Diving Education Today

[rstofer]

Has that changed? I'm pretty sure it was the same when I took my course in 2006/2007.

I wouldn't know. It may very well be the same.

PADI is RUNNING away from dive tables. They have substituted the eRDP and there are still some exam questions but I don't believe a miss is a fail. I don't actually know that either. Whatever the requirement, my grandson was able to get through it.

I expect to see them completely out of dive tables/eRDP in the near future. I suspect they will spend more time on computers. There just aren't very many people diving with tables anymore. Too bad... I like tables. And there is no way to get through PADI Nitrox without tables.

Richard

 

[Thalassamania]

NOt many people get killed or injiured as a result of the dangers of planting a bush.

Oh, you mean that they choose to teach PADI because it is the largest and most recognized program on the planet and this guarantees them a source of students? Well, there isn't much integrity in that, is there?

No there is not.

Perceived value places more importance on flash than on substance, if that's the way you want to live ... fine, but unfortunately good advertising backed up by little substance hurts us all.

OK, but why does a recreational diver need to know all that 'higher standard' stuff? Just jump in, swim down, swim around and swim back up. No big deal. They're not training for confined spaces, they're not expected to understand deco diving or any of the rest of the complications of military or commercial diving. They don't need to have perfect trim and probably won't. Diving doesn't have to be pretty.

Ah, that's where you are missing a number of points, let's look at one. People that are going to expose themselves to hyperbaric conditions should only be expected to do so after providing informed consent for such exposure. IMHO today's classes (and the one you describe above) fail that test miserably.

No, all of the credible instructors could cancel their memberships with these lackadaisical agencies and start up with a new organization. Sure, they would starve to death before their new organization gained recognition but, hey, it's a matter of integrity!

Certification agencies are, to me, irrelevant. I have no use for them, I have no need for them. I suspect the feeling is mutual.

That's a pretty high standard. In my case I wouldn't let any other diver, nor any DM I have ever met and only a couple of instructors dive with my grandson. I'm not even sure about the instuctors. I'll have to think about it. If he is to get additional training, I will have to relent. But only so long as his father is on the same dives.

While, of the top of my head, I can think dozens of people whom I'd happily let my son dive with a train under. Some of them are not even certified, but the unifying element is that none of them teach a minimum standards course.

Does his mean that these other divers are inadequate in any other setting? Certainly not! They could be the greatest divers on the planet but when it comes to my grandson, the bar is just a little higher than that.

Naw, it means that they're inadequate. I provide the same kind of care with any student that I'd provide for my son or for you grandson. The inadequacy to do so is just that ... inadequate.

There just aren't enough accidents with injuries or fatalities to show that training is inadequate. There are certainly examples of accidents where training was violated (OOA, AGE, DCS, etc). But it isn't like the diver didn't know better. They just chose to make a mistake! Maybe it was a 'brain fart' (there is a technical term for this but I don't recall it at the moment) but it wasn't because they weren't trained.

But yet, at a certain level of effort, the accident and fatality rates drop to virtually zero. That's what I require for my son and that's what I assume you'd want for your grandson, so why should anyone be forced to except something less adequate?

Has that changed? I'm pretty sure it was the same when I took my course in 2006/2007.

I believe it is still in effect. I kept that in effect when I revised NAUI's standards based in the argument that dive tables are either 100% or 100% wrong, there is no in-between, even if the effects of being 100% wrong may vary and being 100% right is not a guarantee of safety.

 

[gcbryan]

People don't die from planting a bush and people don't die because they didn't have a 12 week scuba class. They die due to poor judgment in many cases, health issues in others, and sometimes it just isn't their day.

Regarding the fatality rates dropping to zero with a certain level of effort...no they don't!

In what human activity is that true?

 

[Thalassamania]

But they do, 12 weeks (well, 13 weeks) is what the 100 hour Scripps Model Course requires, and with that goes a zero fatality rate for in course activities and a near zero fatality rate for subsequent diving activities (one fatality in about sixty years, and that was in the most extreme diving environment on earh, Antarctica).

 

[gcbryan]

But they do, 12 weeks (well, 13 weeks) is what the 100 hour Scripps Model Course requires, and with that goes a zero fatality rate for in course activities and a near zero fatality rate for subsequent diving activities (one fatality in about sixty years, and that was in the most extreme diving environment on earh, Antarctica).

With all due respect, some of these statements are a sign of a weak argument. There are many arguments for more through instruction of course but implying that with one system if implemented globally there would be no fatalities is just not true.

First of all your statement is with a limited group of people in a limited controlled diving scenario. Perhaps we should all dive in the manner of the Seattle Aquarium and it's divers since as far as I know no one has ever died there. It's a true statement but it covers a weak argument...right?

Limited training isn't the primary reason for diving fatalities. The human condition is.

Secondly, bringing ones family into this is also a sign of a weak argument. It's one thing to train everyone with the same care that one would train a family member but another to say that anyone that one trains would be someone that a son or daughter would be allowed to dive with. It's an emotional statement but hopefully it isn't true.

As I mentioned earlier it's like taking a weak argument (pay me $1,000 for a regulator) for the price of scuba equipment by calling it "life support equipment" and "asking isn't your life worth it?"

There are some valid arguments perhaps for better instruction but implying that the "other side" doesn't care as much as your "side" does about someone's family is just overstating the case.

That's the problem with this debate in my opinion...it's like DIR...the case is always being overstated. It's not that there isn't some truth here but it's just simply overstated continually.

 

[Thalassamania]

It might be a weak argument ... except for two things, the first is the sample size, we've been doing this since 1952, the second is that all recreational diver training in the United States is decedent from a Scripps Model Program, but as recreational programs reduced training and standards they started to (and continue to) have accidents. As an aside, virtually every Scripps Model program trains, on a space available basis, non-scientists. These folks go on to become highly qualified recreational divers who are not scientists and often dive outside of tightly controlled research programs, yet they have the same record of almost absolute safety.

As far as family is concerned, you make and an absolutely true statement, though rather different than the one I made. Yes, I would be happy for my son to dive with any of the many divers who have completed the Scripps Model prorgams that I have run, or for that matter that have been run by my colleagues. That is exactly what it is all about.

As far as implying that they don't care enough ... I never did that, that's your interpretation, I'd be more likely to say that their lack of exposure means that they don't know enough.

 

[Supergoose]

 

[gcbryan]

I think the problem is with implementing it globally. If many of the people who are certified today would have been eliminated either by never signing up in the first place (self selection) or by not passing then any system would result in far fewer fatalities.

It's the cherry picking approach.

I can think of most of the fatalities around here. A few were health related but most were easily preventable and some were just...their time was up.

Your training program wouldn't produce those in the easily preventable category because they probably wouldn't have signed up or completed your program. If that's the standard then any reasonable program can have the same result if you're not going to have to deal with "the problem children".

In any activity however if you have to take everyone it will be impossible to eliminate fatalities just as it's impossible to eliminate poor judgment or stupidity.

People die around, in and on the water every year while doing many different activities.

I like your approach but if it had to deal with all of the people the present system has to deal with it may have only slightly better results.

 

[Thalassamania]

I think the problem is with implementing it globally. If many of the people who are certified today would have been eliminated either by never signing up in the first place (self selection) or by not passing then any system would result in far fewer fatalities.

It's the cherry picking approach.

That's BS, you'd have to argue then that if all of our divers were trained in recreational fashion that we'd still have the same safety record because we're starting with better stuff, the recent fatality at Auburn puts the lie to that argument.

I can think of most of the fatalities around here. A few were health related but most were easily preventable and some were just...their time was up.

With more knowledge and better training in anatomy, physiology and diving medicine the just might sensibly select out as they age, as our divers appear to have done. As for "some were just...their time was up," that's a concept that I simply do not believe in.

Your training program wouldn't produce those in the easily preventable category because they probably wouldn't have signed up or completed your program. If that's the standard then any reasonable program can have the same result if you're not going to have to deal with "the problem children".

Perhaps they would not have signed up because they lack the watermanship, but that's part and parcel of the program. As to not completing it, I've had one student that I flunked for psychological reasons and a few over the years who did not finish due to broken legs and arms and such (not diving related) but I never had any other students "not complete" the course.

In any activity however if you have to take everyone it will be impossible to eliminate fatalities just as it's impossible to eliminate poor judgment or stupidity.

So you say, but the data does not support your statement.

People die around, in and on the water every year while doing many different activities.

They sure do, but not diving when they have been through the training that we offer, knock on wood.

I like your approach but if it had to deal with all of the people the present system has to deal with it may have only slightly better results.

Thomas "Tip" O'Neill—a longtime Speaker of the House in the U.S. Congress—once declared, "All politics is local." He was explaining how the problems and concerns of towns and cities around the country affect the actions of their representatives and senators in Washington, D.C. I'd paraphrase him to say that all solutions are local, that's my solution and it could be your too.

 

[gcbryan]

That's BS, you'd have to argue then that if all of our divers were trained in recreational fashion that we'd still have the same safety record because we're starting with better stuff, the recent fatality at Auburn puts the lie to that argument.

You may disagree but it's not BS nor does the concept of "lie" have a place here. I'm not "lying". You wouldn't have the same safety record however you would have a better safety record than with the public at large. I'm not familiar with the fatality at Auburn.

With more knowledge and better training in anatomy, physiology and diving medicine the just might sensibly select out as they age, as our divers appear to have done. As for "some were just...their time was up," that's a concept that I simply do not believe in.

Do you plan to select out as you age? Stan Waterman hasn't done so. I don't plan on it unless it's something doctor recommended. Lynne tells us that the first indication of heart disease for many is sudden death. Should people with high blood pressure quit diving? What should they now do to enjoy life?

One local diver died standing beside his dive buddy at a very benign site. Yes, his BC was not inflated so if you want to argue with hindsight that no one coming out of your program would ever stand in chest deep water without air in their BC then there's your out. Otherwise, it appears he slipped and hit his head but his buddy didn't see this. He looked for him (limited viz) and thought perhaps he started toward their goal (the pipeline). It turned out he was right where they were standing in less than 6 feet of water.

Now of course I can say it wouldn't happen to me and I can explain how they could have done a few things differently but really...his time was up. This would almost never happen again. That's what I meant.

Perhaps they would not have signed up because they lack the watermanship, but that's part and parcel of the program. As to not completing it, I've had one student that I flunked for psychological reasons and a few over the years who did not finish due to broken legs and arms and such (not diving related) but I never had any other students "not complete" the course.

They complete the course because they are college students and have to complete the course. Many of the people flopping off boats in Cozumel wouldn't complete the course because they don't care about diving that much. How about that combined with ADD...that's a pretty good description of another fatality up here.

So you say, but the data does not support your statement.
They sure do, but not diving when they have been through the training that we offer, knock on wood.

What data? There is no data needed to support my statement that you can't eliminate stupidity and poor judgment. Are you saying that if I could get every person in the world to go through your course that there would be no more stupidity in the world? Would no one ever have a lapse in judgment and do something stupid? Really?