An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc

[descent]

... let me tell you the things I've seen these past few days scare the crap out of me, and still I know there are few accidents, because in the end **** only hits the fan when it does. Standards violations are all over the place, for DSDs, OW courses, or any course for that matter. ...

PADI outsources enforcement of its standards to 1) the instructors themselves and 2) their customers.

That opens a loophole. Bad actors with a financial incentive to skimp on safety can clump together. The bad clump of instructors could agree not to report on each other. The bad actors could avoid customer complaints by catering to only the newest and most safety-ignorant customers.

Outsourcing compliance and handing out punishments only after violations occur is a reactive policy.

Having inspectors drop in for unannounced checks is a proactive policy.

 

[Omisson]

PADI outsources enforcement of its standards to 1) the instructors themselves and 2) their customers.

That opens a loophole. Bad actors with a financial incentive to skimp on safety can clump together. The bad clump of instructors could agree not to report on each other. The bad actors could avoid customer complaints by catering to only the newest and most safety-ignorant customers.

Outsourcing compliance and handing out punishments only after violations occur is a reactive policy.

Having inspectors drop in for unannounced checks is a proactive policy.

And that's worse then agencies with no Q&A program?

---------- Post added December 22nd, 2014 at 05:23 PM ----------

You are correct, I have very little knowledge of those things. But I do know that the right response is not to simply budget enough $$$ to pay off these annoying legal problems when an accident happens. The right answer is to work to reduce them.

You can never eliminate all risk- especially in a risk filled sport like diving. No matter how careful we are, or how strict and comprehensive the standards, Mother Nature, physiology and psychology are always going to be factors that can spoil the best laid plans...

The right response is a combination of constantly improving standards, funding research on dive science and putting out standards and education products which produce consistent results... Just like PADI is doing.

When faced with a lawsuit - you must deal with those issues when they happen- so it doesn't bankrupt or cripple the organization - and it seems PADI is doing just that.

It really seems you don't want to see the reality.

 

[redacted]

You can never eliminate all risk- especially in a risk filled sport like diving. No matter how careful we are, or how strict and comprehensive the standards, Mother Nature, physiology and psychology are always going to be factors that can spoil the best laid plans...

The right response is a combination of constantly improving standards, funding research on dive science and putting out standards and education products which produce consistent results... Just like PADI is doing.

When faced with a lawsuit - you must deal with those issues when they happen- so it doesn't bankrupt or cripple the organization - and it seems PADI is doing just that.

It really seems you don't want to see the reality.

I guess you were too busy to read what I have written. I never said "eliminate" all risk. I have used terms like reduce risk and manage risk.

Your "right response" fails to address the enforcement of standard including inspection. I hope your agency has not also left that out.

 

[descent]

PADI outsources enforcement of its standards to 1) the instructors themselves and 2) their customers. ... Outsourcing compliance and handing out punishments only after violations occur is a reactive policy.

And that's worse then agencies with no Q&A program?

Hmmm. I would do well to clarify.

Assigning enforcement to another party is not an absolute organizational evil. In retrospect, I think that mentioning it introduces a red herring in the discussion, and I apologize for casting a stray twig while we are tracking.

... at a recent meeting with PADI Asia Pacific in Singapore, I suggested that PADI put in some fake students into classes. ...

Zippsy's idea to send out secret shoppers to test instructors is a kind of outsourcing. They can be effective if well-managed. I don't consider a crowdsourced mob like Yelp users to be the best management tool for a campaign that would involve the safety of human life, but there are certainly other ways.

That leaves the dichotomy I mentioned, and I believe it is still a legitimate question.

Rephrased: After an instructor graduates, should a scuba certification agency take proactive measures to monitor that instructor's compliance with published standards?

What should they be? Spot checks? Secret shoppers? Something else?

 

[tursiops]

awap, this is a bit like the Y2K problem 14 yars ago. A lot of effort and money went into making sure it did not cause any disasters. Then there were no disasters, which instead of cheering and saying "good job!" the critics chose to describe as proof that none of that effort and money were necessary. Crazy conclusion.

Here, PADI sends questionaires to the students, and DOES act on them. Usually by modifying the instructor's behavior or knowledge base to insure the future efforts of that instructor are up to standards. We know this happens. Some of us have colleagues who have gotten the QA message from PADI, a "We need to talk" kind of thing. This is proactive, and mitigates further problems. Another forum has a guy who is videoing instruction at the Blue Heron Bridge to provide evidence to PADI of any poor instruction going on there. And, in the extreme cases, they remove an instructor's ability to teach for that agency. So, these are efforts that are indeed attempting to not just enforce the standards, but to improve the instruction. A consequence of these efforts is that problems do not occur. So, the PADI QA program is functioning, and has been for a long time. You accuse PADI of doing things for the money; do you think they would continue this expensive, effective program if they thought it was wasted money?

 

[cerich]

I think a solution is simple. Publish the relevant course standards in the manual and in the online materials. Tell the student that this is what they should expect to be taught and then mention they will receive a Quality assurance to ensure they were, when the return the QA survey they will get a $xx credit towards something (future course/dive society/magazine sub, whatever)

Make the expectations the agencies have for their instructors public knowledge. The problem is that too many in ou insutry still think stuff like that should be secret and that doesn't work anymore with the speed and depth of communication

 

[tridacna]

Has anyone seen or commented on this yet? AWAP please ignore.

PADI Responds to an Open Letter to the Dive Industry, dated 12 November 2014

 

[boulderjohn]

I think a solution is simple. Publish the relevant course standards in the manual and in the online materials.

In the PADI OW program, many of the required items are listed in the student record file and in the log book. That is especially true in the OW dives, where the instructor has to initial the completion of the skills. The student log book lists the skills that have to be completed, and the student is supposed to check off having done them. If any item is omitted in the OW dives, the student should know immediately.

Years after I took my OW course, I got my DM certification, and I was surprised to be required to demonstrate stuff for the OW class that I had absolutely not done when i was certified. I got out my old log book and saw that the instructor had signed off for those skills, even though we had not done them. I simply was not paying attention then.

 

[Omisson]

I guess you were too busy to read what I have written. I never said "eliminate" all risk. I have used terms like reduce risk and manage risk.

Your "right response" fails to address the enforcement of standard including inspection. I hope your agency has not also left that out.

No what you said was:

"I do understand risk management. When you have unacceptable risks (unnecessary death is in that category) even with very low probabilities of occurrence, they earn a high priority for management. "

Please explain how there is an "unacceptable risk" in the PADI DSD program.

Then you said this little gem:

"I'm not saying PADI is wrong. I don't really know what they are doing. But I am really shocked at the attitude of some of the instructors on this board. The avoidable death of a student should not be acceptable collateral damage while you make a few extra bucks on the side."

How was the death "avoidable" on the Program/Agency side of this?

All available information points to instructor error and/or potentially a medical condition.

You do know that PADI makes no money on the DSD program, right? The only one who does directly is the instructor.

"There is no doubt in my mind that more can be done. But there seems to be little interest."

Maybe because instructors analyzing this tragedy are pretty isolated into two camps:
The anti-PADI crowd which thinks it's all about student ratios
And
Everyone else who sees it as a series of instructor and participant errors

But that's too simple for some folks who think there is a solution to every problem. Sometimes there isn't. And in this case- the blame is squarely on instructor and student error. The only way to fix the instructor error is unfortunately post facto- because how could anyone know the series of mistakes made that lead to this- especially since they violated training standards he was supposed to maintain.

---------- Post added December 22nd, 2014 at 07:14 PM ----------

Has anyone seen or commented on this yet? AWAP please ignore.

PADI Responds to an Open Letter to the Dive Industry, dated 12 November 2014

Yes and all the facts claimed by opposing counsel in other threads go right out the window with it.!

 

[29Clyde]

Since Carney first published his letter I have been following this topic closely. In addition to the boards I have actively and independently sought out clarification and details so as to better assess for myself the entire situation. I can tell you that it has been a tremendously informative process although I have had to wade through tons of chaff - which I am sure that many followers of these threads can appreciate. While the discussions often delve into the speculative or irrelevant, I have found a few very useful revelations.

First and foremost, Carney's letter is a prime example that a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted for anything that you read on the internet (I do realize that is a statement of the obvious). It has also significantly changed my view of TDI/SDI. While I used to have a fairly positive view of that organization, I can tell you that my opinion has dramatically changed.

Because of Carney's letter, I believe:
(1) Brian Carney is a liar.
(2) Brian Carney is a coward. He has had ample opportunity to either counter PADI's statement or clarify his own letter. He has done neither. TDI/SDI has also moderated comments on his letter to only publish those that are supportive of his lies.
(3) Brian Carney is a despicable human being. It appears to me that he has tried to distort the facts around the tragic death of a child to advance his own agenda.
(4) As an organization, TDI/SDI has tacitly endorsed Carney's letter and therefore are equally as despicable.

I reserve the right to amend my opinions should new facts arise but based on what I know today, I am comfortable with my conclusions.