Diver Training: How much is enough?

[DCBC]

OK, which is it?

If you're going to set only 'One International Standard,' it would logically include all diving environments. In other words, the worst 'normal' conditions that the World has to offer, in-which an OW diver may dive with a reasonable level of safety. Alternatively, you set 'Minimum Standards' that must be met for 'ideal conditions' and depend upon the Instructor to structure a course that meets these and the unique demands of the local diving conditions. This does NOT translate to "the worst conditions imaginable."

This original post was testy Peter (now corrected) and for that I apologize. It's frustrating to have someone not seem to comprehend what you've written and suggest that something else was meant, when it wasn't. I'm confident that we both want our students to be prepared for the diving environment that they will have to face in an unsupervised manner.

 

[jar546]

All of this higher level of education in this thread and there is poor communication due to intent vs perception


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[-hh]

Apologies for the delay in responding; been a busy week at work.

I did point out that many people do exclusively patronize operations that led you by the nose thorough every dive and thus develop a learned dependency. On the other hand, many people do not do so and do not develop this learned dependency.

Understood & agreed. I think that the very broad picture on this topic can be summarized as the Boiling Frog metaphor: it hasn't been a Black-to-White change, but rather a long slow gradual one ... and because it is thusly insidious, there's lots of denials and opposition to anyone who identifies it. The hope is that we don't have to have a Superstorm Sandy type of diving catastrophe in order for people to wake up to this 'Global Warming'-esque change.

The point of this is that some divers go to places that teach them to become dependent upon a DM. Some divers never go to such places and were never dependent. Both sets of divers had the same initial training. It was not the training that made them dependent or independent; it was what happened to them afterwards. Neither the training agencies nor the instructors had anything to do with that.

Understood, I'm not necessarily so complacent: there's a lot of subtle elements with how dive training has evolved - - witness for example how AOW has become promoted to do immediately after OW ... and that this represents a 'confidence builder' from the perspective of more guided dives.

Then I'll claim victory as you have yet to produce one singular diver who has died "as a result of inadequate training for the conditions in-which they were certified."

Its been around two years since I personally last got the briefing, but the number of people who have died as the direct consequential result of being zapped with the 50,000 volts from a Taser(TM) ... is zero.

So just what does this "statistic" really mean? Afterall, it hasn't been because there's been zero deaths; the question is in their attribution. It can be described - for lack of a better term - as "LAWYER TECHNOLOGY" contributing to the question of attribution.

The logical, scientific (and legal) principle thing to understand is that not being able to definitively prove "X" to the satisfaction of a particular threshold criteria does not mean "Not X" has been proven.


-hh

---------- Post added January 5th, 2013 at 07:36 PM ----------

(another bite at a few more posts while still catching up)

Haven't been teaching for 100 years like some of these folks, but the past 10 yrs or so doesn't seem like much has changed. It's always up to the instructor as to the quality of the class they give (consciously or unconsciously) but regardless, it ultimately up to the student as to weither or not they adhear to the teaching. Having said that, if the overall diving accidents per 1000 divers has actually been decreasing over the past 40 years, seems like the industry is headed in the correct direction....

"Not much" perceived change would be the Boiling Frog metaphor again.

Statistics are an odd thing. There are people who parachute and exit the aircraft without this equipment (Travis Pastrana Skydives without a Parachute - YouTube). Statistically speaking, there hasn't been one death (that I can find) that has been attributed to this. Does this mean that it's a safe practice? Despite the statistical results, it doesn't seem to be; at least in my mind. It doesn't pass the test of 'common sense.'

That too (see TASER stats, again). FWIW, I can recall being at a dinner with some oldtimer Marines at Quantico back in the late 80s and the one related a story of a similar stunt - - difference was that the buddy didn't hook in to make a tandem (per the Youtube, above), but carried a second parachute which the chuteless one donned while in freefall. Sorry, I can't recall the name of that individual, although I still do have my Commander's Coin from 'JC'.

In any case, it is pretty hard to statistically prove that dive accident rates are on the decline, since the metrics in the denominators - - both the number of 'Active Divers' and the number of dives performed per year - - are pretty nebulous ... and extensively contested ... values: PADI/DEMA Example and Undercurrent Example. In any case, there's also modern medicine & treatments - - and now in many instances, O2 and Defibulators onboard diveboats which will have a statistically significant alteration on the observed mortality rates.

...
Where I live, and abroad, I have known instructors that have passed training from non-divers in (sit tight) less than 6(yes) months. As you know, a novice diver cannot possibly instruct well if he does not have the experience of many dives.
I do think standards are low, agency standards that is, very low. How can it be that the minimum number of dives required to become an instructor is 100 logged dives? Perhaps this number would be enough if all facilities made sure the candidate dived in other places, most of them do not...

It isn't merely in-water time or the diversity in it that you go on to suggest. For example, consider just which Agencies specifically require an Instructor to have a College Degree? The answer is still "None", isn't it? Well, how about those Agencies that require at least a High School Diploma? I wish I was kidding.

Granted, we can say that diving isn't 'Rocket Science' and thus doesn't require a full blown Master's Degree in Education at the individual OW Instructor level ... but then again, we had better avoid look at the Educational requirements for "Train the Trainers" at the IDC's of those Instructors and those Course Directors who create the educational standards before we really ... really ... take an objective look at the Emperor's Clothes.

Now this isn't saying that there's huge deficiencies: it is merely an observance of the unfortunate reality which is that in for-profit businesses, the cost of labor is a necessary expense of doing business and as such, while it is necessary, it isn't to be gratuitously expended without a clear ROI benefit: one is financially motivated to do the minimum that one can get away with.

So what's the future for the Dive Industry? Well, I agree with DMarelli's prognostication on decline; based DEMA's 2006 report, the average Diver is the aging Baby Boomer, median age born in 1960, homeowner (93%), married (71%), predominantly male (76%) and an above-median-USA earner (80% White Collar). With the dive industry chasing after these customer demographics ...

–Cluster 9: “Suburban Wave” - US$76,499
–Cluster 13: “Sierra Snuggle” - US$72,952
–Cluster 2: “Executive Domain” - US$124,295
–Cluster 6: “Balancing Acts” - US$91,612
–Cluster 3 “Nouveau Manors” - US$97,584

...the result is that catering to the boomers effectively creates a higher barrier to entry to the less affluent...which faithfully defines the younger generations. Witness Grand Cayman's changes over the years: the days of the cheap Holiday Inn on Grand Cayman ...or the even cheaper "Magnificent Dive Dump" are gone, and consequently, so too is the younger consumer missing: quite simply, they've been effectively priced out of these vacation markets, so they'll go pursue some other recreational activity.


-hh

 

[drrich2]

From one of DCBC's posts:

I agree with you that the training is generally sub-standard. Training being done in 'more challenging conditions' to what's required in 'ideal conditions,' exasperates this problem.

So if we examine this issue, what can be done? I believe it incumbent on all training agencies to establish a 'Minimum Standard;' which serves to define what is required for diver certification in ideal conditions. They can either allow their Instructors to add training (and make this required criteria for certification), or design a variety of programs that address diving in more hazardous environments.

PADI has a mechanism for this; the Distinctive Specialty process. A PADI instructor can design a course to meet a specified instruction need, lay out his/her chosen criteria to be met for certification, and if approved, that instructor can start offering the course.

What I don't understand is, why don't we see more of these? Even if all agencies adopted the changes DCBC would like to see, it wouldn't address the issue of diving his local conditions fully. I live in southwestern KY; OW students dive in a local quarry, or head down to Vortex Spring or similar (or nice tropical trips) for training.

What happens when an already certified diver moves to coastal California, Puget Sound, the North Atlantic Coast, Pacific Northwests, <insert rough cold destination here>, etc..., already OW (maybe AOW) certified? Now what? We're not going to retake the OW course. It would make sense for me to take a distinctive specialty course on shore diving coastal California, dealing with dive site choice, shore entry & exit, surge assessment, dive flag usage, kelp entanglement concerns, coping with sea lion harassment, exposure protection, maybe tide concerns, etc...

Some will speak of hooking up with resident divers or clubs, but not everyone is a 'people person.' Some people need to hire a professional for a temporary defined relationship teaching role to efficiently impart a specific competence.

Richard.

 

[The Chairman]

Richard,

I think there are already distinctive specialties that will do this. Shore diving and Drysuit diving are all they would need to be able to deal with those conditions. I have dove Cali waters and never really felt a need for those courses. I did not dive beyond my limits and was never in danger while doing so. There's really not that much else to do with crappy conditions except embrace or avoid them. You either do your research and know that these dives will be less than optimal conditions or you are surprised by them. The physiology and physics of diving don't change at all.

 

[DCBC]

PADI has a mechanism for this; the Distinctive Specialty process. A PADI instructor can design a course to meet a specified instruction need, lay out his/her chosen criteria to be met for certification, and if approved, that instructor can start offering the course.

Agreed, but in the case you've mentioned PADI would have to mandate that a Distinctive Specialty (suitable to the local diving environment) is required when a Student receives his OW certification. Another alternative is the BSAC model where the Student must be supervised until he receives several other levels of training.

...Even if all agencies adopted the changes DCBC would like to see, it wouldn't address the issue of diving his local conditions fully. I live in southwestern KY; OW students dive in a local quarry, or head down to Vortex Spring or similar (or nice tropical trips) for training.

As I've mentioned, BSAC has taken a 'supervised approach.' Other Agencies take a 'non-supervised approach, and have established 'minimum standards' allowing the Instructors to add what's necessary for the local conditions. PADI is the only Agency that has one international standard (to the best of my knowledge) which cannot be modified.

What happens when an already certified diver moves to coastal California, Puget Sound, the North Atlantic Coast, Pacific Northwests, <insert rough cold destination here>, etc..., already OW (maybe AOW) certified? Now what? We're not going to retake the OW course. It would make sense for me to take a distinctive specialty course on shore diving coastal California, dealing with dive site choice, shore entry & exit, surge assessment, dive flag usage, kelp entanglement concerns, coping with sea lion harassment, exposure protection, maybe tide concerns, etc...

In this case the Diver is certified (for the conditions normally present during training) and should have been advised of the dangers of diving in an unfamiliar environment. S/he may elect to dive with someone experienced with these conditions, take a distinctive specialty, or perhaps use poor judgment and dive anyway. The risk is a similar one to diving past the maximum recommended depth without further training and experience. My main concern is with the establishment of a training Standard that doesn't address the local conditions where the diver is being trained and certified.

Some will speak of hooking up with resident divers or clubs, but not everyone is a 'people person.' Some people need to hire a professional for a temporary defined relationship teaching role to efficiently impart a specific competence.

Yes, but as this hasn't been adequately addressed within the certification process, post-certification training other than advanced and rescue are often neglected. The industry demands profit and like you have stated: "we accept some level of fatalities" (some more than others).

 

[Martigan]

I allow myself to post a comment, after 31 pages, to share the situation as it is in France.
In France diving IS regulated by the State, through the Code du Sport (Sport's Code of Conduct), IF you are diving in a structure (you can do what you want on your own).

There are different levels of certification for fun divers, Levels 1 to 4.
Level 1 to 3 grants CMAS 1 to 3 level abroad.
Level 1, which is the first open water level, does not allow you to dive unsupervised with a buddy. It grants you right to dive supervised down to 20m (roughly 60').
Level 2 gives you autonomy down to 20m, and the right to dive supervised own to 40m (120').
The level 3 gives you the right to dive unsupervised (with a buddy of similar level or above) down to 60m (almost 200'), which is the max depth allowed on air (other depth are possible on Trimix or Heliox).
So it is clear that the first level, which requires open water dives, and whose content honestly supersedes the one you can find in PADI OW, does not yet grant you autonomy.

Of course, this does not mean that you can't be french and a complete dofus underwater, nor does it mean that you have to be trained in France. Many people have been trained abroad and never dive in France, only when in holidays.

On a side note, if you are from an other country and want to dive in France within a commercial structure, the boss will grant you an equivalence, based on your log book, a test dive etc, and interview... he is sole responsible for the equivalent level he will give you, which is useful in his structure only. It is a kind of "let's see if your training had been done in the same context and is advisable in our conditions" process.

This debate (the old stringent ways and the new "modular-and-commercial-and-fun" approach) is also raging in France, with the international agencies heralds trying to push back the french system, which was very closed to any kind of foreign diving (which is a shame) until recently.
It is warming to see that elsewhere people are discussing these topics as well.

 

[drrich2]

In France diving IS regulated by the State, through the Code du Sport (Sport's Code of Conduct), IF you are diving in a structure (you can do what you want on your own).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by diving in a structure. Around the U.S., the main 3 examples that come to mind are:

1.) Penetration wreck dives - where you not only dive swimming around a sunken wreck, but go through a hole into the interior.

2.) Cavern or Cave diving - not entry level or close to it, so not what you're talking about.

3.) Diving under oil rigs - too much of a niche subject for your discussion.

So, are you talking about penetration wreck diving? Just what all is covered by the term 'structure?'

Richard.

 

[Martigan]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by diving in a structure. Around the U.S., the main 3 examples that come to mind are:

1.) Penetration wreck dives - where you not only dive swimming around a sunken wreck, but go through a hole into the interior.

2.) Cavern or Cave diving - not entry level or close to it, so not what you're talking about.

3.) Diving under oil rigs - too much of a niche subject for your discussion.

So, are you talking about penetration wreck diving? Just what all is covered by the term 'structure?'

Richard.

My english is not always spot on.
What I mean by structure is either a commercial company (diving company) or a club/association.
Diving outside a structure means diving alone (or with friends but not within the activity of a non-commercial club or a diving shop).
There are no laws in France to forbid you to buy some gear, read a book and decide to go diving where you want. It is forbidden to overstep your qualification when you take part to some organized dive trip (the course director and divemaster - the equivalent anyway) should ensure this, and act accordingly if you trespass (ban you for instance).

 

[Peter Guy]

My main concern is with the establishment of a training Standard that doesn't address the local conditions where the diver is being trained and certified.

Ok, one more time. What "training Standard" doesn't address the local conditions in which the diver is "trained and certified" by what agency?

If memory serves me correctly, DCBC is of the opinion that diver "watermanship" needs to be different for divers who are trained in different environs. Well, what ARE those differences in "watermanship" and what evidence do you have to support your opinion?

Of course DCBC also believes that diving and training techniques that made sense 40+ years ago still make sense today -- but again, without any evidence that the end product is any more, or less, capable of being a safe diver.

Pray tell, what ARE the "North Atlantic" standards that are different from the Mid-Atlantic, Southern California or Puget Sound standards?