Diver Rescue

[Crush]

Jim.... I still feel that this makes a point for my case, and the recommendations of BSAC and DAN reports, that the biggest killer in scuba diving is the failure to adhere to safe diving practices and negligence in applying basic core skills.

DAN's Annual Diving Report, 2007 ed., based on 2005 data, writes in Dive Fatalities, Section 4.8 Buddy System, that "in very few cases did divers comply with a reasonable buddy system dive practice." However, it also goes on to enumerate the following observations (emphasis added):

...it is realistic to state that:

1. Reliable buddy support provides piece of mind.
2. The presence of a buddy may help to calm down a diver dealing with an emergent event.
3. A buddy may be able to share air if needed.
4. A trained buddy may assist an unconscious diver to the surface.
5. An incompetent diver cannot be expected to provide adequate buddy support. A dependent diver should be paired with a professional guide.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

This isn't a failure of rescue training.... this is a failure of basic open water training.

The lady herself failed to establish positive bouyancy on the surface, through inflation, oral inflation or weightbelt ditching. Those skills are stressed throughout the OW. course The skills are all taught in confined training and repeated in open water. The ability to establish positive buoyancy, when OOA is assessed as part of the CESA exercise.

The buddy failed to assist the lady establishing positive buoyancy on the surface. This is also taught on the OW course... as part of OOA ascent (donor and victim).

Jim.... I still feel that this makes a point for my case, and the recommendations of BSAC and DAN reports, that the biggest killer in scuba diving is the failure to adhere to safe diving practices and negligence in applying basic core skills.

Andy, I don't disagree with this at all. My pount is that good buddy skills should include basic rescue skills as well. By standards I am required to teach Panicked diver and unconscious diver from depth as well as OOA ascents and CESA's. I not only teach it on person but recognize that it is again morel likely that a buddy pair will happen on an "unconscious" diver or panicked one on the surface. So I also teach it as two person rescue. I have written a paper on safe diving practices, one on responsibility, and a presentation on the failure of the buddy system as it is being or more aptly not being taught. All of these are now being included in a new work that will adress a number of other subjects for new divers as well. No agency is cited by name. It's a look at what is being and not being covered today and perhaps why.

I am of the opinion that good basic core skills cannot be taught in a weekend or two. Basic survival yes, but real skills and comfort along with competency take more time. I'm simply trying to inform the new diver. Just as I do when I show my students the standards for 6 agencies and allow them to compare classes. I would love to see the RSTC standards changed to require member agencies to give new divers a website, handout, etc with the different agency requirements for OW before taking the class. Allow the student to make an informed decision. If they don't feel rescue skills, tables, deco procedures, etc are necessary for them- fine. But give them the choice. Don;t continue to foster ignorance.

 

[DevonDiver]

I am of the opinion that good basic core skills cannot be taught in a weekend or two. Basic survival yes, but real skills and comfort along with competency take more time.

Agreed 100%.

But isn't that like any training course, in any subject? Aren't we expecting too much within scuba?

A training course gives the skills and knowledge, but it can only ever be a starting point. The real development starts at the end of the course, when the graduated student goes out into the real world and learns to apply their training.

I see lots of instructors talk of 'explaining' and 'discussing' with students. But when it comes to emergency actions, the student will act instinctively. Therefore an instructor has to model those reactions and instincts. To in-grain a reaction takes a lot of repetition....and that takes time.

I much prefer teaching in a 'club' environment, or where I've had divers who come to me for multiple courses, as I can work with them over longer periods and achieve better results with a long-term strategy of skill development and reinforcement. However, that just isn't practical for the majority of the scuba market, especially those in holiday locations where long term training relationships aren't possible.

That isn't an 'agency' failing.... it is a circumstance of location.

I'm simply trying to inform the new diver. Just as I do when I show my students the standards for 6 agencies and allow them to compare classes. I would love to see the RSTC standards changed to require member agencies to give new divers a website, handout, etc with the different agency requirements for OW before taking the class. Allow the student to make an informed decision. If they don't feel rescue skills, tables, deco procedures, etc are necessary for them- fine. But give them the choice. Don;t continue to foster ignorance.

Agreed 100%.

I also feel that the RSTC should take a direct hand in monitoring and quality checking the dive schools and instructors of its component agencies. IMHO, he biggest flaw in recreational scuba training provision is that there are too many quality discrepancies amongst instructors and schools. This is a failure of in-house agency quality assurance systems.

RSTC sets the standards for agencies. It should enforce them also.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

RSTC sets the standards for agencies. It should enforce them also.

Well first off, let's be clear about what the RSTC really does. It does not set the standards for agencies ... because it's a voluntary organization and most scuba agencies aren't even members. The members of RSTC in the USA are PADI, SSI, SDI, PDIC and IDEA.

Secondly, the standards of RSTC ... even within its member agencies ... are nothing more than a minimal baseline of what those agencies share in common ... in effect, it's the lowest common denominator. And as such the RSTC standards are, by definition, lower than those of any of its member agencies.

RSTC has no enforcement authority, except as granted by its member agencies ... its authority is regulated entirely by its members. And any authority granted by its members would only apply to those member agencies.

RSTC has absolutely no authority over what non-member agencies choose to do.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[vladimir]

DAN's Annual Diving Report, 2007 ed., based on 2005 data, writes in Dive Fatalities, Section 4.8 Buddy System, that "in very few cases did divers comply with a reasonable buddy system dive practice." However, it also goes on to enumerate the following observations (emphasis added):

...it is realistic to state that:
Reliable buddy support provides piece of mind.
The presence of a buddy may help to calm down a diver dealing with an emergent event.
A buddy may be able to share air if needed.
A trained buddy may assist an unconscious diver to the surface.
An incompetent diver cannot be expected to provide adequate buddy support. A dependent diver should be paired with a professional guide.

Did DAN really say "piece of mind"? Which piece, I wonder.

I've said my peace.

 

[Rick Murchison]

Ahem...
Let me put on my "real world businessman" hat.
While all agencies tout lofty aims like "Leadership" and "Integrity" and "Quality" and "Safety," all those are within the context of staying in business. And when you cut through all the philosophical, moral, fiscal, legal and liability issues, it all boils down to an actuarial calculation with this basis: "What are the minimum standards we must meet to be able to buy insurance that'll keep us safe from a business-killing lawsuit?" Those are the standards from the RSTC. Reality makes them "scuba industry law" in fact, if not in "law."
Perhaps the tail doth wag the dog, but until the day that the agencies can't protect themselves with insurance unless rescue skills are in the minimum standards, those skills will remain optional at best, or absent, in basic OW training.

Rick

 

[Crush]

Did DAN really say "piece of mind"? Which piece, I wonder.

I've said my peace.

vladimir - that slipped past me - funny.

I have checked the source again and my copy-and-paste does accurately reflect the text: "Reliable buddy support provides piece of mind."

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

vladimir - that slipped past me - funny.

I have checked the source again and my copy-and-paste does accurately reflect the text: "Reliable buddy support provides piece of mind."

I have dived with many buddies who can be relied on to provide piece of mind ... particularly when I screw something up ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DCBC]

Ahem...
Let me put on my "real world businessman" hat.
While all agencies tout lofty aims like "Leadership" and "Integrity" and "Quality" and "Safety," all those are within the context of staying in business. And when you cut through all the philosophical, moral, fiscal, legal and liability issues, it all boils down to an actuarial calculation with this basis: "What are the minimum standards we must meet to be able to buy insurance that'll keep us safe from a business-killing lawsuit?" Those are the standards from the RSTC. Reality makes them "scuba industry law" in fact, if not in "law."
Perhaps the tail doth wag the dog, but until the day that the agencies can't protect themselves with insurance unless rescue skills are in the minimum standards, those skills will remain optional at best, or absent, in basic OW training.

Rick

I agree with you to a point Rick; but not every instructor teaches to the agency minimum requirement and several agencies encourage their instructors to teach beyond them. It is not the agency that delivers the diving program, but the instructor. If I wish to teach a 50 or 100 hour openwater course, that's my perogative. If the student wishes to enroll, that's theirs. There is much more to diving training than the agencies minimum training standards and some instructors like myself teach for free. It's not always about making money.

 

[String]

BSAC teach a controlled buoyant lift of an unconcious diver to the surface in Ocean Diver (entry level training). The next level up has rescue breathing, CPR and so on. I think that's a very good thing.

It's not a difficult technique and could obviously be extremely useful. Im a big fan of progressively more complicated rescue skills being integrated into the core course as opposed to it all being in a separate course.
PADI rescue is a very good course if taught properly but in my view a lot of the stuff should be in the core OW/AOW instead.