Tech through PADI or TDI?

[boulderjohn]

There's just too much simply not known. I agree with Andy here, lives would likely be saved.

Why not just look at the ones that have been reported and see how many would have been saved in that group. than use the same percentage for the ones that are unknown/ Statistically, that should work.

In a given year, usually about 40% of fatalities are caused by cardiac issues. take those out of the mix. Then look at all the other outliers. Ask yourself this question: was this fatality in any way a result of the diver gong beyond his or her training depth?

I did the same thing for the people who keep talking about the fact that so many divers die with their weights on. If you take away all the cases in which taking weights off would not have mattered in the slightest, you come up with only a handful of cases in which dropping MIGHT have made a difference. For example, if the diver got on the boat and then dropped dead, he would have his weights on, but that would not have been a factor.

I want to know what percentage of the KNOWN cases were attributable to a diver going to a depth beyond his or her training rather than some other cause.

 

[DevonDiver]

LOL at the response to "statistics aren't representative of reality" by asking for more statistics.

This is how someone can get a job with PADI... haha

 

[DevonDiver]

.. 78 unaccounted for deaths. Going back to the 68,... , 45 cases the level of certification was not known, 54 cases the number of years diving was not known, 23 cases the depth was not known.

So it's pretty obvious that a vast proportion of diving fatalities aren't effectively reported. Thus making it impossible to formulate any accurate statistical understanding of activity-risk-qualification relationships.

So, if you're an "agency man", you can bury your head in the sand and deny there's a problem based on a lack of statistical evidence.

People don't often report dive accidents, especially dive professionals.

An agency, or individual, that manipulates that consequent lack of data into a justification to ignore dive safety concerns is sincerely lacking a moral compass.

 

[HantsDiver]

@DevonDiver I think that you are saying agencies should stop their dive pros from diving with people outside their training level.

However surely this would only apply to DM's or instructors not qualified to teach that given course? If I wanted to take a fun diver to 30m then how is this anymore risky than me doing so on a course? Yes they might have read a few pages of the AOW manual and know they will use more gas - but the basic risks are the same.

 

[DevonDiver]

@DevonDiver I think that you are saying agencies should stop their dive pros from diving with people outside their training level.

However surely this would only apply to DM's or instructors not qualified to teach that given course? If I wanted to take a fun diver to 30m then how is this anymore risky than me doing so on a course? Yes they might have read a few pages of the AOW manual and know they will use more gas - but the basic risks are the same.

That makes an assumption that training isn't beneficial in providing skills, knowledge, equipment and experience. Which, in turn, would empower a higher degree risk of risk mitigation; commensurate to the level of diving activity conducted.

In short, training gives you nothing.

If simply escorting a diver to 30m on a fun dive was no different to training them to dive more safely to the same depth, then there's obviously a significant issue with the training quality and content.

Reading a chapter in manual and going on a "trust me" dive with a pro ISN'T training.

I don't deny that this is all that many divers actually receive though...

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Why not just look at the ones that have been reported and see how many would have been saved in that group. than use the same percentage for the ones that are unknown/ Statistically, that should work.

In a given year, usually about 40% of fatalities are caused by cardiac issues. take those out of the mix. Then look at all the other outliers. Ask yourself this question: was this fatality in any way a result of the diver gong beyond his or her training depth?

I did the same thing for the people who keep talking about the fact that so many divers die with their weights on. If you take away all the cases in which taking weights off would not have mattered in the slightest, you come up with only a handful of cases in which dropping MIGHT have made a difference. For example, if the diver got on the boat and then dropped dead, he would have his weights on, but that would not have been a factor.

I want to know what percentage of the KNOWN cases were attributable to a diver going to a depth beyond his or her training rather than some other cause.

John,

Okay, I'll play along. Here's a cut and paste of the known fatalities

The problem is that there is so much that isn't known.
Table 1.7.2-2 Harmful events (n=68) Mechanism Total
Cardiac event 5
Hypertensive/Atherosclerosis cardiovascular disease 2
Insufficient breathing gas 5
Insufficient buoyancy 3
Natural disease 4
Out of air 3
Probable oxygen induced seizure 1
Rapid ascent 2
Struck head 1
Stroke 1
Unknown 40
Total 68

We have only 28 out of 68 that is known. 12 is for something natural. The others, hard to tell. Are you going to extrapolate that 12 out of 28 across the entire world? Now it was a long time since I took statistics in undergrad, but I don't think you can make that extrapolation. But for sh!ts and giggles, let's do just that.

From the data provided, I cannot tell how many of those people who died for insufficient breathing as, insufficient buoyancy, probably oxygen induced seizure, and out of air exceeded their training level. I'd say some of them did, as if they were properly trained, they probably wouldn't be dead right now. Here's the problem with your insistence on having that data. Guiding in the US isn't like the rest of the world. On the west coast, you don't have guides in boats. You are on your own. There is no guide trying to take you into a wreck for which you have no business of going, trying to get more of a tip. I cannot speak for the east coast as I've never been on a boat charter there, but I have in BC, Washington, and California. All boats there operate the same.

If you want guaranteed proof that guides not taking people beyond their level of certification would (or would not) save lives, well the data simply hasn't been collected. If it has, it simply hasn't been published.

I feel this is a matter of common sense. We know of an incident recently where there was a fatality where if the DM was not allowed to take people inside a wreck in which they had no business being inside. So one person would have been saved per Andy's suggestion.

Let me ask you this, John. How many people need to have been saved in order for it to be worth implemented such a policy? If one, we've met that condition already. If more than one, how many? Please answer this question.

Kosta

 

[boulderjohn]

ohn,

Okay, I'll play along. Here's a cut and paste of the known fatalities

I forgot to mention one other filtering factor. Andy's suggestion only relates to dives being led by a professional. How many of the dives you looked at were led by a professional? I would venture to say nearly none.

Andy says that dozens of people are dying every year while being led beyond their training depths by DMs. Take a look through the accidents and incidents section of ScubaBoard and see how many such incidents you find. There will no doubt be a couple--but dozens a year?

So you will then argue that those dozens a year are indeed taking place--they just aren't being reported. And you know they must be there because...because......because....

 

[boulderjohn]

So let's say that PADI were to make a requirement that DMs must adhere to the depth limits of people's certifications, in contradiction to their current assertion that experience can also be a factor in determining one's ability to do such a dive. What would happen.

Let's say you are the owner of a dive operation in say, Cozumel, where all the good dives begin deeper than 60 feet. PADI tells you that if you have a PADI-certified DM leading any OW diver to 61 feet of more, they will lose their DM certification. You realize that if you limit all those thousands of divers to those depths, you will be out of business in no time. How long would it take you to have all your DMs switch to a different agency? How eager would a different agency be to collect all those newly certified professionals?

 

[DevonDiver]

. Andy's suggestion only relates to dives being led by a professional.

You've misunderstood or misquoted me.

What I communicated was that dozens of lives could be saved each year if agencies set and maintained membership standards in relation to member conduct of non-training dive activities... instead of turning a blind eye and abdication all and any responsibility for it.

John your view and understanding of the greater dive industry is deeply flawed. Taking an occasional overseas holiday doesn't expose you to a real understanding.

You're basing 'world views' on your perception study and experiences in what is quintessentially a non-diving area, nor have you worked full time in the industry (as I understand it). Beyond that limited exposure to the industry, it doesn't really matter how many people at PADI HQ you have on speed dial (and mention in nearly every post).

 

[MichaelMc]

I saw a video of native fisherman who cast out a very wide net and then as a group dive under the net to gather it together while breathing off of air pumped through tubes they held in the corner of their mouths. If you are willing to do that for a living, guiding divers into wrecks while breathing off a compressed air cylinder likely seems a really cushy safe occupation. And agency rules about training levels, light zones, redundant air, and guide lines rather remote.

Edit: I guess my points are: Buyer beware. Standards applied to non teaching dives would help those who do not know better, but loosely applied legal frameworks and people doing whatever they need to make a living may make that tough.