A deep systemic problem with diver ed?

[Popeye]

diverbrian once bubbled...


If it happens on a shop function, unless the student (or diver if I were acting as DM) totally chooses to blow off the dive plan that should be planned withing the standards of the training agency, I WILL BE FOUND LIABLE. A jury won't see things as nicely as some of the people here. If I planned the dive in an unsafe manner (ie. knowingly having students follow me without a plan and following a multi-level dive on my dive computer alone), it is somewhat expected by most juries that most new divers/students will be too intimidated by my role and will follow me.

I wholeheartedly agree on the legal implications, but that has nothing to do with whether or not a diver is responsible for his dives.

First off, exceding 60 ft or doing a swim through isn't necessarily unsafe, just beyond standards.

Secondly, the diver still chooses to participate.

 

[Diver0001]

Popeye once bubbled...


<snip>

Should we flog his OW instructor?

Or does shxt just happen?

It's a bit of an apples and oranges comparsion, I think. 30 OW divers *per year* are dying from OOA. That's structural. You dno't see any structural number of TDI cave instructors with 10,000 dives dying from OOA per year. What happened to Berman was a clear exception. And we don't know what happened to Berman to cause his OOA. Maybe it was avoidable, maybe it wasn't. We will never know; but I doubt vrey much that it he would have OOA'd on a guided dive because the DM didn't check his air and he wasn't aware that he should have been checking it himself.

And to anticipate your next response: Yes, I think that this is a *standards* problem. To me, stardards are not complete unless the QA works. In one sense if a student is made (and many are) to be *that* dependant on a DM then it's a problem with poor instruction. However, the agencies carry some of the responsibility for poor instruction because they certified the instructors, they don't detect bad training practices most of the time and when they do, which is clearly not often, they take ineffectual measures to correct the problems. Standards without enforcement are useless. If you read the WRSTC minimum standards, they look sufficient but the agencies--especially the big ones--have *huge* problems with their QA and we're seeing the results in the statistics.

R..

 

[Popeye]

Diver0001 once bubbled...

It's a bit of an apples and oranges comparsion, I think. 30 OW divers *per year* are dying from OOA. That's structural. You dno't see any structural number of TDI cave instructors with 10,000 dives dying from OOA per year. What happened to Berman was a clear exception. And we don't know what happened to Berman to cause his OOA. Maybe it was avoidable, maybe it wasn't.

First, the statistic is 30 *divers* per year are dying OOA.

Not 30 *OW* divers.

That's a very different statistic.

With no true indication of how long they've been certified.

And still a small fraction of the dive world.

A fraction of a fraction.

I don't understand how you can blame a system for such an infantismal fraction.

Secondly, what, exactly, do you consider an "unavoidable" OOA?


We will never know; but I doubt vrey much that it he would have OOA'd on a guided dive because the DM didn't check his air and he wasn't aware that he should have been checking it himself.

You can't be serious to state that:

A) A DM should be responsible for checking a diver's air, or that,

B) It's a "standards issue" that a diver wasn't checking his own.

And to anticipate your next response: Yes, I think that this is a *standards* problem. To me, stardards are not complete unless the QA works. In one sense if a student is made (and many are) to be *that* dependant on a DM then it's a problem with poor instruction. However, the agencies carry some of the responsibility for poor instruction because they certified the instructors, they don't detect bad training practices most of the time and when they do, which is clearly not often, they take ineffectual measures to correct the problems. Standards without enforcement are useless. If you read the WRSTC minimum standards, they look sufficient but the agencies--especially the big ones--have *huge* problems with their QA and we're seeing the results in the statistics.

R..

First off, none of you have presented (because you simply can't) a scrap of evidence to support this "system wide problem" that you keep tilting at.

Secondly, the JEDI Mind Trick doesn't work on me. You keep repeating something to the effect of " but the agencies--especially the big ones--have *huge* problems with their QA and we're seeing the results in the statistics.",

and you see nothing of the sort in -any- statistics.

Apparently you believe if you repeat something enough times, it will become a fact.

Everybody here needs to learn what a standards issue is.

Because most of you don't seem to have a clue.

Then you take the opinions of divers that have a real half-empty-glass-of-water kinda view, tempered by a rather arrogant opinion of their own capabilities, and we're provided with all these horror stories.

Ro, show me any single indication of a "*huge* problem with QA"

"Huge".

The standards are in the OW manual, and they're all basically the same.

When someone VIOLATES those standards, it's called a VIOLATION of standards.

Because the standards were VIOLATED.

Anyone need additional explanation of how that works, PM me.

Main Entry: [1]vi·o·late
Pronunciation: 'vI-&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin violatus, past participle of violare, probably from violentus violent
Date: 15th century
1 : BREAK, DISREGARD <violate the law>

Now, the instructors.

If the instructor commits a VIOLATION of standards, that doesn't mean the agency standards are low, It means they were VIOLATED.

Now, I've seen a few VIOLATIONS in my day, none that would prompt me to action, although one or two that prompted me to comment.

All ya'll seem to be surrounded by incompetent instructors, must be like a cancer cluster or something, but if you don't take action, you're just as responsible as they are.

Let's have a little more action, and a little less of this pathetic whining.

Now, the student.

If the student doesn't pay attention in class, doesn't read the manual, doesn't independantly practice his skills, this isn't because of low standards.

If PADI has low standards, you should be able to pick up a PADI OW manual, and show me exactly where.

BECAUSE THAT"S WHERE THE STANDARDS ARE.

Then, you should be able to correlate a section of injuries from DAN statistics, even if Walt says they're inaccurate, that shows some indication that you're not whistling Dixie.

So far, all I hear is a lotta whistling.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Popeye once bubbled...


But Mike, it's a VIOLATION, not a low standard.

How are we gonna make any gains if we can't even identify the argument.

If the agency didn't care, there would be no apparatus for action.

I agree that it was a violation of standards fo course.

I'm not trying to identify an argument. I've refered to standards violations a bunch of time in this thread. That I'll agree is the place to start and I see a lot of it going on and here of even more. The most common of which is issueing a card before the student meets the performance requirements of the course.

I can and do argue that the standards need work but the place to start is the fact that they are too often not followed.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Genesis once bubbled...


Ah, but did you?

I've read the PADI, SSI, and NAUI OW books. ALL THREE give the 60' depth limit for training dives, and the OW "certification". All three specify the skills you must be able to perform. All three contain the information you speak of.

Now, given that I have in print the standards, which I am supposed to have read, before I get in the water, exactly who's fault is it if I permit a violation of those very same rules to take place an hour, two, or a day later?

Mine, right?

This is like saying that its not your fault when you get pulled over doing 70 in a 55 zone, immediately after you passed the speed limit sign!

The student do not have the standards. They have no idea that the max depth allowed for the first dive is 40 ft. They have no idea what the instructor was tought about skill mastery and the student isn't given the definition used in the standards.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Popeye once bubbled...


Mike, here's the big question...:

Was the information delivered in class or not?

Some certainly. I do think that it's the instructors job to drive home what's in the book. One way to do that is how you conduct the class in the water. If the instructor blows off what's in the book why wouldn't the student? Aside from that class often includes only a review of the knowledge review questions and the administration of a test.

Did the student recieve it and blow it off?

Why do you assume malfeasance on the part of the instructor in every incident, especially being an instructor yourself?

I don't assume it in every case.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Genesis once bubbled...
Its about damn time that people started waking up to this.

Certified or not, the "rules" are laid out in the books, and you are expected to have read them before you show up for class.

As I said before they student is NOT aware of everything in the standards or even a tenth of it. If your instructor vilates atandards you'll likely have no clue.

You all watch an "assumption of risk" video. You also all sign a nice long waiver explaining all of this.

Actually most insurance companies won't even coner an instructor if a standards violation is found in connection with a claim. That doesn't leave any one to argue the meaning of the release.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Popeye once bubbled...

Ro, show me any single indication of a "*huge* problem with QA"

When an agency tells me that they are aware that some instructors don't understand mastery learnig or are cutting corners and their solution is to shorten class time to encourage more pool time, I consider it a huge problem. I shows that they are aware of instructors cutting corners and not requireing students to master skills in the pool. Read above, I think it was in this thread I wrote about the conversation.

"Huge".

The standards are in the OW manual, and they're all basically the same.

The standards are not in the OW manual.

When someone VIOLATES those standards, it's called a VIOLATION of standards.

Because the standards were VIOLATED.

I think you're catching on. If only I could get it through to you that the standards are not in the OW manual and many aspects of the standards can be violated without the student having a clue. That, however doesn't mean that they won't be effected by it at some point.

All ya'll seem to be surrounded by incompetent instructors, must be like a cancer cluster or something, but if you don't take action, you're just as responsible as they are.

Let's have a little more action, and a little less of this pathetic whining.

Well certainly I do when I can. Often I witness things underwater and never find the instructor on land. Without a name there isn't much I can do other than to try to make people aware of what they should get in a class (per standards)

Now, the student.

If the student doesn't pay attention in class, doesn't read the manual, doesn't independantly practice his skills, this isn't because of low standards.

I'm not out to obsolve the student of responsibility. However, the instructor should be responsible for living up to his responsibilities also.

If PADI has low standards, you should be able to pick up a PADI OW manual, and show me exactly where.

BECAUSE THAT"S WHERE THE STANDARDS ARE.

Wow, you folks are off base! The standards are NOT in the OW manual.

You want a point where the standards are low? ok. You can become an instructor having only done ONE dive below 60 ft (in your OW class). You are then allowed to teach AOW classes to 100 ft. You can then take a student to 100 ft on his 5th lifetime dive. Neat huh? You can hit 100ft for the first time together!

I'll give you another one...Now, you knock off 20 dives below 60 ft and certify 25 OW students and send $40 to the agency. Now you can teach a Deep diver specialty to 130 ft even though you've never been there. This is a real deep diver we have here isn't it!

 

[Walter]

There seems to be a misconception as to exactly what standards cover.

Standards cover the actions of an instructor and any assistants while teaching a class. They cover students while in training.

Standards do not cover certified divers while out diving on their own. Agencies make recommendations that divers follow various guidelines. When an Open Water diver ventures deeper than 60 ft or enters a wreck, it is not a standards violation. It is a certified diver choosing not to follow a recommendation.

When an instructor takes an OW student below 60 ft or into a wreck, that is a standards violation.

Standards violations are a problem. Even if they were the only problem, as Popeye seems to believe, if wide spread enough would be considered a "deep systemic problem with diver ed." The problem would lie mainly with instructors, but agencies also have an obligation to clean up such problems.

The problem goes deeper. There are many fine people teaching SCUBA who honestly believe they are doing a good job because they are following standards to the letter. Many of these fine people are terrible instructors because the standards fall short of what is needed to produce safe divers.

Standards that don't require skin diving skills are a problem.

Standards that allow a snorkeling option instead of swimming are a problem.

Standards that don't require an unassisted doff and don are a problem.

 

[Diver0001]

Popeye once bubbled...

Diver0001 once bubbled...

First, the statistic is 30 *divers* per year are dying OOA.

Not 30 *OW* divers.

<snip>

Secondly, what, exactly, do you consider an "unavoidable" OOA?

The OW divers thing was my mistake -- unintentional.

I consider an unavoidable OOA something like entrapment or a massive freeflow that isn't caused by lack of alertness. Likewise I consider an avoidable OOA one that results from a lack of alertness.

You can't be serious to state that:

A) A DM should be responsible for checking a diver's air, or that,

B) It's a "standards issue" that a diver wasn't checking his own.

This gets pretty close to the core of issue. I believe, like you that divers *shouldn't* be making the DM responsible for checking their air but it happens and it happens a lot. I've even heard people become quite disgruntled with the service they got from a DM because he didn't check their air or didn't check it often enough.

You could argue that this isn't strictly a standards issue because clearly everyone is supposed to be taught checking their own air--yet these divers exist and are dying at 30 per year or so. How is that possible? (and don't forget that we're only talking about the ones who were OOA and didn't make it back to the surface in time).

<snip>

First off, none of you have presented (because you simply can't) a scrap of evidence to support this "system wide problem" that you keep tilting at.

How do you interpret the accident stats? When I see 30% OOA in the deaths then I see a structural problem. That looks like evidence to me.

Secondly, the JEDI Mind Trick doesn't work on me. You keep repeating something to the effect of " but the agencies--especially the big ones--have *huge* problems with their QA and we're seeing the results in the statistics.",

and you see nothing of the sort in -any- statistics.

We'll have to agree to disagree about this. But I'm curious how you read the stats then.

<snip>

Ro, show me any single indication of a "*huge* problem with QA"

Since you asked .....

The standards say that you shouldn't certify someone who can't maintain neutral buoyancy. It's in the standards yet it must happen a lot because there are a lot of divers who have trouble with this. Uncontrolled ascents, crashing to teh bottom, that sort of thing. It's all against standards; it's a "standards violation" to use your term if you certify someone who can't stay neutral and yet to the best of my knowledge the agencies make no attempt to identify the teachers whose students can't consistently maintain neutral buoyancy and to the best of my knowledge no instructor has ever been sanctioned for producing students with bad buoyancy.

and 60% of the deaths involve buoyancy issues. And that's not to mention all the DCS's hits and what not that have buoyancy as a root cause.

I don't know how you read that but I read it as a QA problem. To me it's a clear standard that isn't being enforced and it's resulting in people dying.

And once again, I agree with you that making changes isn't going iimprove the statistics significantly because diving *is* a safe sport, but there is room for improvement and I think for the sake of the victims and their families we shouldn't be satified with "good enough".

R..