Taking an open water student below 60 ft?

[TMHeimer]

But new divers are not required to take the additional classes. Your point would be valid if the agencies required several classes to become certified, so students were required to take those classes to achieve the same certification from the old days (that you allude to.) But new divers are not required to take those extra classes. In fact, most students take only the first basic OW class.

Do they learn as much in their OW course as you did in the "old days"? Probably not. But... do they need to learn everything that you did?

Probably not.

So why did the cert agencies change? Because over the years they learned that people don't need everything that's included in the old OW course (i.e. up to divemaster training) just to go diving. The purpose of the change was not to sell more classes (because they don't really... the majority of divers take only the OW class. And yeah, I know I already said that above.) It was to get more people diving. So the modern OW course was designed to just give people what they need to know to be able to just go diving.

For example, in your old OW course you might have learned some rescue techniques. Why don't they teach that in the modern OW course? It's not necessary. Certainly rescue skills can be useful... but knowing how to rescue someone is not truly necessary to be a scuba diver. Case in point: I took the Rescue class many years ago. And I took the DM course, in which we repeated the skills from the Rescue course. And then I did the IDC... in which we repeated the skills from the Rescue course. By the time I became an instructor, my CD decided I was good enough at rescuing people to teach people how to rescue people.

And in all my years of diving I have rescued... zero people. (Oh wait, important clarification: I have had zero opportunity to rescue people.)

Did the Rescue training make me a better diver? Absolutely. It taught me skills that can be useful, skills that perhaps allow me to recognize how to prevent a situation that could create a "rescue opportunity".

But the simple fact is that the current OW course provides the knowledge and skills a new diver needs on which to build their experience to become a safe and competent diver.

There is a reason that training curriculum evolves. There is also a reason people that did things the "old way" will continue to complain that the "old way" is better and the "new way" is worse. What will not change is that the most important elements of any training are how dedicated the instructor is to the quality of their instruction, and how dedicated the student is to understanding and applying the training properly.

 

[TMHeimer]

yle: "Modern course was designed to give people what they need to know to be able to just go diving". WELL...
and to be able to rescue a buddy? Really?
Accidents/Incidents reports have been touted as "hard to tell" over decades, since there just isn't enough data regarding number of actual divers vs. actual incidents. Though they say it seems constant.

"Do you need to learn everything that you did in the old days....probably not" --- We don't need the "male only" macho military approach I read about here from yesteryear, but YES, we need an awful lot from the old days in the OW course.
We need courses like Jim Lapenta's. I'd like to meet him, take a course with him, if I had the $ to go to Pennsylvania.
I too have never had to do any kind of a rescue--in over 800 dives.
"current OW course provides the knowledge and skills a new diver needs on which to build their experience to become a safe and competent diver." YEAH, unless you or your OW buddy has a problem and you don't know the rescue technique, since rescue is not taught in OW course.

 

[JackD342]

What is the source of the graph? I think I know, but the point is that all by itself is meaningless, it has no validity without its source.

But it is not really what was asked....the students are not yet trained, certified divers, so shouldn't even be on the graph.

And the graph -- without the irrelevant students -- seems to say the lowest certification level (OW) has the fewest problems.

But you can't really conclude anything from the graph because it is not normalized: interpretation requires knowing how many divers of each certification level.

The normalization should be “per dive” and not “per diver.” My gut says that the highest dive count is almost certainly the OW level if counted worldwide. If just dives occurring in the US and Canada, then other groups may give OW a run for it’s money as all the warm water resort diving is pretty much out of the mix. Also, I would want to see a longer time period, as just one year may not be representative. But still... just one OW diver fatality... not tripping any alarm bells there...

 

[JackD342]

I'm glad that someone else looked at the DAN annual reports other than me - and to go a few years farther back would have graphs somewhat similar to the 2016 graph. Keep in mind this only shows fatalities (not accidents) where certifications were known, as there were a much higher number of fatalities than the 23 shown in the graph. It might be interpreted that there are fewer students and OW divers who had fatalities than those divers who were trained beyond the OW level (granted we don't know what type of students - only that they were students.)

Considering other factors, there may be other interpretations!

I am confident the Students are OW students. The segments are highest level of certification, not activity at the time of occurrence.

 

[Protondecay123]

I'm glad that someone else looked at the DAN annual reports other than me - and to go a few years farther back would have graphs somewhat similar to the 2016 graph. Keep in mind this only shows fatalities (not accidents) where certifications were known, as there were a much higher number of fatalities than the 23 shown in the graph. It might be interpreted that there are fewer students and OW divers who had fatalities than those divers who were trained beyond the OW level (granted we don't know what type of students - only that they were students.)

Considering other factors, there may be other interpretations!

Funny that it would be a non-scientist would recognize the source of the data. But simply looking at the DAN data over the last 5 years the incidence isn't much different. And there may be other interpretations, but to not be concerned about people participating in an initial training program having nearly the same rate of mortality as people doing technical dives warrants concern about the program IMHO.

 

[JackD342]

Funny that it would be a non-scientist would recognize the source of the data. But simply looking at the DAN data over the last 5 years the incidence isn't much different. And there may be other interpretations, but to not be concerned about people participating in an initial training program having nearly the same rate of mortality as people doing technical dives warrants concern about the program IMHO.

Yes, if all else is equal. I would want to know more details - the chart says fatalities, not accidents. For example, might undiagnosed/undisclosed medical issues turn up more often in OW and drive some disproportionate part of the number?

 

[BlueTrin]

Yes and that's why so many are concerned. Here is a graph of fatalities by level of training from 2016. Students are disproportionately represented. View attachment 555327

You can also use the BSAC annual report. It shows slightly different results.

https://www.bsac.com/document/divin...mat/1bsac-incident-report-2018-new-format.pdf


However I think your conclusion is not obvious for two reasons (and it does not help that only a picture is shown without a description of the methodology to obtain this data)

1. if training would take 3 months of intensive training in a pool, it would probably reduce the number of incidents ... but then you would have a lot less OW students as well.
2. There are more OW than other types of certifications. It could be that there are more DSD and Student dives and, without knowing how many % of the actual # of dives it is hard to know if they actually have a higher accident rate. You should care about the accident rate and NOT the # of accidents.

At some point you have to decide what you consider sufficient. Different people will have different opinions on what they consider enough.

 

[NAM001]

But new divers are not required to take the additional classes. Your point would be valid if the agencies required several classes to become certified, so students were required to take those classes to achieve the same certification from the old days (that you allude to.) But new divers are not required to take those extra classes. In fact, most students take only the first basic OW class.

Do they learn as much in their OW course as you did in the "old days"? Probably not. But... do they need to learn everything that you did?

Probably not.

So why did the cert agencies change? Because over the years they learned that people don't need everything that's included in the old OW course (i.e. up to divemaster training) just to go diving. The purpose of the change was not to sell more classes (because they don't really... the majority of divers take only the OW class. And yeah, I know I already said that above.) It was to get more people diving. So the modern OW course was designed to just give people what they need to know to be able to just go diving.

For example, in your old OW course you might have learned some rescue techniques. Why don't they teach that in the modern OW course? It's not necessary. Certainly rescue skills can be useful... but knowing how to rescue someone is not truly necessary to be a scuba diver. Case in point: I took the Rescue class many years ago. And I took the DM course, in which we repeated the skills from the Rescue course. And then I did the IDC... in which we repeated the skills from the Rescue course. By the time I became an instructor, my CD decided I was good enough at rescuing people to teach people how to rescue people.

And in all my years of diving I have rescued... zero people. (Oh wait, important clarification: I have had zero opportunity to rescue people.)

Did the Rescue training make me a better diver? Absolutely. It taught me skills that can be useful, skills that perhaps allow me to recognize how to prevent a situation that could create a "rescue opportunity".

But the simple fact is that the current OW course provides the knowledge and skills a new diver needs on which to build their experience to become a safe and competent diver.

There is a reason that training curriculum evolves. There is also a reason people that did things the "old way" will continue to complain that the "old way" is better and the "new way" is worse. What will not change is that the most important elements of any training are how dedicated the instructor is to the quality of their instruction, and how dedicated the student is to understanding and applying the training properly.

I think you missed it


That was not what I was implying. For those instructors that teach beyond the agency min requirements, those areas should be documanted sonewhere as to apply or be credited to other training. I M NOT SAYING THAT TRAINING SHOULD BE The SAME AS LONG AGO. RATHER THAT THE TRAINING THAT IS DONE TODAY BECOME common ground between agencies. in that In the case of Jims class. a student would have their OW requirements signed off as well as appropriate items in rescue and buoyancy and other classes whose content has been included in his preticular class . I would suspect that when Jim gets through with an OW student they have far surpassed the majority of the min standards to have an AOW card if not all of them.

Your comment attempted to make a direct comparison between the old OW class to todays OW class which is only a segment of the older class. The old class encompasses OW through Master diver in a single class. . Todays pipe line has been spread in to several mini classes whose sum is the old class from decades ago. but in the end,, the current pipeline when completed is for all purposes is the same once you finish all the components and get Master diver.

You make a list of all the requirements for course completion through Dive master and put it on one big dive training sheet. Every agency has it. You sign off on them as they are completed and award the associated card. Again in the case of Jims class if a student displays all the in water skills for AOW . Then when the student starts AOW there perhaps will not need to have a number of on water demonstrations, perhaps rather a single dive . It does not threaten an instructors income. It allows the instructor to taylor a class based on the students proven abilities and needs.

I am not saying that this can be done over night or is now allowed, rather that it should evolve to that kind of training structure. Flexbility while maintaining agency standards.

 

[NAM001]

Not sure where you're seeing a "24 hour or less" OW course. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I've never seen one. And if it does exist, it's a clear violation of PADI standards.

To be honest, it sounds like something you're just making up to try to support your argument. I'm not say that's what it is... but it sure sounds like it.

You are comparing my statement to what should be. My point is that things are not always what they should be. I watched a class start to finish with 6 hours the first day 5 hours the next day and 3 hours a third day and card was issued. Of that time an instructor was present about 8 hours. the rest was self study watching DVD's and doing the quizes in the book while waiting for an instructor to get to the shop from home. shameful yes. was it common? I asked others and they had other and similar stories but not as bad as they were in a multi student class and not a 1 on 1. Most of the comments centered around,, they were not comfortable with their skills and were told you will learn to do this right when you practice on your own after getting your card.

 

[markmud]

It does depend on what the course content was in that longer course. My OW class is 6-8 weeks once a week with half the session in the classroom and half in the pool. The student ends up with somewhere between 12 and 14 hours in each. In the first session they don't even put a SCUBA unit on. It's all swimming, snorkeling, and breath-hold diving skills. That is also where they learn mask clear, fin techniques, and the fundamentals of buoyancy and trim using proper weighting and lung volume control.
Some people do get it quickly. Many don't. I want to see at least a dozen mask remove and replacements while swimming and doing other tasks. Along with reg recovery, weight adjustment and remove/replace, etc.
We do a complete gear remove and replace and exchange in the OW class. There are also rescue skills included. Panicked diver at the surface, non-responsive diver from depth, rescue tow while stripping gear, and supporting a diver at the surface and helping them achieve positive buoyancy.
All skills are done neutral and horizontal. No kneeling.
We cover emergency decompression tables using the US Navy air dive tables and I spend one classroom session solely on gas management.
Since we are in an area where vis can get bad on checkout dives, one pool session is spent on skills with eyes closed or using a blacked-out mask.
I don't take my OW students on checkouts unless I am 100% certain that if I have a problem, they can safely assist me and end the dive.
At the end of checkouts before I give them their card there are two questions I need to answer.
Would I dive with them and be certain they would be a good buddy and be able to help me if I had a problem, and would I allow my kids, wife, girlfriend, or anyone else I care about to dive with them without me or another dive professional present? Knowing they will be ok. Only then will I give them a card.
If they meet all the standards, do great on checkouts, and then say to me something that makes me think they would not be safe or be a danger to others, they don't get a card and the agency will back me up on this. In fact, it's in the standards that we have to be satisfied they will be a safe diver and good buddy.
It's called the "loved one principle" and it has seen some of my students have to do additional checkouts because the comfort level in the pool doesn't always transfer to OW with limited vis, cooler temps, and marine life.
I don't have time limits on my class and people need to meet my standards as well as the agency ones.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your post. I enjoyed reading it.

The problem is that so many do the bare minimum and the public calls them all the same. By public I mean scuba operators. My thing would be that If Jims class was taught they should leave it with a AOW card.

Good point KWS, which was the dilema I was in.

Of the 3 instructors I had through this process, 2 were excellent, and 1 was a joke.

My OW instructor instructed like Jim teaches; but not to that extent. He was a former saturation commercial diver. No "zero-to-hero" was he. My other great instructor was not commercial, but had every credential that PADI and SDI/TDI offered with worldwide experience and full cave diving also. A pro's pro whose instruction techniques made the cert-mill tolerable.

Their CVs and teaching techniques did not do me any good when it came to flying (or driving) to different parts of the world to dive, either by myself, or with a group of people I did not know.

I wanted to go on a dive and was told that I needed AOW. So I got AOW from a yahoo. It was all redundant because Barry (OW) had taught me everything in AOW already.

So, I show up on the boat with my AOW and am told that I need to do a check-out dive before diving to 90 fsw to see this particular u/w feature. The next day another DM, and another check-out dive. The third day and my mentor DM is on the boat, and says: "Oh yeah, we will take you there because you follow instructions and you maintain the same position from me so I always know where you are."

Here is my point: My OW and AOW were worthless. Those cards proved nothing to dive operators except that I was another loser who was stuck in the cert card-mill.

Until I got tech 40 and solo, my cards were viewed as nothing more than learners permits. I now carry my tech 40 and solo exclusively as the rest are useless. I am still treated skeptically by staff, when I am a new face on a boat-load of divers.

I would not have minded if I was issued a learner's permit instead of OW, at least I would have known what I payed for when I received my OW cert. I dived with a mentor DM anyway. So having him sign-off slots on my learners permit would have been OK.

I agree with KWS that a "command card" or diver-experience-card signed-off by DMs or instructors would be a great idea. Performing 27 iterations of skill-drills would have been OK with meTaking an open water student below 60 ft?. At the end of the process I would have received a cert that said I was a proven diver at similar sites/conditions that were listed on my learners permit.

The current system sucked for me. I feel I was roped into a dog'n'pony show. They had me by the balls.

cheers,
markm