Challenging a specialty

[Thalassamania]

While this is going a bit far afield of the original discussion . . .

Yes it is, but what the hey?

It's hard to argue the previous model was better for the diving public when more people are diving now than ever have before. The very fact of the increase in size of the diving public is an ostensive testimony to the value the current system has brought to the public.

No, it's not. It has to do with your basic value system, I put much more value on one diver who makes fifty dives per year for ten or more years than I do fifty divers who make less than ten dives in their lifetime.

It's also hard to argue that the previous model was better for the local dive shops when there has been an explosion of local dive shops over recent years. Granted, like all small businesses many of them fail, but the number of shops in most areas is still much higher than it was 25 years ago.

In some areas that may be true, but in others it is not. In any case sports diving today is contracting severely.

The proof of a better business model is in the successfulness of the business. If there is a better model out there, someone is going to decide that making more money is better than making less money and will pursue said model.

Again I disagree, that is a quasi-religious view that values nothing but profit, not the way I see the world. In any case time will tell if even within your frame of reference you are correct, I suspect that you are not and that eventually the sins of the industry, in the form of stagnation and then decline will will catch up with it and force a major change and realignment.

I'm not about to suggest that the skill of the average diver is better today than it was in <insert year when you thought diving skill peaked here>,

I'm glad that you're not, because that would bed an untenable stance.

but I'd also argue that for the average diver who makes less than 10 dives in a lifetime and largely tools around a 40' reef with a large group it doesn't matter.

Probably not, but without a continuous inflow of such dablers the industry is unstable and now in decline, very short sighted.

The safety record of recreational diving is pretty darn impressive. I'd also argue that the per-dive incident rate in technical diving is better as well.

My measure of the success of the industry is not in terms of accident rate but rather in terms of participant retention, sports diving is an industry in dire straits that is flailing about in search of a nemesis to blame its own stupidity and shortsightedness on (internet sales anyone?).

 

[Kingpatzer]

Yes it is, but what the hey?

Woo hoo a point of absolute agreement!

No, it's not. It has to do with your basic value system, I put much more value on one diver who makes fifty dives per year for ten or more years than I do fifty divers who make less than ten dives in their lifetime.

I would argue that both groups are part of the diving public. To say that the prior business model was better for the diving public is to say that those who do not dive 50 times (or some other arbitrary number) a year are not part of the diving public. I'd suggest they are.

Now, they may be on the periphery, but if the intent is to grow the diving public then attracting people to the sport is a key first step - and that is clearly something the current situation does far better than in prior incarnations.

In some areas that may be true, but in others it is not. In any case sports diving today is contracting severely.

Like most arenas, the impact of on-line retailing is hitting some areas hard, but participation still continues to grow.

Again I disagree, that is a quasi-religious view that values nothing but profit, not the way I see the world.

A successful business model starts first and foremost with money. If you want a model that changes the current state of the industry it has to be demonstrably better on business terms -- which means it looks better on the spread sheet, not in the water.

In any case time will tell if even within your frame of reference you are correct, I suspect that you are not and that eventually the sins of the industry, in the form of stagnation and then decline will will catch up with it and force a major change and realignment.

All industries undergo such cycles. Creative destruction is a good thing.

Probably not, but without a continuous inflow of such dablers the industry is unstable and now in decline, very short sighted.

I'm pretty well unaware of any industry that's unstable with out new customers.

My measure of the success of the industry is not in terms of accident rate but rather in terms of participant retention, sports diving is an industry in dire straits that is flailing about in search of a nemesis to blame its own stupidity and shortsightedness on (internet sales anyone?).

Ok - how do you get a higher number of retained divers? Not a higher retention rate, but more retained divers?

The prior incarnation of training -- including having people doing pushups with tanks on their backs -- wasn't exactly getting hundreds of new people into the water every week.

 

[Thalassamania]

I would argue that both groups are part of the diving public. To say that the prior business model was better for the diving public is to say that those who do not dive 50 times (or some other arbitrary number) a year are not part of the diving public. I'd suggest they are.

But the current model is based on what a biologist would call an "R" strategy: produce lots of students by putting very little effort into each one, in the hopes that enough stick around to buy enough gear to keep the doors open. At the other extreme is the "K" strategy: put a lot of effort into each and every student, at least enough so the each one becomes truly comfortable and at reaches the level of competent, thus assuring that almost all continue diving, purchase a complete set of basic ear and continue to buy advanced gear in succeeding years.

Now, they may be on the periphery, but if the intent is to grow the diving public then attracting people to the sport is a key first step - and that is clearly something the current situation does far better than in prior incarnations.

Well ... used to do better, industry "insiders" are concerned given current trends.

Like most arenas, the impact of on-line retailing is hitting some areas hard, but participation still continues to grow.

That's not the case, participation is said, by many, to be dropping.

A successful business model starts first and foremost with money. If you want a model that changes the current state of the industry it has to be demonstrably better on business terms -- which means it looks better on the spread sheet, not in the water.

That is what we are talking about. The problem is that the "realities" of the sports diving industry do not support competing models, in point of fact they discourage them to the advantage of a very few; at the expense of the entire rest of the industry.

All industries undergo such cycles. Creative destruction is a good thing.

The cycle is stuck and is being shoved in the wrong direction by greedy interests that do not have a long term view but only see short term profits.

I'm pretty well unaware of any industry that's unstable with out new customers.

I'm assuming you meant "stable."

Ok - how do you get a higher number of retained divers? Not a higher retention rate, but more retained divers?

Diving is currently estimated to have a retention of less than 10% in the first year. Little or nothing is know about later years.

The prior incarnation of training -- including having people doing pushups with tanks on their backs -- wasn't exacntly getting hundreds of new people into the water every week.

That was not the prior model, nor is it one I advocate, that was a rare aberration that was sighted once or twice, but was never a paradigm that any but a very, very few ever subscribed to.

I am a scientist by training. I work from the extremes in toward the middle. The courses that I run are out beyond the sports community to the right, to wit: 100+ hours and 16+ dives. But if you use the cancer survival criterion of five years then virtually all my divers are permanently retained.

What makes them different from the average LDS student? First of all there's a level of commitment combined with the ability to see through the LDS claptrap about how all you need is a long weekend. When that is combined with a level of training that makes for a diver who can comfortably and confidently dive local waters with a buddy he or she met in class, you get a stable and growing population.

Whatever it is, each and every one spends between two and five thousand dollars on ear in their first year. Most purchase dry suits in their first or second year; and they spend and spend and spend; year, after year, after year.

Put those numbers together with a very high retention rate and the number of new divers that a shop needs to identify, recruit and train per year drops by almost an order of magnitude.

 

[Kingpatzer]

That was not the prior model, nor is it one I advocate, that was a rare aberration that was sighted once or twice, but was never a paradigm that any but a very, very few ever subscribed to.

What is the model you advocate, I'm not entirely sure which prior model you're speaking of.

I am a scientist by training. I work from the extremes in toward the middle. The courses that I run are out beyond the sports community to the right, to wit: 100+ hours and 16+ dives. But if you use the cancer survival criterion of five years then virtually all my divers are permanently retained.

From what you've said previously, I get the sense that you train other scientists and researchers -- people who I would guess have a vested career interest in diving as part of their ability to earn a living. How many of your students are only recreational divers who are interested in picking up the sport so they can go diving on their honeymoon? Or do you not think those people should be certified to dive?

 

[Thalassamania]

[/quote]

What is the model you advocate, I'm not entirely sure which prior model you're speaking of.

With modification for new gear and techniques, basically the same course that was taught at Scripps in 1952.

From what you've said previously, I get the sense that you train other scientists and researchers -- people who I would guess have a vested career interest in diving as part of their ability to earn a living. How many of your students are only recreational divers who are interested in picking up the sport so they can go diving on their honeymoon? Or do you not think those people should be certified to dive?

I'd say that about a third of my students were scientists and researchers, the rest were business majors and art majors, math majors and pharmacy majors, members of administration and family members of all of the above. I guess you could safely consider the other two thirds recreational divers with no underwater career plans, though they often served as buddy divers for the first third. Only a few honeymooners (and they met in the class, five couples over the years).

Frankly, to me a certified diver should be at least at the level of competent and should be able to comfortably and confidently dive in local conditions with a similarly trained buddy, most of the folks you are referring to do not meet that specification, and IMHO, should be required to diver with proficient or expert leadership personnel.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Seems entirely rational to me that you were refused diving.

If you haven't done a tech course, then you aren't a tech diver. A history of going deep and using 'tech gear' doesn't make you a tech diver.

If you are too cheapskate to pay for the proper training...and learn the things that you need to learn...then WHY would any technical divemaster risk their lives by taking you into those situations?

I don't dive technical with anyone..unless I've done a check dive with them previously. I wouldn't take you on a tech dive because you may lack the key training and mindset to be a safe dive partner on such dives. As such, you may put my life in danger.

Having a "tech diver card" does not mean you are a tech diver. What it does mean is that you learned and performed whatever skills were necessary to earn the cert.

Doing, deep or not, dives with tech gear does not mean you are a tech diver. What it means is you are carrying a bunch of "tech" gear that you might, or not, be comfortable carrying.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

With modification for new gear and techniques, basically the same course that was taught at Scripps in 1952.
Il.

Care to provide us with some information re: that course?

 

[Thalassamania]

While Hanauer has a few details confused (especially concerning Doug Fane) this piece is not too bad.

Here's an excerpt from Hanauer's "Diving Pioneers" book (which I also have the honor to have been mentioned in).

Here are the first Scripps' SCUBA Instructor Ray McAllister's early memories.

The origin of sports diver training, the Tillman Memo.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Nick Icorn train[/FONT]ed at first ever ITC at Scripps.

Lt. Cmdr. Fane worked closely with early scientific diving pioneers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography
scientific diving pioneers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography - Fane's Bio,

PPT file on scientific diving.

U.C. Berkeley course in my day.

U.C. Berkeley course today.

Also search on ScubaBoard for my posts using keywords "Scripps Model" or "100 hour".

 

[Slamfire]

Fascinating debate. My thanks to Thal and King for their elegant and civil way of expressing their ideas and, in the process of doing so, enlightening readers like me.

I sympathize with many of the tenets exposed by Thal. However, there is a basic economic reality inexorably tied to any for-profit business model: the goal of the firm is to maximize shareholder wealth. It doesn't matter if the firm has a mission statement saying something like, "Our Mission is to make the world a better place by... <fill in the blanks>." The goal will still remain as the maximization of shareholder wealth. Consequently, if a certain training agency is a for-profit organization it cannot be expected for them to place the best interests of their students above the profit maximizing goal. Ironically, even non-profit organizations are infected by this philosophy.

This sad reality is what has created the current state of "how the world learns to dive". Is it shortsighted? It probably is, but another financial axiom tells us that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. And in any case, from the point of view of the industry leaders, who cares if it is shortsighted -- life is short and by the time the industry declines they will have ridden the money train into a very comfortable retirement.

Though I wholeheartedly would prefer a business model like the one Thal advocates, I have serious doubts that the current reality will change much. It may decline and the industry as a whole may contract, but even so, I sadly don't see it going the way that you advocate, Thal.

I'm 33 years old. I've been diving since I was 14. I learned scuba from my father. He learned scuba along with his father back in 1964 when he was 14. After graduating from college I did very little diving. Until then all of my diving had been in warm waters. I recently moved to the Pacific Northwest and decided to retake diving again. Being aware that cold water diving is very different from the diving I had done, I decided that I should get some training. Besides, it wouldn't hurt to get a refresher after being out of the game for so long. I was OW certified in Jan 2008. Frankly, I was largely disenchanted with the course. It was way too watered down and missed what I considered crucially important basic training elements (e.g. panic management/avoidance, basic decompression tables, etc). Without much effort I got perfect scores in written tests and skills tests. I learned nothing new. Surely there must be something better, so I took AOW. Same story.

I then felt like this is a never ending spiral to sell more useless courses and get more bang from the buck. But I gave the basic nitrox a try because the training and the literature that I initially went through with my father didn't cover mixed gases. This, without a doubt, would now provide something new to learn. It did, but as I did more research on my own, I came to realize the enormity of what I did not learn regarding mixed gases. It feels that diving knowledge today is chopped into many ridiculously tiny pieces for the sake of commercializing more items and getting more money.

Back in the day, my father and I never went beyond the no-deco limits. Nowadays, I've encountered several situations were a deco dive would be desirable. Apparently, if I want to do deco diving, I have to become a "tech diver". So I enrolled in deco procedures and advanced nitrox. Will I be a "tech diver" after I get the card? Who cares! I don't. I just want to be able to explore good stuff that will require me to be down longer than no-deco limits allow. I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed the class. I learned a whole lot of new things. And to the credit of my instructor, he pointed me to materials and knowledge that went deeper than the bare requirements for the card. I could have aced the knowledge requirements of the course by going through the book by myself without the guidance of an instructor, but I would have missed the extra mile that he took in teaching us.

Unfortunately, tech diving instruction practices seem to also be plagued with the same mercantilistic vices seen in sports diving -- which do not necessarily work for the best interest of the student. But hey, it's not a perfect world. We have to make the best of it. BTW, Thal, do you know of anybody or of an organization that teaches scientific diving like you do near Vancouver, Canada?

 

[jefffalcone]

Don't pick an argument with Thalassamania. He's wickid smart.