Diver Training: How much is enough?

[The Chairman]

I fear that too many people share this experience. Although it doesn't translate to statistical data (thankfully), it does cast a shadow on the way people are being trained today. Some people refuse to accept this as meaningful, but it does affect the industry and our sport.

He indicated that this was more than a dozen years ago, so it's not "today" by any means.

I also remember watching a class back around 72. I was already diving, albeit without being certified. But the spectacle of the 10 or so diver candidates doing push-ups in full gear in the hot Florida sun convinced me that I wanted no part of getting certified. Fortunately, current instructional techniques don't require the student to be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. In reality, the myth that learning to scuba dive is hard and/or strenuous still lives on to today. That's a legacy of the "old school" training programs and I am certain that it will take a number of more years before people finally accept the reality: Scuba Diving is fun, easy and can be enjoyed by the majority of our population.

 

[ScubaSteve]

[hijack]

At times, new divers don't know they do better in private instruction till they hit the water in a group class. By then, an impression is formed which is near impossible to reverse.

I apologize for the hijack (especially since this might already be somewhere in here or on the board elsewhere), but assuming no exceptional delays in "mastering" skills, how much more would private 1 on 1 training cost? What is the "going rate in North America" (or anywhere really)? I am curious what the delta is since I was 2 students to 1 instructor......so not part of a group but not 1 on 1 either.[/hijack]

 

[blinkswiler]

Haven't been teaching for 100 years like some of these folks, but the past 10 yrs or so doesn't seem like much has changed. It's always up to the instructor as to the quality of the class they give (consciously or unconsciously) but regardless, it ultimately up to the student as to weither or not they adhear to the teaching. Having said that, if the overall diving accidents per 1000 divers has actually been decreasing over the past 40 years, seems like the industry is headed in the correct direction. You can teach the fundimentals and safety for a 26 week class but if the graduate choses not to follow them, its their choice. Unfortunately, dumb choices in any sport where physical injury is a possibility puts others at risk also (partneres, followers, rescue personnel) weither it is bicycling, motor cycling, boating, sky diving or scuba. There's always someone ready and willing to proclaim "HEY EVERYBODY, Watch this!!!" or ready to ignore the obvious signs of environmental, equipmental, physical or psyciological issues needing to be addressed.

 

[DCBC]

... if the overall diving accidents per 1000 divers has actually been decreasing over the past 40 years, seems like the industry is headed in the correct direction.

Statistics are an odd thing. There are people who parachute and exit the aircraft without this equipment (Travis Pastrana Skydives without a Parachute - YouTube). Statistically speaking, there hasn't been one death (that I can find) that has been attributed to this. Does this mean that it's a safe practice? Despite the statistical results, it doesn't seem to be; at least in my mind. It doesn't pass the test of 'common sense.'

No one has disagreed (so far) with the statement: 'What a diver requires by way of training is dependent upon the conditions in-which the training takes place.' The time required to deliver this training is logically dependent upon what's necessary to be included within the program. No one 'Standard' can adequately address this, unless it's designed for the most hazardous conditions. This isn't the case and in-fact the opposite holds true. What about Divers who are trained to dive in more hazardous environments? Are the training agencies adequately addressing this with their current Standards? If not, how is this being addressed? Or is this just something that SCUBA Instructors and there Agencies just don't feel is relevant?

 

[diverdaniel]

Hi.all,
As an instructor I have seen many divers come and go."
Unfortunately, I have noticed that most instructors just teach the "moves" needed to dive and not the mentality one needs in order to really dive safely.
It is also a lot of the diveschools fault as many dive schools, at least the ones I know, do not go through proper quality assurance and many of them even. prefer the novice instructor trained in their facility. Where I live, and abroad, I have known instructors that have passed training from non-divers in (sit tight) less than 6(yes) months. As you know, a novice diver cannot possibly instruct well if he does not have the experience of many dives.
I do think standards are low, agency standards that is, very low. How can it be that the minimum number of dives required to become an instructor is 100 logged dives? Perhaps this number would be enough if all facilities made sure the candidate dived in other places, most of them do not.
I have known instructors that have never left the facility beach, I was once required to teach a dimaster course when one of the trainees had only 13 dives..... needless to say, I refused and came close to losing my job.
100 dives are not enough if one has not left his home facility and not dived in other places and different sites or even seas. Every instructor gives of himself when teaching, so he does not only teach the skills (if he has taught them at all) that his agency requires bit also his philosophical outlook on diving, for instance, an instructor that smokes like a chimney pre and post dive, the way he treats his and all scuba gear, pre dive briefings and post debreifing . The list goes on. point is who is there to watch this instructor and make sure he or she does it properly.
ultimately no one can be there all the time.
When certifying divers one is faced with a heavy decision. should be a heavier one when certifying instructors. Today it is not always the case.
there is the point mentioned above that the new diver will ultimately dive the way his crowd dives, I think this depends on the personality and training that over received in the first place by his instructor.
In my eyes the diving inseduction is galling downhill and has been doing so for at least the last 8 years.
sorry.
and yes, very frustrating.......

 

[DMarelli]

This, predictably, has generated a lot of responses. I spent many years as a scientific diver before going back and becoming a recreational instructor, so I have seen both professional and recreational sides. We who have been around for a while have evidence that standards for most (but not all) agencies have been reduced since the 1970s. There are a few agencies that have maintained standards similar to those of 40 years go. In the US the prime example would be YSCUBA and its standard bearer SEI Diving. Outside of the US there are more (CMAS, BSAC, SSAC).

This issue is at the heart of the question of whether scuba will survive as a recreational activity in the US and is not being adequately addressed by the industry as a whole. The older generation is still carrying the torch for scuba and the sport itself has poor growth potential because, in my opinion, it does not have a sustainable business model. I am a scientist not a business person, but it has always been obvious to me that scuba is not for everyone. It is also obvious that diving is a deceptively easy activity. Sure someone can be minimally trained to survive in a pool or a benign warm, clear, current free open water environment. It is quite another story when their minimal skills are challenged and the diver becomes panicked. The purpose for standards reduction and short training classes is unjustifiable on many levels. The main beneficiaries are the "agencies" (I do not like the self-anointed term agency) who sell more materials and cards and the instructor who collects the course fees for less work. The losers are the students (who may lose their lives as a result of poor or inadequate training), the dive shop (which sells less gear to frightened short-term divers), the equipment manufacturers (again, less sales per capita), and the charter boat operators (who can tell you nightmarish stories of divers AND instructors who are poorly trained and cause potential danger to other divers and the boat crew). Dive shops ("centers," another self anointed designation) are not adept enough to realize that the shortened contact hours they have with a student will produce less in sales and less diver retention.

For decades I have heard the argument that it is not the agency that matters, it is the instructor. That is an apologetic statement for short changing the student in the quest for another dollar and it does not ring true. A student does not learn neutral buoyancy in a one-weekend or even a two-weekend course. They do not learn any level of self reliance or even how to assemble their equipment. Our open water course lasts 8 weeks, meeting twice a week. When our students leave the class they are sad to go and looking for diving opportunities. They see other classes at the open water sites and also have friends that have taken a quickie course, and they are universally very glad to have had the attention of professionals during their development from swimmer to diver. We have known for many years that you do not make a living teaching diving. If that is your intent you personally have made the wrong career choice. You must consider it a part-time job at most or a mechanism to get divers into your dive shop. Shortening the course to generate income is indefensible by either the training "agency"/company or instructor.

Diving will continue to decline as older divers age and leave the population. Unless the industry as a whole seriously addresses this issue we will see younger divers enter and leave. DEMA currently estimates that 50% of all newly trained divers are gone in 5-7 years. I suspect that most of them are gone in the first year and will never dive again, never buy equipment and never take a real dive trip. Sadly wee will also see the number of diving fatalities to stay about where it has been for years (see DAN statistics). This may not be a popular position but it is reality. When it comes to diving instruction less is not acceptable.

 

[Peter Guy]

[I really did try to give up, honest, but like the proverbial car wreck, I just continue to slow down and watch.]

DCBC, unfortunately, wrote

No one 'Standard' can adequately address this, unless it's designed for the most hazardous conditions.

Well, yes.

HOWEVER, let's go back to what is actually being discussed here -- the basic training of a beginning "open water diver." Does ANYONE think that a beginning open water diver should attempt diving in "the most hazardous conditions?" Is not part, perhaps the most important part, of the training of the beginning open water diver the knowledge of limitations? Or to use those immortal words of Harry Callahan, "A man's got to know his limitations."

What instructor, in their right mind, would even think about teaching a beginning open water class/diver in "the most hazardous conditions?"

No, you don't do that! IF the conditions aren't realistic for the beginning open water diver, YOU DON'T DIVE THEM!!!!! THAT is what needs to be taught by the instructor and for DCBC or anyone else to complain that "Standards don't account for the most hazardous conditions" is just plain nuts!

I don't teach in "the most hazardous conditions" in the world. All I generally have is cold water (8C) and low vizibility (3 -5 metres as long as no silt is kicked up) -- generally no current and I pick days/times when the tide is OK (I only have to deal with 4 metre tidal swings at worst). For most people these conditions would not considered all that great but it is what we have -- and we train here BECAUSE the conditions are the best locally since we do have areas with high current (but no surf), sometimes less vizibility, difficult entries/exits, etc. Does the training take longer than if done in "gin clear water, the temperature of warm piss?" You bet. But the STANDARDS are the same and make sense for the training of the basic open water diver.

 

[DCBC]

Does ANYONE think that a beginning open water diver should attempt diving in "the most hazardous conditions?"...What instructor, in their right mind, would even think about teaching a beginning open water class/diver in "the most hazardous conditions?" ...No, you don't do that! IF the conditions aren't realistic for the beginning open water diver, YOU DON'T DIVE THEM!!!!! THAT is what needs to be taught by the instructor and for DCBC or anyone else to complain that "Standards don't account for the most hazardous conditions" is just plain nuts! ...Does the training take longer than if done in "gin clear water, the temperature of warm piss?" You bet. But the STANDARDS are the same and make sense for the training of the basic open water diver.

What you seem to be unable to understand Peter, is that OW Divers should be trained to dive in the 'normal local conditions.' Whether or not divers should be trained to dive here at all is another topic for discussion. Suffice it to say that as there are diver training businesses here conducting operations, 'if it should be done' becomes a mute point. This brings us back to my question: "How are Agency training Standards revised to insure diver safety when certifying in other than ideal environments?"

The answer from NAUI, CMAS and ACUC is that the Instructor is to increase the Standards to what s/he feels is reasonably appropriate for the diving conditions. Any additions form part of the knowledge and skills required as a condition of certification. Thus 'Standards' become 'Minimum Standards.' There is a big difference in these terms.

Why do you think that these diver certification agencies do this? They recognize the obvious! Different conditions dictate what training is reasonable under the circumstances. I'm confident that you learned this in law school when you discussed liability / act and omission.

 

[Diver0001]

Statistics are an odd thing. There are people who parachute and exit the aircraft without this equipment (Travis Pastrana Skydives without a Parachute - YouTube). Statistically speaking, there hasn't been one death (that I can find) that has been attributed to this. Does this mean that it's a safe practice? Despite the statistical results, it doesn't seem to be; at least in my mind. It doesn't pass the test of 'common sense.'

Bloody hell.... that boy has some low hanging cojones!

After much reflection and consideration (brace yourselves) I'm going to concede that Wayne has the high-ground in this discussion, from a certain point of view. (I told you to brace yourselves). Like him, I also have a feeling that we aren't privy to the whole story related to accident stats and I'll explain why. (bear with me here, after years of fighting with him I think I need to explain myself).

I know some attempts have been made to make an honest appraisal of the risk and I do, actually, believe that we have some *reasonably* good evidence that diving is pretty safe when analysed from a "mile high and an inch deep". Compared to other activities (like driving your car to the dive site) it seems on the surface of it, to present what most people would view as an acceptable level of risk. Therefore, it's easy to conclude (as I do) that MOST divers are FAIRLY well prepared for the dives that they are doing. I think even Wayne would have to agree about that, maybe not specifically in the North Atlantic, but big-picture wise, sure.

The disconnect in this whole discussion is that for years we haven't been talking about the same group of people. People like myself, Boulderjohn, Peter Guy and Netdoc often make references to the 80% of divers who manage just fine with the training they get. Wayne, Thal and a few others make frequent references to the 20% and give the 80% less consideration because, frankly, it's not what they're worried about. IN some ways, this whole ongoing debate boils down to the question if you think the cup is 1/2 full or 1/2 empty.

The fact is, it's both.

From the point of view of instructors like myself who have enough of a handle with current standards to deliver a good course, get good results and produce divers who are prepared, aware, competent and enthusiastic.... then the proposition that standards/training/instructors/agencies/divers aren't good enough doesn't make much sense. I'm not one of those instructors who everyone worries (or complains) about. Neither are my students, so I don't worry about standards. It works for me. And it works for people like Peter, John, Pete and many many more as well.

The 20%, however... If that's your focus then you're not worried about the Boulderjohn's or the Peter Guy's, or the Netdoc's of this world. You're worried about students who are trained by instructors who do everything "within standards" but who get lousy results, produce divers who literally cannot dive without 3rd party supervision, who lack awareness, sufficient buoyancy control (remember this point because it's coming back later in this post) or what any of us (including myself, John, Peter, Pete and many others) would consider "adequate" skill level for the dives they're doing.

It's a "negative" stance because it focuses only on the exceptions to the rule, but those exceptions are there in large enough numbers that it is, and should be a concern.

(hope you're still bearing with me).

Since I've also concluded that it "should be" a concern, I have to concede that Wayne has (at least in terms of the debate) a hand full of philosophical "short and curlies" from the people (and I count myself among them) who claim that the 80% is good enough.

Now getting back to stats. What the stats "hide" because of the volume is that certain groups, among which are new/inexperienced divers, are at a MUCH higher risk of accidents than experienced divers, and that *does* tell us something about training. An analysis of those accidents tells us even more. Buddy separation, running out of air and poor buoyancy control are the biggest contributors to the pallet of reasons why accidents happen and/or escalate in severity. Among the big issues are also heart-attacks and things that we can't control but this post is about things that we CAN control.

Looking at those things:

1) Buddy separation. When is this likely to happen? sloppy descents/ascents, failure to divide attention between one's own dive (dive process) and the need to maintain contact and communicate with another person about their status and about yours. Failure to assess when one should speed up or slow down, failure to communicate intended changes in tempo or depth, failure to understand the best strategies for reestablishing contact after it has been lost (ie how to look for your buddy) and it also seems to indicate an inability among some divers to establish a comfort zone independently of having someone else to mirror upon.

*every* *single* *one* of those points is trainable (yes, visualize this with the fist slamming on the table because I DO feel THAT passionately about it) . In other words, losing buddy contact is an absolutely inexcusable reason for an accident to happen. And yet it does. A LOT, evidently, if one looks deeper than "an inch deep" into the statistics, especially with respect to inexperienced divers. This is PURELY and SINGULARLY a training issue and in this case ALSO a standards issues because evidently some instructors (the 20% ones) use this wiggle room to avoid teaching what other instructors (and most divers) would consider to be core skills.

What's the solution? Wayne would suggest slowing down training (spend 50 hours instead of 30) and taking more time for things like comfort zone etc to take hold is the way to go. I agree (site unseen) that he can get results like that but I personally believe that adjusting tempo has value to a point but that "Parkinson's Law" applies to diver instruction too. As such I'm bit more structured about it than just "slowing down". I have actually created a protocol for my OW course to "teach" buddy skills. It's one of the items I call my "big three". Three things that are not in standards but PADI agrees is important to put into focus because it is consistent with the spirit of safe, fun, comfortable, active diving. I'm sure Peter, John, Pete and many others also do things like this so I want to stress that I am not by any means unique or special in this. IN fact (and Lynne-TSandM-will confirm this) I don't feel special at all. Wayne, on his turn would say, "booyah, most instructors aren't even aware of this, let alone care enough about it to create their own protocol". And he would be right, from the "cup is 1/2 empty" perspective. I give him that point and concede some more "short and curlies" because this can and should be addressed.... by instructors... and by agencies. We agree 100% in principle but disagree about how wide spread the practice is.

2) running out of air. I'm not even going to waste your time analysing this. Every competent diver in the world knows that this is an unforgivable reason for an accident to happen. Reading/being aware of your SPG is also IN the standards, so it's not even a standards issue. Every single diver in the world is taught to read the SPG starting on their first ever dive on scuba and it is repeated/reinforced on every single training dive after that. And yet statistics would suggest that it fails to get seated in the "habits pool" of new divers. On the one hand it can be a training issue if too little attention is given to it, but on the other hand, divers have their own responsibility and if they are "lead to water" then some of them will still "refuse to drink".

This is a HUGE issue with respect to accidents but a very difficult one to address adequately through training. The only thing I've ever found that really "presses it on the heart" as the Dutch would say, is to attach consequences to it. For example, a recent OW student of mine had trouble remembering to check her SPG. In the pool sessions I kept telling her how important it was.... but on the first OW dive she forgot again. After each dive I ask students what their pressure is and confront them if they can't tell me without looking. In her case, however, I went a step further, knowing that she was a potential risk. I said, "how long to you want to live?" and then I made her sit out the next dive for being unsafe (as the Dutch would say, "to hit her in the neck with a stick") and repeat the dive again because she wasn't showing adequate awareness of her SPG.

After that her awareness was fine. How many instructors would have taken an OW student to task like that for their own good? My contention? Too few.

3) poor buoyancy control. I won't insult anyone with a long analysis of this either. Buoyancy control is completely trainable. There may be some disagreement about the precise level of refinement required by local conditions in different areas but nobody would suggest that it's optional. So once again, I think "the cup 1/2 empty" crew have the short-and-curlies in the hand. There's no excuse for short changing students on the time needed to truly master buoyancy control and therefore, my contention is that with respect to new divers, this is a training issue. (#2 of my big 3).

There's nothing stopping a competent instructor from teaching buoyancy control to a reasonable bar in the OW course but there is nothing stopping them from avoiding it either. And therefore I think the "cup 1/2 empty" crew score another point in the debate.

All in all, I have to concede. Negative thinking may ignore the fact that most things go just fine but the issues being put on the table by Wayne, among others, cannot be ignored either.

R..

 

[Peter Guy]

DCBC -- "normal local conditions" does not equal "most hazardous conditions" and THAT is what you can't seem to understand. I'll admit I have not done any diving in the North Atlantic but I have been diving in the North Pacific and I just can't believe there is that much difference. Cold water is cold water. Poor viz is poor viz. Tidal swings are tidal swings. Current is current. Waves are waves. Rocky entries are rocky entries. Etc.

Query, (since ALL of this is based on your personal opinion as opposed to any reasonably designed and researched studies) is there any significant difference in the skills needed to dive the northern tip of Vancouver Island from the area around Halifax, Nova Scotia (which is about 5 degrees south of the Port Hardy area)?

As a reasonable instructor I just wouldn't take a beginning open water student into the "most hazardous conditions" the North Pacific has to offer AND I would teach said student to pick his dive days and sites. AS THE STUDENT got real life experience, she would have the ability to dive in "more hazardous" conditions but still be trained to know "when to say when" and not attempt a dive in heavy seas and gale or hurrican force winds.

THAT is why general standards are applicable the world around.