Adequacy of OW and AOW

[Blackwood]

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

Firstly, as was said by Bob above, things have changed beyond training standards. Perhaps more people survive because it's quicker to access medical attention is. Perhaps more people survive because equipment is better. I don't know.

But let's assume the premise: training standards have no effect on the fatality rate. As a dive student, I expect more from a class than learning to avoid death.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

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

It's on-going litigation so it's sort of public record (if you can dig deep enough) but not exactly, based on attorneys not discussing on-going cases publicly. But you could certainly run with the general story as I told it. You don't need specific names or the actual case # to make the point. (And I think it would be most valuable to drive it home during instructor courses.)

- Ken

 

[Ken Kurtis]

So, even before the eLearning, the Proscriptive Teaching, where we teach only the stuff not evidently learned during the home work

I was never really comfortable with the idea of prospcriptive teaching. How do you know what they know? And is there a difference between know and "know"??? If a guy gets one dive table correct one time, does he "know" tables? If he clears his mask once, does he "know" mask clearance?

I think I mentioned in this thread Glenn Egstrom's study that showed that a skill is mastered after SEVENTEEN successful completions. Assuming you accept that to be true, and if you want to accept the thought behind proscriptive teaching (which in and of itself is fine), it still comes back down to what standard of measure can you use to decide that the skill is learned so you can move on to something else to more effectively use the time. I think too often in today's hurry-hurry world, instructors may be going "That's good enough. Moving on."

I certainly wouldn't say that proscriptive teaching is the root of all evil or the base of these problems. But it's the difference between feeling at the end of the dive "Thank goodness nothing went wrong" as opposed to "That was really fun."

My gut feeling is that we have a lot of divers today who are basically doing the dive hoping nothing goes wrong that they'll have to deal with (or maybe blissfully unaware) and are somewhat relieved at the end when all goes to plan, as opposed to divers who feel comfortable dealing with whatever small or large difficulties occur along the way.

It's just a different mindset. And that, I think, goes back to the training.

- Ken

 

[The Chairman]

My gut feeling is that we have a lot of divers today who are basically doing the dive hoping nothing goes wrong that they'll have to deal with (or maybe blissfully unaware) and are somewhat relieved at the end when all goes to plan, as opposed to divers who feel comfortable dealing with whatever small or large difficulties occur along the way.

First, I fit both sides of your dichotomy. I always hope nothing goes wrong when I dive, but I usually handle it fine when it does.

However, there are people who often "make do" when they shouldn't. I remember talking to shop about a rebreather death. Apparently, they still made the dive when two out of three sensors had already crapped out. They felt "comfortable" making that last dive of their life, but it wasn't really a good idea, was it?

 

[seaducer]

I think I had a pretty good OW and AOW experience. Did I learn everything I needed to know to keep myself out of trouble? Certainly not ... but apparently I learned enough to get myself out of the trouble I got myself into while I was still learning ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

That is pretty much my experience. In fact all the classes with various instructors and different agencies, I can honestly say they were all good classes.

I think sometimes people get caught into thinking a course is an end in itself, but in reality the course is only an introduction. With that in mind all my classes were excellent.

 

[tr3a]

Yes, Basic class covered all dive planning (air consumption, deco, emergency, ect).
we could do everything blind folded by end of class.

Advanced lasted 18 months (200 plus dives) and covered deep diving (to 150'), deco, divemaster training, ice diving (including search & recovery under ice), regulator repair,
very heavy on theory, and lots more.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Yes, Basic class covered all dive planning (air consumption, deco, emergency, ect).
we could do everything blind folded by end of class.

Advanced lasted 18 months (200 plus dives) and covered deep diving (to 150'), deco, divemaster training, ice diving (including search & recovery under ice), regulator repair,
very heavy on theory, and lots more.

... you forgot to mention that you are still paying off the student loans you took out to pay for them ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[tr3a]

Actually, no.
Basic class cost $50.00
Advanced was a little more, $75.00

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

I was never really comfortable with the idea of prospcriptive teaching. How do you know what they know? And is there a difference between know and "know"??? If a guy gets one dive table correct one time, does he "know" tables? If he clears his mask once, does he "know" mask clearance?

Yes, I have seen mention of the 17 repetitions in prior threads, and that conforms somewhat with my cliff diver experience. At the end of that gig, I was working on a new "advanced" trick (double half), but did not get enough repetitions for it to stay in my "safe" quiver. With an easier, basic dive, like "flying back flip," the repetitions were only about making it prettier, not safer.

Your mask clear barb is a bit of a red herring for our "academics" conversation, and hyperbolic since even following PADI minimum standards there is more than one mask clear. With regards to tables, I have only had one student with accurately completed Knowledge Reviews 4 & 5, a 12 year old boy, and he also breezed through the Exam table questions. His rich dad probably bought him a dive computer for his next B-day or X-mass present.

I've only had one eStudent, so not really able to give opinion on that academic model.

A dry sarcastic rambling series of mini-lectures and stories weaving through the mundane review of the completed KR's allows me to keep the students awake and gauge reactions to discourse on the subjects I feel they really need to grasp. This ramble is not scripted and changes each time since the interests/strengths/weaknesses of each student are always different.

Admittedly, instructors just accepting home written correct answers, without any corroborating conversation, are not teachers. Just like the 2-day OW cert class, Proscriptive Teaching is allowed, but not required, AFAIU. In a perfect dive world, instructors who suck at Proscriptive Teaching would teach in a better way for them. Unfortunately, the dive world may be irreparably warped.

 

[ajduplessis]

Yes, both courses where of great value to me. I was lucky to have had 2 tech instructors for both courses. They covered a lot more than required and helped me become a better diver. The basics/foundation for scuba need to be strong and should be instilled during OW/AOW, not later.

The issue today is that most instructors/agencies want to qualify the divers ASAP and only provide the bare essential to scuba. You only need to look around at your local dive site to see danglies, poorly configured gear, over weight (lead) divers, bad attitudes, silt kickers and very poor buoyancy to name a few.

The opposite is also true and there are many great scuba instructors and students!!!!