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

[Wookie]

Damn and here I was going to stay out of this thread. What makes it worse is I usually enjoy your post Wookie, but I can't let this go by without a comment.

Your last sentence actually applies to your 1st paragraph. This is the kind of unsubstantiated FUD* that causes the pissing contest between agencies and lead to divisiveness like the Carney letter in the first place. Do you have minutes of the meetings? Do you have a record of the question asked and the votes on it? Do you have any documentation that "PADI doesn't want any standards tightened"? Hearsay gets us nowhere in the discussion. With something this important, the other four agencies should come out in writing with their standing on the issue, as a dissenting opinion or quit whining.

Everyone has their opinion, but to report opinion as fact is incorrect.

perhaps you are correct, I only have the heresay from 2 folks who were there. I will go back to letting y'all think what you want. You will anyway.

 

[Zippsy]

If true, that wouldn't stop any agency from tightening their own standards anyway, correct?

 

[boulderjohn]

The RSTC sets minimum standards for its members. PADI itself has stronger OW standards than the current RSTC standards, so it is puzzling that they would try to stop the RSTC from strengthening its standards. There is also nothing to prevent other members from strengthening theirs.

The problem could lie in the interpretation of what constitutes strengthening standards. I can easily see a situation in which a member wants to add a provision that they honestly feel is needed only to have PADI disagree because they honestly do not believe that it should be a requirement of that training. The proposer can grumble that PADI was opposed to improving standards, while PADI could honestly counter that the proposed change did not strengthen standards and was counterproductive.

A hypothetical example of how such a thing could occur took place nearly a decade ago when one agency changed its policy on ascent profiles to advocate the use of deep stops on recreational dives. At the time, PADI was criticized for not doing the same, and PADI's response was that they had not seen sufficient research to justify making such a change. Today the deep stop bandwagon has cooled down significantly, and PADI's decision not to adopt that policy is looking good. If a RSTC member had proposed teaching deep stops as a minimum requirement for OW then, PADI would have resisted it, and the well-meaning proposer could have felt that PADI was blocking improvements to the program.

 

[cerich]

I think regarding deep stops in recreational diving the tissues most in play are fast tissues and deep stops makes total sense in recreational diving. The evidence regarding deep stops in tech diving is worth looking at but if you have been following that thread even the real deco scientists aren't sure that doing or not doing deep stops is a plus or minus...yet. That is why it's called deco theory not fact.

Plus, to be clear, NAUI that did adopt deep stops is NOT a member of the RTSC.

The RSTC sets minimum standards for its members. PADI itself has stronger OW standards than the current RSTC standards, so it is puzzling that they would try to stop the RSTC from strengthening its standards. There is also nothing to prevent other members from strengthening theirs.

The problem could lie in the interpretation of what constitutes strengthening standards. I can easily see a situation in which a member wants to add a provision that they honestly feel is needed only to have PADI disagree because they honestly do not believe that it should be a requirement of that training. The proposer can grumble that PADI was opposed to improving standards, while PADI could honestly counter that the proposed change did not strengthen standards and was counterproductive.

A hypothetical example of how such a thing could occur took place nearly a decade ago when one agency changed its policy on ascent profiles to advocate the use of deep stops on recreational dives. At the time, PADI was criticized for not doing the same, and PADI's response was that they had not seen sufficient research to justify making such a change. Today the deep stop bandwagon has cooled down significantly, and PADI's decision not to adopt that policy is looking good. If a RSTC member had proposed teaching deep stops as a minimum requirement for OW then, PADI would have resisted it, and the well-meaning proposer could have felt that PADI was blocking improvements to the program.

 

[redacted]

There is no deception: We are without a KLPD. Like every county, Monroe has a Sheriff's department. We also have a huge presence of Highway Patrol and Florida Wildlife Commission officers. I'm more likely to see FWC, then FHP and that's more likely then a Sheriff here on the roads in the Keys. When my son died, the nearest investigator lived just south of Marathon, well over an hour away. I don't believe that you understand the difference between those entities and how it affects the demeanor of the locale.

You asked an ignorant question because you don't have the requisite experience and you hadn't done your homework. You're still ignorant about the situation here in the Keys and that's OK: it really doesn't affect you at all. The same could be said about your ideas for enforcing instructors. You're ignorant of the situation since you aren't an instructor and don't seem willing to understand our issues. Maybe for an encore, you should try your hand at nuclear regulation or perhaps policing all of the infectious diseases we have in the US. I hope this doesn't come across as harsh or condescending, but until you swim a few miles in my fins, and have taken the classes to understand the situation, I don't think you can fully understand the current state of teaching Scuba.

Perhaps you should have placed your original post in the instructor only forum so ignorant divers would not have the opportunity to get involved. Or did you intend for us to just listen and believe?

Sheriff vs police (vs peer or victim) enforcement is a semantic difference. Why are you so resistant to enforcing standards?

 

[boulderjohn]

Why are you so resistant to enforcing standards?

The fallacy in your response is so common it has a host of names. Here is is identified as a false dilemma. Your statement assumes that anyone who is not on board with your idea about enforcing standards is opposed to enforcing standards.

No one has voiced opposition to enforcing standards. What they have said in response is that what is being done now is pretty good, and they don't see your position as either desirable or effective.

It's hard to say for sure, though, because despite being begged to do so, you refuse to actually state your position, except to say that they should do "more" in a way that will someone eliminate all standards violations and prevent all deaths. Because they refuse to do take that unidentified step that will eliminate all standards violations and all deaths, you conclude that they are in favor of standards violations and people dying.

that is the equivalent of saying that the automotive industry should take steps to ensure that cars are never in accidents, and since they are not doing that, they must be in favor of people dying in accidents.

 

[redacted]

The fallacy in your response is so common it has a host of names. Here is is identified as a false dilemma. Your statement assumes that anyone who is not on board with your idea about enforcing standards is opposed to enforcing standards.

No one has voiced opposition to enforcing standards. What they have said in response is that what is being done now is pretty good, and they don't see your position as either desirable or effective.

It's hard to say for sure, though, because despite being begged to do so, you refuse to actually state your position, except to say that they should do "more" in a way that will someone eliminate all standards violations and prevent all deaths. Because they refuse to do take that unidentified step that will eliminate all standards violations and all deaths, you conclude that they are in favor of standards violations and people dying.

that is the equivalent of saying that the automotive industry should take steps to ensure that cars are never in accidents, and since they are not doing that, they must be in favor of people dying in accidents.

I have never said that all deaths can be prevented or all standards violations can be stopped. But it does seem to be a common accusation from the dive professionals who seem to simply want to write this incident off as an instructor who violated standards and the only response from the industry should be the expulsion of that instructor. What I have said is if the industry is serious about safety, then any time an accident like this happens, the industry should go through a risk assessment analysis to identify what it could do differently to reduce risk. The opinion of many professions in this discussion seems to be NOTHING more than the expulsion should be considered. You act like you really believe that an instructor violating standards is an rare aberration that deserves no further attention.

 

[boulderjohn]

I have never said that all deaths can be prevented or all standards violations can be stopped. But it does seem to be a common accusation from the dive professionals who seem to simply want to write this incident off as an instructor who violated standards and the only response from the industry should be the expulsion of that instructor. What I have said is if the industry is serious about safety, then any time an accident like this happens, the industry should go through a risk assessment analysis to identify what it could do differently to reduce risk. The opinion of many professions in this discussion seems to be NOTHING more than the expulsion should be considered. You act like you really believe that an instructor violating standards is an rare aberration that deserves no further attention.

How do you know that the agencies have not done such a risk analysis and concluded that they are currently doing the best they feasibly can do?

I am sure there are instructors out there who are violating standards. I have not seen it myself, though. Both shops with which I have worked have been very good about that. I have watched two friends go through DSDs in two different resort areas, and both were done by the book. I would love to have better enforcement of standards then we have now, but I don't know how it can be feasibly done.

You seem to believe such changes are easy. I am still awaiting your solution.

 

[Omisson]

Believe what you read, but PADI has continually blocked any tightening of the standards at the most recent RSTC meetings. You see, it's a case of requiring a unanimous vote to change a standard, not a majority, so if 4 other members decide they want a 2:1 ratio for DSD, and 1:1 if the DSD participant is a minor, and one member votes no, then the standards don't get changed. Some folks participating in this thread have said repeatedly that PADI is all for changing the standards. They get their information from PADI. I get mine from the other 4 members of the RSTC. PADI doesn't want any standards tightened, and they have veto power, so the standards aren't getting changed.

This thread is more full of BS than a Kansas feedlot.

Can you quote the section of the RSTC bylaws that gives that "veto" power over standards voting? There are 5 members of the U.S. RSTC - but I can't find the rule you are talking about. Nor any indications of a vote to "tighten standards" that was rejected. Could you cite the date of the meeting where that happened?

Do you mean the WRSTC? In which case there are the 5 US Members, 10 in Europe 3 in Canada and 2 in the East (China/Japan/Austrailia/Pacific) but I don't think they have that rule though either.

---------- Post added December 24th, 2014 at 12:37 PM ----------

Perhaps you should have placed your original post in the instructor only forum so ignorant divers would not have the opportunity to get involved. Or did you intend for us to just listen and believe?

Sheriff vs police (vs peer or victim) enforcement is a semantic difference. Why are you so resistant to enforcing standards?

It's a completely different thing. A county sheriff is not town or village law enforcement. Certainly you didn't think there were no police anywhere in southeast Florida.... I mean that would be ....

---------- Post added December 24th, 2014 at 12:44 PM ----------

I have never said that all deaths can be prevented or all standards violations can be stopped. But it does seem to be a common accusation from the dive professionals who seem to simply want to write this incident off as an instructor who violated standards and the only response from the industry should be the expulsion of that instructor. What I have said is if the industry is serious about safety, then any time an accident like this happens, the industry should go through a risk assessment analysis to identify what it could do differently to reduce risk. The opinion of many professions in this discussion seems to be NOTHING more than the expulsion should be considered. You act like you really believe that an instructor violating standards is an rare aberration that deserves no further attention.

You are just incapable of grasping the issue. Other than the reduction of the DSD ratio to 1:1 (I'd say 2:1 is sufficient) or eliminating DSD altogether - there is no "fix" or "improvement" or "retool" that would prevent this type of accident.

You can't fix 7 instructor caused standards violations nor can you fix a student/parent falsifying medicals except after the fact. There is no policing model that would work for Scuba. Do you want government run Instant online cert, ID, and medical checks? Cause that's the only way such a thing could be done. And on the instructor side- a government certification and enforcement program would be a state by state nightmare.

So please- tell us - what "changes" do you propose? Not vague "examine the issues" tripe. What concrete change proposals do you advocate? If you don't have any- the please accept the fact that others reached that conclusion several dozen posts ago, and you are just continuing to beat a dead horse...

---------- Post added December 24th, 2014 at 12:49 PM ----------

perhaps you are correct, I only have the heresay from 2 folks who were there. I will go back to letting y'all think what you want. You will anyway.

Let me guess - TDI's Brian was one of them? And Edd of SSI? Or was it Dennis who is now over at TDI?

No possibility of misinformation there given the letter, huh?

 

[redacted]

How do you know that the agencies have not done such a risk analysis and concluded that they are currently doing the best they feasibly can do?

I am sure there are instructors out there who are violating standards. I have not seen it myself, though. Both shops with which I have worked have been very good about that. I have watched two friends go through DSDs in two different resort areas, and both were done by the book. I would love to have better enforcement of standards then we have now, but I don't know how it can be feasibly done.

You seem to believe such changes are easy. I am still awaiting your solution.

I don't know that. Perhaps they have or are doing that. I do know that some instructors seem to take the position that such actions are unnecessary and doing what they can in this thread to oppose them.

What standards do you know are being violated? Are those standards being addressed in the questionnaire?

I have watched an OW instructor take a class of about eight 12 to 14 y/o students on a swim through the house of a 40+ foot houseboat in a lake with visibility in the 5 to 10 foot range. My impression is that it was not the first or last time it happened. Is that a violation? What do you think could be done about things like that?

Change is rarely easy but opposing it on that basis alone does not seem very smart. If the contention is that necessary changes are too expensive; then that may get interesting when they get to defend that position.

My solution, while I wait to see where this goes, will be to caution those who approach me about taking up scuba about the hidden risks of such a venture. I really believe the problem may well be some instructors and not the agencies themselves; but maybe not. Maybe there are agencies putting profit well ahead of safety.