Cave Training and Etiquette Real or Imaginary?

[karstdvr]

Thanks Rick for being in the spot light and fielding questions and criticism, as well as Jim for being an active participant too, you guys have a true passion for the sport. The NACD and CDS are victims of their success, something that has gotten out of control. In the 70s, the dark days of cave diving, these organizations came to fruition and made cave diving training, and made the sport safer with education, lines, signs etc. Once cave diving became more main stream, commercialization set in, and you made it easier for other organizations to enter the market because you laid the foundation. Where other organizations stayed away, there is the smell of a dollar to be made,so you have alphabet soup of players now. Gradually marketing forces came in to play such that we can do this faster, easier, and allow you less limits if you use us. Overall we have seen a dilution of cave diving over time, and the end result is the caves are paying for it. I wish you success in bringing all parties together fix the problems, and continuing the role of cave diving educator, because the post-instruction cave diver, good or bad, needs further education in the nuances of cave diving.

 

[Rick Murchison]

If I may draw from another area of diving to illustrate, let's briefly consider Nitrox.
Initially, replacing nitrogen with oxygen in the breathing gas was tried on a fairly cavalier basis; people didn't really understand the physics and physiology involved, and certainly not the dangers, and people died.
So, the need for formal training was obvious, and a concerted effort to get to the bottom of the deaths and prevent them evolved into the initial Nitrox training courses, which were detailed, extensive and effective. Dick Rutkowski's course took something like 12-16 hours of classroom training alone... and dives.
"Hey, wait a minute! Does a Nitrox diver *really* need all that theory and experience to dive the gas safely? Since there's no change in diving prodedures beyond a modified envelope do we really need to require dives?" The answers were, of course, a resounding "no!*" and "no!*" and as agencies competing for student dollars got involved the course began its long denoument into today's "essential procedures only" (measure FO2, establish MOD @ 1.4, stay shallower than that, don't exceed 180 minutes bottom time in a day... got it? course over, here's your c-card.) courses that take, what?, 5 minutes packed into a couple hours?
*personally, I think there is great danger in "procedures only" training, because a fundamental understanding of the underpinning principles upon which the procedures lie is essential, to my mind, to being able to make sound decisions when procedures are *not* the way to go.
Quick example: How many times have you seen a diver come aboard with 500 psi (procedure) when he should have used some of that gas to spend extra time in his ascent profile and at his safety stop based on his ****ty profile prior to the ascent?
I think to some extent we're seeing some of the same trends in cave training, but there is a HUGE difference in the consequences of procedures-only (no real thinking required) diving in a cave vs OW. Procedures alone will not likely result in anything more serious than mild DCS in the OW, but in a cave????
And as has been mentioned, while a certain viewpoint might look at the result as "natural selection" if we don't collectively keep the heat on for quality training we're all gonna suffer the lack of access.
Rick

 

[boulderjohn]

There is another approach to the concept of reporting people for errors in their instruction, an approach that really does not work, as is evident. I am talking about a different approach to traditional employee evaluation that is growing in popularity within business and industry. As I write this sentence, I have not figured out how it could apply to cave instruction, but please allow me to explain the theory and practice as it is used elsewhere.

In traditional evaluation methods, the evaluator looks for performance problems that could lead to disciplinary measures, even termination. Every interaction between an evaluator and the subject of evaluation becomes an opportunity for the evaluator to observe problems. Naturally, the person being observed is defensive and tries to hide any flaws. As the two develop a personal relationship, even only a minor friendship, the pressure grows on the evaluator to overlook those flaws that could lead to disciplinary actions. Reporting someone, often a friend, for flaws in performance that could lead to disciplinary action is rarely done. Eventually true evaluation becomes almost nonexistent; the evaluator has to have overwhelming evidence before actions will be taken. A person being evaluated assumes that the only reason for being truly evaluated is because a serious flaw has been detected. It is something to be feared. Does that sound familiar?

In a very different approach, a coaching type of evaluation system assumes that all employees, even the most exemplary, are imperfect and can be improved. It also assumes that just about all employees, even those who are truly struggling, can be improved to a satisfactory level with proper coaching. The goal of the evaluation process is to help every single employee get better. The process only gets punitive in extreme cases. It can be done in a lot of different ways. The one I am most familiar with begins with an employee self-evaluation, usually using a set of descriptors (like standards) of necessary skills. The employee gives an honest appraisal of his or her current abilities in each area, with the understanding that there is no penalty for revealing weaknesses. The employee sets goals for improvement. When weaknesses are identified, the coach/evaluator works out a plan with that employee to improve those weaknesses. When the system is done honestly as designed, the employee actually becomes eager to share problems so that they can be corrected.

Just in the context of the recent parts of this thread, a cave instructor could indicate being challenged when dealing with students who show up for a cavern class with poor buoyancy control and no experience with the required kicking skills. In this thread some people have indicated that they are really good at dealing with that. An obvious solution for the instructor having the problem would be to have a coaching session with an instructor who can show how it can be done.

The key to this is that the people in the system must feel safe in reporting problems. They must feel the result will be personal improvement rather than discipline.

What I described is the system I used in my last years of gainful employment, and it worked extremely well.

 

[boulderjohn]

I would like to suggest another approach to improving cave instruction that I have used in a very different context.

I first used this approach accidentally when I was teaching a writing class at the Colorado School of Mines, one of the top engineering schools in the world. Even though it has extremely high admissions standards, I was surprised by the large number of punctuation errors in the writing of these supposedly elite students. My approach was to review drafts and require corrections of such errors. One day I decided to use an approach in which, rather than underline the error, I would write in the margin the page and item number from their writing handbooks that dealt with the error(s) contained in that line. Then they would have to look up the rule and figure out where it applied in their writing. It sounded like a lot of work when I started, so I made notes on where I could find each error in that handbook as I went so I wouldn't have to search for it the second time I found it. When I was done with the entire batch of papers from two sections of students, I was shocked to find that I had compiled a list of exactly four rules being violated. In other words, all that massive amount of punctuation errors was in reality only four errors being repeated over and over and over and over again.

This totally changed my approach to the problem. The next day I spent 15 minutes of class time teaching those four rules, and that 15 minutes of effort pretty much eliminated punctuation errors for the entire class for the rest of the term.

So how does that apply to this thread?

I keep reading again and again that people are seeing all kinds of poor instruction all over the place, much like my seeing punctuation errors all over the place. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make a list of precisely what is being seen. As I think back on this thread, the only things I recall being mentioned are primarily related to buoyancy and trim, with a little bit on kicking skills. People kneel to put in jumps because they don't have good control over buoyancy and trim.

What if an honest analysis of the problems were to indicate that all the problems people are seeing come down to a couple of skills, especially buoyancy and trim? If that is the case, then the question for the thread could change completely. Instead of asking how the agencies can deal with all this crappy instruction, you can ask how the agencies can change instructional practices to improve instruction in buoyancy and trim.

 

[boulderjohn]

Why is there a mask icon in the upper corner of my last post?

That post is on a completely different topic than the one in my post before that. I did not want it to be stuck on the end of the previous post where it might get lost, which is what happens automatically as a result of the ScubaBoard policy of combining consecutive posts by the same poster. I learned that if you put an image at the start of a second post, that won't happen. I waited 4 hours for someone else to post before resorting to the trick.

 

[GDI]

View attachment 205709
I would like to suggest another approach to improving cave instruction that I have used in a very different context.

I first used this approach accidentally when I was teaching a writing class at the Colorado School of Mines, one of the top engineering schools in the world. Even though it has extremely high admissions standards, I was surprised by the large number of punctuation errors in the writing of these supposedly elite students. My approach was to review drafts and require corrections of such errors. One day I decided to use an approach in which, rather than underline the error, I would write in the margin the page and item number from their writing handbooks that dealt with the error(s) contained in that line. Then they would have to look up the rule and figure out where it applied in their writing. It sounded like a lot of work when I started, so I made notes on where I could find each error in that handbook as I went so I wouldn't have to search for it the second time I found it. When I was done with the entire batch of papers from two sections of students, I was shocked to find that I had compiled a list of exactly four rules being violated. In other words, all that massive amount of punctuation errors was in reality only four errors being repeated over and over and over and over again.

This totally changed my approach to the problem. The next day I spent 15 minutes of class time teaching those four rules, and that 15 minutes of effort pretty much eliminated punctuation errors for the entire class for the rest of the term.

So how does that apply to this thread?

I keep reading again and again that people are seeing all kinds of poor instruction all over the place, much like my seeing punctuation errors all over the place. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make a list of precisely what is being seen. As I think back on this thread, the only things I recall being mentioned are primarily related to buoyancy and trim, with a little bit on kicking skills. People kneel to put in jumps because they don't have good control over buoyancy and trim.

What if an honest analysis of the problems were to indicate that all the problems people are seeing come down to a couple of skills, especially buoyancy and trim? If that is the case, then the question for the thread could change completely. Instead of asking how the agencies can deal with all this crappy instruction, you can ask how the agencies can change instructional practices to improve instruction in buoyancy and trim.

The "MASK" problem is all yours

ON another note I am taking notes of observations as to what is stated in this thread

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

I promised a report ...

You can see my report at: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ac...093-shannon-lewis-true-story.html#post7379319

 

[ams511]

Something to think about, what if we had a system like this: An instructor trains the students but someone from the agency evaluates the student's skills and decides if they pass or not. If an instructor gets a lot of failures both the agency and the students would learn very quick that s/he is not a good instructor. This would drive bad instructors out of the industry. The evaluator has no personal ties to the students and no financial interest. The instructor does have a financial interest in training the students well or else they will not come back to him in future. Of course for this to work the evaluator needs to be objective and detached from instructor(s). No good ole boys or fraternities allowed.

If the objective is to train good divers then the financial incentives need to be aligned with that goal.

 

[TSandM]

That will work okay in Florida, where cave instructors and agency folks fall over one another . . . but it won't work very well in other places, where instructor examiners are thin on the ground. Flying in someone to do the evaluation portion would significantly raise the cost of the class for the students.

 

[GDI]

Lets take this on a more analytic route by using a scenario. We have two paths we can review. The instructor and the student.

Scenario: Instructor Bloggins teaches under agency X, Student Moe Diver wishes to learn how to cave dive. Moe Diver has completed OW and AOW with Basic Nitrox certification having a total of 99 lifetime dives. This suggests he is a relatively new diver by comparison but having a number of dives that he should be comfortable in the water.

Moe Diver contacts Instructor Bloggins following some on-line research.

1. What questions should he be asking to qualify Instructor Bloggins. Is Bloggins suitable to instruct cavern through cave and to determine the quality of instruction he will receive?

2. What questions do you feel the instructor should be asking of the student?

Comment: With every new student, during the first communication is a qualification for suitability and type of training dialogue. In this discussion It is not unusual to ask "Why do you want to dive in caves?" The student's answers indicate something of their personality, their maturity and the degree they believe their skills to be at.

Scenario: Instructor and Student meet. Course documentation is completed, fees are paid and the class begins.

1. What do you feel is a adequate maximum and minimum number of hours for each level of training??
2. How many levels of training do you feel are required? (some agencies have four levels; Cavern, Intro, Apprentice, Cave. Others have three or less)
3. How would you scale/score an in water skills assessment? (A score of 1 is low , 5 is high. Example: 1 is unsuitable, 2, needs improvement before training continues, 3 will likely improve during training, 4 suitable for training to advance to next step/phase, 5 good to go)

Scenario: Before in water assessment is conducted the instructor conducts a academic session reviewing material contained in the student handbook/workbook. Following this a session of dry line drills is conducted to introduce the student to cave/rn skills and techniques.

1. What academic material do you see as essential at each level of training and should be included in a students handbook/workbook, the text book?
2. Related to each level of training what skills and techniques in priority of importance do you feel should be introduced? ("S" Drill, Valve drills, Propulsion techniques, reel use, line arrow communication, team dynamics, etc)