Diving Education Today

[DCBC]

I think a cert level should exist for everyone who wants to dive, but each level needs to really mean something. That way, we can get the freedom from dive operators to get the adventure back. Divers with 30 C-cards might not get themselves hurt, but they should be stellar divers by that point and strong divers and swimmers.

Rescue, DM, instructor and tech levels should be taken VERY seriously - more seriously than they are today. It's not just the accidents that define diving. The near misses DAN never hears about change the sport. How many times does a dive boat operation need to rescue tech divers who can't swim back to the boat in current before they say, sorry no tech diving? Or, how many times do instructors get in trouble the same way and need a DM to swim them a lifeline? A few occurrences of this and when you pull out your instructor card to prove you can handle a night dive, the shop balks because they know instructors aren't much different in ability than any other diver they've had to pluck from the sea.

I mentioned this in my initial post, but the focus has been on initial diver training, the problem however doesn't end there. Because people object to a "standards discussion," let's focus on competency...

Regardless of what the standards are, if the certification agencies cant deliver competent divers, DMs and Instructors what's there left to say? I've read on another thread of a DM candidate wanting to take swimming lessons to prepare him for the DM swimming evaluation. He has to drown-proof for 15 minutes I think, after swimming a few lengths. Although he will most likely pass and become a DM, I can't help but feel that I wouldn't even certify him as a diver. How did he pass a Rescue Course? Do they give a card for being a victim?

In no way do I wish to disparage this individual and I commend and support his efforts to work so diligently to meet the standards. But if he does, is he competent to act as a DM and in a rescue capacity? Perhaps in warm water for vacationers, but certainly not in the waters I frequent.

Even if I accepted today's level of diver training and that new divers didn't need the skill-sets of days-gone-by, who will look after them when they are in open-water? Guys that pass this type of DM swim test? Am I suppose to think that because he can swim 4 lengths and keep himself alive in the deep end of a pool for 15 minutes he's able to look after multiple divers that are only trained to today's competence level? Is this reasonable?

Clearly not all of these new divers can't effect a rescue, so why is their buddy there? I assume to:

a) Get the attention of the DM, who has to deal with other divers as well; or

b) Watch their buddy drown, being sure not to put themselves in harms way? Have they even been told that?

Who looks after the DM? Where's his buddy? If he needs assistance, who helps him and in this situation who's looking after the diver's that need to be hand-held?

Trace and I have made a fair number of diver rescues. For me at least, there have been no fatalities and none of these incidents have been entered into any statistical database.

I'm sure if the reader had the same experiences that Trace and I have had, time and time again, they would feel as we do. Listening to "statistics" and people saying that "the current training level is good enough" just falls short. The recreational diving rescues I've undertaken could all have been prevented with proper training.

 

[fnfalman]

I don't think you intentionally meant to devalue the difference my diving instructors made in my life, nor do I think you intentionally meant to devalue my life nor those who surround me.

If your rigorous scuba training helped you become a good human being, then bravo to you. But others don't need rigorous scuba training to form our moral compasses.

To me and thousands, possibly millions other divers, scuba training is for scuba diving and not for anything else.

 

[Kingpatzer]

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 may not be paid to dive specifically, but they are paid to conduct research, part of which involves diving -- else they wouldn't need to dive.

I'm guessing that instead of research chemists diving to collect data on sun spots, various biologists and oceanographers and the like are diving to collect data on something relevant to the research. They make their living from their research, so they make a living, at least in part, from their diving -- it is part of their profession -- regardless of if they are paid specifically for that activity or not.

I guess I miss the point of this.

That the length of training isn't nearly as important as the ensuing use of that training.

My mother was a research chemist her whole life. Her career ending with her being the head of R&D for a paint and coatings manufacturer. It is fair to say she knew quite a bit about chemistry.

But last semester when my son needed help with his basic chemistry, she had to spend more than a little time going over his textbook in order to be able to help him. She simply did not recall the information.

Proximity to training and use can (and often does) surpass the differences in the depth of training.

 

[darkmed5]

cool story.

 

[gcbryan]

...

I'm sure if the reader had the same experiences that Trace and I have had, time and time again, they would feel as we do. Listening to "statistics" and people saying that "the current training level is good enough" just falls short. The recreational diving rescues I've undertaken could all have been prevented with proper training.

Here's the issue (I think), those people that you and Trace have rescued would not have been diving in days past. They didn't continue to gain experience after their training, they probably don't dive much, etc. Those types of people simply didn't exist in diving in the past.

Now they do exist. You can exclude them (I have no position on this choice) but great training isn't the answer since they don't want it and won't take it. If you greatly limit those who enter into diving then you can prevent those rescues otherwise you can not.

It's more about the people than the training. I had the modern limited training. It was nothing special at all. I recognized that at the time. It was like driver training...just enough to keep you from killing yourself until you could get some actual experience.

At this point I'm the same diver I would be even if I had world class training initially. It's more a case and I'm sure always has been that the motivated diver learns how to become a competent diver and in the past all others just weren't admitted into the system. Now they are. I personally don't have a problem with eliminating them but the dive industry as a whole does have a problem and the industry would shrink tremendously if that did occur.

I'll make one more comment. When I paid to take lessons to learn to fly I realized that I would be learning a lot and that it would be satisfying (the course). When I signed up and paid to take scuba instruction I realized that I was just doing what I had to do to get the card so I could get air and basically learn to dive myself after that.

It would have been more satisfying if the instruction was for real but I knew that it wasn't from the beginning ($199 and sold by a dive store employee...how could it be otherwise) and just dealt with it. It's not my preference that the industry is as it is but that's just the reality of it and it works as long as you take it for what it is. It's not about quality instruction but rather about getting a card or to put the best spin on it getting a "license to learn".

 

[Teamcasa]

Proximity to training and use can (and often does) surpass the differences in the depth of training.

A point lost on so many. Thanks.

Example: I mechanic that is very proficient in fuel injection systems may not have a clue when it comes to setting up a carburetion system - but he is still a qualified automotive technician.

 

[Trace Malinowski]

One more thing before I'm gone for the weekend, it occurred to me that diver training for recreational divers sprang from Southern California shore, beach, and boat diving and the training was geared toward this environment which is representative of most of the world. Sure, there are tougher locales, but California is a great buffer between resort diving and some of the worst conditions sport divers enjoy.

By shifting the training paradigm away from CA to the tropics, we have created standards less suitable for competency.

 

[DCBC]

Here's the issue (I think), those people that you and Trace have rescued would not have been diving in days past. They didn't continue to gain experience after their training, they probably don't dive much, etc. Those types of people simply didn't exist in diving in the past.

Now they do exist. You can exclude them (I have no position on this choice) but great training isn't the answer since they don't want it and won't take it. If you greatly limit those who enter into diving then you can prevent those rescues otherwise you can not.

Yes before they would not have been diving and Trace, myself and countless others would not need to save them from something that they (by your statement) wouldn't have been doing in the first-place.

Others are not saved and die. I wonder how their loved ones would feel about this discussion?

At this point I'm the same diver I would be even if I had world class training initially. It's more a case and I'm sure always has been that the motivated diver learns how to become a competent diver and in the past all others just weren't admitted into the system. Now they are. I personally don't have a problem with eliminating them but the dive industry as a whole does have a problem and the industry would shrink tremendously if that did occur.

You can't say that. You have no idea what you would know know if you had pursued "world class training initially." All the time it takes for a diver to gain the experience from initial training s/he is at increased risk. Why take that risk if you don't have to?

It's not my preference that the industry is as it is but that's just the reality of it and it works as long as you take it for what it is. It's not about quality instruction but rather about getting a card or to put the best spin on it getting a "license to learn".

No Instructor imo should take this attitude. It should be about quality instruction! I've never been about excepting "good enough." Instructors who do not reach for excellence shouldn't be teaching any more than a teacher teaching in an educational institution. Complacency doesn't rate high on my scale at all.

 

[gcbryan]

I didn't say I had any respect for the current system nor could I be a teacher under those circumstances. My point really is that it is the way it is on the one hand and on the other hand ... it's only scuba...not rocket science. People can figure it out on their own with a little help and largely do.

I'm sure there are plenty of things that you currently do or have done that are just as complicated (or uncomplicated) as scuba that you have done with no or little instruction.

Most or many outdoor activities are that way...hiking, rock climbing, many learn to swim on their own, many learn much or all of what they know about skiing that way.

In another vein, can't any instructor currently teach anything that they want to? They may not be able to test or fail someone for just anything but can't you or any other instructor teach to any standard that you want to right now?

You may not get paid as much as you would like for that longer period of time but that's the market.

I would like for someone to pay me a lot of money for all the excellent advice that I post on this board but so far I haven't got paid nearly as much as I would like.

It's a hobby so it's to be expected that it's not going to pay as well as doing something that people don't do for fun in their spare time.

 

[Thalassamania]

They may not be paid to dive specifically, but they are paid to conduct research, part of which involves diving -- else they wouldn't need to dive.

In my experience most of the research diving is conducted by unfunded grad students and undergrads working on student projects. They are not paid to conduct research, it is part of their course work or their unfunded thesis research. Paid faculty who dive are few and far between.

I'm guessing that instead of research chemists diving to collect data on sun spots, various biologists and oceanographers and the like are diving to collect data on something relevant to the research. They make their living from their research, so they make a living, at least in part, from their diving -- it is part of their profession -- regardless of if they are paid specifically for that activity or not.

In actual point of fact, most of them are paying (in the form of tuition) to engage in that research.

That the length of training isn't nearly as important as the ensuing use of that training.

My mother was a research chemist her whole life. Her career ending with her being the head of R&D for a paint and coatings manufacturer. It is fair to say she knew quite a bit about chemistry.

But last semester when my son needed help with his basic chemistry, she had to spend more than a little time going over his textbook in order to be able to help him. She simply did not recall the information.

Proximity to training and use can (and often does) surpass the differences in the depth of training.

If the depth is not there to begin with it is rather difficult to have proximity to said training. I suspect that your mom learned her stuff once upon a time and were it not for that depth and completeness of training she would not have been able to go back, review the book and recall the information.