You can view the page at http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/content.php?r=306-Accident-Analysis-lessons-learned
Article: Accident Analysis... lessons learned
- Thread starter Doppler
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
VooDooGasMan
Contributor
Dop,who should shoulder these is easy for my answer, If in a class and instructor is there to teach,then the Instructor is responsible. if a newer diver is there to gain experience from a experienced diver, you would think the experienced, but no not at all. Why? well the dive industry was made to teach this and along with that someone is held responsible. Two divers or more diving together is all on there own. Now when, Lets use padi, you get padi certified always dive with a buddy, that is a set up from the cert agency.
It is clear when I am in the body of water with other divers I am solo, we are not buddy divers and never will be. we might enter the same time, we might see each other and that's it.
If you enter a cave, you know the outcome, either you make it back to the entrance or you do not, if being taught by instructor then its his responsibility to get you back to the entrance.
To me its cut and dry, either paying to be taught, or self learning.
It is clear when I am in the body of water with other divers I am solo, we are not buddy divers and never will be. we might enter the same time, we might see each other and that's it.
If you enter a cave, you know the outcome, either you make it back to the entrance or you do not, if being taught by instructor then its his responsibility to get you back to the entrance.
To me its cut and dry, either paying to be taught, or self learning.
Some time ago, a friend of mine started a thread on whether there was any point at all in posting accident and incident reports, as they tend to fall into two classes. Either not enough is known about the accident to make any recommendations or changes in existing practice, or the departures from current good practice are so egregious as to cause most folks to shake their heads and say, "Well, I would never do that, anyway."
As an ER doc, I know that what people think is a good idea often makes me shake my head, and I think diving is no exception. I do not know what you can do to instill prudence or common sense into human beings (and at the risk of being deemed sexist, into young adult males). If you figure it out, Steve, will you let me know? It would save a lot of medical costs . . .
As an ER doc, I know that what people think is a good idea often makes me shake my head, and I think diving is no exception. I do not know what you can do to instill prudence or common sense into human beings (and at the risk of being deemed sexist, into young adult males). If you figure it out, Steve, will you let me know? It would save a lot of medical costs . . .
Dive Bug Bit Me
Contributor
Doppler, firstly thank you for a very poignant post. Your question of who should shoulder the responsibility is more far reaching than meets the eye. I would suggest that the industry as a whole is at fault. Technical diving is to recreational diving what sky diving is to bungy jumping. They are fundamentally different sports. No amount of bungy jumping will train me for sky diving as sky diving requires a different set of skills to safely return to the surface of the earth. A highly skilled and well trained recreational diver doesn't have the skills or knowledge that are required to improve his chance of safely returning to the surface of the earth from a technical environment.
In many ways, the industry positions itself as one of graduating through the ranks. You do a few OW dives and are told that you can go deeper as you gain more experience and comfort. A suggested (but not hard) limit is 60 ft (I think). Eventually you spend some money and someone accompanies you to 90 ft. Now you sport an AOW (often with terrible skills). You dive on and off for a few vacations and you've been to 90ft, so maybe a little deeper won't hurt, so 100, 110, 120 . . . 150 ft all feel good now. Suddenly we are out of the realm where our training is adequate and we don't know it (it feels safe and I have loads of experience so 130ft doesn't apply to me, besides just follow your computer's instructions you will be fine). We are now an accident waiting for our luck to run out.
The rub is that many highly skilled recreational instructors don't necessarily realize why the limits are in place. Certainly this is not being reinforced in training being given at recreational levels. Here are some of the hair raising comments I have personally heard from recreational instructors who are still actively training students, "cave diving really isn't that difficult, you just follow the string", "don't worry, I've been to 60m plenty of times I will look after you", "why are you carrying penetration line? we are only going a little ways into the wreck?","the dive tables are established from empirical experience, don't worry if you exceed the limits nothing bad will happen its just that they haven't been tested that far out yet".
Instead of positioning deep & overhead diving as something you can graduate into with experience (e.g. you need 100 dives for this course) should we not just position it as what it is. A completely different sport. Tech diving (deep or overhead) is not particularly difficult and with a little practice, most divers could get to the standards required for beginner tech classes. Instead many divers seem to think that experience of 20 dives to 130 ft will prepare you for a dive to 160ft in the same way as experience at 90ft does prepare you for dives to 120ft.
Basically the limits of recreational training (and reasons for this) should be more ingrained at the recreational level with an explanation that a different sport "tech diving" exists as an alternative for those who have different requirements from diving. It should be explained to students why one sport is not necessarily better than the other, they are just different. Similarly it should be explained why you cannot take the skills taught in one sport and apply them to the other. Most importantly each instructor you train with should instill a healthy respect for the limits of your training.
In many ways, the industry positions itself as one of graduating through the ranks. You do a few OW dives and are told that you can go deeper as you gain more experience and comfort. A suggested (but not hard) limit is 60 ft (I think). Eventually you spend some money and someone accompanies you to 90 ft. Now you sport an AOW (often with terrible skills). You dive on and off for a few vacations and you've been to 90ft, so maybe a little deeper won't hurt, so 100, 110, 120 . . . 150 ft all feel good now. Suddenly we are out of the realm where our training is adequate and we don't know it (it feels safe and I have loads of experience so 130ft doesn't apply to me, besides just follow your computer's instructions you will be fine). We are now an accident waiting for our luck to run out.
The rub is that many highly skilled recreational instructors don't necessarily realize why the limits are in place. Certainly this is not being reinforced in training being given at recreational levels. Here are some of the hair raising comments I have personally heard from recreational instructors who are still actively training students, "cave diving really isn't that difficult, you just follow the string", "don't worry, I've been to 60m plenty of times I will look after you", "why are you carrying penetration line? we are only going a little ways into the wreck?","the dive tables are established from empirical experience, don't worry if you exceed the limits nothing bad will happen its just that they haven't been tested that far out yet".
Instead of positioning deep & overhead diving as something you can graduate into with experience (e.g. you need 100 dives for this course) should we not just position it as what it is. A completely different sport. Tech diving (deep or overhead) is not particularly difficult and with a little practice, most divers could get to the standards required for beginner tech classes. Instead many divers seem to think that experience of 20 dives to 130 ft will prepare you for a dive to 160ft in the same way as experience at 90ft does prepare you for dives to 120ft.
Basically the limits of recreational training (and reasons for this) should be more ingrained at the recreational level with an explanation that a different sport "tech diving" exists as an alternative for those who have different requirements from diving. It should be explained to students why one sport is not necessarily better than the other, they are just different. Similarly it should be explained why you cannot take the skills taught in one sport and apply them to the other. Most importantly each instructor you train with should instill a healthy respect for the limits of your training.
Last edited:
sharksdelight
Contributor
As a former BSAC advanced instructor and dive shop owner, I do not fully blame the divers for their lack of common sense and over confident feelings of invulnerability. I easily blame both dive shop owners and the dive agencies, especially the agencies. The dive agencies are in it only for the money by their extensive exploiting of so many ridiculous certifications. I did not think I was fairly advanced until I had about 600 dives on me in all kinds of conditions, good and bad. These days you see divemasters and instructors with less than 100 dives on them. Sorry, but they haven't been diving long enough or had that many varied experiences in the water to rank for what those ratings should stand for. They are good with the pool, book learning and written test preparation to pass, but do not have real world experience. When I was a skydiving jump master we used to call jumpers with 100 jumps, 100 jump wonders. These were the jumpers who had reached that plateau of skydiving but who then thought they knew it all. The same with scuba. I have always hated the 'Advanced' certification as it tells the diver that they are, indeed, advanced divers which they clearly are not with only 25 dives on their belt. I don't know if BSAC is the same as it was but then a BSAC Advanced certification diver had several hundred dives, not 25. Now PADI, NAUI and the other certifications provide the 'Get Your Left Fin Wet' certification followed by the 'Get Your Right Fin Wet' certification and they are all absurd. Go down with a GoPro cam and get your Videographer certification. Who are they kidding? The dive agencies like to promote themselves as guardians of the seas, as outreaching to people to enjoy and learn about our marine environment but that is just a baseless front.
I would go crazy at the shop when a new diver would come in and say they were Advanced divers...with 30 dives....done over a period of 15 years. Again, who are they kidding? I hold the agencies to blame for this blatant exploitation of so called certifications, the dive shops for hiring for cheap, DMs and Instructors with minimal skills and experience, who want to use their enthusiasm in their new sport to move, unrestrained, up the certification ladder. The dive shops want to make money in a very tight business, I understand that, but they and the agencies have a responsibility to their students but look the other way, kidding themselves that things will be safe. This attitude is then passed on to the student diver.
While I might not have the gills I had as a young diver, nothing can ever take away the experiences, both good and bad, that trained me to be a better diver. I used to tell my dive students once they got certified that now they had a learners permit and should go out and really learn to dive. The certification itself doesn't make you a diver.
I would go crazy at the shop when a new diver would come in and say they were Advanced divers...with 30 dives....done over a period of 15 years. Again, who are they kidding? I hold the agencies to blame for this blatant exploitation of so called certifications, the dive shops for hiring for cheap, DMs and Instructors with minimal skills and experience, who want to use their enthusiasm in their new sport to move, unrestrained, up the certification ladder. The dive shops want to make money in a very tight business, I understand that, but they and the agencies have a responsibility to their students but look the other way, kidding themselves that things will be safe. This attitude is then passed on to the student diver.
While I might not have the gills I had as a young diver, nothing can ever take away the experiences, both good and bad, that trained me to be a better diver. I used to tell my dive students once they got certified that now they had a learners permit and should go out and really learn to dive. The certification itself doesn't make you a diver.
billgraham
Contributor
I think Steve's point is that the "unplanned" aspect of the definition of "accident" is illustrated by the fact that not one of the divers had even a "learner's permit" certification for the dives they were doing. Great article once again.
Great article! Yes, there is a lot to be learned from accident analysis. Just look at aviation. It has been through years of accident and mishap analysis that aviation has gone from highly risky to safer than automobile travel. People still do stupid things in airplanes. Most don't plan on having an accident... But analysis and even educated speculation highlight risks that aren't obvious to many participants. Without risk awareness the participant has no idea what risks they are taking, therefore can't even plan for them.
I would love to see (but doubt I will - the agencies are concerned about frightening away customers) accident and mishap analysis in OW training. There was a little in my DM training , but no real emphasis on the subject.
The comment that Rec diving and Tec diving are really different sports hits home. Completely different 'bailout' options and vastly different minimum equipment needs. This is also a point that needs to get emphasized at the OW level. Yes, some instructors tell their graduates they have a 'learner's permit' and most agencies have the caveat to "dive within your limits and training", but generally these are empty words - with little information to "make it real" to the new diver.
I would love to see (but doubt I will - the agencies are concerned about frightening away customers) accident and mishap analysis in OW training. There was a little in my DM training , but no real emphasis on the subject.
The comment that Rec diving and Tec diving are really different sports hits home. Completely different 'bailout' options and vastly different minimum equipment needs. This is also a point that needs to get emphasized at the OW level. Yes, some instructors tell their graduates they have a 'learner's permit' and most agencies have the caveat to "dive within your limits and training", but generally these are empty words - with little information to "make it real" to the new diver.
faze
Contributor
For me this is all about personal development and learning; about grasping the difference between being certified and being qualified.
I have only ever dived in relatively warm, relatively clear waters - I can handle current and surge comfortably enough... provided I'm in relatively clear, relatively warm waters!
I'd never dream of dropping into the English Channel, although there is nothing to "stop" me when I look at my C-card...
For me incidents cease to be accidents when the individuals have (through choice or ignorance) placed themselves in mortal danger. So perhaps "Fatal Incident analysis" should stand separate from true accident analysis.
I have only ever dived in relatively warm, relatively clear waters - I can handle current and surge comfortably enough... provided I'm in relatively clear, relatively warm waters!
I'd never dream of dropping into the English Channel, although there is nothing to "stop" me when I look at my C-card...
For me incidents cease to be accidents when the individuals have (through choice or ignorance) placed themselves in mortal danger. So perhaps "Fatal Incident analysis" should stand separate from true accident analysis.
As an example, when I started diving in 1990, NAUI had OWI, OWII, and advanced. Their advanced was a 13 week course with 8 dives and 25 min to enroll. They got their butts kicked because a diver could go to any other agency and be OW one week end and advanced the next weekend. So what was their answer? Simple, get rid of OWII and call it advanced and create a new level MASTER DIVER to replace their previous advanced course. Dumb it down for the bucks. Get for real..
I rarely teach anymore as I have become somewhat disillusioned with the industry as a whole and have been around the block so to speak. I have taught for 5 different agencies over the years and IMO, they are all wh.res. It is all about the numbers. Fortunately the gear has become more reliable, but that is a different can of worms.
Safe Diving
Dale
Similar threads
