Apologies for the delay in responding; been a busy week at work.
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.
Understood & agreed. I think that the very broad picture on this topic can be summarized as the
Boiling Frog metaphor: it hasn't been a Black-to-White change, but rather a long slow gradual one ... and because it is thusly insidious, there's lots of denials and opposition to anyone who identifies it. The hope is that we don't have to have a Superstorm Sandy type of diving catastrophe in order for people to wake up to this 'Global Warming'-esque change.
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.
Understood, I'm not necessarily so complacent: there's a lot of subtle elements with how dive training has evolved - - witness for example how AOW has become promoted to do immediately after OW ... and that this represents a 'confidence builder' from the perspective of more guided dives.
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."
Its been around two years since I personally last got the briefing, but the number of people who have died as the direct consequential result of being zapped with the 50,000 volts from a Taser(TM) ... is zero.
So just what does this "statistic" really mean? Afterall, it hasn't been because there's been zero deaths; the question is in their attribution. It can be described - for lack of a better term - as "LAWYER TECHNOLOGY" contributing to the question of attribution.
The logical, scientific (and legal) principle thing to understand is that not being able to definitively prove "X" to the satisfaction of a particular threshold criteria does not mean "Not X" has been proven.
-hh
---------- Post added January 5th, 2013 at 07:36 PM ----------
(another bite at a few more posts while still catching up)
Haven't been teaching for 100 years like some of these folks, but the past 10 yrs or so doesn't seem like much has changed. It's always up to the instructor as to the quality of the class they give (consciously or unconsciously) but regardless, it ultimately up to the student as to weither or not they adhear to the teaching. Having said that, if the overall diving accidents per 1000 divers has actually been decreasing over the past 40 years, seems like the industry is headed in the correct direction....
"Not much" perceived change would be the
Boiling Frog metaphor again.
Statistics are an odd thing. There are people who parachute and exit the aircraft without this equipment (
Travis Pastrana Skydives without a Parachute - YouTube). Statistically speaking, there hasn't been one death (that I can find) that has been attributed to this. Does this mean that it's a safe practice? Despite the statistical results, it doesn't seem to be; at least in my mind. It doesn't pass the test of 'common sense.'
That too (see TASER stats, again). FWIW, I can recall being at a dinner with some oldtimer Marines at Quantico back in the late 80s and the one related a story of a similar stunt - - difference was that the buddy didn't hook in to make a tandem (per the Youtube, above), but carried a second parachute which the chuteless one donned while in freefall. Sorry, I can't recall the name of that individual, although I still do have my
Commander's Coin from 'JC'.
In any case, it is pretty hard to statistically prove that dive accident rates are on the decline, since the metrics in the denominators - - both the number of 'Active Divers' and the number of dives performed per year - - are pretty nebulous ... and extensively contested ... values:
PADI/DEMA Example and
Undercurrent Example. In any case, there's also modern medicine & treatments - - and now in many instances, O2 and Defibulators onboard diveboats which will have a statistically significant alteration on the observed mortality rates.
...
Where I live, and abroad, I have known instructors that have passed training from non-divers in (sit tight) less than 6(yes) months. As you know, a novice diver cannot possibly instruct well if he does not have the experience of many dives.
I do think standards are low, agency standards that is, very low. How can it be that the minimum number of dives required to become an instructor is 100 logged dives? Perhaps this number would be enough if all facilities made sure the candidate dived in other places, most of them do not...
It isn't merely in-water time or the diversity in it that you go on to suggest. For example, consider just which Agencies specifically require an Instructor to have a College Degree? The answer is still "None", isn't it? Well, how about those Agencies that require at least a High School Diploma? I wish I was kidding.
Granted, we can say that diving isn't 'Rocket Science' and thus doesn't require a full blown Master's Degree in Education at the individual OW Instructor level ... but then again, we had better avoid look at the Educational requirements for "Train the Trainers" at the IDC's of those Instructors and those Course Directors who create the educational standards before we really ... really ... take an objective look at the Emperor's Clothes.
Now this isn't saying that there's huge deficiencies: it is merely an observance of the unfortunate reality which is that in for-profit businesses, the cost of labor is a necessary expense of doing business and as such, while it is necessary, it isn't to be gratuitously expended without a clear ROI benefit: one is financially motivated to do the minimum that one can get away with.
So what's the future for the Dive Industry? Well, I agree with
DMarelli's prognostication on decline; based DEMA's 2006 report, the average Diver is the aging Baby Boomer, median age born in 1960, homeowner (93%), married (71%), predominantly male (76%) and an above-median-USA earner (80% White Collar). With the dive industry chasing after these customer demographics ...
–Cluster 9: “Suburban Wave” - US$76,499
–Cluster 13: “Sierra Snuggle” - US$72,952
–Cluster 2: “Executive Domain” - US$124,295
–Cluster 6: “Balancing Acts” - US$91,612
–Cluster 3 “Nouveau Manors” - US$97,584
...the result is that catering to the boomers effectively creates a higher barrier to entry to the less affluent...which faithfully defines the younger generations. Witness Grand Cayman's changes over the years: the days of the cheap Holiday Inn on Grand Cayman ...or the even cheaper "Magnificent Dive Dump" are gone, and consequently, so too is the younger consumer missing: quite simply, they've been effectively priced out of these vacation markets, so they'll go pursue some other recreational activity.
-hh