Adequacy of OW and AOW

[MauiScubaSteve]

The question isn't whether or not YOUR training was good. The question is whether or not training NOW is adequate.

The bigger question, for those who feel the standards are inadaquate is: Why do you keep teaching a system you feel is fatally flawed????

Well ... I think for the most part those who feel that way have been diving for decades and either don't remember how inadequate they really were after their initial class or they're living in a past that never really existed. I've only been diving for 10 years ... and although I have done a lot of diving in 10 years, I still remember what it was like when I was a brand new diver.

What is adequate?

Polite, civilized society has "legislated" and "indoctrinated" that we are all "equals." I am probably not many of my peer's "equal" when it comes to retirement savings, but most of my peer's are not equal to me in "water" skills.

I adequately survived a decade of J-valve diving with just some minor tutoring from my geology professor dad and his geology professor best friend. On one hand you had experienced adventurers basically copying Cousteau and Nelson; another hand had ex-NAVY drill sergeants turning out SEAL wannabe's. Weren't there other hands as well?

I became a "certified diver" 19 years ago, but I'm not telling you about me. The only "real" difference I see between that course and the one taught today is no buddy breathing skill today.

My classmates were my Kapa'a, Kauai house mates. We "inherited" the house from the Sleeping Giant Hostel, when it shut after hurricane Iniki. A couple 19 year old SoCal boys and a 20 year old young man from Bend. A couple Spicoli's and what you'd expect from a good Bend family. After PADI OW they/we survived non guided deep, night and lava tube dives in short order.

They were really only on the Island to surf, but days with small waves we would also snorkel, free dive, scuba dive and or play at waterfall pools. There is a point in many adventurous people's lives where, if there was a short list of "Darwin's Candidates" we would be on that list (or higher on that list). 20-ish surfers probably include many on the "short list."

There are many different reasons for somebody being on Darwin's diving "short list." Region might be part of the mix, but definitely; physical health, athletic inaptitude, hydrophobia, mental health. That's right, mental health. Remember a few years ago when society was looking around asking "why do so many kids now have ADD and ADHD?" Don't answer that, instead answer this; do you think any of them are now divers?

The vast majority of prospective divers are not on Darwin's diving "short list" so the beginning training in diving is not very worried about people on the "short list." Just because people from the "short list" are occasionally dying, that does not necessarily prove today's beginning training is inadequate.

Equality may be the enemy!

 

[Ken Kurtis]

The bigger question, for those who feel the standards are inadaquate is: Why do you keep teaching a system you feel is fatally flawed????

Please realize I was taking some literary license here for effect. I personally don't feel the system is "fatally flawed." But I get the impression that others do, or at least feel it could be better. And the point of my rhetorical question is to ask: If you feel there are issues, what are you doing to fix them?

Personally, I have discussions with the Powers-That-Be at both NAUI & PADI when there are issues that concern me or if I see something that I think needs attention. Sometimes I get results, sometimes I don't. But at least I gave it a shot.

Within my own teaching, I strive to do the best job I can within the timeframe allowed. I personally will absolutely not teach an OW course that I felt didn't allow me adequate time in both the pool and classroom to prepare my charges to go out into the underwater world and dive opn their own.

But I also think I've got more leeway as a NAUI instructor than I would if I was a PADI instructor. (This is not meant to be PADI-bashing as I think both approaches have merits and deficiencies.)

The point is that NAUI standards are considered a floor. In other words, I have to rise up to at least that level but can go above it. PADI standards are considered a ceiling. They represent the level to which you must rise, but you're not to go above it (at least not as a requirement of passing the course).

The only "real" difference I see between that course and the one taught today is no buddy breathing skill today.

I disagree with this statement. (And for the record, I still teach buddy-breathing first night in the pool. NAUI has no blanket prohibition against teaching the skill and I personally think it's an excellent stress-management tool as well as it may have some practical use too.)

I think one of the biggest changes between today's teaching and "the good old days" is the acceptance of allowing home-study and on-line study to replace classroom work with an instructor who can lecture, question, & probe. It's the difference between knowing the answer and understanding the material. (Sounds like semantics but I don't feel it is.)

I've long advocated that the problem of at-home study in place of clasroom lectures is that it allows students to get the right answer without necessarily understanding the material. They may know, and correctly mark on their test, that 60/30 makes you an E diver. But they have no concept of how that relates to nitrogen load or what "E" really signifies.

This was validated for me when I was recently reading a deposition in a fatality lawsuit where the buddy of the dead diver was being questioned about embolsim. He basically said he didn't know what that was. Wasn't that taught in your basic class, he was asked? No, not that I can recall, he replied.

He then was presented with a copy of his exam (can't remember if it was the final or a quiz) and was directed to the questions that dealt with embolism, all of which he'd answered correctly. When asked about it, he said he still didn't have any idea of what it all meant. When asked how he got the answers correct, he replied, "Well, I just did a cut-and-paste on my computer because I knew how to find the answer but I never really understood what any of it meant."

To me, THAT'S one off the biggest changes in training. We do not demand as much intellectually (IMHO) from our students today as we may have in the past. Some of it may be a NAUI vs. PADI thing as the former has always been more book-oriented than the latter. (And I simply mean that as a statement of fact, not a judgement.) But when we start talking about fatalties and what might have gone wrong, it's rarely things like "His bouyancy was bad" or "His kick was sub-standard". It's usually things like went into a cave, didn't watch air, dove when condntions weren't good, made bad emergency-response choices . . . things that rely on knowledge and judgemement. The time to form knowledge and judgement is what we've sacrificed for expediency.

Let's face it, the skills aren't all that tough or numerous. But the idea of read the book, take a test, hit the pool for one session, go the ocean, and congratulations you're good-to-go might be something that we as an industry would like to re-examine.

- Ken

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

To me, THAT'S one off the biggest changes in training. We do not demand as much intellectually (IMHO) from our students today as we may have in the past. Some of it may be a NAUI vs. PADI thing as the former has always been more book-oriented than the latter. (And I simply mean that as a statement of fact, not a judgement.) But when we start talking about fatalties and what might have gone wrong, it's rarely things like "His bouyancy was bad" or "His kick was sub-standard". It's usually things like went into a cave, didn't watch air, dove when condntions weren't good, made bad emergency-response choices . . . things that rely on knowledge and judgemement. The time to form knowledge and judgement is what we've sacrificed for expediency.

Let's face it, the skills aren't all that tough or numerous. But the idea of read the book, take a test, hit the pool for one session, go the ocean, and congratulations you're good-to-go might be something that we as an industry would like to re-examine.

Equality may be the enemy!

So, even before the eLearning, the Proscriptive Teaching, where we teach only the stuff not evidently learned during the home work, is what you think is a big reason for today's fatalities?

By requiring the classroom lecture for the entire academics, I think you are very correct; those diving fatalities would shrink by at least the number of prospects that surely would not become certified divers if they had to sit through hours of lecture to be one.

If we are basing "adequate" by number of fatalities, are there more fatalities than there were back when there was classroom lecture for the entire academics?

 

[Blackwood]

This was validated for me when I was recently reading a deposition in a fatality lawsuit where the buddy of the dead diver was being questioned about embolsim. He basically said he didn't know what that was. Wasn't that taught in your basic class, he was asked? No, not that I can recall, he replied.

He then was presented with a copy of his exam (can't remember if it was the final or a quiz) and was directed to the questions that dealt with embolism, all of which he'd answered correctly. When asked about it, he said he still didn't have any idea of what it all meant. When asked how he got the answers correct, he replied, "Well, I just did a cut-and-paste on my computer because I knew how to find the answer but I never really understood what any of it meant."

Ken, that is one anecdote worthy of being labeled "datum."

Is that information public or sealed? If the former, I think it could merit mentioning at the beginning of intro-level scuba classes.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

If we are basing "adequate" by number of fatalities, are there more fatalities than there were back when there was classroom lecture for the entire academics?

The raw numbers are that the annual fatalities as tracked by D.A.N. are pretty much the same now (even a little lower) than they were back in "the good old days." We used to use 100/fatalties/year as the mark, now it's about 90. (I think the highest was one year when we had 130 back in the 90s.)

The small fallacy with all of this (and I just had this discussion with a researcher at D.A.N. the other day) is that the raw numbers represent the numerator. What we don't know is the number of people diving or the number of total dives they make which is the denominator. So there's no way statistically to say whether 90/year is better than 100/year because if it was 100 out of 25,000,000 dives back then and it's 90 out of 20,000,00 dives now, then that would actually be an increase in the rate even though the raw number dropped.

But if you accept that the raw number is fairly indicative of the overall trend, it begs the other question: If dive training is not as good today as it used to be, and by a significant amount (if we could quantify it), why haven't the fatality numbers shot up?

And if they haven't shot up (and freely agreeing that even one death is one too many) are we making much ado about nothing vis a vis traning standards as the culprit since they may not have any effect on the fatality rate?

(Just being Devil's Advocate here. Don't shoot the messenger.)



- Ken

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

But if you accept that the raw number is fairly indicative of the overall trend, it begs the other question: If dive training is not as good today as it used to be, and by a significant amount (if we could quantify it), why haven't the fatality numbers shot up?

And if they haven't shot up (and freely agreeing that even one death is one too many) are we making much ado about nothing vis a vis traning standards as the culprit since they may not have any effect on the fatality rate?

So perhaps if we are to make much ado about inadequate training we should transition to serious injury?

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

The raw numbers are that the annual fatalities as tracked by D.A.N. are pretty much the same now (even a little lower) than they were back in "the good old days." We used to use 100/fatalties/year as the mark, now it's about 90. (I think the highest was one year when we had 130 back in the 90s.)

The small fallacy with all of this (and I just had this discussion with a researcher at D.A.N. the other day) is that the raw numbers represent the numerator. What we don't know is the number of people diving or the number of total dives they make which is the denominator. So there's no way statistically to say whether 90/year is better than 100/year because if it was 100 out of 25,000,000 dives back then and it's 90 out of 20,000,00 dives now, then that would actually be an increase in the rate even though the raw number dropped.

But if you accept that the raw number is fairly indicative of the overall trend, it begs the other question: If dive training is not as good today as it used to be, and by a significant amount (if we could quantify it), why haven't the fatality numbers shot up?

And if they haven't shot up (and freely agreeing that even one death is one too many) are we making much ado about nothing vis a vis traning standards as the culprit since they may not have any effect on the fatality rate?

(Just being Devil's Advocate here. Don't shoot the messenger.)



- Ken

I would think that one could extrapolate data from dive businesses in the more popular resort areas to determine whether the industry has grown or shrunk over the past three or four decades. My guess is that it has grown since the "good old days" ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[The Chairman]

I have long had the impression that when people suggest that dive training is inadequate, they really mean that they didn't do all the training!

While it might be human nature to think that I am the best instructor in the world, that's only hubris. To think that my methodology is the only one that really works is just more of the same. In reality, there is more than one way to skin a cat. While the cat might prefer another analogy, the internet tends to make us take the position that in spite of evidence to the contrary, how -I- dive is right and everyone who does differently, sucks! Shops long maintained the attitude that only the gear or agency they offered were good and that all else was crap. Unfortunately, we have not progressed all that far since then.

The reason for this is competition. Scuba and Scuba Instruction are incredibly competitive endeavors. Sac, bottom time, number of dives, number of students certed, gear configuration and so on are all ways we use to rank ourselves. Of course, should our ranking in any area seem to be too low, we are quick to point out how irrelevant that particular marker is! It's so funny, its tragic!

 

[Ste Wart]

The reason for this is competition. Scuba and Scuba Instruction are incredibly competitive endeavors. Sac, bottom time, number of dives, number of students certed, gear configuration and so on are all ways we use to rank ourselves. Of course, should our ranking in any area seem to be too low, we are quick to point out how irrelevant that particular marker is! It's so funny, its tragic!

You missed out women/students slept with.

 

[Bob DBF]

But if you accept that the raw number is fairly indicative of the overall trend, it begs the other question: If dive training is not as good today as it used to be, and by a significant amount (if we could quantify it), why haven't the fatality numbers shot up?

- Ken

I think one significant reason fatality numbers have not shot up is the availability of much faster and better medical care.

When I started diving there were no cell phones, medivac, or easily available chambers. If you screwed up you took the consequences which made up my mind to be a reasonably safe diver, others made different choices.

Another reason may be the training now emphasizes safety and limits, this may not make you a better more knowledgeable diver but will limit the problems you encounter. The down side is training is instructor focused and puts out a diver who is hesitant (a good thing) but will follow an authority figure anywhere.


Bob
----------------------------------------------
I may be old, but I’m not dead yet.