Diver Training: How much is enough?

[boulderjohn]

As Boulderjohn pointed out:

"Dependency upon supervision can be a learned behavior....I have had students tell me that their already-certified friends told them that they only need to learn that stuff during certification. They can forget it after that, they were told, because "in the real world" the DM takes care of everything. For a lot of divers, that "real world" is the only one they know."​

​

I did point out that many people do exclusively patronize operations that led you by the nose thorough every dive and thus develop a learned dependency. On the other hand, many people do not do so and do not develop this learned dependency.

My first few dive trips after certification were to Cozumel, where the DMs generally set up your equipment and where dives must by law be led by a DM. Then I took a trip to South Florida. As we got to the dive site, I suddenly realized that no one was going to set up my equipment for me, and I was going to have to remember how to do it myself. Since then I have done many dives in the Pompano Beach, Florida, area and many dives in Key Largo. On those dives I have never seen anyone being led by the nose. I have never seen a DM in the water leading a dive. In another post -hh mentioned a diver who had hired a private personal DM in Cozumel. I have well over 100 dives in Cozumel, and I have never seen that. I know some people who frequent the Cozumel forum advocate doing that for new divers, but I have never seen it.

The point of this is that some divers go to places that teach them to become dependent upon a DM. Some divers never go to such places and were never dependent. Both sets of divers had the same initial training. It was not the training that made them dependent or independent; it was what happened to them afterwards. Neither the training agencies nor the instructors had anything to do with that.

 

[The Chairman]

True to form

Speaking of true to form... you have yet to bring any evidence to support your claim that the sky is falling. You feel it's other people's duty to prove that it is not.

Perhaps, you can show a demonstrable increase in accident rates for us to bolster your claim that current training standards are inadequate.

As far as browbeating, you and DCBC got rid of Peter by doing just this. This is more like the pot calling the microwave black.

As for argumentum per deluvium, I wish I could say that I coined the phrase but it sure fits here. You might even see it as argumentum per delugium. You simply drown out the opposition with voluminous allusions and half truths that you can neither document or prove and then simply challenge your opponents to prove otherwise.

The real issue here, and I have pointed this out before, is that neither you or DCBC like modular learning. You can't tolerate someone treating Scuba as a part time hobby that only requires a modicum of training to enjoy. It's whole hog, or no hog for you and that's just not reasonable nor is it marketable. If it was, you would have your own agency making millions of dollars as the best way to get scads of divers to embrace Scuba. Your system works well for pedantic types who are overly impressed with themselves even to the point of making a mountain out of a mole hill in the name of science. Common folk don't have time for those shenanigans and just want to dive. If their desire to dive deeper/longer increases, they simply take the requisite classes to further their education. Training today is safe enough, by ANY agency.

 

[Peter Guy]

DCBC wrote

The case for the prosecution rests.

If only it would -- or for lack of something better, what IS the "case for the prosecution?" That more initial training probably results in a better trained student? Duh. That some areas for diving are more difficult than others? Duh. That some students just learn better than others? Duh. That some instructors are better than others? Duh

Nothing has been proven that an open water student trained under any recognized agency's standards by a competent and dedicated instructor who is willing to maintain that agency's standards isn't safe to dive under the same or similar conditions in which she was trained. No one has even attempted to "prove" that, for example, students can't be trained to safely dive in Nova Scotia (or northern Vancouver Island) as open water divers in a PADI class taught in those places.

Phil wrote

...Peter's abdication: no. And more's the pity, since his running off only serves to allow him to be, "saved by the bell," as opposed to prevailing or losing in a test of ideas carried out to its conclusion.

Phil (and I'm using your name since you continue to use mine), I didn't run off, I just gave up trying to have an honest discussion with you and DCBC (see, I'm using his screen name since he used mine) because it became apparent to me that neither of you are, in fact, interested in having such an online discussion. You firmly and deeply believe that current methods of open water instruction are not able to create a competent open water beginning diver. (At least that is my perception.) Fine -- no matter what I or any one else writes is going to change that firmly and deeply held belief. Thus, I give up.

 

[DCBC]

Then I'll claim victory as you have yet to produce one singular diver who has died "as a result of inadequate training for the conditions in-which they were certified." Not only have you not produced one, but you have yet to produce multiples as "people" of divers who have been trained to the minimum standards of an agency.

In Quebec, there were three cases in the same year which prompted legislation within the Province (in-which the Courts attributed death to inadequate training). One was undergoing his OW (Hamze Zorcote), Pauline Dussault and I can't recall the name of the third diver (also a Student). The training program involved was from one Agency (which I don't need to name, but will be happy to do so if you like). Different instructors were involved.

Regardless of any evidence provided NetDoc, you are not open-minded enough accept any information that you don't originate. I agree with Thal's assessment...

 

[Thalassamania]

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/advanced-scuba-discussions/441629-diver-training-how-much-enough-24.html#post6591407Speaking of true to form... you have yet to bring any evidence to support your claim that the sky is falling. You feel it's other people's duty to prove that it is not.

Good old Pete, true to form: I've never claimed that the sky was falling, I've merely suggested that there are things that the industry has forgotten that were superior in terms of quality training, for example, getting students up off the bottom.

Perhaps, you can show a demonstrable increase in accident rates for us to bolster your claim that current training standards are inadequate.

I've never cited an accident rate as evidence of inadequate training standards. I have often observed that the beaches are not littered with bodies. What I usually cite as evidence of a problem is the astronomical drop out rates, of divers and of instructors.

As far as browbeating, you and DCBC got rid of Peter by doing just this. This is more like the pot calling the microwave black.

Peter left because I pointed out his "distortion by oversimplification approach," a typical lawyer trap, that in court or deposition is usually followed by an insistence on a "yes or no" answer, an approach that could not be taken here. Peter is great guy and quite bright, but it is (just like my brother who is also a lawyer) analogous to the fable of the Frog and the Scorpion.

As for argumentum per deluvium, I wish I could say that I coined the phrase but it sure fits here. You might even see it as argumentum per delugium. You simply drown out the opposition with voluminous allusions and half truths that you can neither document or prove and then simply challenge your opponents to prove otherwise.

Actually I can not find it in either form, except in your usage, so you get to claim it. I had thought that you were onto some interesting and were referring to an argument based on the idea that "it worked better in the past" (as in "antediluvian"), but now that I find it just your same old idea of voluminous allusions and half truths being a "flood," well, that's even more amusing. How you can try to tar me with that brush is truly bizarre since an "allusion" is an indirect mention and I tend to be rather direct, and I scrupulously attempt to avoid half-truths. Would that you did the same, or at least provided examples of my "allusions" and/or "half-truths."

The real issue here, and I have pointed this out before, is that neither you or DCBC like modular learning. You can't tolerate someone treating Scuba as a part time hobby that only requires a modicum of training to enjoy. It's whole hog, or no hog for you and that's just not reasonable nor is it marketable. If it was, you would have your own agency making millions of dollars as the best way to get scads of divers to embrace Scuba. Your system works well for pedantic types who are overly impressed with themselves even to the point of making a mountain out of a mole hill in the name of science. Common folk don't have time for those shenanigans and just want to dive. If their desire to dive deeper/longer increases, they simply take the requisite classes to further their education. Training today is safe enough, by ANY agency.

It is not that either of us have a problem with modular learning, it is a fine way to accomplish two possible goals: keeping programs that are conducted separately in sync; and conducting programs at a higher level than would otherwise be possible while using less qualified staff. I just have little use for either "advantage."

I neither reject nor welcome someone treating Scuba as a part time hobby that only requires a modicum of training to enjoy. I just feel that the modular programs that are out there lie to the general public about the dangers of diving in general and of exposure to hyperbaric conditions specifically, so again, you're setting up strawmen that have nothing to do with anyone's actual thoughts, opinions, actions or conclusions.

 

[Scott]

In Quebec, there were three cases in the same year which prompted legislation within the Province (in-which the Courts attributed death to inadequate training). One was undergoing his OW (Hamze Zorcote), Pauline Dussault and I can't recall the name of the third diver (also a Student). The training program involved was from one Agency (which I don't need to name, but will be happy to do so if you like). Different instructors were involved.

Interesting arcticle The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

 

[Diver0001]

The point of this is that some divers go to places that teach them to become dependent upon a DM. Some divers never go to such places and were never dependent. Both sets of divers had the same initial training. It was not the training that made them dependent or independent; it was what happened to them afterwards. Neither the training agencies nor the instructors had anything to do with that.

Well... in all fairness to the discussion, I think the fact that this service is available does lead some instructors to become complacent. For example I know one instructor who routinely tells his students that they should dive with a guide for the first few dives after certification and makes regular references to guided diving through the shop as a sort of "con ed" thing. Why? because his results suck THAT bad and somewhere deep down he knows it and is relying on dive guides to finish the job that he should have.

This isn't to do with standards either. This particular instructor doesn't teach to standards. He only teaches to mastery by fluke, which means that he doesn't even do the minimum. Most of the time he's content if the student gets a skill right once (even if he has to drag them through it) so he can tick it off his list and move on. It's horrifying.

And that is kind of what this thread is about. The guys who are claiming that "the sky is falling", to borrow a term for brevity, are using this kind of thing as an implicit frame of reference becuase they know that most people have a feeling that it happens. And yes it does, but the fallacy is to then generalize the worst possible case and to paint *all* recreational training with the same brush. In fact I"m sure they'll reply to this post saying, "yeah but it IS the norm" (or maybe they won't now that I spoiled it).

I suppose since these kinds of things are allowed to go on that one could contend that the agency facilitates it when they shouldn't (and they would be right, in my opinion), but thankfully it is not indicative of *most* training. In my opinion the biggest problem with training in general is that these kinds of instructors are seldom identified, retrained or weeded out. And once again, standards are not the issue here. Nothing in the standards could stop some instructors from drifting out of alignment with their training (by either lowering or by raising the bar in unacceptable ways). The real issue is that there seems to be a norm in the industry to only try identifying such instructors *after* accidents happen.

R..

 

[DCBC]

No one has even attempted to "prove" that, for example, students can't be trained to safely dive in Nova Scotia (or northern Vancouver Island) as open water divers in a PADI class taught in those places. ...I just gave up trying ...because it became apparent to me that neither of you are, in fact, interested in having such an online discussion. You firmly and deeply believe that current methods of open water instruction are not able to create a competent open water beginning diver. (At least that is my perception.) Fine -- no matter what I or any one else writes is going to change that firmly and deeply held belief. Thus, I give up.

First of all Peter, I don't have to prove anything. I have stated an opinion, to wit: that it's impossible to train a safe diver to dive in my local waters (or any other similar conditions Worldwide) by using "the Standards" of PADI or NAUI, unless the Instructor adds more to the program, increases the watermanship requirement and then tests the student on all of the material (as a condition of certification).

NAUI allows their Instructors to modify the program as long as the minimum Standards are met or exceeded. You have previously told me that a PADI Instructor cannot change the training program. Moreover, you are unaware of the diving conditions here, but maintain that the current PADI Standards is sufficient. I believe you to be mistaken.

 

[Diver0001]

Interesting arcticle The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

That article is from 1979. What can we conclude from it except that in 1979 there was an issue with access to chambers. What did you read into it?

R..

 

[Thalassamania]

Well... in all fairness to the discussion, I think the fact that this service is available does lead some instructors to become complacent. For example I know one instructor who routinely tells his students that they should dive with a guide for the first few dives after certification and makes regular references to guided diving through the shop as a sort of "con ed" thing. Why? because his results suck THAT bad and somewhere deep down he knows it and is relying on dive guides to finish the job that he should have.

This isn't to do with standards either. This particular instructor doesn't teach to standards. He only teaches to mastery by fluke, which means that he doesn't even do the minimum. Most of the time he's content if the student gets a skill right once (even if he has to drag them through it) so he can tick it off his list and move on. It's horrifying.

And that is kind of what this thread is about. The guys who are claiming that "the sky is falling", to borrow a term for brevity, are using this kind of thing as an implicit frame of reference becuase they know that most people have a feeling that it happens. And yes it does, but the fallacy is to then generalize the worst possible case and to paint *all* recreational training with the same brush. In fact I"m sure they'll reply to this post saying, "yeah but it IS the norm" (or maybe they won't now that I spoiled it).

I suppose since these kinds of things are allowed to go on that one could contend that the agency facilitates it when they shouldn't (and they would be right, in my opinion), but thankfully it is not indicative of *most* training. In my opinion the biggest problem with training in general is that these kinds of instructors are seldom identified, retrained or weeded out. And once again, standards are not the issue here. Nothing in the standards could stop some instructors from drifting out of alignment with their training (by either lowering or by raising the bar in unacceptable ways). The real issue is that there seems to be a norm in the industry to only try identifying such instructors *after* accidents happen.

R..

I agree with most of what you say here. We probably only disagree on the quantitative terms such as some vs. most, but we clearly do not either mean "all."

I also question you assumption that instructors are coming through the system "qualified" to begin with and then "drift." I have been singularly unimpressed by the majority of new instructors that I've observed over the last decade or so. Again, accidents are not the issue, to my way of thinking retention (of both new divers and new instructors) is.