Diving Education Today

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

We teach a little different. You put yourself at risk. Could had very well had two victims to save. I kinda wonder if you stopped, assessed the situation and then react BEFORE hitting the water. Why not do the save with a floatation device. Perhaps a BCD.
Macho Elitism is really an attitude that carries over in ones everyday activities. Right from how they teach, perform rescues to how they even deal with loved ones.

To each is own....

Long Rescue Story Defending My Actions

So, I'm somehow less of a lifeguard and diving professional because I made a rescue with no equipment?

First, I looked at the condition of the swimmer and was glad to see that he had the energy to be yelling for help. I knew that gave me time to look around for a piece of improvised floatation. The day before there had been a couple of buoys with a broken line in the proximity. A string of buoys had come undone due to weather. They weren't there. Someone probably cleaned them up.

A BCD is a good improvisation for a rescue tube. At least it keeps a piece of equipment that works as floatation between the victim and the rescuer. Too bad my wing was bolted to my double tanks by a steel backplate. The tanks were in my friend's SUV in the hotel parking lot.

I teach my students that they can construct a throw line quickly using a finger spool and a bottle of water, soda or sports drink. The victim was too far out to throw him a line. My spool was clipped into my X-shorts pocket which was also in the SUV. The water bottles were in the cooler in the SUV as well. There was nothing around even if he had been within range of a throw. My DSMB would have made a great improvised rescue tube, but guess where that was? Yeah, it was in the SUV.

There were no boats, no rafts, no surfboards or boogie boards, and no lifeguards on duty. Rowing out or taking anything that would be floatation or that might resemble a paddleboard wasn't an option.

Couldn't throw. Couldn't row.

That meant I had to go.

I didn't just run into the water like an unthinking, knuckle-dragging, macho elitist, glory hound, but thanks for the vote of confidence.

All I had was the board shorts that I was wearing, a wax comb in my right cargo pocket and a facemask. I wear contacts and I had the mask so I could go into the water before class and size up the conditions for class.

I knew that would help if the victim went under and it would also allow me to keep a better eye on him as waves broke in my face on the way out.

Once I realized I'd have to swim, and what tools I had, I took stock of my physical capabilities, sized up the situation, and decided to go. At the time, I was 40 years old, and while keeping in shape as best as I can, I'm not the same as in my 20's or early 30's. I took off hard on the run, but tried to conserve energy going over the sand.

When I hit the water, I found myself working harder than I wanted. It was a difficult swim in the chop and surge over shallow sections of reef. I could feel the lactic acid building up and even though I wanted to keep my eye on him, I decided that I'd risk losing sight of him, by putting my head in the water, but re-establish view every several strokes. This allowed me to rest a little while swimming hard and also helped me pick my way through a couple of shallow sections as it turned out. Once beyond that point, the rip helped push me out.

As I neared, I told him that I was there to help and that I wanted him to do me a favor and relax for me and let me establish contact. I stopped near him and went into the ready reverse and sculled close enough to make contact from behind under his left armpit and leveled him into the alternate cross-chest carry gripped with my right arm. This was old hat thanks to the training I had 20 years ago.

I knew that the swim in wouldn't be easy, but I was glad for the added buoyancy of salt water and the fact that the victim was positively buoyant as well. Working across the reef to get away from the outflow of water, I realized that I could get him to a buoy before we reached shore and I asked him if he would be okay if we could reach the buoys and hang on the line for a bit. That string of buoys encircled a coral head to keep snorkelers out and guide them on a tour of the reef. He was okay with that and was also able to help me kick. That helped a lot crossing the rips.

I thought of the buoy because in my first lifeguard test as a teen, my "victim" let go of the ring buoy I had thrown her. I did a stride entry from the pool and swam to the ring and passed it to her, keeping it between us as both a barrier to direct rescuer to victim contact and for floatation. The "victim" then climbed over the ring seized my wrist and I had to do a release hold on her, put her into a cross-chest carry and get her to side of the pool. Passing the ring to her rather than just doing a swimming rescue got me the only perfect score in that test for a college credit. I had a semester of tough training and an "A" in the class with a tough female instructor who sequestered all lifeguard candidates in a room and, quite fairly, took us one by one into the pool for the same test. The candidates never returned to the room so no one could help anyone prepare. I was the last to go. I was really nervous because the course had been tough and I couldn't imagine what the test would be like since class was grueling. Our "victim" was a big, tough, strong girl who fought hard. But, all the training made the test easy.

Anyway, the lesson learned from that first lifeguard test made me think that if I could improvise in the water and rest before the swim back, it would make it safer for both of us. I took the chance and released him to hold on to the top of the buoy, get high out of the water, and rest himself. I treaded next to him and prepared for the swim home if the buoy idea didn't work. He regained some of his composure and wanted to try to pull himself in by the line attaching the string would put us into shallow water just offshore. As he did, I switched to an assisting a tired swimmer tow. He was okay with the line on one side and me on the other. As we neared the beach, I asked if he wanted me to let go for the last few yards where he could stand figuring he would want a little dignity. He said, he'd be great with that.

He thanked me for helping him and I thanked him for his courage to recognize he needed help, and for making it possible to reduce some of the workload by cooperating.

Twenty-one years after the skills learned in ARC Advanced Lifesaving I found myself in a rescue situation that was exactly what they trained us to be able to do in the worst case scenario. I've demonstrated it and done it in all my Red Cross, YMCA, USLA, and dive rescue courses. But, unlike some of my students and other guards I trained with, it wasn't just one time in a lifeguard training class that it was demonstrated and performed. We swam lap after lap towing and fighting one another in those days when equipment was a secondary skill. Even if it helped just once in 21 years, it helped once. On that day, for both us, once was plenty.

By the way, in that instructor class, I challenged the instructor candidates to meet the same swim test standards and perform the basic watermanship skills as required by Sandy Hook, USCG rescue swimmers, UDT/BUD's, and others all the way down to the minimal standards required to be a scuba instructor. This included swim times, underwater breath hold swims, snorkel swims, etc. The best student was a woman who kept her minimum standards between a Sandy Hook lifeguard and a USCG rescue swimmer at age 38. All candidates did the class in double tanks. Hopefully I inspired them like my lifeguard and scuba instructors inspired me.

By the way, my toughest scuba instructor who made me swim laps and demanded quality when I was 13 and in my first scuba class was also a woman. Her husband and son had a gentler approach.

So much for "macho" and "sexist". I guess that just means anyone, male or female, who asks their students to work hard is elitist.

Short Post Food for Thought about Women Divers

I think the biggest injustice in the diving industry is that women are always put in a position of being the "victims" of "macho elitism" as a defense for lessened standards rather than being given credit for being the ones most willing to meet or exceed whatever standards are thrown at them.

Men must have thought of that one.
 
Last edited:
The last that I knew, the Nat'l Park Service used the USLA training standards. Which is a 500 yard swim (it used to be 800 yards) and their mininum equipment standards which is a can or resuce tube also. So they too "lowered" their standards.


http://www.usla.org/Train+Cert/USLA_Guidelines.pdf

You may want to read these about Sandy Hook's higher swim standard than USLA:

A post I made about swim standards discussing Sandy Hook ...

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/4878356-post37.html

The National Park Service's info on pre-employment swim tests for Sandy Hook ...

Gateway National Recreation Area - Testing for National Park Service Lifeguard Jobs (U.S. National Park Service)

My source and more complete information on the science behind the Sandy Hook standard ...

Surf-Lifeguard Preemployment Test | World Conference on Drowning Prevention
 
[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]First, applicants must swim 600 yards in under 10 minutes.

Second, in under four minutes, they must perform a simulated rescue, swimming 50 yards to retrieve a dummy, towing that dummy 50 yards, getting out of the water and carrying a 150-pound person 50 feet, and then performing rescue breathing on a CPR training manikin for a minute.

[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]Third, they must swim underwater for 125 feet, surfacing exactly four times. [/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]Fourth, they must break free from the grip o[/FONT]f another person underwater.

Finally, they must run 1½ miles in under 12 minutes.​
Sounds kinda light in the loafers to me. I'm an old guy and only the run (my hips are not what they once were) would give me any pause. ;)

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]
[/FONT]​
 
Sounds kinda light in the loafers to me. I'm an old guy and only the run (my hips are not what they once were) would give me any pause. ;)

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]
[/FONT]​

That's because you, Trace, and I are all macho elitists. :rofl3: Now, if you'll excuse me I am going to take my high-faluting college education and go rub it in some plebian faces, because that is what elitists do ;)
 
Sounds good, I think I'll join you.:HHGTTG:
 
Then why do warm water recreational divers, who do not engage in rough, elitist, macho underwater activities, and whose goal is to survive an easy fun day of diving, perish in easily preventable accidents?

The data doesn't support your contention that divers are perishing in easily preventable accidents. Go read the DAN report linked to earlier.

Since you're arguing from a perspective of fantasy, there's really nothing more to add on that point.

When it is you, your kid, your spouse, or someone you care about in trouble, you'll be glad that "macho elitists" like me, whether they be dive pros or rescue trained divers, train hard and run in the cold when our knees hurt.

Yes, I'm sure you'll be thrilled to bask in the glory too. I promise to try to die near you soon.

. . . over a period of 8 - 10 weeks . . .

Not an elitist? Really? :rofl3:

Sorry, such training has been demonstrably proven to be unnecessary. Look at the data. When such training was the norm the death rates were higher than they are today.


If anything recreational divers need the better training because unlike some of us "macho elitists" they really are not okay with dying down there.

That's good - since they aren't dying down there. Again, come out of your fictional little world and read the DAN report.
 
The data doesn't support your contention that divers are perishing in easily preventable accidents. Go read the DAN report linked to earlier.
The data is quite equivocal, someday DAN will, perhaps, hire someone with a background in exploratory data analysis.
Yes, I'm sure you'll be thrilled to bask in the glory too. I promise to try to die near you soon.
Don't do it! No one (especially Trace) is worth that kind of sacrifice.
Not an elitist? Really? :rofl3:
Why not the best? Some of my BEST friends are elitists,
Sorry, such training has been demonstrably proven to be unnecessary. Look at the data. When such training was the norm the death rates were higher than they are today.
Time for a thought experiment. In over fifty years of running the same sort of training program within the scientific diving community there has been only one fatality involving a graduate, and that was in one of the most extreme diving environments on earth, the Antarctic. Clearly this is a better record than that of the recreational community. It clearly follows that somewhere between the depauperate recreational courses offered today and the elitist programs run within the science community lies an optimum where the class is shorter than 100 hours and the divers as safer than today's recreational divers. No?
That's good - since they aren't dying down there. Again, come out of your fictional little world and read the DAN report.
There's nothing fictional about my world, longer courses can be simply shown to produce safer divers, end of story.
 
There's nothing fictional about my world, longer courses can be simply shown to produce safer divers, end of story.

I don't think that is the end of the story. Scientific divers first and foremost dive for at least part of their living. They dive more frequently. They progress on a graduated diving track starting with lower depths and difficulties before being allowed to deeper depths or more severe situations (as rec diver courses inform their students to do as well).

I would be more than willing to randomly pull log books for a first five years of diving from average scientific and recreational divers and see who is diving more frequently. I would guess it's the scientific diver.

That means that they are having more chances to refine their skills, they are being held to protocols by professional standards and often by surface support people, that don't exist for recreational divers.

They often have a need to plan their dives to greater detail because of research protocols, and might do so anyway since people who are into science might be more apt to play around with numerical calculations and what-if analysis for fun.

If you took any average OW diver, made them part of a research team, and had them working on their diving skills on a daily basis in an environment were detailed analysis was common, I would be willing to bet that the differences between the divers would disappear rather quickly. Environment and community tend to trump formal training.

I am not arguing that the average OW diver should be doing deep drift dives at night during thunderstorms. I'm saying that the OW training is sufficient for what it purports to do -- provide a person with a reasonably cost and time effective path to becoming a reasonably safe diver.

One last thought. Who would you rather have drive you someplace in heavy traffic: A 46 year old who just got their license after living in the city and never driving in their life and taking a 3 week driver training course, or a 46 year old who got their license 30 years ago after taking a 10 week course but who has never driven since?

I wouldn't choose second. I'd want someone who has driven within the last couple of decades.
 
I don't think that is the end of the story. Scientific divers first and foremost dive for at least part of their living
Incorrect, in fact since they can not be disciplined in any way for refusing to dive it is generally interpreted to mean that they can not be paid to dive.
They dive more frequently.
More than what? They must make 12 dives per year to stay on the roles, many don't, many need to retool for a field season after they've laid off for two or three years.
They progress on a graduated diving track starting with lower depths and difficulties before being allowed to deeper depths or more severe situations (as rec diver courses inform their students to do as well).
True, but as you observe, that's kinda a same/same.
I would be more than willing to randomly pull log books for a first five years of diving from average scientific and recreational divers and see who is diving more frequently. I would guess it's the scientific diver.
Maybe, I don't know. I'd guess that after the first year's dropouts the two groups would be remarkably similar, at least if you consider local divers.
That means that they are having more chances to refine their skills, they are being held to protocols by professional standards and often by surface support people, that don't exist for recreational divers.
Man, I wish I knew where scientific divers get all the surface support, most of them are doing unfunded thesis research and the closest thing they hgave to a research vessel is their surf mat.
They often have a need to plan their dives to greater detail because of research protocols, and might do so anyway since people who are into science might be more apt to play around with numerical calculations and what-if analysis for fun.
No doubt. Dives are planned, emergencies are planned and trained for, plans are reviewed by experts and refined.
If you took any average OW diver, made them part of a research team, and had them working on their diving skills on a daily basis in an environment were detailed analysis was common, I would be willing to bet that the differences between the divers would disappear rather quickly. Environment and community tend to trump formal training.
The average OW diver would be such a burden on the team that the scenario you suggest is not only absurd but prohibited.
I am not arguing that the average OW diver should be doing deep drift dives at night during thunderstorms. I'm saying that the OW training is sufficient for what it purports to do -- provide a person with a reasonably cost and time effective path to becoming a reasonably safe diver.

One last thought. Who would you rather have drive you someplace in heavy traffic: A 16 year old who just got their license after a 3 week driver training course, or a 46 year old who got their license 30 years ago after taking a 10 week course but who has never driven since?

I wouldn't choose the 46 year old. I'd want someone who has driven within the last couple of decades.
I guess I miss the point of this.
 
The data doesn't support your contention that divers are perishing in easily preventable accidents. Go read the DAN report linked to earlier.

Since you're arguing from a perspective of fantasy, there's really nothing more to add on that point.

Would you call drowning on the surface because one's tank valve is turned off, an easily preventable accident? I would. The training solution is called a valve drill.



Yes, I'm sure you'll be thrilled to bask in the glory too. I promise to try to die near you soon.

Please don't try to die. Succeed.

Don't take that personally, I'm joking. You left yourself open for it. :D

Not an elitist? Really? :rofl3:

Sorry, such training has been demonstrably proven to be unnecessary. Look at the data. When such training was the norm the death rates were higher than they are today.

What types of dives were resulting in fatalities? Depths? Activities? Cave? Wreck?

8 - 10 weeks of training in my mind is 1 class a week for 8 weeks plus 5 open water dives either on one or two weekends. Two weekends usually allows for training in a quarry and in the ocean for many divers. While not all skills are represented, the basic structure is as follows:

Class 1: Introductions and learning to dive lecture
Class 2: Snorkeling physiology lecture
Class 3: Scuba habits & equipment lecture
Class 4: Scuba physiology lecture
Class 5: Decompression 1 lecture: Science, tissue half-times, No-Deco & Deco tables
Class 6: Decompression 2 lecture: Altitude tables, omitted deco, computers
Class 7: Oceanography & marine life lecture
Class 8: Open water techniques lecture & written testing

Pool 1: Snorkeling and watermanship
Pool 2: Scuba - shallow water tank don, reg clearing 3 ways, reg recovery & mask clearing, no mask work, kicking, buoyancy with lungs, remove & replace tank on surface, play time
Pool 3: Scuba - repeat skills, BCD buoyancy, remove & replace tank u/w, air sharing & buddy breathing, remove & replace weights, play time
Pool 4: Scuba - repeat skills, air sharing ascents & buddy-breathing ascents (both with BCD assist and one diver w/o mask), emergency ascents, ditch and dons, play time
Pool 5: Scuba - repeat skills, air sharing & buddy breathing with two divers w/o masks, emergency ascents w/o masks, ditch and dons w/o masks, play time
Pool 6: Scuba- repeat skills, catch up slow divers, clean up skill, buoyancy, propulsion, play time
Pool 7: Scuba - improve weak skills, catch up slower divers, clean up buoyancy trim propulsion, play time
Pool 8: Scuba - evaluate for open water, work on weak skills, play time

OW 1 - Snorkeling
OW 2 - Basic individual skills
OW 3 - Team and emergency skills
OW 4 - Navigation
OW 5 - Rescue

That's good - since they aren't dying down there. Again, come out of your fictional little world and read the DAN report.

The DAN report doesn't tell us how diving has changed. We can limit diving activities to make the sport safer despite reduced quality of the participant. In the last issue of Alert Diver, DAN is suggesting that local diving is more dangerous than resort diving because there are more deaths. When you look at the article, more local divers are able to dive deeper and take on challenges often not allowed in resorts. I was just in Bermuda and the dive center wouldn't rent us tanks to go shore diving right in front of the dive shop. It was against policy to go without a guide. Okay, I told them, I'd pay for a guide for the two of us - both of us instructors. As dive pros we understand policy, so no biggie. Nope. They wouldn't dive there despite the fact the site is great for snorkeling. Nothing to see. What? There was too! We snorkeled there. Talking to Graham Mattocks at Triangle Diving a few days later, he told me about the treasures he had found in front of that shop. Two diving instructors certed for cave and mixed gas can't dive in 10 feet of water just to blow bubbles and check our weighting before boat diving with that op the next day. Resorts limiting diving like that will definitely improve safety. What DAN's article is really saying is that local divers often dive deep and do more activities that can get people hurt without being limited in those activities.

Statistics don't tell the real story. In fact, since they tell no stories, they force us to fantasize about what they say.
 

Back
Top Bottom