what makes a diving agency a diving agency?

[Adobo]

I completely agree with you, Adobo, about the things that are left out of a basic OW class, gas planning being one of them. Although Peter makes his students go through SAC rate calculations after their OW dives, and has them look at what those numbers mean for tank duration for the depth of diving they're certified to do, he doesn't go through the concept of rock bottom or planning for available gas. Those things ARE part of his Nitrox, AOW, Deep, and Rescue classes -- in other words, just about anything more advanced than OW.

But I've seen GUE divers start a technical dive without a head-to-toe equipment check, and seen LOTS of them start a recreational dive without doing it -- including GUE instructors. NOBODY is exempt from complacency and laziness. The difference in our culture is that it's acceptable to call people on it (although in the case of the tech dive, I got some pushback).

Can we at least agree that fundies and essentials (as well as other equivalent classes taught by other people) can do a lot for curing ignorance regarding gas planning, gear check, proper weighting etc.? And that these classes are necessary because of the two weekend open water certification classes leave a lot of holes that need to be filled?

With regards to people entering the water without a proper gear match and other basic pre-dive checks, well, as doppler says, you can't cure stupid (not even with essentials or fundamentals).

 

[TSandM]

Oh, no argument there at all! As you know, I have been, and remain, a vocal proponent of that kind of training, and of that kind of approach to diving. That Borg cupcake ain't there for kicks

 

[Thalassamania]

Can we at least agree that fundies and essentials (as well as other equivalent classes taught by other people) can do a lot for curing ignorance regarding gas planning, gear check, proper weighting etc.? And that these classes are necessary because of the two weekend open water certification classes leave a lot of holes that need to be filled?

We can.

With regards to people entering the water without a proper gear match and other basic pre-dive checks, well, as doppler says, you can't cure stupid (not even with essentials or fundamentals).

Things need to be dealt with on both ends. Great care has to be taken to teach students about gear match, pre-dive checks, etc. But ... on the other hand, this needs to be backstopped with skill and knowledge so that the effect of having a brain skip (like we all do) and missing something in, say, a pre-dive check, shrinks to insignificance (e.g., if a student is completely comfortable reaching back and turning their air on, the classic idiot at the entry point screwing it up and shutting an open valve, is no longer life-threatening). The problem is that many such critical skills take a goodly time to teach and require many repetitions under ever-increasing task loads to become dependable second nature. The majority of the diving agencies are not looking at what needs to be put back into the entry level program, or what needs to have more time spent on it, but rather, what else can be shortened, removed or shifted to a later course.

 

[Trace Malinowski]

Like the science diving community, DIR divers also enjoy an excellent safety record. But, we also need to take a closer look at why this might be true.

Many divers are influenced to take GUE and UTD training by some of the frequent posters on this board. This past June, I even managed to kick, scream, and b***h my way through GUE Tech 2 thanks to a friend of mine who set that class up. Unlike my star performance (mostly 5's and a couple 4's) in Tech 1, my Tech 2 grades were mostly passing 3's and a few 4's because I wasn't really motivated. Yet, in the DIR community Tech 2 is seen as big deal. Am I safer now? Probably not.

Three of my friends who were GUE-trained have died. I lost in a cave diving accident in Mexico and another to a solo rebreather dive off New Jersey. One of the deceased cave divers was an instructor and the other was a divemaster. My friend who died off NJ was a member of the Ozark Cave Diving Alliance, a public safety diver, a divemaster and was bullet-proof on open circuit during the solo course he did with me. All of these divers possessed decent to above average trim, buoyancy and propulsion skills, understood gas management, and each was highly intelligent. Quality training and quality skills won't always protect you.

So, what's going on the DIR community that they can have an above average safety record? I believe the answer is that the divers who are considered to be part of the DIR community are those who are drawn to a sense of community. They enjoy diving in a team and enjoy group dynamics. Like most divers, they have egos. But egos within DIR are fed by getting feedback from other community members. Who has the best trim after GUE-F? Who makes the safest teammate? Who passed Cave 1 or Tech 2? DIR divers don't mind the limitations that are placed upon them by GUE and UTD after training and they enjoy the logic and structure of the philosophy. Most DIR divers train hard as if getting ready for a high-risk dive, but do not engage in high-risk dives. Most DIR divers enjoy "tech-reational" diving and are not prone to seek exterior rewards. The reward is a safe well-planned dive and not squeezing through that crazy tight hole in a cave or getting the ship's bell. Prowess is becoming a GUE-F instructor and not being the first to break JJ's distance record while solo diving a Brazilian cave. The community would sneer at a 30,000 foot solo push rather than be impressed by it. Given this, DIR divers enjoy a good safety record. For those few DIR divers that dive in extreme environments, accidents can happen. The Jim Miller death in the WKPP showed that a quality diver, in a quality team, with quality skills and quality training, belonging to an organization with quality standards can still die.

Divers self-select risk.

Even if GUE and UTD were the only training agencies, there would still be accidents. Divers like myself who enjoy alone time underwater would still sneak solo dives. Others who are "gear heads" would sneak rebreathers and other advanced technology past the leaders in the community much like Jacques Cousteau did while developing the Aqua-Lung in Nazi-occupied France. Those who only wanted to dive during vacations would show up at a resort too rusty to perform an S-drill. Jack-@$$es would still do jack-@$$ stunts. Only tight "nanny nation" control would cut down on accidents, but not prevent them.

DIR enjoys a decent safety record because those drawn to the philosophy enjoy being safe. Most DIR divers I have met who stick with it are risk adverse. I know lots of divers who have left the philosophy because they have grown bored and wanted to play with toys and technologies that aren't recognized by the community or philosophy. Some left because they wanted to start diving solo. Others just wanted more freedom in their diving.

If UTD and GUE were the only agencies, some divers might be afraid to take scuba classes and never start diving in the first place because it can look intimidating. To get people in class and make them happy, some instructors might try to get away with reducing standards and give students a pass who might not meet standards. It would be difficult to control quality if you had instructors at all resorts and dive shops in the world ... and so it goes ...

 

[Doppler]

Can we at least agree that fundies and essentials (as well as other equivalent classes taught by other people) can do a lot for curing ignorance regarding gas planning, gear check, proper weighting etc.? And that these classes are necessary because of the two weekend open water certification classes leave a lot of holes that need to be filled?

Yep.

With regards to people entering the water without a proper gear match and other basic pre-dive checks, well, as doppler says, you can't cure stupid (not even with essentials or fundamentals).

Yep, and while what I wrote was not as clearly stated, that's why we cannot blame agencies (or instructors) for all the problems in our community.

 

[DCBC]

...that's why we cannot blame agencies (or instructors) for all the problems in our community.

Yet they are responsible for a percentage of the problems. If the situation is to improve, we must look at things that are within our control. Instructors have to influence their Agency to require (what they believe to be) a reasonable level of student competence before certification. For those Instructors whose Agency encourages them to increase their training standards, that they make an effort to do so and not simply settle for the minimums because it adds to the bottom line. Students should be encouraged to dive and learn and not simply to take another course offered by the LDS. Personally, I don't find it encouraging that courses are being run whereby the newly certified diver is not prepared to dive with his classmate without supervision. To me it shows how far the standards have dropped.

 

[The Chairman]

Yet they are responsible for a percentage of the problems.

I agree with Doppler: people are responsible for their own actions. You can't blame auto accidents on the person's driving teacher in High School. You can't blame Chevy for the accident either, EVEN THOUGH they have improved the safety of their vehicles with traction control and ABS systems. Almost all accidents, diving or driving, can be attributed to inattention and/or hubris on the part of the victim and they run counter to the training they had received. The last thing we need is to give accident lawyers more avenues to milk our insurance carriers by suggesting otherwise. You and you alone are responsible for your safety and as instructors we need to teach this to each and every student during each and every class.

 

[trevorb]

Huh, NAUI and IANTD aren't mentioned. Kinda makes me wonder if WRSTC is again, all about money.

I am in the UK which at the present moment is still in Europe
and BSAC is not down, so yes I think it is about Money

Dont want to have to start all over again I am far too old

 

[DCBC]

I agree with Doppler: people are responsible for their own actions. You can't blame auto accidents on the person's driving teacher in High School.

If you're a Driving Instructor, you have a legal responsibility to teach the student to stop for red lights. The driving examiner doesn't give the applicant a driver's license and then tell him to get further training to learn what a red light means. In the U.S. (and other countries) negligence is defined as an act or omission. In the case of injury or death, for an Instructor to be found negligent, it's not necessarily to prove what the Instructor did, simply what the Instructor failed to do (which was reasonable under the circumstances).

The Government of Quebec (for example) legislated diver certification because there were three diving fatalities (all divers certified by the same Agency BTW) and the government felt that the training each of these divers received was BELOW what was reasonably required for their safety. SCUBA Diving is currently self-regulated in most geographic areas. It seems to me that if the same attitude persists, it's just a matter of time before further regulation is forthcoming in the future.

Rather than "making it easier" for the student by lowering the training standards, we should provide them with instruction that will properly prepare them for the diving environment expected in their geographic area. What is required for a shallow-water warm water diver is different for those who learn in a cold water environment (as one example). If there is to be only one standard, it must be set to insure the safety of those diving in the worst conditions. Alternatively, a "minimum standard" can be established and the Instructor can be tasked with the responsibility to provide all training to the student that is reasonable. Certification is then contingent not on the "minimum standard," but the complete training program. If the student doesn't meet the standard (minimum plus instructor added), s/he isn't certified until they do. Unfortunately this position is not shared by all training agencies (just the majority of them).

We should wake-up and see the warning signs and modify the training standards accordingly. This is only my opinion; but as an expert witness, it has been one in-which the courts have agreed...

 

[endurodog]

To show that there is a problem with an agency standards that are supposedly producing unprepared divers you must show where the training agency training has caused more accidents. To show that a specific instructor isn't following the agencies standards is a bit more easy, just compare what is being taught and what is in the standards and accidents for that instructors students, 1 is all it may take. In other words you will have to show that agency X has more accidents % wise than there has been historically or they are having more accidents % wise than angency Y and it's caused by their teaching or lack there of.

I have not seen any of those figures for any certifying agency and in fact (I know Thal will argue the figures are skewed) I think the figures point us in the other direction historically.

Feeling that agency X puts out crap divers because they do something different than you is a different issue all together.