The Philosophy of Diver Training

[Kingpatzer]

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.

Honest question, but don't the Coast Guard uses the Scripts model and wasn't there an ice diver just die a year or two ago because of weighting issues?

Are you saying you believe that a diver out of your training program who has 2000 dives is no safer a diver because of their experience than a diver just graduated?

 

[Crush]

My interpretation of Jim's post was not that SEI teaches every aspect of rescuing a diver in their OW course, but that at least they teach several aspects of rescue rather than leaving the entire topic of rescue diving one for subsequent study.

It also has to be noted that, in the absence of SEI instruction manuals, their web page might be the best information we non-SEI'ers have to go on. However, condemning an agency based upon a course synopsis (as opposed to actual course content) seems a bit presumptuous.

 

[Kingpatzer]

My interpretation of Jim's post was not that SEI teaches every aspect of rescuing a diver in their OW course, but that at least they teach several aspects of rescue rather than leaving the entire topic of rescue diving one for subsequent study.

The contention is that Jim and his agency do not allow their divers to graduate if they will be at risk of injury or death due to training AT ALL.

That means that the training they receive means they will not be able to get any safer with any further experience or training. After all, they are 100% safe to begin with.

I contend that the very fact that SEI (and presumably Jim) teach a rescue course and courses like the OW Plus Diver course demonstrate that either Jim (and SEI) do not believe this to be true, and accept some level of risk due to lack of sufficiently advanced training and experience, or they are selling unnecessary courses.

It also has to be noted that, in the absence of SEI instruction manuals, their web page might be the best information we non-SEI'ers have to go on. However, condemning an agency based upon a course synopsis (as opposed to actual course content) seems a bit presumptuous.

When addressing a marketing claim that is logically at odds with an instructor's claim about the training sufficiency of the OW course, taking what the agency says about the purpose of the course is perfectly apt.

 

[Thalassamania]

Honest question, but don't the Coast Guard uses the Scripts model and wasn't there an ice diver just die a year or two ago because of weighting issues?

Are you saying you believe that a diver out of your training program who has 2000 dives is no safer a diver because of their experience than a diver just graduated?

No, the USCG does not, to the best of my knowledge, use a Scripps Model. Where did you get that from? I'll check it out.

I think you are confusing the Coast Guard with NOAA Corps, and no ... NOAA typically does not use Scripps model either, believe it or not, many of their people only receive LDS style training with a sports diving instructor.

And no, I am not saying that any level of experience is not a consideration, just that the things that you list have not (to date) occurred and have been considered, and are trained for.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

You are really reading more into this than there is. OW divers should be fully capable of planning, executing, and safely returning from any dive in conditions equal to or better than that in which they train without any further instruction. Part of that planning and education is knowing how to assist their buddy should a situation arise that could be expected to be encountered on that dive. Coming across an unconscious diver at 50 feet is possible, having one of the divers have a heart attack with no prior history of the disease is possible, having ones mask come off and be lost, encountering a panicked diver at the surface are all things that any basic OW student should be able to handle. If I felt that my students were incapable of handling one of these situations then by standards I cannot issue them a certification. If they were to give me some indication that they would ignore their training and recommended limits I cannot certify them. Once someone leaves my class or any SEI Instructor's class we have no real control over what they do. What we do have total control over is the knowledge we pass on and the assurance that they understand and at least under our supervision follow that training. We do not have to certify anyone who demonstrates poor judgment, a lax attitude towards safety, or does not meet the individual instructors personal requirements.

You are assuming we go by standards of other agencies or the RSTC. We do not. Our model is not based on those. Our model is based on the idea that an OW diver should not need any further training than that which they receive to dive safely within recreational limits. We DO NOT say that they are 100 % safe for every foreseeable situation that could occur. What we do is inform them that there is further training available should they wish to avail themselves of it to expand their diving. But it is not required. I want my students to come back for further training because they want to. Not because they have to.

An open water diver should be fully capable of expanding their diving on their own with a similarly trained buddy over time. They should have the judgment to know to research sites, read up on deco procedures, different types of dive environments, and so on. Should they wish to take other classes to accelerate of augment their learning that's fine.

The fact that you think that an OW diver should have to take specialties is a clear indication that you have not looked at what the term OW diver used to mean. We offer a rescue course because some want to know more about helping other divers. The rescue course is also more about preventing accidents. Ow plus is for those students who for whatever reason want another dive or two with an instructor. It does not mean they need it. If someone were to take the OW plus from me those other two dives would be spent working on skills from my advanced class like shooting a bag or some extra navigation practice. It would be for those who want a little more in the way of skills or knowledge.

Again these are never pushed as required of the diver but available to them. I've said this many times. An new OW diver should be someone that you would be ok with your loved one diving with in the conditions they were trained in without a pro in the water. If they are not then why would you give them a card? And it really is that simple.

You seem to have the idea that training should be done with the idea that they will have to come back for more. So did I until I woke up and saw what the real motivation was behind this idea and the results of it. It was at that time that my conscience would not allow me to be a part of it any longer.

 

[Thalassamania]

In a nutshell, SEI believes that people they train should be dive ready, not world experts, but dive ready to deal with the conditions that they were trained in. They do not believe that basic items like buoyancy control, gas management, and rescue should be extra priced products. I'm inclined to say the same thing for nitrox and basic deco ... but that's just me.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

I just read the post with the scenarios you listed. I did not go to that page. But to answer your questions and observations the OW Plus course is normally not taught as a separate course but instead of the OW course. It is not useless unless there are no new skills passed on or other ones worked on. It is not designed to be two extra tour dives.
The AOW course is currently being looked at to redefine and adjusted to truly reflect the name and meet our new standards. I know because I have been the one doing it. And One of the reasons for this is not to make them more comfortable as OW divers but to give them real world skills and knowledge to BEGIN to do "advanced dives" instead of just a taste and tour of these dives.
Are there additional skills to learn in OW environments? Of course but they should already have the basis to develop and refine those skills on their own if they choose to. This is speaking in terms of OW recommended limits of 60 feet, no overheads, no decompression profiles.

the examples you list are indeed possible for any diver. Possible. But in the case of properly trained Ow divers highly unlikely because they will have had the opportunity and education to deal with OR avoid those situations. Some of them are really out there in fact. I will even go as far to say that if I thought any one of my students were capable of reacting like you describe they would not have a card in the first place. This is the reason we do some of the things we do to test and task load the divers to judge their fitness and reaction to stressors. Why we don't allow them to self teach at home but require 16 hours in the classroom. So the instructor knows that they are getting it. That they understand and are aware of the risks.

 

[Crush]

The contention is that Jim and his agency do not allow their divers to graduate if they will be at risk of injury or death due to training AT ALL.

That means that the training they receive means they will not be able to get any safer with any further experience or training. After all, they are 100% safe to begin with.

I contend that the very fact that SEI (and presumably Jim) teach a rescue course and courses like the OW Plus Diver course demonstrate that either Jim (and SEI) do not believe this to be true, and accept some level of risk due to lack of sufficiently advanced training and experience, or they are selling unnecessary courses.



When addressing a marketing claim that is logically at odds with an instructor's claim about the training sufficiency of the OW course, taking what the agency says about the purpose of the course is perfectly apt.

If SEI trains its divers in some aspect of diver rescue, then as far as I am concerned they are to be commended since this is a very important aspect of diving. When they are old enough and if they are interested, I will try to get my kids trained via NAUI or ACUC. Perhaps SEI, but I am unfamiliar with them right now. However, I will not offer up my kids on the PADI altar (the way the world dives).

 

[Kingpatzer]

If SEI trains its divers in some aspect of diver rescue, then as far as I am concerned they are to be commended since this is a very important aspect of diving. When they are old enough and if they are interested, I will try to get my kids trained via NAUI or ACUC. Perhaps SEI, but I am unfamiliar with them right now. However, I will not offer up my kids on the PADI altar (the way the world dives).

I'm not arguing if it is a good thing to teach rescue or not.

Jim contended that his agency does not engage in any calculus regarding how many dead divers is acceptable. I contend that all agencies do that, it's just a matter of where they draw the line. Every diver can become safer with more training and experience. There is no end to the amount of training that can be applied to make a diver safer.

That's my only point. SEI is no different than PADI in that regard, no matter how loudly Jim insists that is not the case.

 

[Kingpatzer]

No, the USCG does not, to the best of my knowledge, use a Scripps Model. Where did you get that from? I'll check it out.

I'm honestly not sure where that idea got into my brain, so I can't point you to a source. That's why I asked the question. It's something I think I've heard someplace, but I couldn't point you to any source and don't presume it to be factual knowledge.