Taking an open water student below 60 ft?

[Protondecay123]

You can also use the BSAC annual report. It shows slightly different results.

https://www.bsac.com/document/divin...mat/1bsac-incident-report-2018-new-format.pdf


However I think your conclusion is not obvious for two reasons (and it does not help that only a picture is shown without a description of the methodology to obtain this data)

1. if training would take 3 months of intensive training in a pool, it would probably reduce the number of incidents ... but then you would have a lot less OW students as well.
2. There are more OW than other types of certifications. It could be that there are more DSD and Student dives and, without knowing how many % of the actual # of dives it is hard to know if they actually have a higher accident rate. You should care about the accident rate and NOT the # of accidents.

At some point you have to decide what you consider sufficient. Different people will have different opinions on what they consider enough.

Please excuse my presumption that everyone here would be familiar with the Divers Alert Network (DAN) . For those unfamiliar, Divers Alert Network is a group of not-for-profit organizations dedicated to improving diving safety for all divers. It was founded in Durham, North Carolina, United States, in 1980 at Duke University providing 24/7 telephonic hot-line diving medical assistance. This data is from the US and Canada branch from 2016; which is available with no pay wall via Pubmed. And for sure teasing the numbers for per capital incidents etc would provide a greater window. But regardless, i think it still warrants concern that the mortality is so high. And in regard to total accidents versus fatal accidents, that’s likely a wash , given the students are less well trained in dealing with an emergency versus being in a more dangerous environment but better training. If you like you can go read the document for free and offer your criticisms of DAN’s methodology. But they have been doing this for quite some time as scuba history goes. A more rigorous curriculum is nice to see for my part.

 

[BlueTrin]

Please excuse my presumption that everyone here would be familiar with the Divers Alert Network (DAN) . For those unfamiliar, Divers Alert Network is a group of not-for-profit organizations dedicated to improving diving safety for all divers. It was founded in Durham, North Carolina, United States, in 1980 at Duke University providing 24/7 telephonic hot-line diving medical assistance. This data is from the US and Canada branch from 2016; which is available with no pay wall via Pubmed. And for sure teasing the numbers for per capital incidents etc would provide a greater window. But regardless, i think it still warrants concern that the mortality is so high. And in regard to total accidents versus fatal accidents, that’s likely a wash , given the students are less well trained in dealing with an emergency versus being in a more dangerous environment but better training. If you like you can go read the document for free and offer your criticisms of DAN’s methodology. But they have been doing this for quite some time as scuba history goes. A more rigorous curriculum is nice to see for my part.

I know what DAN is, however it does not change the fact that interpreting the number should take in account the methodology to obtain these figures and that the rate is possibly more important than the total number of incidents.

I am not saying we should not look at these figures, I am saying that one should be careful about jumping to conclusions too quickly:

• Is the number of incidents due to the inexperience of students ?
• Is it due to poor instruction ?
• Can they be avoided by implementing new rules ? Would these new rules practical and easy to enforce ?

The answers to these questions are not obvious to me. I am not saying you are wrong ...

Did you give the link to the document ?

As for the length of the study, I can see that the BSAC report seems to have history since 1965. But it has also drawbacks: I do not know how many incidents would not be reported and it covers mostly UK divers and may not be relevant to other regions.

EDIT: it seems to be the DAN annual report, I’ll look at it

 

[jonhall]

Funny that it would be a non-scientist would recognize the source of the data.

Just takes a DAN member or a retired science teacher.... nah, just a DAN member.

I would want to know more details - the chart says fatalities, not accidents. For example, might undiagnosed/undisclosed medical issues turn up more often in OW and drive some disproportionate part of the number?

Exactly. Looking at individual graphs such as by certification can be interpreted in different ways especially when one considers that most cases indicate incomplete information and many cases probably involve undiagnosed medical issues.

On the surface one might conclude from other graphs in the same year, 2016 in U.S. & Canada, the following:

Breathing gas type: 5 fatalities on air, 13 fatalities on nitrox, trimix, combination - might indicated more fatalities for divers who had more training but there were 76 cases unknown and we don't know the activity or other factors.

Buddy status: 8 fatalities of solo divers, 21 fatalities separated or not separated (more in not separated category) could indicate that it's safer to dive solo but there were 65 unknown cases. It could also indicate that the buddy system needs more emphasis during training. Again the activity and other factors are unknown.

I would like to see a chart on the numbers on divers with their level of swimming experience before training at the OW level.

Here's a link to the DAN 2016 report. https://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/report/AnnualDivingReport-2018Edition.pdf

 

[mark humble]

I know what DAN is, however it does not change the fact that interpreting the number should take in account the methodology to obtain these figures and that the rate is possibly more important than the total number of incidents.

I am not saying we should not look at these figures, I am saying that one should be careful about jumping to conclusions too quickly:

• Is the number of incidents due to the inexperience of students ?
• Is it due to poor instruction ?
• Can they be avoided by implementing new rules ? Would these new rules practical and easy to enforce ?

The answers to these questions are not obvious to me. I am not saying you are wrong ...

Did you give the link to the document ?

As for the length of the study, I can see that the BSAC report seems to have history since 1965. But it has also drawbacks: I do not know how many incidents would not be reported and it covers mostly UK divers and may not be relevant to other regions.

EDIT: it seems to be the DAN annual report, I’ll look at it

 

[mark humble]

I am uncertain how this site works but had an experience concerning diver deaths that may be informative. About 30-40 years ago I dove about 125 open water dives, eventually becoming a terrible underwater photographer and then a decent spear fisherman and abalone harvester. One of my best dive buddies was from California and sometimes we'd meet to dive off Cozumel. He's Hispanic and became close friends with Cozumel's dive doctor. At dinner one evening we asked the doctor how many dive deaths they experienced. He said in the prior year it was 52 or 72 (I simply can't remember which but think it was 72). He said he thought they were mostly drug related but that the number was a closely guarded secret. It was my impression that there were too many people being encouraged to dive with almost no formal instruction.

 

[Telvar]

We could get into the exact wording of the rules about the OPs question, but I'd prefer to look at such divers (in general). OW student basically means they have rudimentary knowledge and little to no experience. Chances are their buoyancy sucks, they are air guzzlers, have little situational awareness and they don't look at their gauges as many times as they should (and if they did, could they properly interpret the data?).

Doing 30-40' dives seems to be challenging enough for OW students. Consider being under water for 30 minutes @ 30' and then corking to the surface (I did 1 or 2 times @ 25'or so to my embarrassment) or doing it at 70'. The latter will be much more dangerous. It's like taking driving lessons and putting the student in some hyper car. It's just asking for accidents.

So apart from liability and the wording in some rule book, the instructor should have considered the risks involved. I believe he should not have allowed that kind of dive.

 

[yle]

Yes and that's why so many are concerned. Here is a graph of fatalities by level of training from 2016. Students are disproportionately represented. View attachment 555327

The graph is interesting, but only shows part of the story. The important comparison, for this debate, would be the fraction of fatalities in each training level compared to the number of active divers in each training level. That is, the vast majority of divers are just basic OW divers. A very small fraction are technical divers. And a small fraction are instructors. Which means if we made a graph of number of deaths/number of active divers, the student, instructor and technical bars would be through the roof. But the OW bar would be barely a blip.

Which would help prove the point that the current OW course is doing what it is designed to do: provide students that complete the course and become certified as OW divers, the knowledge to safely do basic scuba diving.

And of course, one cannot have this discussion without observing those most in support of this hodge podge of redundant and superfluous courses are those with a vested interest in the system. While those who seen to think entry level courses should be more thorough tend to be more experienced divers with little or no financial stake in it. Not to question the integrity of anyone involved , but it is a valid consideration.

It's only a consideration for those instructors and shops that aggressively promote continuing ed just for the sake of squeezing students for more money. The last shop I worked for, naturally, encouraged us to do this. But I've never been a salesperson and I wasn't interested in the money. The vast majority of my courses, and students, were OW only and my mission was to do the best I could to make sure my OW students were competent divers after their OW course. My name, after all, was permanently affixed to their cert card.

If they expressed interest in the AOW course, or nitrox, I would oblige... and do my best to give them more than their money's worth. Most of the instructors I work with teach scuba only on the side, and because they like to take people diving. They're not in it for the money.

But we understand the cynicism from those that assume we are, and that there's not much we can do to change the situation.

 

[yle]

You are comparing my statement to what should be. My point is that things are not always what they should be. I watched a class start to finish with 6 hours the first day 5 hours the next day and 3 hours a third day and card was issued. Of that time an instructor was present about 8 hours. the rest was self study watching DVD's and doing the quizes in the book while waiting for an instructor to get to the shop from home. shameful yes. was it common? I asked others and they had other and similar stories but not as bad as they were in a multi student class and not a 1 on 1. Most of the comments centered around,, they were not comfortable with their skills and were told you will learn to do this right when you practice on your own after getting your card.

Sounds like a violation of standards. Hard to image how standards could be maintained in the situation you describe. Unfortunately, when this happens students are usually not aware of standards or how to report violations. And they instead leave the class unprepared and simply share their story with others, who are then left to believe that this is a normal scuba course.

 

[yle]

yle: "Modern course was designed to give people what they need to know to be able to just go diving". WELL...
and to be able to rescue a buddy? Really?...
"current OW course provides the knowledge and skills a new diver needs on which to build their experience to become a safe and competent diver." YEAH, unless you or your OW buddy has a problem and you don't know the rescue technique, since rescue is not taught in OW course.

What kind of "rescue" are you imagining? I will grant that the Rescue Diver course goes into more detail on how to recognize and assist a diver in distress (whether it's your buddy or otherwise.)

But as I stated in my original post (the one you're quoting...), I've been through rescue training several times: rescue course, DM course, IDC... and in the past 10 years I have rescued exactly zero people.

So while having rescue skills is nice, I can't see how being able to perform a "Rescue 7" (locate a non-responsive diver underwater, bring them to the surface, remove their gear, provide rescue breathing while towing them to shore or boat, remove them from the water and start CPR...) is an absolutely necessary skill for a person to be a competent diver.

With that said, the OW course does emphasize the buddy system, addresses OOA situations, lost mask, assisting buddy with leg cramps... and the corresponding skills are included in the course. These are also all repeated in the Rescue course.

Please let me know exactly which situations you feel a competent OW diver should be able to respond to that are not part of the OW course, and how often that diver should expect to use that skill in the normal course of their diving. You've really piqued my curiosity...

 

[TMHeimer]

What kind of "rescue" are you imagining? I will grant that the Rescue Diver course goes into more detail on how to recognize and assist a diver in distress (whether it's your buddy or otherwise.)

But as I stated in my original post (the one you're quoting...), I've been through rescue training several times: rescue course, DM course, IDC... and in the past 10 years I have rescued exactly zero people.

So while having rescue skills is nice, I can't see how being able to perform a "Rescue 7" (locate a non-responsive diver underwater, bring them to the surface, remove their gear, provide rescue breathing while towing them to shore or boat, remove them from the water and start CPR...) is an absolutely necessary skill for a person to be a competent diver.

With that said, the OW course does emphasize the buddy system, addresses OOA situations, lost mask, assisting buddy with leg cramps... and the corresponding skills are included in the course. These are also all repeated in the Rescue course.

Please let me know exactly which situations you feel a competent OW diver should be able to respond to that are not part of the OW course, and how often that diver should expect to use that skill in the normal course of their diving. You've really piqued my curiosity...

I don't recall repeating OOA situation in Rescue, but maybe we did.
Anyway....IMHO there are some very important Rescue Course skills that should be in the OW course. Now, I will also say that I also have not had occasion to perform a rescue, though that's not surprising in that the vast majority of my diving has been solo, particularly the last 10 years of my 15 total. I did do a tired diver tow once while assisting an OW course.
The skills that should be included in OW are IMO--
--dealing with a panicked diver on the surface. I recall the total OW training here is to paraphrase "establish positive buoyancy". I may ask what the method(s) are for doing that safely.
--panicked diver at depth.
--unconscious diver at depth -- check him out, bring to surface correctly. I know, he's probably dead, but...
--giving inwater rescue breaths.
--removing equipment and giving breaths while towing (and when to remove it or not).
--dealing with a runaway ascent (or descent). This probably is more common than you'd think, at least from what I read.
--missing diver.
--near drowning.

and a big one-- CPR, rescue breaths, etc. (again here, I'm 65 and have only seen this done for real on TV). Of course, everyone should know this stuff, and I first learned it at age 52. I believe somewhere in the OW manual it says like "once on board, do CPR or find someone who can"--well, I think something like that. But, you and your buddy could be JUST THE TWO OF YOU, diving less that 60' in "conditions equal to or better than you were trained in". You're not required to know rescue breathing or CPR in the OW course.

I do agree in that the chances of actually using this knowledge is very slim (though with enough diving with others, and of course in the case of pros the chances increases a lot I would assume).
I know that after I took Rescue I immediately thought "Geez, I've been diving with a fellow newbie all this time with niether of us knowing this stuff". I then told him what to do should I ever become unconscious. But maybe it's just me.
I imagine pilots also know an awful lot of stuff the will probably never use.