Pool session gone awry...

[lee08]

The dive industry is now at the point that if skills are hard or not everyone can do them they are no longer required. (Dive tables, buddy breathing and swim test for example.) It is all about getting the most money they can out of people. Doesn't matter who you are with, PADI, NAUI, SSI or your LDS the bottom line is always the same.

 

[Diver0001]

R..,

where did you get these statistics? I'm wondering how they worked this out set of statistics :06:

PADI, like most other organisations, keeps great long lists of incident reports and they analyse them. DAN also keeps great long lists of incident reports indepentent of organisation and these are made available for study too..... I didn't personally analyse the statistics. What I'm telling you is the way it was explained to me. I think if you look back through all the Undersea Journals you may be able to find something on it. Also, it should stand to reason that a CESA endagers one diver while BB puts two at risk.....

R..

 

[Diver0001]

The dive industry is now at the point that if skills are hard or not everyone can do them they are no longer required. (Dive tables, buddy breathing and swim test for example.) It is all about getting the most money they can out of people. Doesn't matter who you are with, PADI, NAUI, SSI or your LDS the bottom line is always the same.

There has certainly been a degree of dumbing down going on but the choices of things to scrap or change doesn't have to do with how hard it is. CESA's are much harder to teach and to learn than buddy-breathing. Especially in a swimming pool.

It is a little worrying that (at least the way I see it) training organisations anyalyse how many casualties a certain change to the syllabus will cause (or eliminate) and decide based on these models if the change can/should be made ...... The model might be right and some organisations (PADI in particular) should be commended for doing the research but in my mind it's still wrong thinking. The target should be zero casualties, not "acceptable" numbers.

R..

 

[Xanthro]

It is a little worrying that (at least the way I see it) training organisations anyalyse how many casualties a certain change to the syllabus will cause (or eliminate) and decide based on these models if the change can/should be made ...... The model might be right and some organisations (PADI in particular) should be commended for doing the research but in my mind it's still wrong thinking. The target should be zero casualties, not "acceptable" numbers.

That would mean no diving, because that is the only possible way to ensure zero diving casualties.

Not only could you not acheive zero casualties and still have the activity, training organizations can't even strive for the least possible casualties, because that would kill the organized part of the sport, the organizations, and cause even more deaths.

If the training were so difficult that only a hand full of people could possibly ever pass, these people would likely be excellent divers and would be able to handle near any situation. However, they would be so few in number that the sport would die, the training organizations couldn't stay in business, which means no trainers, and people would simply dive untrained at all.

This is an aspect I think many divers overlook. If training were too hard, people would find a way to dive untrained and be at even greater risk.

This happens time and again with driver's licenses and other activities.

Xanthro

 

[MikeFerrara]

PADI, like most other organisations, keeps great long lists of incident reports and they analyse them. DAN also keeps great long lists of incident reports indepentent of organisation and these are made available for study too..... I didn't personally analyse the statistics. What I'm telling you is the way it was explained to me. I think if you look back through all the Undersea Journals you may be able to find something on it. Also, it should stand to reason that a CESA endagers one diver while BB puts two at risk.....

R..

I don't think the list is so much one of accidents but rather one of lost lawsuits and costs.

The idea is to maximize profit but certifying as many people as possible without loosing that extra income to lawsuits.

It's well know that a significant percentage of dive accidents involve rapid ascents and poor buoyancy control. It's well known how little buoyancy control is taught and mastered in training (the standards speak for themselves). There is no dispute that we see divers hurt because they panic and bolt when the get a free flow.

however apparantly these accidents, while many are preventable, do not cost as much as an improvement in training to eliminate them would.

Look at the paper work that a student signs when they begin a class. One of them is the "standard Safe Diving Practices" and ather is a liability release. The student states that he knows the importance of good skills. Even though he may not be taught to him he is now responsible.

The RSTC...what a fliping JOKE! The agencies that sign up to follow the standards are the ones who write them. It's the fox guarding the hen house.

As long as the death toll is low enough to avoid a public outrage...and 100/year or so is ok right? and the costs of litigation are in line then all is right with the world.

 

[CharleyT]

The dive industry is now at the point that if skills are hard or not everyone can do them they are no longer required. (Dive tables, buddy breathing and swim test for example.) It is all about getting the most money they can out of people. Doesn't matter who you are with, PADI, NAUI, SSI or your LDS the bottom line is always the same.

No swim test? I should have signed up with whomever taught that way. My NAUI instructor had us do a swim test (just about killed me) followed by a 10 or 12 minute floating test. And the pool was a tad chilly for just my swimming trunks.

Charley

 

[wedivebc]

Yes
PADI currently feels that OW divers are incapable of properly executing a BB ascent, and BB is no longer taught. SOME instructors will demonstrate it in the classroom.

That is not true. BB is an optional skill that I for one insist on teaching and having my students practice.
You have some reference to back up that statement?

 

[String]

Also, it should stand to reason that a CESA endagers one diver while BB puts two at risk.....
R..

Hmm. I suspect both could be endangered as most buddies on seeing their buddy start to bolt to the surface will chase after them and attempt to remedy the situation.

 

[jepuskar]

Let me rephrase and say that BB is not required until the DM program in the PADI system. It is more than doing the equipment exchange though while buddy breathing, you have to do two other skills, one where you are providing the reg for BB and the other where your buddy is providing the reg....then you have to swim together during both drills for a certain distance..whatever that is I forgot.

Well I don't know how PADI feels about BB'ing, but if it's optional during the OW program than it makes you wonder. When is this skill actually utilized? Your out of air, you go for your buddies octo, and it doesn't function, then you buddy breath or do a CESA...I would prefer the BB.

 

[RichLockyer]

No swim test? I should have signed up with whomever taught that way. My NAUI instructor had us do a swim test (just about killed me) followed by a 10 or 12 minute floating test. And the pool was a tad chilly for just my swimming trunks.

The swim test is still required, but it has been reduced from a timed freestyle test (at, IIRC, 300 yards) to an untimed "any stroke" 200 yards.
You can dog paddle if you like.
The 10-minute "tread water" test now allows floating on one's back... very easy for someone so grossly overweight that they have no business diving. I think treading water is easier than floating for some of us.