course for that reason?


Or, is it there are additional skills to learn and useful experience to be gained by divers staying within OW profiles, and therefore you accept that your OW students are accepting some level of risk inherent in their limited training and experience levels?

I have expectations of zero accidents among new divers barring medical issues or outside forces (being run over by boat, shark attack, sea snake bite, being kicked or mugged for air by a poorly trained diver, etc) and make an effort to see that my students have the knowledge to achieve that as long as they stay within their training, knowledge, and experience levels. Is that realistic?

No, it's not.

So you teach every single skill necessary for a diver to be able to live at all times and in all circumstances and drill them till there is 0 chance of failure? And every instructor in SEI does this?

No SEI diver anywhere will hold onto a mooring line in a surge and embolize themselves because they breathe in as a trough passes over head?
No SEI diver anywhere will ascend too rapidly and bend themselves?
No SEI diver anywhere will attempt to descend with a snorkel and panic when they get a mouthful of water?
No SEI diver anywhere will forget to drop their weight belt at the surface after surfacing with a screwed up BC?
No SEI diver anywhere will over-exert themselves and begin to panic when they hyperventilate?
No SEI diver anywhere will forget their rescue training through disuse and screw up a perfectly simple rescue?
No SEI diver anywhere will forget to inflate the BC at the surface, get a breath of water and panic?
No SEI diver anywhere will ever go OOA because they forgot to check their gages or plan their dive?
No SEI diver anywhere will ever accidentally brush up against some fire coral, feel the burn, panic and shoot for the surface and give themselves a lung over expansion injury?
No SEI diver anywhere will ever do anything contrary to their training and instruction that results in their or someone else's injury or death?

BS.

That any of the above foreseeable scenarios as well as many others are possible (and you know that they are) means that you could increase your standards to cover more material, to habituate habits in greater depth, to give more experience, to increase skill levels, to handle more stressful situations without panic, to increase swimming and breath-hold stamina even further, and on and on.

That you don't do those things means you are perfectly ok with the reality that some percentage of SEI students are going to fail to either adequately recall their training or will have not been trained to handle a foreseeable event and will die because of it.


SEI (and to the extent it is up to individual instructors -- you) aren't increasing standards, so that means you're ok with that.

You and your agency are not different, you just happen to decide on a different number of dead students you're willing to live with.

 

[Thalassamania]

I can't speak for SEI, but I'm fairly confident that no diver that's gone through the training that we offer will commit any of those errors ... in fact, in 58 years, no diver has.