what makes a diving agency a diving agency?

[CT-Rich]

Having skipped reading most of the post in this thread, I apoloigize if I am saying something that has been said before.

Anecdotal evidence is a very poor measure of data, but since the safety of diving is very poorly monitored and most of the reporting is done on a voluntary basis, it can be argued much like the recent republican(US) polling data. i.e you will see what you want to see in the data.

Most divers argue based on what they have experienced. Old salts remember how they were trained and the years of subsequent diving (where rare events tend to reenforce the idea of 'we were trained for everything.' Newer diver probably see the multi-level training as more long term effective, because they got the much of the same as the old salts by going through many classes (and likely some serious money). The newest divers don't know what they don't know yet, and that is a legitmate concern for everyone.

Diving has changed since the 1960's and the gear has changed considerably. The gear that people have access to is more varied and sometimes it is better designed than it was 40-50 years ago. In fairness to the newbies, despite having more gear to drag around, some of that gear makes diving easier and safer. But it also means that they have more crap to worry about on their first dives...

 

[Hepcat62]

Each person would get there own take on it. Many here are under the wrong impression about what is being taught. The discussion at hand is a good point. If or if not limits are being taught. I can speak for PADI that limits are being taught, depth, tables, no fly times, ascent rates, altitude considerations are all part of the PADI OW course and are part of the knowledge review questions and test questions. Those are all very "limit" relevent topics and relate to safety. Because these topics are so ingrained in the system (printed materials students are required to complete) the only way a student could miss them is if the instructor was just handing out cards, that would not be on the agency but on the instructor. I don't have first hand knowledge about what is being taught at other agencies but assume that these things are taught there too, I could be wrong.

I think that we're talking about different levels of learning/understanding here. I will absolutely agree that by the time a new diver is given a PADI open water card, they have most likely read in a book, answered on a test, and perhaps had mentioned in class that while the limit of their certification is 130', the recommendation is 60' until they take AOW, at which point 100' becomes the recommendation. Maybe they're even told that the deep diver specialty is a good choice for going even deeper. So, I agree - they're "aware".

This is one example of the type of conversation I've had enough times in the last few years while working with divers of various skill levels to know there's a pattern...

AOW student: "What's the big deal about going to 100'? I already did it once with a buddy, and everything was fine. It didn't really feel any different than 60..."
Me: "Well, how much gas did you bring for the dive? How much did you have when you started ascending?"
AOW student: "Umm..."
Me: "Were you at least able to make a nice safety stop on the way up?"
AOW student: "My buddy was kinda low on air, and I was having trouble with my buoyancy when we got to 20', so we just came up. It was a really good dive though!"
Me: "Let's talk."

What the divers I've worked with are RARELY aware of is WHY those recommended depth limits are in place. They aren't really aware of the potential issues that await them deeper, darker, etc. That severely limits their ability to make reasonable decisions and to understand when they're actually ready for a dive - with or without a specialty card. They aren't really aware of why 100' is any different from 60'. Without more discussion of this in OW, who can blame them? When everything goes right, it's really NOT substantially more difficult to do the 100' dive than the 60' dive. Hell, when nothing goes wrong 150' technical dives aren't that difficult to survive either, assuming decent buoyancy control.

I'd rather new divers be given the information necessary to evaluate their capacity to do a dive safely in their open water course, well before the really cool deep dive where things go sideways. Simply telling them "don't do that" isn't sufficient, because "don't do that" carries roughly the same weight as "it'll be fine" when you're buddy's ready to get in the water.

 

[The Chairman]

What conclusion do you believe one would draw from auditing the average scuba class? Both Open Water and Advanced?

Thal makes a lot of bluster about "how bad" instruction is today and what is not covered adequately. How the hell does he know if he hasn't audited a class to see what they DO teach? Think about it. It's way easy to be negative without a shred of evidence. What is that negativity really based on? Mostly hearsay.

 

[DCBC]

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 believe in training students how to properly use the equipment they will utilize when they dive (that goes without saying). I don't however teach that equipment is infallible and the diver should only rely on it. Nor do I believe that a poor swimmer is safe in the water because s/he has the technology to maintain life-support underwater. The trade-offs depend upon the Agency, the Instructor and the Student. What some are comfortable with another isn't. That's evident by the different training standards held by each Agency. Also by what you choose to be included within your training program and I choose to include in mine. Different perspectives largely influenced by different diving environments (which makes sense to me). Unfortunately, not all instructors have this freedom...

...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.

That too.

---------- Post Merged at 08:23 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 08:09 AM ----------

...Ok DCBC or anyone thats saying training isn't safe enough because of lack of training time. Lets see what figures you have to say diving is not as safe or that more people are hurt or killed now as comparted to when the training was longer and tougher. Or all of these statements just because you feel that way.

As I've mentioned, there are no statistics that can compare the level of training then/now and relate these to this discussion. My statement was based upon what seems to me to be common sense. I asked you specific questions, which you have elected not to answer:

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?

I have stated that "Diver's today are less safe than they use to be." I firmly believe this to be the case.

Diver retention has dropped. Why do you think this is?

As I've already stated, you don't improve diver competence by lowering watermanship requirements, the removal of diver rescue (submerged) and inadequately cover gas management and planning. If you think that this makes a "safer diver," lets just say I disagree.

 

[The Chairman]

Diver retention has dropped. Why do you think this is?

Why has it dropped? Many more people are willing to invest a short amount of time into learning the sport than there are those committed to learning EVERYTHING first. Without the investment, it's easy for them to let it slide and move on to the next challenge conquest. Making it fun and keeping it that way is key for retention. Again, I dove for many, many years and avoided getting certified due to watching antics in just one class. I didn't want to deal with an over zealous instructor hell bent on training the next crop of Navy Clearance Divers. I like having training broken into discreet units and skill levels. It's like the Boy Scouts Swim classifications: Non-swimmers can get into waist deep water. Beginners can get into chest high water. Swimmers can swim anywhere WITHING limits. This allows the scouts to work on improving and once they pass the test, they are graduated into the appropriate level.

The real problem with divers exceeding their limits are the divers themselves. They've been told. They've been cajoled. Recently, a full cave instructor read the riot act to a cavern certified diver. He was at the warning sign in Ginnie with only two lights, no reels and did not have his own line to the surface. The cavern diver was pretty bitter about this because he had his reels in the car and he was "only looking". It was the big bad cave instructor's fault for pulling him out of the cave into safety and then castigating him for it. I listened to his tale of woe with a smirk on my face. Denial was not just another river in Egypt. I tried to point out that the problem lay with him, the cavern diver, but he didn't want to hear it. Next time I see that instructor, I'll have to go and thank him.

There was a CCR death up in the panhandle a few years ago. Everyone here on SB talked about what a careful diver he was and how he always, always maintained his gear. I was shown his gear and it didn't looked well maintained. On top of that, the diver KNOWINGLY went in with only one O² sensor working. You can't blame the instructor for the student's ability to rationalize away standards and put stupid in to their diving. It's just not fair and then the student has someone to blame other than themselves. There is only one person in charge of my safety: me. Anything else is just a trust me dive and that's wrong.

 

[endurodog]

I believe in training students how to properly use the equipment they will utilize when they dive (that goes without saying). I don't however teach that equipment is infallible and the diver should only rely on it. Nor do I believe that a poor swimmer is safe in the water because s/he has the technology to maintain life-support underwater. The trade-offs depend upon the Agency, the Instructor and the Student. What some are comfortable with another isn't. That's evident by the different training standards held by each Agency. Also by what you choose to be included within your training program and I choose to include in mine. Different perspectives largely influenced by different diving environments (which makes sense to me). Unfortunately, not all instructors have this freedom...



That too.

---------- Post Merged at 08:23 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 08:09 AM ----------



As I've mentioned, there are no statistics that can compare the level of training then/now and relate these to this discussion. My statement was based upon what seems to me to be common sense. I asked you specific questions, which you have elected not to answer:

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?

I have stated that "Diver's today are less safe than they use to be." I firmly believe this to be the case.

Diver retention has dropped. Why do you think this is?

As I've already stated, you don't improve diver competence by lowering watermanship requirements, the removal of diver rescue (submerged) and inadequately cover gas management and planning. If you think that this makes a "safer diver," lets just say I disagree.

DCBC I'll answer your question if you answer mine, fair enough.

I can answer most of your questions with a statement. I would always prefer to dive with a highly trained diver but the preference is slight and I will dive with any certified diver. The level of there swimming ability or rescue skills would not make me pass on a dive with them as long as they are certified.

Yes more training would increase diver safety. You would be a better diver and safer if you attended more training too but I would still dive with you even though your not trained to as high as level as you could be.

Diver retention is a lot more complicated than your suggesting it to be. The economy, an aging baby boomer population, the new generation of computer kids. I am active in several sports, dirtbiking being one of them. I have sat on the board for an enduro circuit since 98 and we have seen that sport have less attendance also. The board, and boards across the country have done many different things to "retain" people in the sport but there is that slow bleed in so many of these active sports and activities (diving) now days.


Do you really think that by increasing the training (which equals money and time) that more people will get in the sport?

Do you have figures to say that sport is having more safety issues than it did when training was longer or is this just your opinion? (you kind of answered that but refered to common sense which can be debated so please answer the question)

The whole training debate has to take into account the overall questions of at what point are divers trained to a point that they have been given the "needed" training to participate in scuba and at what point are we getting diminishing returns. This all plays into how it effects the overall industry.

 

[boulderjohn]

Diver retention is a lot more complicated than your suggesting it to be. The economy, an aging baby boomer population, the new generation of computer kids. I am active in several sports, dirtbiking being one of them. I have sat on the board for an enduro circuit since 98 and we have seen that sport have less attendance also. The board, and boards across the country have done many different things to "retain" people in the sport but there is that slow bleed in so many of these active sports and activities (diving) now days.

I was an avid tennis player from the 1970's-90s. During that time, no matter where I was, it was really tough to get a court. the standard procedure for the public courts was to arrive an hour or two before you were hoping to play, get your name in, and wait out the people who were also waiting. If the line was too long, you had to drive around to find a court with a shorter line. When signups could be made in advance in a central location, you had to get there early to get a good time. Today if I wanted to play, I would go to the nearest court expecting to walk on. If I drive by them, they are usually empty. Why is that?

I play golf now--easier on the knees. I live next to Boulder's municipal course. Twenty years ago we had to call in for reservations at the earliest possible time. We would put our phone on speed dial so we could call repeatedly, just as everyone else was. Today we can easily get tee times for almost any time we want, even on a Sunday. The local course is desperate for players, and all the courses are constantly sending out special offers. The latest industry statistics say that participation in golf is off 15% nationally from only a few years ago. Why is that?

IS the dramatic dropoff in tennis and golf the result of inadequate instruction leading to unsafe play?

 

[gcarter]

Thal makes a lot of bluster about "how bad" instruction is today and what is not covered adequately. How the hell does he know if he hasn't audited a class to see what they DO teach? Think about it. It's way easy to be negative without a shred of evidence. What is that negativity really based on? Mostly hearsay.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Not to speak for Thal, of course, but I disagree with the thought that one can only judge the quality of instrction by watching it take place.

Do you need to sit in a high school classroom to justify an observation that the system is failing by graduating illiterate and innumerate kids? Or do you just need to see them in action?

It doesn't matter what the intentions of an instructor are. If the result is substandard, by definition they have not done their jobs. They have either not taught the requisite skills properly or they have graduated someone who should not have been graduated. If what they have done is to the standards / curriculum, then that is where the fault lies.

 

[endurodog]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Not to speak for Thal, of course, but I disagree with the thought that one can only judge the quality of instrction by watching it take place.

Do you need to sit in a high school classroom to justify an observation that the system is failing by graduating illiterate and innumerate kids? Or do you just need to see them in action?

It doesn't matter what the intentions of an instructor are. If the result is substandard, by definition they have not done their jobs. They have either not taught the requisite skills properly or they have graduated someone who should not have been graduated. If what they have done is to the standards / curriculum, then that is where the fault lies.

No one has said you can only judge it by sitting in on the instruction except for you. But when someone is stating that certian stuff isn't being taught when it is, it would be helpful if someone was to audit a class to see exactly what info is given.

 

[Peter Guy]

While I'm not at all sure why I'm writing this, given that everyone's mind seems to be set on this, I'll just reprise what I've written too many times before (and not only me).

a. I was a product of "the good old days" of scuba training (go ahead, read my card, it says I completed a minimum of 30 hours of training in skin and scuba diving -- Diving History which translated into 15 weeks of classes, 2 hours a week). What we didn't cover could literally "fill a book" -- if for no other reason than our gear was so much simpler that we couldn't learn about BCDs, Dry Suits, Dive Computers, SPGs!!, etc.

b. I am also a product of today's "modern training" and actually learned how to dive with those items mentioned above in various classes that included some class room, pool time and open water.

c. I have the opportunity of teaching classes from "quickie Open Water" to classes spread over three weeks (and get paid more for the quickie classes than the 3 week ones, go figure!).

As a result of my experiences as both a student AND an instructor, it really has convinced me that, at least for the several agencies with which I've had instruction (NAUI, PADI, TDI, GUE, UTD) it isn't agency standards that are a problem. In every case, the published standards appear to me to be fine.

IT REALLY IS THE INSTRUCTOR CORPS that is the issue -- with the follow on issue of the various agencies needing to do a better job of policing their instructors. To the extent THAT is a failure of the individual agency, I'll buy that but it isn't the standards nor the materials.

Oh, and I absolutely disagree with "those who claim" the basic open water diver needs to be able to be an "advanced diver" before she can be a "safe diver."