A compassionate instructor

[RJP]

...but would you allow lets say a very very experienced diver who knows a thing or two about rescue but isnt a certified professional to supervise a young diver wannabe in a shallow pool?

I wouldn't put the diver or the diver-wannabe in that situation.

 

[ZenDiver.3D]

Zen, I don't want to get in between Lord H and you but please tell me you are not comparing that example and this.

Please do!

Only in a very round about way, the point for that, way back then, was part of talking about experienced parents making decisions for their kids that were against safety standards. I was pointing out how far it can easily go. "Just in the pool" can easily be turned into a sea disaster by one who has seen the pool scenario and thinks they can take their kid where they want.

Scuba is not very forgiving, and people go a lot off of what they see modeled to them. You let one dad take his kid in the pool, and another parent sees it, thinks it's cool and they have a pool at their house and tanks..... and it must be okay, they saw it at the dive shop...... Or maybe they are going on vacation and they are with their child. It must be safe.....

This thread has spun to extremes. I was pointing out the other end of the spectrum of parental supervision bad choices. It fit in four pages ago......

 

[ZenDiver.3D]

Never dived with SDI/TDI.

I despise PADI and SSI since I have dived with them and I loathe the pump out cert card ideas that a lot of instructors have. As long as he meets the standards, he passes and gets his cert. follow the standards. standards standards standards thats all I tend to hear from these people and I thoroughly disagree.

I've been wanting to dive with GUE, UTD and other less recreational agencies in the hopes of getting trained and not just certified. Unfortunately I'm saving up for it I wouldnt know about SDI standards but if they allow for a good amount of leeway without breaking them, then thats awesome since I wont need to.

I accept and respect your point about supervision, but would you allow lets say a very very experienced diver who knows a thing or two about rescue but isnt a certified professional to supervise a young diver wannabe in a shallow pool? Yes this is a what if question but I'm just wondering if your penchant for standards will disallow this since its technically incorrect.

No. That is one of the supervision standards that I will not break. I wouldn't put either of them in that situation.

 

[Web Monkey]

Nah couldn't be bothered to start my own agency.

You have seriously never ever broken an agency standard in your entire life?

Using agency standards as training recommendations is like using the FDA Maximum Food Contaminant Levels as recommendations for cooking. They're limits, not optimal levels.

Maybe I'm too young and inexperienced and I have not had to perform CPR on a child, so I haven't seen what you have seen. Perhaps letting the child in the water with his parents was a poor judgement call?

From my perspective, letting any child into the water with SCUBA gear is a bad move, with or without an instructor.

Young children still think there are monsters under the bed and that Santa-Claus comes down the chimney. They have no concept that holding their breath at the wrong time could be fatal, and although some have a minor grasp on the concept of death, they don't understand how it applies to them.

Terry

 

[Coldwater_Canuck]

Yes, risk assessment can be difficult. Yes yes yes yes yes! That's why it is important to exercise the muscle. But, if you want to make a profit by volume you must avoid rejecting paying customers. To accomplish this you reduce the need for the difficult and time consuming risk assessment skills via standards/rules.

The problem again is that the rule replaces critical thinking. How many students are just taught the MOD without understanding the why. There are several reasons that rec limits are set at 130' and if more students understood the why they wouldn't violate the MOD so frequently. But because it is just a rule, and they can't at the moment "see" the reason why, they violate it.

Yet we have some of the most ridiculous speed limits around. If you actually follow the "rules" you stand a good chance of causing an accident or inducing road rage. The police won't even enforce the law unless you are going 10km's over the limit. But to use your example I am suggesting that making a defensive driving course manditory would reduce accidents more than arbitrary speed limits.

You know what, I actually agree with everything you said. However, I don't think it has to be one or the other. I think you can give good standards while still teaching properly and the rationelle behind those standards. I agree the current system isn't very good, but rather than dismiss it outright, I'd rather see it improved (which is what I think GUE has done well, from what I've heard about it (haven't yet done their courses, hopefully will at some point): it has depth limits like every other agency, but I bet their divers understand where that number came from a lot better than PADI).

There is one example though I can think of where I agree with you that standards may be a big problem: advanced open water and the 100 foot qualification. Some people take AOW right out of open water. You have a person on maybe their 7th dive going down to 100 feet and then saying they are qualified (by being certified) to dive that deep. I have almost 30 dives and still don't like going to 100 feet. I worry that the agency just bumping your certification limit up by 40 feet after 1 deep dive gives a false sense of security.

It's a different model. GUE doesn't pump out instructors, isn't afraid to fail students and doesn't work on a volume based marketing model. Yes they have high standardization but that is part of their mindset and it matches the degree of critical thinking expected as well.

Right, but that was my point. It doesn't follow that standardization automatically implies low quality graduations. With the right standards, it can be just the opposite.

It would be nice but I see the dumbing down of SCUBA instruction as the result of a decision to profit by volume. If an agency "raised the bar" customers who have been led to expect instant gratification would balk and they risk losing market share. Standards are a harm reduction strategy put in place when instructor/student quality declines and the lawyers are allowed to set policy.

To a point, but I also think you need to give some standards to give a new diver an idea of what is acceptable risk. One of the biggest reasons you hear about for unqualified divers dying in caves is they think it's no big deal, they'll just swim in a little bit and it will be easy to escape, then they get lost and don't make it out. So I think giving a standard of no overhead environments for open water divers is acceptable.

You'd be surprised how common it is. I have witnessed it many times as a first responder/EMT-A. People frozen by fear because they live in a society where someone else is expected to take care of such things.

I suppose, personally in that situation it wouldn't be my first thought. Despite my comments in this thread, I am not completely paranoid; however, I do want to avoid situations where if something goes wrong I am left with a huge target on my back for a lawyer. Also I'm not sure about Washington where I am now, but Ontario where I'm from had a Good Samaritan Law (not the Seinfeld type )

PS. I expect to still be freinds after all this

Fine, if we have to

 

[DaleC]

It's a Canadian thing

 

[ZenDiver.3D]

It's a Canadian thing

eh.

 

[Thalassamania]

My bone to pick is not with this case, its with the idea that some people consider the standards their bible. I say learn the standards, gain the knowledge behind them and decide for yourself if it is reasonable to ignore some of them on a case by case basis.

It has to do with insecurity and lack of expertise. A true expert knows, as I pointed out, when to apply some formulaic construct and when to ignore it, but that takes far more knowledge and experience than is found amongst most diving instructors today.

I've heard and seen many people talk about how people are advancing into the professional levels of diving before they are ready. This thread has gone a long way in proving that exactly right. There is one basic element of being a dive pro that many posters to this thread seem to lack-being mature and professional enough to uphold the standards of the agency you CHOOSE to represent. It doesn't matter if you agree with those standards, it doesn't matter if you feel you have a better way, they are the standards of the agency you CHOOSE to represent. If you feel so strongly about those standards being wrong or whatever that you will find yourself not following them, then you need to make the decision to NOT represent that agency. Find another agency you agree with, start your own agency, whatever. To say an Instructor can make a judgement call to allow an untrained person to conduct a DSD is simply ridicilous. I challenge any Instructor who feels that is OK to publish their name, agency affiliation, and certification number along with a statement declaring that very thing. "My name is Billy Bob and I am PADI Instructor XXXXXX. At my discretion, I will hand dive gear to an uncertified diver and allow them to SCUBA dive on it under the supervision of whoever I feel should be supervising them, regardless of the certification level of the person doing the supervising. I will do this because I am experienced enough to make this judgement call".

I am happy to say that at my discretion, I will hand dive gear to an uncertified diver and allow them to SCUBA dive on it under the supervision of whomever I feel should be supervising them, regardless of the certification level of the person doing the supervising. I will do this because I am experienced enough to make this judgement call. Major universities, the National Science Foundation, and many other organizations have trusted me, for many years, to do exactly that. Would I grant the same authority to anyone who, taking your example, has a PADI Instructor Card? Of course not, but I can name at least two PADI instructors whom I have granted such a privilege to.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

he should not have let a layperson take an untrained person underwater like that.

:banana::bounce4::bounce2::fire::bounce3::bounce3::fire::bounce2::bounce4::banana:

 

[LeadTurn_SD]

From my perspective, letting any child into the water with SCUBA gear is a bad move, with or without an instructor.

Young children still think there are monsters under the bed and that Santa-Claus comes down the chimney. They have no concept that holding their breath at the wrong time could be fatal, and although some have a minor grasp on the concept of death, they don't understand how it applies to them.

Terry

Hijack (but be patient, there is a reason):

Hi Terry,

I used to feel the same way.... until I saw some young kids dive.

I think it just totally depends on the individual child: Their maturity, water skills and situational awareness may be quite different than their chronological age. Some kids are ready in the 10-12 age range.... some not.

Not all kids have their confined water dives in a clear, calm pool. My 10 year old (turned 11 half way through the class) had ALL dives in the ocean (no pool for scuba lessons here). The "confined" dives were in 8-12 feet, with a fair amount of surge, viz was maybe 15 feet. The kids did fine!!

A couple months later, my son did the night manta dive in Kona in December '07 in fairly high surge conditions... and did 100% fine, despite the surge, despite an eel swimming across his lap, despite huge female mantas brushing across his head.... I was on one side, and instructor on the other, and honestly, he was maintaining position better than either the instructor or I were

Back on topic:

The dive described by Paladin, a daylight dive with 1-on-1 supervision in a pool should sound pretty tame compared to the open water dives I've described, which in both cases had an instuctor an me present. The dives I described were not "standards" violations, were supervised by instructors, but were considerably more challenging than the dive Paladin described.

Paladin's son was at far less "risk" than my son.

Best wishes.