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

[Dhboner]

I am not qualified to opine on the actions of the instructor or the certifying agency but I will say that I think the DSD program should either be abolished completely or restricted to swimming pools with a 1:1 instructor/participant ratio. During a lapse in judgement a few years ago I allowed my daughter to participate in a DSD while on a Caribbean vacation. As I tried to listen in on the "academic" portion it became clear that she could not possibly be prepared for even the simplest of issues much less something potentially lethal. I ended up diving a few metres away form her and her "instructor", ready to step in if anything went pear shaped. I think it is wonderful that there is an opportunity for people to give diving a try before they commit to a full course, but that opportunity needs to be in a closed environment with direct and constant supervision. From what I have seen, resorts use the DSD program as a way to get non-certified divers in the water and make a few dollars. It has very little, if anything, to do with fostering an interest in further training and certification.

 

[redacted]

The sad part is that there had been a number of complaints about this program over the years. The camp should have interceded at some point. No agency has the wherewithal to do as you suggest. Perhaps C-Cards should cost a lot more to fund this? I'm OK with that, but would the customer be so willing?

My point is that, if what the agencies (each & every one) are currently doing is not reasonably sufficient to assure safe training, then they will have to deal with the liabilities that incurs. How much resource are they putting into safety standards establishment and oversight versus their legal departments? I am not convinced it need cost that much but I get the impression that, right now, the biggest cost in this area might be legal fees.

When I was training people (not scuba) all students were surveyed after each course and my performance was evaluated periodically. What is being done in scuba besides agencies dealing with student complaints?

Does anyone really believe this was the first time this instructor did anything like this? Or that there are not other instructors doing similar things with DSD and OW students?

 

[jzipfel]

OK. Time for someone with absolutely no business responding to this thread thinking he has something to say/add:

As a recently certified diver (little over a year) and was certified along with my 13 year old son, I read a lot to find areas where I can reduce the chance of an accident or learn to respond appropriately. Pete's "State of..." letter and the responses following seem to me to fall into a trap. What was THE cause or maybe more accurately it identifies surface causes but not root causes. As a professional in safety and hired for accident investigation and expert witness I think it would be very interesting if we all individually looked for root causes NOT cause.

Remember the 5 why's

How about this:


Think about how many preventive actions we could come up with.

Some starters:
1) Why the DSD program - to get more people the chance to try out SCUBA
2) Why do we want more people in SCUBA - To grow a business
3) Why do you want to grow a business - to make money
4) why do you want to make money - So I can support my family
5) Why do you want to support your family - It was a promise I made to them (and so on....)


Now let's try this one (I'm making this up as I go along, but you get the point)

1) why did the young man have 30# of lead - To make sure he did not bounce up
2) why would he bounce up - he might not know how to manage the air changes as depth changes
3) Why would he not know how to manage the air as depth changes - It is not taught in depth during a DSD
4) why is it not taught in detail during DSD - We don't have a lot of time to cover everything in DSD
5) why don't you have enough time to cover all topics in DSD - it is designed as a one day event (and so on)


How about:

1) why did you lie on the medical questionnaire? - Becuase we thought my son would be OK
2) why did you think your son would be OK? - We did not understand the true risks of his condition while diving
3) why did you not know the true risks of his condition while diving - No one told us
4) why did no one tell you? - We did not ask
5) why did you not ask? I don't know


Or.....

1) Why is the current standard for DSD 1:4 maximum - Experience has shown that was an acceptable risk
2) Why was that determined an acceptable risk - We have not had any accidents to date (just making that up for arguments sake)
3) Why have you had no accidents to date? - Our instructors are trained to evaluate and manage risks while diving
4) why are they trained to evaluate and manage risks while diving? - To prevent accidents
5) Why do you want to prevent accidents? - Do I really need to go further???


This was really just meant as a mind exercise for all to consider. Imagine all the root causes of this terrible accident. Some direct and some proximate.

The real question and probably answer for the "State of Diving" is how can we affect the corrective and preventive actions to help ensure something like this never happens again.

 

[The Chairman]

PADI is the only one that I know of that routinely contacts students after the training to ensure they got trained. Some others might, but I have yet to hear about it.

Training instructors is like training divers. I can make sure they understand how to dive safely, but it's up to them to maintain those perishable skills and knowledge. So it is with instructors. The training agency can be sure that they know how to teach up the IE. After that, it's entirely up to the instructor as to how competent they want to become.

It's not like there are a ton of training deaths in the US. There are less than a handful each year. Yes, training should be safe, and it's the instructor's fault if it is not. According to DAN, here are the three major causes of death while Scuba Diving:

1. Pre-existing disease or pathology in the diver
2. Poor buoyancy control
3. Rapid ascent/ violent water movement

Number 1 and 2 figure prominently in this incident and were compounded by the deceased being abandoned when the crisis hit. No matter what is happening, you can't allow half of your group to remain submerged while the other half surfaces. It's a major failure.

 

[AdivingBel]

I am not qualified to opine on the actions of the instructor or the certifying agency but I will say that I think the DSD program should either be abolished completely or restricted to swimming pools with a 1:1 instructor/participant ratio. During a lapse in judgement a few years ago I allowed my daughter to participate in a DSD while on a Caribbean vacation....

I strongly disagree. If the DSD program needs to be limited to aduts, then so be it. I can't really make a case for a minor that is not in the position to assess the risks or competent to make this kind of decision for themselves taking part in the program. My own experience (anecdotal) is that the program is not that complicated for an adult, but the loss of life of a child is a hard thing to justify for the sake of an experience. Not making any judgement, to each their own.

It has very little, if anything, to do with fostering an interest in further training and certification.

Again, from my own experience, this is not the case. Myself, my wife, and several friends all participated in DSDs and are now avid divers. We all did the half day pool/beach instruction, but it was the reef dive that captured our intrest. Our desire to get certified and take part in the sport was directly related to the DSD experience. IMHO, it would be a sad day if DSDs were discontinued or limited only to a pool.

Sorry, didn't mean to repeat my earlier post. Just feel strongly about this.

 

[mjrob]

I would respectfully disagree with the above, and here is why:

As has been mentioned, the purpose of a DSD, Try Scuba, whatever name you give it, is to make money. As a scuba facility owner, I'm supposed to think they are a tool that "hooks" prospective students into signing up for OW classes. Based on conversion percentages, it doesn't work very well. AdivngBel's experience is more an aberration than it is a common outcome. What we see more often is a person checking off one more bucket list item. Once they've done that Try Scuba, they've been scuba diving...in our case, in 14 feet of crystal clear confined water.

This entire thread makes me want to gather our company brain trust together and, once again, determine if we want to drop Try Scubas altogether. I can't even imagine conducting one in an open water environment. Ever.

The only thing that makes me cringe any more than DSD is the infamous Resort Course, which is, once again, only designed to make money. I either hear how horribly wrong things went--normally in a large group on a cattle boat--or that someone "already knows how to dive" as a result of a RC. I've heard from people who have done five of them which, most often, would have more than paid for an OW class and their personal gear.

We're straying a bit from the original premise and the gut-wrenching loss of a child's life but, like jzipfel, I believe in going to the root of the problem. If we never did DSD's, this would never have happened.

The blame for this Scout's death sits squarely upon us as an industry and a is sad comment on greed over reason. We should all be ashamed and, in respect for the family and the very short life of a child, we should man/woman up, look deep inside and consider the consequences of our actions.

Finger-pointing and blame won't ever resolve what happened but, if we do what's right, we can perhaps prevent it from happening again.

My opinion only, I'm sure there are those who disagree, but it's how I feel.

 

[SeaHorse81]

I'll offer this as "just a diver." I've been watching this thread and pondering the various elements of this situation, including the debate about standards. This debate has caused me as a non-pro to understand standards in a new way. I've always thought of standards in some generic sense as a way to keep training safe. I'm seeing now that they do that in a way that I hadn't previously considered: Tighter standards mean that when other things go wrong, there's more of a buffer to prevent the problems from becoming an accident.

It's kind of mind-boggling all the elements that came together to cause this child's death. It doesn't look to me like the current standard caused his death but that a tighter standard (1:1) would almost certainly have kept all those other wrong things from creating a fatality. For that reason, I can see discussion of changing standards as a reasonable part of proposed solutions. If this view is misinformed, I welcome input.

 

[HIGHwing]

SeaHorse -

The "problem" is the standards mandate the use of the instructor's best judgment based on all the variables foreseen and not. In this case it's easy to see where better judgment could have been applied. I suppose judgment can be clouded by many factors, i.e. the boat sails once a day, the resort has diving revenue quotas to meet or they'll replace scuba with more jet skis, the instructor is forced to use a mud puddle colder than a well diggers ass, and full-time resort instructors often can't even afford a ticket home until they've worked for a few months. Many instructors work for often a non-sustainable wage, and once you're owned by the resort or dive shop (some instructors literally live in out buildings or attics at the shop) things get sketchy quickly. I guess if I had only one thing to say in this thread, I'd point out judgment is a variable, often economically motivated, and always fallible.

 

[AdivingBel]

I would respectfully disagree with the above, and here is why:
As has been mentioned, the purpose of a DSD, Try Scuba, whatever name you give it, is to make money.

I'll begin by saying I appreciate your response and I respect your postion as an industry pro. I related my personal experience, completley anecdotal as noted, of DSDs progressing toward taking up the sport as a counter to the previous quoted post. As you have noted from a postion of industry experience, that may not be the case. So be it. As a non industry person, just a diver, my concern for the business financial aspect is limited. Beyond its value as a revenue stream, for me, the DSD was a very positive, joyful experience that I have encouraged other adults to share. It's one of many experiences available to individuals that enjoy exploring and trying new things on a limited basis. Many of these experiences involve a certain amount of risk that a competent adult can assess and make an informed decision. Scuba is neither the only nor the most risky experience available.

What we see more often is a person checking off one more bucket list item.

From a non-industry, non-financial stand point, what's wrong with that?

The only thing that makes me cringe any more than DSD is the infamous Resort Course, which is, once again, only designed to make money. I either hear how horribly wrong things went--normally in a large group on a cattle boat--or that someone "already knows how to dive" as a result of a RC. I've heard from people who have done five of them which, most often, would have more than paid for an OW class and their personal gear.

"I hear, I've heard" sounds pretty anecdotal to me. Resort courses have been around for awhile and for every "horribly went wrong" scenario there have been thousands/tens of thousands (maybe more) that have gone "wonderfully right." Why limit an adults choices in this instance when we don't in many other similar instances in our society. I for one did several DSDs before I was certified for plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with money. My choice. The proprietor made money, I had a great experience. Again, what's wrong with that?

If we never did DSD's, this would never have happened.

Above all, it's certainly your choice not to provide for DSDs, whether on moral grounds or financial grounds. Why limit my choice or other proprietors choices based on an incident such as this when there are a myriad of other "experiences" that are far more dangerous and have a far worse track record than a DSD.

I belive this discussion has and can be very valuable. If there are things that can be done to make DSDs safer or better without ruining the experience, great. The idea of doing away with a genuinely remarkable experience for a consenting adult would, IMHO, be very sad.

 

[The Chairman]

As has been mentioned, the purpose of a DSD, Try Scuba, whatever name you give it, is to make money.

This can be said of just about any experience: horse back riding, rock climbing, basket weaving and so on. Our economy is based on capitalism and that means making profits. This includes the non-profit agencies as well as the for profit ones so there is no benefit there. No mon = no fun. If the wheels aren't properly greased, the train grinds to a halt.

Our industry's problem predates the interwebs. Other than sky diving, we might be the only sport that requires you to do some training before you try it. The DSD is the one anomaly and I agree with doing them only in the pool. I actually make them start the class before I do this and they have to complete their confined water training before they get to go in the ocean. If they don't like it, they don't have to finish the class. But then, I don't rely on teaching Scuba to survive. There are quite a number of shops and instructors who rely on DSDs and converting them into classes in order to survive. They don't teach like I do and that's OK. Very, very few do. I kind of like that notoriety. Who am I to require that they teach the way I do? I am responsible for only my students and me. I like it that way. I'm certainly not going to base how I teach on the failure of one instructor diving in crappy vis and cold water way out west. I certainly would not want standards based on those conditions either, just as I would not want the speed limit on the Turnpike to reflect the safe speed for a legally blind driver in a car with bald tires, horrible wipers and faulty brakes in the middle of a Class 5 hurricane.

No standard can fix stupid. No standard can fix complacency. 'Nuff said right there.