Cave Training and Etiquette Real or Imaginary?

[ucfdiver]

I wonder how many times I will have to write this.

In performance assessment, it is very difficult to write very specific standards that clearly define acceptable performance. With some standards it is not that hard, but with others it is nearly impossible. If you look at the written performance standards for open questions on advanced placement exams, you will see wording that looks very vague and open to interpretation, yet the graders who score those exams (2 graders required for each student) will give the same score on a 9 point scale more than 90% of the time. Give them a 2 point scale (pass/fail), and it would be nearly 100%.

In assessing student performances, the assessor compares what is being seen with a mental image of what is acceptable. The key to consistent inter-rater reliability in scoring is ensuring that all assessors have the same mental image of each scoring level. That is done through training, and it takes surprisingly little time to achieve that level of scoring reliability. Trainees see repeated performances, score them themselves, and learn how the experts scored them and why. A person who has gone through a thorough training program is supposed to have seen enough models of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable that he or she will look at a new performance and be able to score it in a manner consistent with the best experts. It works.

If someone has gone through a solid training program and is scoring students far outside the norm, then it is almost certainly a calculated decision. The instructor knows it is wrong and is doing it anyway. If someone is intentionally scoring incorrectly, it does not matter what the standards say. That was my point earlier when I mentioned the instructor who certified my niece as an OW diver with only one short pool session and one shallow OW dive. That instructor obviously knew the standards did not allow that, but he was willing to violate them anyway.

Write it as much as you'd like. It still doesn't change the fact that without a standard there's no accountability. If you see an instructor letting a student kneel in the sand to tie in a reel, you can't report that because, as long as the instructor finds it satisfactory, it's within standards.

I would also expand on your statement that 90% of the time grading is similar. While it might be similar, that doesn't mean it's correct. I would suggest reviewing the research around normalization of deviation as I believe it's relevant here. I worked for a major airline for 3 years in the training agency, and it was always one of the biggest fears.
The normalization of deviance in healthcare delivery

Take, for example college freshmen. I almost never saw anyone drink and drive. Fast forward 3 years when they've had one beer and driven home, two beers and driven home, then start to see more and more friends drive home after 5-6 beers over a few hours. I'd bet that if you interviewed 50 people at a bar, you 'd find a large majority feel they're safe to drive home, with minimal relation to a measured blood alcohol level. So you've got consistant grading, but it's also incorrect. That's why the law states not higher than 0.08 rather than "any driver must maintain a sobriety level acceptable to drive".

 

[boulderjohn]

I would also expand on your statement that 90% of the time grading is similar. While it might be similar, that doesn't mean it's correct. While it might be similar, that doesn't mean it's correct. I would suggest reviewing the research around normalization of deviation as I believe it's relevant here.

You are talking about a significant part of my work history here. I taught this process. I trained people in this process. It is true that given enough time, the mental models will move, one way or the other, leading to a need for some retraining. Most people call that recalibrating the assessor. It is admittedly a weak point in all of scuba instruciton because the agencies lack the significant financial resources it would take to make that an effective part of the process.

I really don't know what to say next, because to fully respond to what you said in that brief snippet above would probably require a book. there are lots of books already written on the subject. I can give you a pretty good list of them if you want to look into it. You may also want to consider why every major performance assessment system--100%--uses this system. Maybe they know something about it that you don't. You might want to do a little research yourself before you start weighing in as if you were an expert on a subject you really don't know a whole lot about.

 

[Omisson]

Write it as much as you'd like. It still doesn't change the fact that without a standard there's no accountability. If you see an instructor letting a student kneel in the sand to tie in a reel, you can't report that because, as long as the instructor finds it satisfactory, it's within standards.

I would also expand on your statement that 90% of the time grading is similar. While it might be similar, that doesn't mean it's correct. I would suggest reviewing the research around normalization of deviation as I believe it's relevant here. I worked for a major airline for 3 years in the training agency, and it was always one of the biggest fears.
The normalization of deviance in healthcare delivery

Take, for example college freshmen. I almost never saw anyone drink and drive. Fast forward 3 years when they've had one beer and driven home, two beers and driven home, then start to see more and more friends drive home after 5-6 beers over a few hours. I'd bet that if you interviewed 50 people at a bar, you 'd find a large majority feel they're safe to drive home, with minimal relation to a measured blood alcohol level. So you've got consistant grading, but it's also incorrect. That's why the law states not higher than 0.08 rather than "any driver must maintain a sobriety level acceptable to drive".

And over generalizations and standards that fail to allow for situational analysis are
just as bad.

For example: Do I need to be neutrally buoyant to run or tie a reel in a high flow - rock/sand zone? Ummmm no- and it's probably not advisable let alone possible. So you are neutral headed down the ear? Secondary tie off has you not on the ground?

Again it's why standards must be flexible and instructors thorough.

---------- Post added March 22nd, 2015 at 09:37 PM ----------

I think you're being generous assuming that most cave divers can actually do a valve drill, let alone +/- 3ft. I still remember hearing an instructor at Peacock say "Ideally you want to be able to control your valves if you lose gas, but if not that's why we dive 1/3rds" to a student in a drysuit struggling to reach his valves. Don't forget that 10-15 years ago slob knobs were being sold to tech divers who couldn't reach their isolator.[/B]

I think most Sidemount - cave divers can do a valve drill quite easily....Back mount.... Not so much...

Again beware generalizations......

 

[lv2dive]

Ah... I for one certainly hope that anyone diving in an overhead environment can easily do a valve DRILL without losing much control of buoyancy.... regardless of sidemount or backmount configuration. Else what happens when the SHTF and something needs to be shut down for reals at max pen?

...
<snip>
I think most Sidemount - cave divers can do a valve drill quite easily....Back mount.... Not so much...
<snip>
......

 

[bamafan]

I use to care about the crappy divers I would see and it really concerned me. I have seen cave divers that have been certified full cave divers for over 25 years flutter kicking and knealing in the cave. It is really a shame that there are crappy instructors and worse people who don't even try. I have come to the conclusion that I can't do anything about it and I am a lot happier just laughing at what I see. What concerns me more is one instructor filing false claims against another instructor. I think the instructor filing the false claims should be called out for making stuff up and filing false claims. It is a lot better to not get upset over this kind of stuff unless you can fix it. I very seriously doubt anyone has a way to fix it that all the agencies would sign off on and make a part of their standards.

 

[Aotus]

You must not have read the standards I posted carefully, and you must have ignored my commentary. Please read carefully:

1. According to standards, three dives MUST be conducted in the cavern. You said you only had two in the cavern, and you somehow think that meets the standard.

2. I said that although there are no times mentioned for the specific dives, there is a PADI standard for ALL training dives. The total time you mention for your two dives does not meet the requirement for one dive.

3. I also said that the time minimum time didn't matter, because you could not do all the required skills for those three dives in that little time. You mentioned the skills you did. If that is all you did, then you missed some stuff.

4. According to the suggested time statement I quoted, the diving portion of the class should have amounted to a number of hours, with most of that in the cavern.

Your course did not come close to meeting standards. Now, look at the content of this thread and explain why you are not planning to report that instructor.

I'm going to assume that you're responding like....that, because you're having a crumby day.

As for the actual content of your post - I wasn't reading your posted standards, I was reading a pdf for PADI cavern standards for instructors I found online somewhere a long time ago. Maybe it's not up to date, if not, oops. That said, I never said anything about the total bottom times of the dives, only the time in the OH. Show me an actual rule about time spent in the OH environment, and not just an assumption following a suggestion, and maybe then you've got something. Lastly, if the current standards say 3 dives in cavern, good, another reason to think my course was junk. And another reason to feel good about my decision to pay for Cavern at Cave Adventurers a short while later.

As for reporting these guys, I've made no effort to keep any aspect of my training a secret. But, this thread has no new information in it that's going to convince me I should report them...quite the opposite. Bamafan is right on, I can't let myself get upset over it. No one is doing anything about it, so why press it. I see the problem, but when I hear the kind of stories others have told me about high-profile instructors, and know that there was nothing done about their grossly negligent training, why would I think there's anything to gain from calling 1-800-PADI and telling them their instructors didn't cover everything? Hell, Jim is the NSS-CDS training director and says he knows of some bad instructors in that agency, and they're still out there training!! One high-profile instructor, whom I've never met, is rumored to be one of the worst (and I can only assume is on Jim's list), was the instructor for my first cavern instructor...so, the junk trickles down I guess. I'd love to think there are standards, but it's just business for so many of them, and without accountability it's free to continue. NSS-CDS/NACD/PADI BODs may have some power to influence that, but I sure don't. All I can do is be very picky about where my time and money go for training, and watch out for swimming suicide machines in the caves.

 

[Superlyte27]

I use to care about the crappy divers I would see and it really concerned me. I have seen cave divers that have been certified full cave divers for over 25 years flutter kicking and knealing in the cave. It is really a shame that there are crappy instructors and worse people who don't even try. I have come to the conclusion that I can't do anything about it and I am a lot happier just laughing at what I see. What concerns me more is one instructor filing false claims against another instructor. I think the instructor filing the false claims should be called out for making stuff up and filing false claims. It is a lot better to not get upset over this kind of stuff unless you can fix it. I very seriously doubt anyone has a way to fix it that all the agencies would sign off on and make a part of their standards.

Are you referring to me?

 

[karstdvr]

, I can't let myself get upset over it. No one is doing anything about it, so why press it.

This presents an interesting mindset. If a consumer has gotten duped, and lost money,they frequently regress and want to put the problem away so they don't have to admit they were duped. I don't think this entirely applies to you because you have admitted and recognized the training issues, which is better than most. What would be an impetus of fixing the problems that have been mentioned? Publishing standards- don't think so because quite a few have been published and the same problem exists. Agencies recognizing the problem and doing something about it- has it worked? I think one resolution is if consumers quit using the instructor or agency that is problematic. Your choices are fix the problem or cease to exist. Money is the life blood, and if they are desanguinated, then this could help with viable results.

 

[bamafan]

Are you referring to me?

I don't think we have ever met. But if you were with a basket case of 4 divers who were attempting to sidemount with a stage in JB back last fall then yeah. I brought it up to someone I saw there as I was afraid they were going to kill themselves in a different cave. I was told they had been full cave for over 25 years and there was nothing they could do. After this and seeing how you were treated over the Ginnie oog incident I quit caring. If people who are in a position to actually do something such as at least have a conversation with the crappy divers and tell them that golf might be a better hobby isn't going to do anything then why should I care as I have no authority. I just take my boat and go dive the river caves mostly now. There is a lot less drama and fewer idiots to deal with.

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

Hell, Jim is the NSS-CDS training director and says he knows of some bad instructors in that agency, and they're still out there training!!

One high-profile instructor, whom I've never met, is rumored to be one of the worst (and I can only assume is on Jim's list), was the instructor for my first cavern instructor...so, the junk trickles down I guess.

I'd love to think there are standards, but it's just business for so many of them, and without accountability it's free to continue.

NSS-CDS/NACD/PADI BODs may have some power to influence that, but I sure don't. All I can do is be very picky about where my time and money go for training, and watch out for swimming suicide machines in the caves.

What my opinion is of a "bad" instructor includes but not limited to:

• Allowing students to kneel on the bottom
• Allowing students to go vertical in the cave
• Not making students master line handling/reel running
• Not making students master negotiating high flow
• Allowing students to flutter kick vs modified flutter kick & frog kick

Those are the main things I can think of that are signs of poor instruction. There are other symptoms such as not having philosophical discussions about the responsibilities of cave divers to themselves, their buddies, the cave diving community their families, and land owners. I have long believed & taught cave diving is a 70% mental and 30% physical activity.

We cannot fire an instructor for these things simply because we believe them to be true, or have heard that they are true. It is a Due Process issue that we are bound to adhere to. This has been discussed at length in other places here.

Aotus you can have influence if you choose to. You cite the example of a "bad" CDS instructor that your instructor took his cavern class from. If the guy taught a "bad" class did he ever get reported? You are influencing it now with your constructive criticism.

---------- Post added March 23rd, 2015 at 08:01 AM ----------

a few years ago I tried to generate some solutions to the problem, unfortunately, some (including Jim) felt it was an attack on the CDS versus an effort to leverage it.

Honestly, I see so many crappy instructors giving lip service to quality because it makes them appear to be quality while passing everybody who's check clears it isn't funny....

I always find it amusing to watch Jim attack NAUI, TDI etc while not having a go at PADI. I have seen so many crappy PADI cavern instructors, there is NO, ZERO zip evaluation process at all there, just be a PADI instr and send in that you have a cave card and the filled out application with payment method and viola, insta cavern instructor. Cavern is the gateway drug to cave and sets the expectations.

The solutions you suggested were not viewed as viable solutions so they were disregarded. Your solution was to do away with the CDS training program and make the CDS the "cave police" to regulate/run/oversee all cave diver training programs. It is a nice idea but the other agencies would never have accepted having the CDS tell them how to train cave divers. If there was some thought that they would have it would have been made apparent when they consulted us when they started their own cave diver training programs -- they never consulted the CDS training committee when they started their programs. They just had a few cave divers with no real history behind them write a program and submit it to a BoD of recreational/tech divers to approve.

I really don't know any PADI cavern instructors and do not see them teaching PADI cavern classes. I have accepted a few PADI cavern certified divers into my cave programs and most of them were adequately prepared.