Diving Education Today

[DCBC]

That's not a statistic. It's the opinion of the people running the government in Quebec.

Yes. There actions were a result of high statistical information surrounding diver fatalities as a result of inadequate basic diver training.

 

[DCBC]

To the extent that their knowledge and skills are retained, yes.

As an Instructor, I believe that I have the responsibility to prepare a student with the skill-sets necessary for their safety to dive with their buddy unsupervised. Obviously, I encourage them to continue their training. If I sign-off on their card before they're ready, I'm not doing anyone a favor (regardless of how much money I'm paid).

The differences in this discussion focus on how much training is necessary. This is dependent upon the local diving conditions and the instructor's perceptions of what is required. With the exception of PADI, most diving certification agencies understand that the individual instructor's knowledge of the training environment must be taken into consideration. The standards that a Diver must meet, is dependent upon the instructor's judgement of what requirements are necessary.

Unfortunately this judgement sometimes gets twisted for the sake of business. The bottom-line is something that can't be ignored and training requirements are mitigated by opportunity.

Some instructors justify the certification of unqualified divers by saying that the C-card is "a license to learn," or other such horse **** to make them feel somehow justified. Many new divers are hand-held in warm water for a couple of dives on their vacation, no accidents and everything is justified. No harm done. Promotes the sport, good for business and great for the statistics.

Everyone has an opinion and you can manipulate statistics to almost say anything you like. I know that the diving standards for most recreational diving organizations have gone down. Whereas LAC standards have increased; which I'm sure they feel was justified (I wonder why?)

Personally, I'm more reluctant to buddy with a stranger now than I ever was in the past. All the statistics in the world can't changed that. This is not only my experience, but others as well. That is my reality and I'd like to see the situation improve.

 

[Trace Malinowski]

Yesterday, at age 41 with a torn ACL, MCL, and PCL, I was running rings around junior varsity football players at a track. Most of these kids were huge compared to me and I'm 5' 11" and 190, but these kids weren't broad in the shoulder and narrow at the hip. It was cold here in the mountains and they were doing sprints and speed work unsupervised. A coach probably would not have had them doing those drills in that temperature. I did a 30 minute run on a flat surface because I felt old and slow. They practiced on their own for about 20 minutes and looked worse for the wear. They also had trouble getting over the fence that separated the track from the field which is normally locked. It took some of them 3 or 4 tries to clear it. I can vault it better and I suck at vaulting. I had speed, but never jump. I'll jump the fence to use the rubber track every so often instead of the outer road surface track I was on yesterday, so I know I get over the fence better and I'm an old beat up fart.

After reading this thread, I wonder if the joint, muscle and tendon injuries that are being seen in young athletes are related to childhood obesity? I wonder if we should start making football fields 50 yards rather than 100 because 50 yards was killing these kids? Should we make the game easier and give a trophy to every kid just for showing up?

Or, should these kids be expected to tow the line, play football on a 100 yard field, and get in better shape by losing weight? I think that's why they were there.

I wonder, is it because we have an office and cubicle society in which adults are used to achieving online or on paper and physical demands are non-existant? The average diver in the 60's was a young blue collar male who could appreciate that there was art to craftsmanship in his trade, whatever it may be, and there was art to be learned in diving. Today's average diver is a middle-aged cubicle dweller who feels that diving can be learned online and feels entitled to have the game changed to meet his time-table and his needs - because he has money to buy the gear and the certification.

At least those kids were trying. They were probably out there working hard because a coach wants them to reach certain goals and improve. Something tells me if their coach expects them to succeed and challenges them to succeed, they will. I'm sure all of the kids would love to have football be made easier, but football will probably help them in ways they can't imagine by being hard.

Tough training didn't just help me become a better diver. Tough training helped me to be a better person. All I knew when I started diving at age 13 was that I wanted to be a diver. My instructors took care of the rest. I did what I was told and it was challenging, but fun. I had no idea how those skills would still be paying off to this day.

 

[Diver0001]

So despite all the benefits available today, why have the old ways been rejected by the recreational diving industry.

They did it to get under your skin, Wayne.

In your frequent harangues about the evils of modern training, you're forgetting a few assumptions about things that maybe we need to point out.

As compared to 1964

- The diving population is different now than in the good-ol-days. Divers now are often older (I think the average age was mid 30's IIRC) and have more life experience. That life experience is something that the young Tarzans of your generation didn't have so compensation with training was necessary to save them from their own over-confidence. After all, as we see from statistics of automobile accidents, young men until about the age of 25 are at the highest risk. When divers consisted almost exclusively of young men, the risks were different. It was inherent in the attitude and behaviour of participants. this also partly explains why accident rates have dropped over the years. The current diving population simply consists of a cross section of society that collectively aren't willing to take the same amount of risk as divers did in 1964. They may not be able to do all the same things, but they don't lay awake at night because of it...

Saying that we should still be putting modern scuba divers (like Grandma and Auntie Bep) through the rigours of the good old days is to completely ignore this development in the demographics. The risk tolerance of divers has dropped.

- Modern divers engage in other activities and dive in other conditions. More and more divers dive in conditions very dissimilar to the conditions encounterd in the good-ol-days. Many divers, especially inexperienced ones, dive on shallow warm water reefs with a guide. The Tarzans in 1964 didn't. Most diving in 1964 was done in colder water, in more turbid water, engaged in spear fishing etc and with little to no "support" from more experienced divers and/or surface (boat) crews. You might not LIKE the hand-holding that gets done now, but it's a completely normal, completely expected well organized, widely available and safe way to take beginners under water.

You may be right to point out that newly certified divers are not as self sufficient as they used to be, but they also have a much better infrastructure and diving culture to support them in the initial phases.

- Tarzan dove with equipment that most modern diver wouldn't use if they were paid. The gear has improved vastly since 1964. In terms of comfort, utility, safety, reliability, availability and quality of maintenance etc. there is simply no comparison. Divers in 1964 had to be fitter because diving with that crap was simply put, a tougher job. Of course they had to be more prepared for OOA situations, they didn't have the SPG. Of course they had to be stronger swimmers. They didn't have a BCD, of course they had to be more confident. Their skill compensated for the shortcomings in the gear. It would still be many years before the first dive computers showed up .... you know the ones... the called them the Bend-o-matic....

Divers now simply have better gear that compensates in some ways for less demanding training. Put another way, the gear now allows new divers to get in the water faster and more safely than Tarzan could.

I think I could go on but you see what I'm saying. You can't compare the situtation in 1964 with the situation anno 2009 because the CONTEXT simply isn't the same. Moaning about the differences without trying to understand the change in context is just silly and pointless.

One last point about risk. A certain acceptance of risk is inherent in a sport like diving and people know that. People's risk acceptance is also context dependent. We all go diving fully aware that far and away the most dangerous part of our day is driving to the dive-site and back. The risks inherent in diving haven't (if you believe the stats) changed much over the years. Death and accident rates have remained stable even with lower intensity training, probably due in part to factors like I mentioned above. Evidently divers are willing to accept the risk profile the way it is.

The thing that you don't seem to understand is that risk isn't the only thing that's important to modern divers. Access, availability of nice places to dive, the infrastructure, good gear, etc. It's all part of what being a modern diver is. We like to go on vacation and go diving. We like to have a guide who can lead us around, we like to be able to choose gear for functionality, style, comfort and safety..... we like having an industry that supports us in getting the water quickly to go diving because we don't have huge amounts of free time and tourism is expensive.... You might want to go back to swinging through the proverbial jungle because something in you has a romantic attachment to that, but most modern divers don't. They want to go diving.

And for those who don't want to run any risk.... well modern divers also have more options for further reducing their risk with con-ed, sources of skilled mentors, clubs that do ongoing training in the pool and so on. In 1964 you just had to learn it the hard way.

R..

 

[rstofer]

No Richard, that's the last thing that I want. I'd much prefer the diving industry to accept responsibility, so that Government never feels it has to become involved.

The industry has taken responsibility. Yes, there are fatalities but most occur to divers over 40 (90%).

The industry has adapted the training to suit the needs of their customers. That their results don't agree with what you think they should be is irrelevant.

Many millions of dives are made safely each year. In fact, we don't even know how many dives ARE made. If we did, we could probably prove that diving is the safest sport on the planet other than tiddly-winks.

The training is adequate. The divers do survive. It isn't always pretty but pretty doesn't really get graded on the scale of live .. die.

It's kind of like the 'man overboard' thing in San Francisco Bay. Every year we lose some sailors. There is much gnashing of teeth and bemoaning the lack of skill in driving a sailboat. But what's missing is the fact that many overboard situations are resolved quickly and silently (embarassing) so nobody really knows how many events there really are. On very small sailboats, overboard is a way of life.

But I recall that we lost one of the top sailors in the world to an overboard situation. Seems wearing high waders isn't such a good idea. Especially if you aren't wearing a life jacket. This wasn't a lack of knowledge, it was an attitude.

Since the agencies aren't continually defending lawsuits, we have to consider whether, perhaps, the training really is defensible. There just aren't that many accidents.

Richard

 

[Kingpatzer]

double post -- see below

 

[Kingpatzer]

I wonder if we should start making football fields 50 yards . . . Should we make the game easier and give a trophy to every kid just for showing up?

Or, should these kids be expected to tow the line, play football on a 100 yard field . . .

Tough training didn't just help me become a better diver. Tough training helped me to be a better person. All I knew when I started diving at age 13 was that I wanted to be a diver. My instructors took care of the rest. I did what I was told and it was challenging, but fun. I had no idea how those skills would still be paying off to this day.

Should we decide that because there are professional football players out there on 100 yard fields that we shouldn't allow kids to play two-hand touch in a 100' backyard because it's not the same game?

Should we decide that because the really tough players didn't wear helmets and played with broken bones that we should stop all this nonsense about not playing people who have concussions 'cause that's not "tough" enough?

There's a place for difficult training. Recreational diving isn't it. There's absolutely nothing a typical warm water vacation diver will be asked to do that requires "tough" training.

And macho elitists comparing diving to contact sports and wanting it otherwise won't change that reality.

 

[DCBC]

As compared to 1964:

- The diving population is different now than in the good-ol-days. Divers now are often older (I think the average age was mid 30's IIRC) and have more life experience. That life experience is something that the young Tarzans of your generation didn't have so compensation with training was necessary to save them from their own over-confidence. After all, as we see from statistics of automobile accidents, young men until about the age of 25 are at the highest risk. When divers consisted almost exclusively of young men, the risks were different. It was inherent in the attitude and behaviour of participants. this also partly explains why accident rates have dropped over the years. The current diving population simply consists of a cross section of society that collectively aren't willing to take the same amount of risk as divers did in 1964. They may not be able to do all the same things, but they don't lay awake at night because of it...

I believe the opposite to be true. The average age of people taking diving in 1964 was older. Young people back then didn't have the disposable income as they do today. Diving was a commitment. It wasn't like going to McDonalds for a hamburger.

Saying that we should still be putting modern scuba divers (like Grandma and Auntie Bep) through the rigours of the good old days is to completely ignore this development in the demographics. The risk tolerance of divers has dropped.

- Modern divers engage in other activities and dive in other conditions. More and more divers dive in conditions very dissimilar to the conditions encounterd in the good-ol-days. Many divers, especially inexperienced ones, dive on shallow warm water reefs with a guide. The Tarzans in 1964 didn't. Most diving in 1964 was done in colder water, in more turbid water, engaged in spear fishing etc and with little to no "support" from more experienced divers and/or surface (boat) crews. You might not LIKE the hand-holding that gets done now, but it's a completely normal, completely expected well organized, widely available and safe way to take beginners under water.

I disagree with your notion of "Tarzans," but as you may not have been diving in the 60's, you may have based your opinion on conjecture. I do agree that more people are diving today than ever before. It stands to reason that there are more individuals of every age group diving today.

In the 60's diving (at least in Canada) was Club based. Because of this, post-certification training was through mentorship, so without question there was a great deal of support from experienced divers.

You may be right to point out that newly certified divers are not as self sufficient as they used to be, but they also have a much better infrastructure and diving culture to support them in the initial phases.

Again I've proven your theory of poor infrastructure in the 60's incorrect (at least that was my experience).

- Tarzan dove with equipment that most modern diver wouldn't use if they were paid. The gear has improved vastly since 1964. In terms of comfort, utility, safety, reliability, availability and quality of maintenance etc. there is simply no comparison. Divers in 1964 had to be fitter because diving with that crap was simply put, a tougher job. Of course they had to be more prepared for OOA situations, they didn't have the SPG. Of course they had to be stronger swimmers. They didn't have a BCD, of course they had to be more confident. Their skill compensated for the shortcomings in the gear. It would still be many years before the first dive computers showed up .... you know the ones... the called them the Bend-o-matic....

I can appreciate the advantages of technology, with it the diving certification organizations had a choice:

1/ Keep the standards where they were and increase the safety of diving through technology; or

2/ Reduce the standards and with the aid of technology maintain the current safety statistics.

They chose the latter. Primarily because this offered a whole new market of Grandmas and Auntie Beps who now could purchase equipment and take courses. They even divided-up the same training program into several pieces, so their new customers would have to purchase a number of certifications before they were safe enough to dive with a buddy without supervision.

The one thing cannot be argued, is that technology fails. If that's your parachute, I hope you have something else for back-up Grandma.

You can't compare the situtation in 1964 with the situation anno 2009 because the CONTEXT simply isn't the same.

Perhaps I've already addressed this. I teach my students to be safe and independent. The equipment has advanced but the most important piece of kit that the diver has is his/her brain. This hasn't changed. With further training comes increased competence and confidence.

In 38 years, none of the divers I've trained has been injured while diving (to my knowledge). I've trained people in their 60's and 70's and all have passed my standards. I work with them to build confidence and fitness. Upon certification, they are prepared to dive with a buddy independently.

One last point about risk. A certain acceptance of risk is inherent in a sport like diving and people know that. People's risk acceptance is also context dependent. We all go diving fully aware that far and away the most dangerous part of our day is driving to the dive-site and back. The risks inherent in diving haven't (if you believe the stats) changed much over the years. Death and accident rates have remained stable even with lower intensity training, probably due in part to factors like I mentioned above. Evidently divers are willing to accept the risk profile the way it is.

The thing that you don't seem to understand is that risk isn't the only thing that's important to modern divers. Access, availability of nice places to dive, the infrastructure, good gear, etc. It's all part of what being a modern diver is. We like to go on vacation and go diving. We like to have a guide who can lead us around, we like to be able to choose gear for functionality, style, comfort and safety..... we like having an industry that supports us in getting the water quickly to go diving because we don't have huge amounts of free time and tourism is expensive.... You might want to go back to swinging through the proverbial jungle because something in you has a romantic attachment to that, but most modern divers don't. They want to go diving.

Nothing I've said has been directed at a resort course. I don't have a problem with that at all.

If they seek certification to dive independently however, because a person wishes to dive doesn't mean that they get a certification card, regardless of what risk they are willing to accept. The Instructor should feel satisfied as well. Moreover, the certification agency should ensure that the minimum level of training is sufficient to ensure safety of the individual. Society also has this concern. If this isn't maintained, you have government intervention, such as what has been done in Quebec as a result of too many diving fatalities as a result of inadequate diver training.

 

[DCBC]

Since the agencies aren't continually defending lawsuits, we have to consider whether, perhaps, the training really is defensible. There just aren't that many accidents.

Hey Richard. If someone wanted their son or daughter to learn how to scuba dive and they were looking for training, I would suggest they compare training programs. If two were available, one at $399 for 25 hours of training and the other $799 for 50 hours of training and all other things being equal I would pick the later if it was my son or daughter. Why? Diving in the North Atlantic can be dangerous. I'd want him/her to complete the most intensive program before I felt he/she would be ready to go diving with a buddy without supervision. Any Instructor, regardless of how efficient they are can impart more knowledge in 50 hours than they can in 25.

I'm aware of the statistics. I'm also aware that there are not many new divers that I see that I would want to dive with. Don't get me wrong, I'm a mentor to several divers and this was the way I was trained. But if I were to go on a dive vacation, I would like my buddy to be competent. Wouldn't you? I can't imagine why people feel that a higher degree of ability is something that shouldn't be sought after?

 

[Diver0001]

I believe the opposite to be true. The average age of people taking diving in 1964 was older. Young people back then didn't have the disposable income as they do today. Diving was a commitment. It wasn't like going to McDonalds for a hamburger.

That's it, isn't it? You're all cut up because diving isn't a "commitment" anymore.

Adjust.

For a lot of people it's just another thing they do .... go to the zoo with the kids on Monday, go scuba diving on Tuesday..... That's just the way it is. Moaning about it isn't going to change that. So what if people aren't commited? In fact, I think it's a good thing that the industry keeps pace with these kinds of changes. The training and support offered by diving operators adjusts to suit the needs of their clientele. So what if some of those people can't dive in a deep dark sht-hole full of sea-monsters with a 15 inch knife clamped between their teeth? They can still bimble around behind a DM and have fun. Where's the problem in that? The committed ones will find their way, and a lot more safely than they did in 1964!

What you forget is that all the training you get in the OW course, whether now or in 1964 is only good for the first 50 dives. After that you're either a diver or you'll never become one.

BTW, check out the pictures I attached for a look at some scuba classes from your era. I don't see a typical cross section of the population there.

I disagree with your notion of "Tarzans,"

I didn't choose the word randomly. When people talk about their diving feats, the older and more worn out the stories get, the more macho and heroic they start to sound. Add beer and you can just about hear Tantor crashing through the jungle.

No, Tarzan is a perfect visual icon to describe all that "everything in the good-ol-days was better" drivel. It wasn't.

In fact, it was your generation that nearly got scuba diving banned in the early 60's with the "devil be damned" attitude and all the accidents. All this crap about how safe it was back then really doesn't wash. Surely you remember that.

In the 60's diving (at least in Canada) was Club based. Because of this, post-certification training was through mentorship, so without question there was a great deal of support from experienced divers.

You misunderstood me. You can go just about anywhere now and find a shop and local guide and divers to help you. You're not seriously going to try telling me tht in 1964 you had all that? I just got back from Egypt from a dive-camp and there were 10 (count 'em) 10 zodiacs at our disposal, unlimited air and Nitrox, and a dive staff of I-don't-know-how-many to help the beginners. That's the infrastructure I'm talking about. I know you hate PADI but the fact is, they created a context that made diving accessible.

Again I've proven your theory of poor infrastructure in the 60's incorrect.

I must have missed it.

I can appreciate the advantages of technology, with it the diving certification organizations had a choice:

1/ Keep the standards where they were and increase the safety of diving through technology; or

2/ Reduce the standards and with the aid of technology maintain the current safety statistics.

Ok... here you have a good point. Choices needed to be made and I'm as sure as you are that the choice was made to grow the industry and to not just stare blindly at accident statistics. Furthermore, if you compare the accident stats from now as compared to 1964 you can easily argue that the "standards" you hold so high weren't keeping people nearly as safe as you want people to believe they did.

And also.... look what that decision has brought us! I and millions of other people are divers because of that. If I weren't a diver it wouldn't matter to me, but I'm happy on the whole that the elitism of the Tarzans didn't keep the door shut and that PADI in particular was strong enough--and is to this day--to swim against that never ending current of negativity...

Should we forget about safety? No. But nobody ever did. Yes standards were dumbed down to get people diving... but what got created was a context to take ill prepared beginners into the water safely. You may hate that, but it happened and it works. Nobody forgot about safety. Your problem is you think that higher standards are the only way to keep people safe. It's one of the ways but the world isn't so black-and-white, Wayne.

*Could* safety be improved. Without a doubt. *Are* there issues that deserve attention? Without a doubt. But a wholesale rejection of the way it is, simply because it's not the way it used to be is naive and falls well short of offering anything constructive to move us forward.

If you only look back then you'll never find a way forward.

The one thing cannot be argued, is that technology fails. If that's your parachute, I hope you have something else for back-up Grandma.

Who said it's the only thing? Black-and-white again. Next.

Perhaps I've already addressed this. I teach my students to be safe and independent. The equipment has advanced but the most important piece of kit that the diver has is his/her brain. This hasn't changed. It takes training to make the difference, not a decompression computer.

Sure I agree with you. I teach me divers to be relaxed and develop situational awareness and good judgement too. Teh brain is your best bet, always. But that has nothing to do with your main point, which is hating the progress we've made.

In 38 years none of the divers I've trained has been injured while diving to my knowledge.

When I have 38 years of experience training divers we can sit down and drink a beer, toast to Tantor and congratulate both ourselves with this accomplishment. You for your success in your generation and me in mine.

I have no doubt you're a competent instructor. That was never my point.

Nothing I've said has been directed at a resort course. I don't have a problem with that at all.

this is another topic. i'd like to see some changes on this front but we can take that into another tread.

Society also has this concern. If this isn't maintained, you have government intervention, such as what has been done in Quebec as a result of too many diving fatalities as a result of poor diver training.

I don't know what happened that made Quebec do what they did. From what I know about Quebec they like to be different, just because.... so you never know what's real and what's politics with those guys.

I would say that at this point we don't run nearly as big a risk of government intervention as we did in the early 60's. I agree, however, that the industry should do what it takes to keep the government out of it.

R..