An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc

[redacted]

Agencies don't overweight students. Agencies don't train students either, conduct DSDs or abandon their students at depth. That's at the discretion of the instructor.

Agencies do set standards. What standards do agencies set for weighting students?

 

[soccerrefjason]

To preform a bouyancy test I assume.

 

[nadwidny]

Most people should agree the kid had too much weight however I run into OW instructors (of all flavours) in my area over-weighting their students (OW, AOW) all the time "to keep them down". I don't agree with it but it is common practice up here.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

A buoyancy test is supposed to be conducted. My experience though with multiple instructors is that the test is kinda subjective and based on the instructors own training. My test is much different than the one I was taught in OW. Takes a lot more time and is more precise. That also goes for the Intro, Discover, etc. sessions. I have seen them conducted with weight integrated BC's that are loaded with 14-18 lbs., depending on size, and the student has no idea of how it is supposed to be done. This, by the way, was in a pool with the participants - let's make it clear these are not students- in swim suits.
Based on testimony the test that was done was put a weight belt on with 30 lbs. of lead, take them into the water roughly shoulder deep, and have them try to kneel down to see if they had enough lead to sink. Then they went up and got their scuba units. Then they got back in the water and went through some skills and were led on a tour to an approximate depth of 35 - 40 feet. There they played with bowling balls and looked around a boat that was sunk there. When they started to get low on air they began their ascent and that's when everything went to hell.

What I have just seen in the last 24 hours is quite disturbing. Regardless of what errors and standards the instructor broke, did not break, what shortcuts may or may not have been taken, and other information such as the improper medical; my take on it is this.

The incident that occurred would not have if standards had not allowed it to be set up this way. The location, the participants, the conditions, equipment, and ratios all played a part in this tragedy. My own feelings on this are that several things have to change in order to prevent this from happening again. Now we can't prevent people from lying on medicals. We can't prevent instructors using bad judgment 100% of the time. Stuff happens and we all have seen it one way or another. We can't even guarantee the gear will not fail or have a problem. Again, stuff happens.

What we can do is this.
1. Reduce ratios. This was recently brought up again in an RSTC meeting. There was resistance. Conscientious instructors who already realize the limits that us having only two hands to deal with UNTRAINED participants know what we need to do. We need to press our agencies to make it a standard and an RSTC guideline.
2. More clearly define confined water conditions and not leave it up to the judgment of what could be an inexperienced or highly experienced but cowboy instructor. Minimum vis (ie swimming pool vis and not one that's been neglected for a year), non silty bottoms, no possible places for entanglement or entrapment, temperatures that don't require putting a child or adult in a freaking five mil farmer john, and restricted or no access to depths greater than 15 feet or some other number that is less than 1/2 an atmosphere. My buddy in OW got taken on a 90 ft dive when she did a discover in Hawaii. She said discover, I suspect resort course but still. 90 ft? WTF?
3. Fill out the same paperwork for an intro as for a full class.
4. Intro's from shore only. No boat dives.
5. This one will never get any traction but it is my policy- pool only. No pool? Then you need to do a full course.
6. Only instructors conduct them and DM's and AI's assist. This will piss off some DM's and AI's who may have more experience than many puppy mill instructors but hey, my own feeling.

I am going to push for SEI/PDIC to support a change in ratios if nothing else. SDI/TDI is already on board with it. I know my other desires will not come to fruition but I think they are reasonable given that, again, these are not students. They are participants in an experience.

 

[iztok]

Thank you! It makes sense now. I am glad you wrote this and I can now change what I was thinking based on the new (to me) facts.

 

[AdivingBel]

Jim, You're an industry pro and all of the standards you list have tremendous merit. I am not an industry pro, just another diver. IMO, the only caveat I have is a differentiation between minors and adults. I don't care if another minor ever does another DSD. Others may argue. That's fine, it's above my pay grade. Adults should have the option to do a DSD consisting of a 30ft. bimble off a boat on a FL Keys reef (as an example). Set the fine print standards so this is doable. Spell out those standards along with the risks so a competent adult can make the decision for themselves. I've done DSD's in this manner along with my wife and several friends and we enjoyed them immensely. We are now all avid divers; some of which may not have been without this experience. I for one appreciate the thought and care you put into your post. Thanks.

Also, Pete, thanks for your time and effort for clarification on this matter.

 

[mjrob]

A buoyancy test is supposed to be conducted. My experience though with multiple instructors is that the test is kinda subjective and based on the instructors own training. My test is much different than the one I was taught in OW. Takes a lot more time and is more precise. That also goes for the Intro, Discover, etc. sessions. I have seen them conducted with weight integrated BC's that are loaded with 14-18 lbs., depending on size, and the student has no idea of how it is supposed to be done. This, by the way, was in a pool with the participants - let's make it clear these are not students- in swim suits.
Based on testimony the test that was done was put a weight belt on with 30 lbs. of lead, take them into the water roughly shoulder deep, and have them try to kneel down to see if they had enough lead to sink. Then they went up and got their scuba units. Then they got back in the water and went through some skills and were led on a tour to an approximate depth of 35 - 40 feet. There they played with bowling balls and looked around a boat that was sunk there. When they started to get low on air they began their ascent and that's when everything went to hell.

What I have just seen in the last 24 hours is quite disturbing. Regardless of what errors and standards the instructor broke, did not break, what shortcuts may or may not have been taken, and other information such as the improper medical; my take on it is this.

The incident that occurred would not have if standards had not allowed it to be set up this way. The location, the participants, the conditions, equipment, and ratios all played a part in this tragedy. My own feelings on this are that several things have to change in order to prevent this from happening again. Now we can't prevent people from lying on medicals. We can't prevent instructors using bad judgment 100% of the time. Stuff happens and we all have seen it one way or another. We can't even guarantee the gear will not fail or have a problem. Again, stuff happens.

What we can do is this.
1. Reduce ratios. This was recently brought up again in an RSTC meeting. There was resistance. Conscientious instructors who already realize the limits that us having only two hands to deal with UNTRAINED participants know what we need to do. We need to press our agencies to make it a standard and an RSTC guideline.
2. More clearly define confined water conditions and not leave it up to the judgment of what could be an inexperienced or highly experienced but cowboy instructor. Minimum vis (ie swimming pool vis and not one that's been neglected for a year), non silty bottoms, no possible places for entanglement or entrapment, temperatures that don't require putting a child or adult in a freaking five mil farmer john, and restricted or no access to depths greater than 15 feet or some other number that is less than 1/2 an atmosphere. My buddy in OW got taken on a 90 ft dive when she did a discover in Hawaii. She said discover, I suspect resort course but still. 90 ft? WTF?
3. Fill out the same paperwork for an intro as for a full class.
4. Intro's from shore only. No boat dives.
5. This one will never get any traction but it is my policy- pool only. No pool? Then you need to do a full course.
6. Only instructors conduct them and DM's and AI's assist. This will piss off some DM's and AI's who may have more experience than many puppy mill instructors but hey, my own feeling.

I am going to push for SEI/PDIC to support a change in ratios if nothing else. SDI/TDI is already on board with it. I know my other desires will not come to fruition but I think they are reasonable given that, again, these are not students. They are participants in an experience.

Jim, that's some pretty thoughtful and worthwhile stuff. I particularly like numbers 3 and 5. I really think it would help if, once the medical is filled out, the instructor (or someone) sat down with the prospective student and verbally reviewed the questions and answers. It's amazing how people are much more reluctant to lie face-to-face as they are when checking boxes.

 

[The Chairman]

The incident that occurred would not have if standards had not allowed it to be set up this way.

Sigh. Jim, standards were obviously broken in this incident. If he had simply followed standards, this incident would not have happened. Blameshifting seems to be a national past time. The parents want to blame everyone but themselves. The instructor wants to blame PADI for his inability to follow standards. The Boy Scout Camp wants to blame the economy and the cycle is vicious.

I'm responsible for the safety of the divers I train. Not my agency. Not the boat that takes me out or the pool that provides a place to learn. It's just me. I have to evaluate conditions, knowledge, attitude, emotions, skills, stamina and a host of other factors to determine if training continues or even begins. My OW agency of choice is NASE, and while they don't have any provisions for conducting DSDs, I would still choose to not do them. Why? I don't like the "shortcutting" mentality that comes with them. That's really what happened here, and it's not any agency's fault when it does. The quality and safety of the class rests entirely on the instructor.

You're advocating a maximum of 2 DSD divers. Good for you. However, this incident could still have happened with only two divers. Think about it. Say it was only the adult and the deceased. The adult ascends and the instructor leaves the kid on the bottom just like when there were two. The same result would probably have happened. The problem is not the standards, but the attitude that allowed the instructor to leave kids unattended on the bottom. What's the RSTC going to do about THAT??? It's my opinion that they are about as useful to the diving industry as DEMA (not much).

 

[ElGaucho]

Pete, what if the deceased were the guy going up, and the instructor had stayed at the bottom. You see? This is exactly what many of us are trying to portray in this discussion. But you just don't want to hear anything about it and just claim that the "50%" decision the instructor made is breaking standard, but imply tacitly, that if he had chosen the other 50% he would not be breaking standards. He would have broken standards ANY WAY HE WENT! You see, and that's the problem. This is not about PADI bashing, it's about the way stuff is sometimes setup in a way you can get in a ****load of trouble as an instructor. But then, there is some agency bashing. Standards should be different, maybe. This would force both instructors and shops (who many times instructors have to obey to keep their jobs) to have better track records. Also, we should KEEP REVISITING how PADI is training instructors. Yes, instructors make the choices, the agency doesn't. But honestly, HONESTLY, if you believe a PADI IE proves anyone can be a half ass decent instructor, you need a new pair of glasses. Should we be discussing this or not? And maybe that's what Carney's letter could start. I couldn't care less if it was his initial intent or not. I couldn't care less if he is doing it for marketing reasons. There is a lot to evaluate regarding standards and how instructors are taught. The 30 pound dilemma is a direct descendent of the stupid way IDCs and IEs are setup for most recreational agencies. We NEED urgently to discuss all this. PADI is not intetested in discussing this stuff. We should.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Sigh. Jim, standards were obviously broken in this incident. If he had simply followed standards, this incident would not have happened. Blameshifting seems to be a national past time. The parents want to blame everyone but themselves. The instructor wants to blame PADI for his inability to follow standards. The Boy Scout Camp wants to blame the economy and the cycle is vicious.

I'm responsible for the safety of the divers I train. Not my agency. Not the boat that takes me out or the pool that provides a place to learn. It's just me. I have to evaluate conditions, knowledge, attitude, emotions, skills, stamina and a host of other factors to determine if training continues or even begins. My OW agency of choice is NASE, and while they don't have any provisions for conducting DSDs, I would still choose to not do them. Why? I don't like the "shortcutting" mentality that comes with them. That's really what happened here, and it's not any agency's fault when it does. The quality and safety of the class rests entirely on the instructor.

You're advocating a maximum of 2 DSD divers. Good for you. However, this incident could still have happened with only two divers. Think about it. Say it was only the adult and the deceased. The adult ascends and the instructor leaves the kid on the bottom just like when there were two. The same result would probably have happened. The problem is not the standards, but the attitude that allowed the instructor to leave kids unattended on the bottom. What's the RSTC going to do about THAT??? It's my opinion that they are about as useful to the diving industry as DEMA (not much).

You say you dislike the whole short cutting DSD program, you don't participate in it, but feel that the training agency that TEACHES its' members (who have to have like 50? dives to be an instructor) how to implement a program that authorizes several (DSD) "students" to be paired up with one instructor -- is completely without any responsibility for the quality or the practicality (or safety) of the course?

I can understand that grossly over weighting a kid is negligent and stupid, but even IF "standards" are followed how does an instructor be at two places at once? Both on the surface dealing with a problem and preventing a problem on the bottom? If that is impossible, then the ultimate failure is with the people who developed and promoted the course standards.. I think anyway.

If the kid was alone (1:1 ratio) and totally babysat by the instructor, even if overweighted... would he have died?