Question about bcd remove underwater

[wetb4igetinthewater]

The important question above is this: would NAUI go to court to defend you in a lawsuit if you did something unsafe in your instruction?

You used the word "unsafe". I would hope that agencies that allow instructors to add requirements to their courses have a discussion internally and allow/deny the instructor to add those items based upon their review of whether something is safe and appropriate.

Are you saying that a free ascent with the regulator out of ones mouth from 120 feet isn't ridiculous?!? That it is equivalent to deploying a DSMB in a deep class. I would really like to hear your answer.

 

[boulderjohn]

You used the word "unsafe". I would hope that agencies that allow instructors to add requirements to their courses have a discussion internally and allow/deny the instructor to add those items based upon their review of whether something is safe and appropriate.

When do they do this review? Before the incident or after? If they don't review the practice before the instructor does it, how will he know if he ill be defended?

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

When do they do this review? Before the incident or after? If they don't review the practice before the instructor does it, how will he know if he ill be defended?

John,

Obviously before. Just like I asked PADI would I could do with a student for deep dive #4 (or 5 depending on how you count). I started the conversation prior. That's what any prudent instructor should be doing. Again, I don't teach for NAUI, but I'd imagine that it would work in some way similar to that. They are a fairly big agency after all (#3 if I am not mistaken).

You still did not answer my question, so I will repeat.

Are you saying that a free ascent with the regulator out of ones mouth from 120 feet isn't ridiculous?!? That it is equivalent to deploying a DSMB in a deep class. I would really like to hear your answer.

 

[boulderjohn]

You still did not answer my question, so I will repeat.

Are you saying that a free ascent with the regulator out of ones mouth from 120 feet isn't ridiculous?!? That it is equivalent to deploying a DSMB in a deep class. I would really like to hear your answer.

What I did was use a common and accepted rhetorical strategy called reductio ad absurdum. In such an argument, the arguer points out that the opposing argument leads to an absurd conclusion. By pointing out the absurd conclusion, the flaws in the opposing argument are emphasized. So, yes, I think it was ridiculous, and I intended it to be ridiculous. It is unusual for someone not to recognize it as a rhetorical strategy, so I did not think I had to explain it.

You said that the problem with PADI is that if you do something outside of the standards, you are on your own defending it in court. With an agency like NAUI, you liked the fact that they allow the instructor to add requirements to the course. You did not qualify that in any way. You did not indicate that some additons might not be acceptable. My reductio ad absurdum example demonstrated that they will have to draw a line somewhere.

Where that comes into play is in a lawsuit, which was your original complaint about PADI and which you do not address with NAUI. Will NAUI defend an instructor in court if the instructor uses blatantly unsafe practices, like the SSI instructor from Alabama cited earlier?

A few years ago a Discover Scuba student died in Utah, and the lawsuit included both the instructor and PADI. The lawsuit said that the instructor was an "agent" of PADi when he was conducting the DSD. PADI responded that the instructor had done a number of things (actually, almost everything) in violation of standards, and so they were not at fault. If it had been NAUI as the agency, would they have said, "You bet! Everything the instructor did was outside of our standards, but we allow our instructors to do whatever they want, so, yep, we're guilty as charged. We'll write you a check in the morning."

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

What I did was use a common and accepted rhetorical strategy called reductio ad absurdum. In such an argument, the arguer points out that the opposing argument leads to an absurd conclusion. By pointing out the absurd conclusion, the flaws in the opposing argument are emphasized. So, yes, I think it was ridiculous, and I intended it to be ridiculous. It is unusual for someone not to recognize it as a rhetorical strategy, so I did not think I had to explain it.

You said that the problem with PADI is that if you do something outside of the standards, you are on your own defending it in court. With an agency like NAUI, you liked the fact that they allow the instructor to add requirements to the course. You did not qualify that in any way. You did not indicate that some additons might not be acceptable. My reductio ad absurdum example demonstrated that they will have to draw a line somewhere.

Where that comes into play is in a lawsuit, which was your original complaint about PADI and which you do not address with NAUI. Will NAUI defend an instructor in court if the instructor uses blatantly unsafe practices, like the SSI instructor from Alabama cited earlier?

A few years ago a Discover Scuba student died in Utah, and the lawsuit included both the instructor and PADI. The lawsuit said that the instructor was an "agent" of PADi when he was conducting the DSD. PADI responded that the instructor had done a number of things (actually, almost everything) in violation of standards, and so they were not at fault. If it had been NAUI as the agency, would they have said, "You bet! Everything the instructor did was outside of our standards, but we allow our instructors to do whatever they want, so, yep, we're guilty as charged. We'll write you a check in the morning."

John,

Oh, I know exactly what you were doing, I just wanted to call you out on it, as I don't feel that sort of strategy is conducive to an intelligent exchange of ideas.

While I did not say that some additions may not be acceptable, it is unusual for someone not to recognize it as a rhetorical strategy, so I did not think I had to explain it. (see how that works?

I will now explain what I do not think I need to. What I am talking about is an instructor having a discussion with a training agency on what is permissible (and agreed upon as safe to add). That's it. It isn't complicated. I don't see the need for argumentum ad absurdum. It doesn't add to the discussion.

It comes down to an instructor wanting to provide additional benefit that is safe and appropriate for a course.

How is that wrong?

 

[northernone]

In phone conversation with padi head office I asked about bcd removal during OW dives during training.

If a student is injured and a lawsuit results, I'm on my own and padi would not lend aid. If it is not in the standards, I would be outside of training standards and would need my own defense.

Didn't get this in writing, but in a candid conversation that was the stance I was told.

Worth due pause as an instructor who wants to design their own "superior" training course.

I'm not aware of legal precedent.

Anyway, if the OP is still reading, if that's a padi class, you'll do the bcd removal in confined water over a hard bottom for safety.


Cameron

 

[boulderjohn]

You criticized PADI because if you did something outside of the curriculum and were sued as a result, you would have to defend your actions in court without PADI's support. I said that was true of all agencies. You disagreed, saying that NAUI lets its instructors go beyond the curriculum. I am simply pointing out that saying it is OK to go beyond the curriculum in a course is not the same as saying they will defend you in court if you decide to do something hazardous. In other words, I pointed out that nothing you said refutes my statement that no agency will defend you in a court case if you choose to do something dangerous in your additions to the class.

As an example, decades ago people used to teach CESA with the regulator out of the mouth (as in my example, and as in the case of the SSI instructor in Alabama). Then a UHMS study found that the CESA was the most dangerous part of OW instruction, and having the regulator out of the mouth was the primary problem. Since then, having the regulator in the mouth for all such ascents has become standard for instruction with almost all agencies around the world. In a recent discussion, I learned that some old time instructors still believe the regulator should be out of the mouth and teach it that way. If they have a student embolize or drown, they will be in a world of hurt in a lawsuit, and if there is any indication the agency condoned it, then the agency will be paying out big time as well.

 

[The Chairman]

Then a UHMS study found that the CESA was the most dangerous part of OW instruction,

It's not only dangerous for the student but often injures instructors. I'm glad I don't have to do that in OW.

Those who teach for a particular agency probably have a better idea about what is allowed or not allowed. Some agencies prohibit some activities such as a harassment pool session. NASE prohibits CESAs in open water not only because it results in injuries to both student and instructor but also because it sets a poor, poor example.

It's up to the instructor to choose the agency that best fits them. That's why I teach OW through NASE. There are many classes I teach through SDI/TDI and there are some agencies I have left or would never teach for. That's my choice and it's up to my students to choose me.

Reading you two rehash the same old same old over and over without you two ever agreeing is hard to do and detracts from the conversation. We get it. You have differing opinions about what PADI and NAUI allow and there's nothing wrong with that. Choose the agency that fits you and be done with it. This sort of discussion belongs in the I2I forum and not confounding new divers. Just my opinion.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

This sort of discussion belongs in the I2I forum and not confounding new divers. Just my opinion.

I was done with this until I acquired more facts. Maybe this should be moved to I2I and hopefully someone from NAUI can chime in.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I really admire the skil level of this guy. In reality however I don't see myself doing this in a real entanglement situation. I dive dry only with thick gloves and steel twins. No way I can even do the most simple task as buckle up again under water. Furthermore, I don't have the skill level so this would be more likely kill me than save me

... if you cannot manipulate all of your equipment with gloves on, you're wearing the wrong gloves (or simply haven't practiced the skill enough) ... and it's moderately dangerous. In an entanglement situation you either better be able to get yourself untangled or be diving with someone you can trust to do it for you.

Even at the OW level I expected my students to manage their equipment in the exposure gear they were wearing. Failure to do so identified a problem we had to manage before completing the class. Most in my area wear drysuit, and either thick (7mm) neo gloves or drygloves. It's awkward in the beginning, but like most new skills it becomes easier with practice.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)