FB posting - standards violations - how many can you pick out?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

first let me say I have no dog in this fight ......in nealy all agencies anybody in leadership that has any knowledge of standards breach HAS to report it or THEY are in breach , remember j Chatterton and the high profile instructor HERE who reported him from a video ?
 
This has been a particularly useful, and generally thoughtful discussion, and I appreciate Marie starting it.

As an Instructor I have to deal with 'standards' on a daily basis. I KNOW what my agency's standards are for most of what I do. At times, I have needed to call the agency, to confirm what I thought or clarify something about which I was unsure. It is OK to not know, and have to ask. It is not OK to not know, and not bother to ask.

Four issues seem to be at the heart of the discussion thus far.

What actually are 'standards'?

For the majority of training agencies, 'standards' are in reality relatively broad, and inclusive. By that I DO NOT mean lax. But, agencies are generally averse to being TOO prescriptive, where there is no need. An agency standard may specify that a 'Primary regulator and alternate air source' is a required part of 'standard diver equipment', for example. But, the 'alternate air source' could be a traditional second stage, an integrated alternate inflator, or even a pony bottle (with regulator). Individually, we may have (strong) preferences as to which of these is the best, but the 'standard' of the agency may allow some things that we don't think is best.

Yes, some agencies may be more detailed in some of their their standards than others. In the Equipment section of the technical diving Instructor Manual for one agency, it is noted that a 'BCD with D-rings or other attachment points for a stage/deco cylinder' is required'. That's pretty simple, and allows for a lot of choices (good, and bad). In my copy (circa 2010) of the NTEC, it is noted that 'A wing-style buoyancy compensator is required and may be mounted to either a hard backplate harness or a soft harness.' It goes on the say that a hard backplate is recommended, and students should be advised that a hard-plate system is far more stable and secure.' That's fine. I use a hard plate myself. But, I will say that I have dove a Transpac with double 130's and found it very stable and secure. I am also not sure that a universally agreed upon definition of a 'wing style' buoyancy compensator exists. That is not a criticism of NAUI, at all, by the way. It is more a statement of how difficult it is at times to write meaningful standards.

It is not uncommon to confuse conventions, and standards. Or, to confuse recommendations and standards. I know a little bit about the technical dive training standards of several agencies, and none of them include prohibition of cross clipping of a bottle. I personally may not consider the practice optimal (and I might even negatively judge a diver who does it, as sloppy), but that is a matter of MY preference and opinion, not an agency standard.

Some standards are crystal clear - maximum depths for example. Honestly, any instructor who violates depth limits on a training dive is simple asking for trouble. In the unlikely event (even if it is in the VERY unlikely event) of something bad happening to a student on a dive where maximum depth standards were violated, the training agency AND the instructors insurance company are VERY likely to walk away. And, an instructor who routinely violates depth limits should probably be brought to the attention of the certifying training agency.

To take the discussion a step further, what constitutes ‘good’ training? Can an Instructor adhere faithfully to all applicable (agency) standards, and provide poor training? I am not in any way arguing against adherence to standards, by the way. Rather, I am suggesting that standards may not be the whole story.

How do / can we know what they are?

Some scuba training agency standards can be found online, at least in part, with a simple search. For example, I found a 2010 document describing NTEC. What I don't know is if there is a later version. But, I bet I can call NAUI and find out. The point is, anyone who really wants to know what training standards are can easily find out. They are usually incorporated into the student manuals for dive courses, and a student diver can ALWAYS ask the instructor, or call the agency. So, they are never a closely held secret.

What constitutes 'smart' behavior on social media?

I continue to be amazed that people think they can post whatever is on their mind (on on their camera) on social media, without consequence. I had this challenge with one of my daughters at one point, where she would have a bad night at work (a restaurant) and post something on FB about 'idiot customers' and 'wussie management'. She didn't seem to realize that people knew from her FB profile where she worked, that some of the 'idiot customers' could read her posts (and easily figure out that they were the subject), nor that ''wussie management' would also read them, and possibly hold her responsible for them.

What should you do if you think an agency's standards have been violated?

A good training agency wants to know what is going on in 'the field'. Too often, they don't hear about problems until something really bad happens. That doesn't mean that they will take any disciplinary action in response to every, or any, report. And, they want accurate, factual information. Some divers consider a FB post about what may or may not have happened to be second hand, even heresay. That's fine. Others may nonetheless wish to share it with an agency just so that agency is alerted to the possibility of an issue. And, that's fine as well. I am usually pretty hesitant to judge from afar, because I may not have context. But, that's just me. I think Marie made it clear that she intended her post to be a cautionary communication for divers considering certain types of training. That was her choice. It was also her choice to report it to the training agency. I may or may not have done that. But, I won't criticize her for doing so.

It was nonetheless probably wise for the shop to remove some / many of the posts, after this thread started. Notwithstanding what was probably just genuine enthusiasm on the part of the FB poster - they had a good experience, and wanted to share it - it is simply not good for business to create the appearance of possible sloppiness in training. There was a great quote in the movie Hoosiers that comes to mind here: 'there are two kinds of dumb, uh... guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and, uh, guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don't matter, the second one you're kinda forced to deal with.'

But, appearances can also be deceiving. Years ago, I was on a boat with a group and we observed a diver getting geared up to enter the water. This guy was quite 'ample'. His beard didn't look like he trimmed it with any regularity. And, he talked with a bit of a regional accent. His BCD looked like it was old, almost threadbare. And, his regulator was 'vintage', before diving 'vintage' equipment was fashionable. His 'exposure suit' consisted of a pair of well worn coveralls. Frankly, several of us concluded, before we all got in the water, that we wanted to stay well away from this guy. Had a picture of him, in his gear, appeared on FB, I can imagine what some of the comments would have been. But, as soon as we entered the water our collective impressions changed. He was SMOOTH. His descent was a work of art, his trim was spectacular, his buoyancy control was as close to perfect as I could hope to achieve. He was, quite simply, a h*ll of a diver.
 
Over the course of a few years I have seen scubaboard get unnecessarily hostile towards women. There are a whole, whole, whole lot of them, including high level technical divers who are just sitting outside, petrified to write anything.

Just sayin'

Please continue with the topic.
 
This has been a particularly useful, and generally thoughtful discussion.

As an Instructor I have to deal with 'standards' on a daily basis. I KNOW what my agency's standards are for most of what I do. At times, I have needed to call the agency, to confirm what I thought or clarify something about which I was unsure. It is OK to not know, and have to ask. It is not OK to not know, and not bother to ask.

Four issues seem to be at the heart of the discussion thus far.

What actually are 'standards'?

For the majority of training agencies, 'standards' are in reality relatively broad, and inclusive. By that I DO NOT mean lax. But, agencies are generally averse to being TOO prescriptive, where there is no need. An agency standard may specify that a 'Primary regulator and alternate air source' is a required part of 'standard diver equipment', for example. But, the 'alternate air source' could be a traditional second stage, an integrated alternate inflator, or even a pony bottle (with regulator). Individually, we may have (strong) preferences as to which of these is the best, but the 'standard' of the agency may allow some things that we don't think is best.

Yes, some agencies are more stringent than others. In the Equipment section of the Technical Instructor Manual for one agency, it is noted that a 'BCD with D-rings or other attachment points for a stage/deco cylinder' is required'. That's pretty simple, and allows for a lot of choices (good, and bad). In my copy (circa 2010) of the NTEC, it is noted that 'A wing-style buoyancy compensator is required and may be mounted to either a hard backplate harness or a soft harness. ' It goes on the say that a hard backplate is recommended, and students should be advised that a hard-plate system is far more stable and secure.' That's fine. I use a hard plate myself. But, I will say that I have dove a Transpac with double 130's and found it very stable and secure.

It is not uncommon to confuse conventions, and standards. Or, to confuse recommendations and standards. I know a little bit about the technical dive training standards of several agencies, and none of them include prohibition of cross clipping of a bottle. I personally may not consider the practice optimal (and I might even negatively judge a diver who does it, as sloppy), but that is a matter of MY preference and opinion, not an agency standard.

To take the discussion a step further, what constitutes ‘good’ training? Can an Instructor adhere faithfully to all applicable (agency) standards, and provide poor training? I am not in any way arguing against adherence to standards, by the way. Rather, I am suggesting that standards may not be the whole story.

How do / can we know what they are?

Some scuba training agency standards can be found online, at least in part, with a simple search. For example, I found a 2010 document describing NTEC. What I don't know is if there is a later version. But, I bet I can call NAUI and find out. But, anyone who really wants to know what training standards are can easily find out. They are usually incorporated into the student manuals for diove courses,l a student diver can ALWAYS ask the instructor, or call the agency. So, they are never a closely held secret.

What constitutes 'smart' behavior on social media?

I continue to be amazed that people think they can post whatever is on their mind on social media, without consequence. I had this challenge with one of my daughters at one point, where she would have a bad night at work (a restaurant) and post something on FB about 'idiot customers' and 'wussie management'. She didn't seem to realize that people knew from her FB profile where she worked, that some of the 'idiot customers' could read her posts (and easily figure out that they were the subject), nor that ''wussie management' would also read them, and possibly hold her responsible for them.

What should you do if you think an agency's standards have been violated?

A good training agency wants to know what is going on in 'the field'. Too often, they don't hear about problems until something really bad happens. That doesn't mean that they will take any disciplinary action in response to every, or any, report. And, they want accurate, factual information. Some divers consider a FB post about what may or may not have happened to be second hand, even heresay. That's fine. Others may nonetheless wish to share it with an agency just so that agency is alerted to the possibility of an issue. And, that's fine as well. I am usually pretty hesitant to judge from afar, because I may not have context. But, that's just me. I think Marie made it clear that she intended her post to be a cautionary communication for divers considering certain types of training. That was her choice. It was also her choice to report it to the training agency. I may or may not have done that. But, I won't criticize her for doing so.

It was probably wise for the shop to remove some / many of the posts, after this thread started. Notwithstanding what was probably just genuine enthusiasm on the part of the FB poster - they had a good experience, and wanted to share it - it is simply not good for business to create the appearance of possible sloppiness in training. There was a great quote in the movie Hoosiers that comes to mind here: 'there are two kinds of dumb, uh... guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and, uh, guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don't matter, the second one you're kinda forced to deal with.

@Colliam7 The postings were making the rounds on a number of FB scuba groups that likely got the incident a lot more exposure than this thread.

My major issue was the depth with no redundancy. There were no doubles. The cross body slung “pony” is not a pony. It’s a deco bottle. Marked as such with a green hose and O2 stickers. The profile the student posted showed deco gas was 80%. MOD for 80% is 30ft? (Off the top of my head). Doubt you’d be using that for redundancy at 185ft.
 
@Colliam7 The postings were making the rounds on a number of FB scuba groups that likely got the incident a lot more exposure than this thread.

My major issue was the depth with no redundancy. There were no doubles. The cross body slung “pony” is not a pony. It’s a deco bottle. Marked as such with a green hose and O2 stickers. The profile the student posted showed deco gas was 80%. MOD for 80% is 30ft? (Off the top of my head). Doubt you’d be using that for redundancy at 185ft.
The 80% as a preferable ocean deco mix nonsense continues to persist in some parts of the world. The 1.6 bottom PO2 and the 43M END are extreme violations.
 
@Colliam7 The postings were making the rounds on a number of FB scuba groups that likely got the incident a lot more exposure than this thread.

My major issue was the depth with no redundancy. There were no doubles. The cross body slung “pony” is not a pony. It’s a deco bottle. Marked as such with a green hose and O2 stickers. The profile the student posted showed deco gas was 80%. MOD for 80% is 30ft? (Off the top of my head). Doubt you’d be using that for redundancy at 185ft.
It appears to me in the picture both divers have backmounted inverted pony bottles. Look again at the guy. There's a yellow hose coming off a first stage by his hip.

Look, a snap shot in time doesn't tell the whole story. I am not defending the instructor, and certainly the way they are configured is a mess, but we don't know what happened next. Perhaps the instructor let them suit up on their own, someone on the boat snapped a pic and then the instructor corrected their gear configurations. I doubt it, but it's possible and without having the facts, you can't impeach and remove the instructor without all the facts.

The only clear violation I see here is what was admitted and we know as fact. The instructor took the class 35 feet beyond the course limit. I do find this course a bit odd as it only certifies participants another 20 ft. past rec depths. Hell, not even a full atmosphere.

Finally, I want to make a point here about gear choices. ScubaBoarders really need to get off the Air2s and back mounted ponies. The Air2 is a great piece of gear that solves a problem for many divers, most specifically backmounted pony spearfishermen. I'd guess those most critical of them have never speared fish before and if you want to kill yourself, go do a dive with four cylinders and 4 second stages, one wrapped around your head and another with a lethal gas, all with a gun and fishing line, and a stringer full of fish and predators. The one diver appears to have two stringers with bags on them so I'd guess the side emphasis on the course was deep spearfishing. @johndiver999, makes a good point. Were they shooting during the course? Is that allowed? I doubt there's a rule because no instructor in their right mind would conduct a decompression course with spearguns and blood in the water. But again, we don't know if they were spearfishing. Maybe the guy oddly just wanted to carry what he would carry when he normally dives. Maybe the instructor told him no. Maybe that guy isn't even a part to the class.

If that is how those divers did the dive, that instructor certainly failed them. Marie the latter part of my post wasn't direct to you, just the general internet. :wink:
 
My major issue was the depth with no redundancy. There were no doubles. The cross body slung “pony” is not a pony. It’s a deco bottle. Marked as such with a green hose and O2 stickers. The profile the student posted showed deco gas was 80%. MOD for 80% is 30ft? (Off the top of my head). Doubt you’d be using that for redundancy at 185ft.

How can you be sure he didn’t have another bottle with him? I’m not saying that he looks like a diver that I would like to have as a buddy on those kind of dives, but calling someone out if you didn’t see everything is something you should be careful with.

I remember the tail weight you posted a while ago, I’m sure many people did look at that like you look at him. It does’t mean you are unsafe but that you see things different.

For everything you see on the pics their can be a valid explanation, if you ask me you have 99% change to be right but still...
it’s someone’s life that you can ruin with social media so unless you know the entire storie be careful.
 
My major issue was the depth with no redundancy. There were no doubles. The cross body slung “pony” is not a pony. It’s a deco bottle. Marked as such with a green hose and O2 stickers. The profile the student posted showed deco gas was 80%. MOD for 80% is 30ft? (Off the top of my head). Doubt you’d be using that for redundancy at 185ft.
A very reasonable point. And, yes, I interpreted the picture as being of a deco gas bottle, not a redundant 'pony'. I also cannot see behind him.

I am curious about the structure of the particular course, and would welcome comment from NAUI instructors. Is there a 'standard' or a requirement for redundancy, in this course? I am not trying to be picky, I am genuinely curious. For technical diving courses, you plan your gas on the basis of depth, time, RMV/SAC rate, required reserve, etc. I don't know the dive plan in this case. Yes, manifolded (with isolator valve) doubles provide what is considered to be redundancy, and that does not appear to be the case here. A dive to 185 feet with students, without a redundant air supply, may not be altogether wise. For that matter a dive to 150 feet, with students, without a redundant air supply, may not be either.

But, again, I don't know the dive plan, I don't know the gear configuration of the instructor, etc.

It does appear, from comments in this thread that there was a standards violation on depth. I cannot tell if there was a violation with regard to ratios. If it is 1:4, and there were 5 divers, I presume the ratio was within standards although what I know comes from the initial picture of the FB page.
 
A very reasonable point. And, yes, I interpreted the picture as being of a deco gas bottle, not a redundant 'pony'.

I am curious about the structure of the particular course, and would welcome comment from NAUI instructors. Is there a 'standard' or a requirement for redundancy, in this course? I am not trying to be picky, I am genuinely curious. For technical diving courses, you plan your gas on the basis of depth, time, RMV/SAC rate, required reserve, etc. I don't know the dive plan in this case. Yes, manifolded (with isolator valve) doubles provide what is considered to be redundancy, and that does not appear to be the case here. A dive to 185 feet with students, without a redundant air supply, may not be altogether wise. For that matter a dive to 150 feet, with students, without a redundant air supply, may not be either, for that matter.

But, again, I don't know the dive plan, I don't know the gear configuration of the instructor, etc.

It does appear, from comments in this thread that there was a standards violation on depth. I cannot tell if there was a violation with regard to ratios. If it is 1:4, and there were 5 divers, I presume the ratio was within standards although what I know comes from the initial picture of the FB page.
As I mentioned, both divers are shown wearing backmounted ponies. Terribly configured, but they do have a redundant source of gas.
 
Perhaps the instructor let them suit up on their own, someone on the boat snapped a pic and then the instructor corrected their gear configurations. I doubt it, but it's possible and without having the facts, you can't impeach and remove the instructor without all the facts.

The NAUI standard requires that technical (Intro, Deco, ...) training classes follow NAUI Technical Equipment Configuration. The most recent copy I have is 2010. It says, with emphasis mine:

"Twin primary cylinders connected by a dual-port manifold with an isolation valve are required for all training that will involve actual or simulated decompression stops. For training that does not involve decompression, a single primary cylinder with an “H” or a “Y” valve is acceptable."
...
"A wing-style buoyancy compensator is required and may be mounted to either a hard backplate harness or a soft harness."
https://www.epicscubaadventures.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NAUITechEquipmentConfig.pdf

Are you suggesting that they geared up on the boat in singles, inverted ponies, and then the instructor said 'no, no, no, you need doubles, lets get you changed out"??
 
http://cavediveflorida.com/Rum_House.htm

Back
Top Bottom