More than "Advanced", but not really "Technical"

[gcarter]

It might not put you at any more risk, but think about it from the viewpoint of a technical instructor for a minute.

People got upset with me when I quoted that post from a technical instructor whose friends got a little tech learning, put it to use, and then died. To give you an idea of how far they went beyond their training, it will be several years before I have the qualifications for the dive they tried to do, and I have full cave training, advanced trimix certification, and tech instructor certification. In order for them to do the dive, they had to get a key to get into the site. In order to get a key to get into the site, they went to the person in charge of it and asked for it on the grounds that they had no intention of diving--they were just going to go in as good Samaritans and clean up the surface of the site, which had gotten trashed out. They swore they were not diving. Their widows sued the key operator and the company that employed him because he believed them and gave them the key. If that instructor had given them any kind of informal instruction, you can bet he would have been sued as well.

This past Christmas a father and son who had gotten some kind of instruction somewhere without taking a formal class of any kind died doing a decompression dive beyond their ability. The boy wasn't even a certified diver. In the aftermath, the boy's grandfather has tried to get the entire site closed to all divers, and if he were to succeed, one of the greatest advanced dive sites in America will be off limits to everyone because a couple of people got a little advanced training somewhere, dived well beyond their certification level, and died because of stupid mistakes that someone with the proper training would have never made. If it turns out that an identifiable person gave them that informal training, want to take bets on whether or not the family sues?

Even if he or she were to escape legal action, to you have any idea how an instructor would feel if someone who got informal, out of class instruction were to die? Do you have any idea what his or her reputation in the technical diving community would become?

Do you think that a technical diving instructor wants to do something that opens up the possibility that you will use that information and die without the legal protection provided by formal instruction?

EDIT: I did not notice Lorenzoid's post before writing this. I believe we are saying the same thing.

I have no issue with an instructor not wishing to teach any given topic to any given individual for any reason.

Here is what I take issue with: the question was about knowledge training to help effect a mindset. The answers - in words and in attitude - almost all assume such knowledge would be put to bad purpose and should therefore not be shared. The OP has been ridiculed for asking the question and told repeatedly to stick to dives he is qualified for - EVEN THOUGH HE HAS STATED REPEATEDLY THAT HE HAS SUCH TRAINING. Many if not most of the responses are so knee-jerk hostile they seem to have precluded reading comprehension.

The stupid people you have cited as examples did not need any help being stupid. The father and son, by all accounts, sought no training. Not relevant to the OPs question, except to they extent that more knowledge MAY have encouraged them to SEEK training. Your friend's students, based on what you have said here, made a choice to go beyond their training even though they knew better. If they had never met your friend, they would most likely have done so anyway - I doubt your friend instilled that reckless attitude in them. So how is that his fault? It isn't.

If you give me the knowledge component with out the practical and the limitations of that are well communicated, and if I then choose to go beyond those limitations, if your lawyer cannot convince a jury that my stupid decision was not your fault you need a new lawyer.

I ordered Six Skills for myself before doing any post-OW dives. If I had chosen to do something beyond my training based on what I learned from that book, would it have been Steve's fault?

Regardless, as I have said, I have no issue with any individual refusing to teach the knowledge only component. It is the attitudes expressed in many of the posts that I dislike.

 

[waterpirate]

I think the line being blured here is a fairly clear one. Formal teaching of the theory only vs. self guided research.

In self guided research the individual is responsible for their own actions. In formal teaching or training of the theory only, there is a implied liability that all the tec instructors I know would rather spend diving than defending in a court case. I do not think anyone posting here is detering self guided resaerch, they are just saying that for any instructor not teaching a tec level course to present the theory material to a rec student is not a good decision bases on te lawyer factor.

I am advocating keeping divers out of the space between rec and tec in execution of dives, without the proper training. Study all you want. It will make smarter. If I caught someone on the hang, not in a emergancy situation, on a boat I was diving off.... I would start asking the hard questions. I have 2wice been interogated by the CG, I vowed to not ever go through that again.
Eric

 

[boulderjohn]

Here is what I take issue with: the question was about knowledge training to help effect a mindset. The answers - in words and in attitude - almost all assume such knowledge would be put to bad purpose and should therefore not be shared. The OP has been ridiculed for asking the question and told repeatedly to stick to dives he is qualified for - EVEN THOUGH HE HAS STATED REPEATEDLY THAT HE HAS SUCH TRAINING. Many if not most of the responses are so knee-jerk hostile they seem to have precluded reading comprehension.

I didn't realize that the OP and you were the only person involved in this thread. I thought there might be other people participating, even if only as lurkers. My apologies.

 

[uncfnp]

It might not put you at any more risk, but think about it from the viewpoint of a technical instructor for a minute.

People got upset with me when I quoted that post from a technical instructor whose friends got a little tech learning, put it to use, and then died. To give you an idea of how far they went beyond their training, it will be several years before I have the qualifications for the dive they tried to do, and I have full cave training, advanced trimix certification, and tech instructor certification. In order for them to do the dive, they had to get a key to get into the site. In order to get a key to get into the site, they went to the person in charge of it and asked for it on the grounds that they had no intention of diving--they were just going to go in as good Samaritans and clean up the surface of the site, which had gotten trashed out. They swore they were not diving. Their widows sued the key operator and the company that employed him because he believed them and gave them the key. If that instructor had given them any kind of informal instruction, you can bet he would have been sued as well.

This past Christmas a father and son who had gotten some kind of instruction somewhere without taking a formal class of any kind died doing a decompression dive beyond their ability. The boy wasn't even a certified diver. In the aftermath, the boy's grandfather has tried to get the entire site closed to all divers, and if he were to succeed, one of the greatest advanced dive sites in America will be off limits to everyone because a couple of people got a little advanced training somewhere, dived well beyond their certification level, and died because of stupid mistakes that someone with the proper training would have never made. If it turns out that an identifiable person gave them that informal training, want to take bets on whether or not the family sues?

Even if he or she were to escape legal action, to you have any idea how an instructor would feel if someone who got informal, out of class instruction were to die? Do you have any idea what his or her reputation in the technical diving community would become?

Do you think that a technical diving instructor wants to do something that opens up the possibility that you will use that information and die without the legal protection provided by formal instruction?

EDIT: I did not notice Lorenzoid's post before writing this. I believe we are saying the same thing.

So, you are saying that for an instructor to accept a student that turns out not to have the aptitude for the course and as such does not get certified that instructor has a liability risk for that student? What about the student that completes the classroom but never returns for the dives?

I am in the medical profession and I thought we were liability obsessed but after reading this thread I find that scuba instructors have it far worse.

I didn't realize that the OP and you were the only person involved in this thread. I thought there might be other people participating, even if only as lurkers. My apologies.

Of all that he had to say, THIS is what you focus on?!

 

[DevonDiver]

The critical word, with regards instructor responsibility (if not liability) is "advocate". Those in diving leadership/educational roles won't want to "advocate" unsafe diving practices. Diving beyond your certification and/or experience is universally recognized as such an 'unsafe diving practice' (at least so by the agencies that qualify instructors). To do so, on an open and public forum could easily be deemed as irresponsible. At the least, it is poor role-modelling and unprofessional.

Advocate: a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy

It's hard to define where and how 'educating' an issue becomes 'advocating' an issue. To be sure, you need to place caveats on what you're saying ("don't try this at home, unless qualified, kids..."). Caveats cover liability. What covers responsibility?

 

[Lorenzoid]

. . .
If you give me the knowledge component with out the practical and the limitations of that are well communicated, and if I then choose to go beyond those limitations, if your lawyer cannot convince a jury that my stupid decision was not your fault you need a new lawyer.
. . .

Because juries can always be relied upon to make logical decisions based on facts and solid reasoning, and it just comes down to the lawyer to push the right buttons. Right. If there is a lawsuit, even if it never makes it all the way to trial, the defendant or insurance company is already on the hook for a bunch of money. That's really inefficient. I much prefer to minimize the likelihood of a lawsuit in the first place. By promulgating standards and offering cohesive educational courses, the cert agencies have tried to do what they can to facilitate that.

I'm a purely recreational diver, and like you, I am doing all the reading I can to understand more advanced diving techniques and theory. I have no intention of putting any of it into practice and venturing beyond the fairly arbitrary line drawn in the sand by the agencies. I even try to make a conscious effort to not let myself feel confident to get closer to the line than I otherwise would have just because I am armed with increasing amounts of scattered bits of knowledge. I view the line as having been drawn there partly to protect me and partly to protect instructors. There's a difference between an author's act of publishing a book (and in the case of the Six Skills book explicitly notes in a Disclaimer that the book is not intended as a substitute for training) and an instructor who agrees to take you on as his student and actively feeds you information. I believe an instructor who values his insurance coverage would have to be a real risk taker to teach me even what I have learned from books, let alone show me some techniques in practice. I just don't expect any instructor to do that. There is a whole buffet of courses out there that the agencies have put together that I can choose from if I want to dive to the line and beyond.

Regardless, as I have said, I have no issue with any individual refusing to teach the knowledge only component. It is the attitudes expressed in many of the posts that I dislike.

It seems we don't really have any disagreement. Self education is great--and I wouldn't even confine it to theory, as I see no harm in reading about, say, how actual deco procedures work in practice. But I would never ask or expect an instructor to teach me things that are generally associated only with tec diving, outside of a cohesive course.

 

[uncfnp]

The critical word, with regards instructor responsibility (if not liability) is "advocate". Those in diving leadership/educational roles won't want to "advocate" unsafe diving practices. Diving beyond your certification and/or experience is universally recognized as such an 'unsafe diving practice' (at least so by the agencies that qualify instructors). To do so, on an open and public forum could easily be deemed as irresponsible. At the least, it is poor role-modelling and unprofessional.

Advocate: a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy

It's hard to define where and how 'educating' an issue becomes 'advocating' an issue. To be sure, you need to place caveats on what you're saying ("don't try this at home, unless qualified, kids..."). Caveats cover liability. What covers responsibility?

Thanks Andy. Very interesting post that just shows how two people can be discussing the same topic, possibly even using some of the same terminology, but still be worlds apart in understanding. In my field advocacy is a frequently used concept that promotes the interest and rights of the client. In theory, it supports the individual, not the agency or profession. It encourages education to better enable the individual to determine the choices and actions that are best for them rather than just the standard procedures (or treatments).

So yeah, I can see how we can look at this very differently.

 

[gcarter]

I didn't realize that the OP and you were the only person involved in this thread. I thought there might be other people participating, even if only as lurkers. My apologies.

LOL to the sarcasm. That is not at all implied in what I wrote. What does the presence of others have to do with him being told to go get training he has explicitly stated he already has?

 

[boulderjohn]

So, you are saying that for an instructor to accept a student that turns out not to have the aptitude for the course and as such does not get certified that instructor has a liability risk for that student? What about the student that completes the classroom but never returns for the dives?

I didn't say anything like that. My references were to people who are looking for more information without taking a course. If a person takes a course from me it does not matter whether or not that person completes the course. I will have had that person sign all sorts of legal stuff first. Then I will teach the course according to published and accepted standards. As long as I stick to those standards and have that person sign that legal stuff, then I should be pretty close to bullet proof in a lawsuit.

If, on the other hand, I provide enough information (etc.) for that person to get excited and go out and try it without following the course and all of its standards, you can bet that a surviving relative will come after me for encouraging that person to do something dangerous without providing the proper training, and I will have none of the legal protections provided by having taught a sanctioned and approved course.

Of all that he had to say, THIS is what you focus on?!

Are you saying that every post I make should mention everything there is to talk about?

Because juries can always be relied upon to make logical decisions based on facts and solid reasoning, and it just comes down to the lawyer to push the right buttons. Right. If there is a lawsuit, even if it never makes it all the way to trial, the defendant or insurance company is already on the hook for a bunch of money. That's really inefficient. I much prefer to minimize the likelihood of a lawsuit in the first place. By promulgating standards and offering cohesive educational courses, the cert agencies have tried to do what they can to facilitate that.

I just learned something in a meeting this morning. In almost all cases, scuba training agencies don't employ instructors. Although they can expel them when they screw up, they otherwise have no control over what they do. The instructors either work for shops that control their actions or they are independents. In the case I learned about this morning, and instructor screwed up royally, and part of his screw up was violating requirements of his liability insurance. The insurance therefore refused to cover him. The person suing therefore went after the agency (PADI), claiming that the instructor was essentially an employee of the agency, which has never been the case anywhere. However, this particular jury agreed with that argument, and the suit cost PADI $2 million. As a consequence, all PADI liability forms now state the legal relationship explicitly.

LOL to the sarcasm. That is not at all implied in what I wrote. What does the presence of others have to do with him being told to go get training he has explicitly stated he already has?

When did I specifically tell anyone to get training they already had?

 

[uncfnp]

Are you saying that every post I make should mention everything there is to talk about?

Absolutely not. What you choose not to respond to is at least as meaningful as what you do say.