what makes a diving agency a diving agency?

[The Chairman]

It seems to me that risk assessment and knowing your limits go hand in hand

They do and they don't. At least, I don't think I have ever overheard a discussion on risk assessment at a dive site that goes into each limit adequately. My biggest pet peeve are "Trust Me Dives". That includes relying on your buddy instead of your own training, skill, physical ability and/or gas for the most part. Too often a diver enters the water without focusing on what they are missing/fort

 

[Hepcat62]

In the PADI system divers are sometimes told their RECOMMENDED limits for their certs, and (generally) few if any of the reasons behind the recommendation.

NOTE: The bold parts in the quote above are added by me.

I fixed it for you. To clarify, I don't count reading it in the book - too many people simply skim the pages looking for keywords from the knowledge reviews.

It's not sufficient IMO to relay the recommended limits. Some understanding of why those are the recommended limits is necessary in order to actually understand why you should apply them, despite the dive operation you're currently visiting assuring you that everything will be fine at 100' on dive #6.

Obviously everything depends on the instructor, but from my experience a lot of people who actually took the time to get a PADI/SSI/etc. deep diving specialty card don't understand the risks as well as I expect a new diver to. To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in spreading fear of more advanced dives. I never want to scare a new diver. Teaching respect for those dives, on the other hand, is absolutely essential to producing responsible divers, and I don't think enough instructors do that effectively.

 

[endurodog]

Hepcat if you want to debate the value of the information given or the delivery then do that but don't change my info and address it as a quote. Thanks

 

[Hepcat62]

What I did is a common internet'ism, and I believe I made it perfectly obvious that I had modified the quote. That said, I've removed your name from the quote box, and added a note clarifying. I certainly was not intending to offend.

 

[endurodog]

What I did is a common internet'ism, and I believe I made it perfectly obvious that I had modified the quote. That said, I've removed your name from the quote box, and added a note clarifying. I certainly was not intending to offend.

Not a big thing man, I appreciate it. Thanks

 

[DCBC]

It is with all of my classes... at every level.

I never questioned that. My point is that you teach for an Agency that allows you as the Instructor to insure that the students are trained to a level you are satisfied with. Like you stated ".Unfortunately, time, depth, gas, skills, training and physical limitations are rarely discussed with OW students as a systematic way to evaluate a dive scenario." I believe that this should be taught by every Instructor and a requirement for every training agency.

---------- Post Merged at 06:47 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 05:39 AM ----------

There are benifits to having the certifications easier than they were. ...More divers gives the industry more of a political voice, it allows for more dive ops to stay in business, more dive resorts, more money for developement of gear, more options for gear. ..

This was the exact reason why the training standards were lowered in the first-place. So manufacturers could increase sales and the industry develop... I'm sorry, but I don't think that increasing profits is a good enough reason to lower diver training standards.

In the PADI system divers are told their limits for their certs.

You really believe that this is the case???

Now all of this takes into account the safety factor, doesn't matter how many people we get in the scuba life if they are getting hurt or dying. But we are not seeing that the present system is worse or better than the old system in a safety sense.

Any statistic that compares diving accidents today with those of the past is misleading. There are more people involved in SCUBA today than 40 years ago, so it can be expected that more diving accidents will occur. This is not a reflection on the quality of training given, rather that you can't relate training quality to these numbers.

To me, it's a matter of common sense. Would you prefer to dive with a non-swimmer or a strong swimmer with good watermanship ability? Would you prefer that your buddy be rescue qualified or non-rescue qualified? Do you feel that you as an Instructor can't increase diver safety by doubling your training? Would you expect your student to have an increase or a decrease in ability after this training? Are you really suggesting that an increased amount of training wouldn't increase diver safety?

How many accidents would their be today if divers had no buoyancy compensation? No SPG (just a 'J-valve')? No dive computers? My point is that a diver isn't necessarily 'as safe' because they can rely on technical advances to substitute for the fact that they don't have the physical ability or confidence to dive without them...

I've been diving for 48 years and have made my living as a commercial diver. If there is one thing that I've learned, its that anything mechanical will fail (its just a matter of time). This is in-light of everything that can be done regarding proper maintenance and good planning. The underwater environment is a hazardous one. Man is not intended to breath underwater. It has been my experience that when an emergency occurs, it is my training and the training and quick action of others that can make a difference. Even after everything is done that's humanly possible, I still may die.

I don't believe in tempting fate. I have seen the differences in the caliber of divers trained today. Believe me, the is differences are many. Diver's today are less safe than they use to be. Diver retention had dropped. As far as I'm concerned (and there are other Instructors on this Board who also feel this way), standards should be increased for many of todays' diving instructional programs. The focus on "making it easier" on the student by lowering watermanship requirements, removal of diver rescue (submerged) and the lack of focus on gas management and planning, just doesn't cut it.

 

[The Chairman]

How many accidents would their be today if divers had no buoyancy compensation? No SPG (just a 'J-valve')? No dive computers? My point is that a diver isn't necessarily 'as safe' because they can rely on technical advances to substitute for the fact that they don't have the physical ability or confidence to dive without them...

Are you suggesting that we train without these? I don't train my students to breathe off of just a tank either. Why? With the newer equipment, these are nothing more than parlor tricks. I learned without those accoutrements: just a j-valve. I avoided going through certification for years because I saw a lot of extraneous crap being pushed in the classes back then. Heck, we just jumped in the water and dove our butts off.

Dividing learning into discrete sections has always been a respected paradigm. We start learning how to add and subtract in one grade. We are then introduced to increasingly difficult concepts in the following years. No one expects a first grader to solve a quadratic equation. Sure, there are those wunderkindern who beat the odds and have a degree by the time they are seven. That's the exception and not the rule. Most agencies have made getting started relatively easy and have created a methodology for students to progress if and when they want to. Personally, I think that too many of them try to finish their dive master classes without enough dives in between. I would like to see a lot more experience between training dives and not less. Look at the traditional cave instruction: Cavern => Intro => Apprentice => Full Cave.

No, the agencies aren't asking their students to do dives beyond their abilities or training. THAT would fall to the dive ops around the world. I dove with someone in Cozumel that frightened me at 60-80ft. I can't believe they took him to 140ft!!! A brief conversation after the dive indicated that there had been no additional instruction and that he still had no grasp of planning or gas management for deep diving.That's not the agency's fault. In fact, the agencies are encouraging people to continue their dive education after OW so they can do these kind of dives safely. None of the agencies do it in the same way, and that's a good thing. Everyone learns differently, so different approaches are called for.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

How many accidents would their be today if divers had no buoyancy compensation? No SPG (just a 'J-valve')? No dive computers? My point is that a diver isn't necessarily 'as safe' because they can rely on technical advances to substitute for the fact that they don't have the physical ability or confidence to dive without them...

We train people do dive in the equipment they're going to be diving in. Seems pretty common sense to me. I can remember a time when seat belts were not common in cars ... would you also suggest we train new drivers without using them? After all, that's just relying on technology to keep them safe.

Times change, and skills adapt to make use of technology. I would way rather train my divers the proper use of their gear than wasting their time teaching them how to dive without it ... because they'll never do that.

I
've been diving for 48 years and have made my living as a commercial diver. If there is one thing that I've learned, its that anything mechanical will fail (its just a matter of time). This is in-light of everything that can be done regarding proper maintenance and good planning. The underwater environment is a hazardous one. Man is not intended to breath underwater. It has been my experience that when an emergency occurs, it is my training and the training and quick action of others that can make a difference. Even after everything is done that's humanly possible, I still may die.

Very ... VERY ... few diving accidents can be traced back to malfunctioning equipment. Diving gear is very robust and forgiving ... and we do, in fact, teach procedures for dealing with equipment failures. Where the system breaks down is that students are rarely given adequate time and repetitions to really LEARN those procedures. If anything, I'd like to see greater emphasis places on that aspect of training, rather than on going back to antiquated techniques that don't really apply to modern diving practices.

I don't believe in tempting fate. I have seen the differences in the caliber of divers trained today. Believe me, the is differences are many. Diver's today are less safe than they use to be. Diver retention had dropped. As far as I'm concerned (and there are other Instructors on this Board who also feel this way), standards should be increased for many of todays' diving instructional programs. The focus on "making it easier" on the student by lowering watermanship requirements, removal of diver rescue (submerged) and the lack of focus on gas management and planning, just doesn't cut it.

Agree somewhat, but not perhaps to the degree you're suggesting. Personally, I think the biggest issue isn't with raising standards for students, but for instructors. Too many instructors out there who are good at selling, and piss poor at diving. You can't teach what you don't really understand ... and parroting back what's in the manual isn't teaching, it's mimickry. Teaching something without being able to explain why it matters doesn't instill knowledge. Demonstrating a skill once, and having a student mimick it back once while kneeling doesn't teach the skill, it only allows the instructor to check it off as having been performed ... and without regular practice that skill is soon forgotten. More to the point, modern training rarely teaches the integration of skills as a systematic approach ... but instead isolates them as discrete functions, which is an artificial environment. The real world doesn't work that way.

In this respect, and getting back to an earlier contention, training diving in a way that integrates skills, emphasises continual practice, and explains the "why" behind what you're doing makes for a more realistic approach to dive training ... and in that respect makes a more legitimate "agency" than one that doesn't do those things.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[xyrandomyx]

We train people do dive in the equipment they're going to be diving in. Seems pretty common sense to me. I can remember a time when seat belts were not common in cars ... would you also suggest we train new drivers without using them? After all, that's just relying on technology to keep them safe.

I can't be sure (DCBC would need to speak for himself), but I think he may simply have meant that we can't compare stats on diving accidents today with those from the past without taking into account the improvements in equipment. That's how I interpreted it on a second reading, at least, and it seems a valid point.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I can't be sure (DCBC would need to speak for himself), but I think he may simply have meant that we can't compare stats on diving accidents today with those from the past without taking into account the improvements in equipment. That's how I interpreted it on a second reading, at least, and it seems a valid point.

... and mine is that it's a non sequitur, since the vast majority of diving accidents have nothing to do with equipment and everything to do with poor decision-making or a failure to follow established protocols and practices that are a standard part of every diver's training.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)