Dumbing down of scuba certification courses (PADI) - what have we missed?

[Thalassamania]

I'd like to see a table of experience level vs. "type" of accident.

 

[boulderjohn]

I'd like to see a table of experience level vs. "type" of accident.

Why not quit guessing what is in the report or making conjectures about what it might or might not show and just read it?

There is not a table showing the type of accident v. experience, but you could make one if you wanted to. It would not be easy, becuse the accidents are complex and hard to categorize neatly. They describe every detail they know about every incident. I read about half thoroughly and skimmed the rest, once I had the picture.

As I said, you could make a table yourself if you wish, but I suspect you would quit pretty quickly, about the time you realized you were not seeing what you wanted to see.

 

[Thalassamania]

Why not quit guessing what is in the report or making conjectures about what it might or might not show and just read it?

There is not a table showing the type of accident v. experience, but you could make one if you wanted to. It would not be easy, becuse the accidents are complex and hard to categorize neatly. They describe every detail they know about every incident. I read about half thoroughly and skimmed the rest, once I had the picture.

As I said, you could make a table yourself if you wish, but I suspect you would quit pretty quickly, about the time you realized you were not seeing what you wanted to see.

John, unlike you I used to make those tables for a living. Since McAniff died last year, I'm one of the few who actaull knows just how complex and hard to categorize it is.

I'm interested in facts and not in advancing any particular stance. It surprises me to hear you say (and not that I doubt you, because I don't) that DAN's information is as different from what I remember ours as being. There are several possible reasons for this, but most likely is that we were looking at just fatalities.

 

[boulderjohn]

I'm interested in facts and not in advancing any particular stance. It surprises me to hear you say (and not that I doubt you, because I don't) that DAN's information is as different from what I remember ours as being. There are several possible reasons for this, but most likely is that we were looking at just fatalities.

Actually, I just used the fatalities in DAN as well, so it looks like we have apples on both sides of the equation.

They do have a reoport on non-fatal incidents, but I did not use that information because the topic to which I was responding was specifically fatalities and the assertion that a large percentage of people die before their 10th dive.
According to the DAN report, that is not remotely close to being true, even by the wildest exaggeration.

DAN does catgegorize people by experience, but I don't know how that is determined. They described one diver as "inexperienced" because he only had 43 dives. Others were described as inexperienced with about 25 dives. In other cases, they described a diver as "experienced" because his friends said he was, although no one knew how many dives he actually had.

 

[Thalassamania]

I'm having trouble loading the PDFs from Rubicon of our old reports. I'll get back as soon as I am able to.

 

[boulderjohn]

John, unlike you I used to make those tables for a living.

Well, let's not leap to conclusions. I've done more than a little of that myself as a part of my job.

I happen to have a lot of respect for you and your thinking processes, although I disagree on certain aspects we are touching upon now. (I respect any man who quotes Hamlet reflexively. ) A true scientist does not act on prejudice but instead allows the facts to shape his or her thinking. I do a lot of research in my current job, and my opinions on some topics have changed completely in the past year or so after I saw research that contradicted my previous beliefs. I am sure you are much the same.

My concern is with others who mindlessly spout off unfounded and extreme opinions with such alarming and mind-numbing repetition that one grows weary of having to interject facts and gives up, letting them have their mistaken say. You and I recently participated on the same side of such a debate, a debate that got heated enough to get canceled. You will no doubt recall how certain individuals simply ignored the repeatedly posted facts and continued to repeat untruths with ceaseless devotion.

 

[openmindOW]

In terms of looking at fatalities, wouldn't you think that that the age (years of age, not AGE) of the victim-divers in a factor? Let's face it- heart attacks under water can kill the most experienced divers. As I recall, DAN does provide the age of the victims in its case summaries. A lot of experienced divers out there are males with pot-bellies.

 

[Thalassamania]

Thanks for the reply. No not too spacey. I entirely understand and feel confident in locating my "cone."

I am more concerned with awareness about the wild card which occurs "within ones cone." Such as "regulators coming out of the mouthpieces" and strong down currents. Things that newer divers like myself may not be aware of, or have the skills to deal with.

Will keep reading the "near miss & accident" SB forums as I am sure most of these issues will eventually surface.

Kathy

Here's my attempt to explain the concept back a year ago:

The way in which I usually model diving safety for my students is to describe a set of coordinates where the y-axis is depth, the x-axis is a measure of the risk due to (or reduced by) equipment and the z-axis is a measure of the risk due to (or reduced by) skill. The safety surface is a hyperbolic cone that goes to a radius of zero at the depth at which you are guarateed to die.

As long as you can maintain your position entirely inside the cone you will live, but the minute that you or your gear gets outside of the cone you die. So it is critical for you to know how much "wiggle room" you've got and to apply all of your technology and skill to both maximizing the available "wiggle room" and keeping yourself as close as possible to the exact center of the cone. And there's the additional problem that dislocation from the central segment brings into play a positive feedback function that tends to drive you further away at a rate that varies directly with both your current dislocation and depth.

You see, the answer to the "the wild card" (good concept) is not the thing, its your ability to assure yourself that, without too much pain, you're going to survive. I've long been an advocate of scuba divers have strong breath hold skills because that increases the radius of the cone. I've long been an advocate of scuba divers actually performing ESEs from significant depths because that increases the radius of the cone. I've long been an advocate of scuba divers practicing air sharring at the start of every dive, because that increases the radius of the cone.

It's not the specific problem per se, though being prepared is good. It is your ability to make the radius larger, to stay closer to the center line, and to reduce the positive feedback loop that keeps you alive.

 

[String]

Are you talking decompression incidents or fatalities? Our charter at the NUADC covered fatalities.

Both - all recorded diving incidents. So thats any incident that was reported via a club, via the HSE or via the coastguard. Typically around 400-500 per year of which between 16-20 roughly a year are fatalities. Looking at this year in the UK at least most fatalities were rebreather or trimix, at least one heart attack, one snorkeller.

FWIW the last 2 years the very clear trend in type of accident is related to loss of buoyancy control. Its a large, alarming rise.

 

[Walter]

What do you think, Walter and Thalassamania? Based on how you describe your training methods, I doubt that either of you would worry too much about any of the students that finished your program failing to qualify certification from an independent examining body. I would think written cert exams first to check theoretical knowledge, followed by confined water dives to check basic practical skills (I know if I were a certifying examiner, I'd want to make sure the divers knew the necessary skills under controlled circumstances before I jumped into the ocean or a quarry with them), and then the open water exams.

Is that reasonable, and - more importantly - is that something that could realistically be brought about?

There are several problems with the concept.

1. Why should any agency have to accept outside regulation? While I am not a fan of most training programs today, I defend their right to exist. I do not defend their right to misrepresent themselves, but I believe every agency has a right to develop any program they want and to try to sell it to the public.

2. Short of government regulation, (and you are right, it would take many governments to make it work) how would you enforce it?

3. How do you ensure the testers know anything about testing?

4. How do you streamline the process so that it moves in a reasonable amount of time?

In short, I don't see that it can work and I don't see a need for such a program. I would love to see truth in advertising.

It seems that PADI is always the unwanted stepchild of the diving industry. If Put Another Dollar In is so wrong, how come all the other agencies charge for their services? Every agency and Dive Center wants you to Put Another Dollar In their coffers, but no one bitches when they make a profit. It's only wrong when PADI does it.

Well, I don't use the "Put Another" term, but I believe I understand what it means and what it doesn't mean. First, it's a good thing to make a profit. It's good when PADI makes a profit just like it's good when any other agency makes a profit. It's good when instructors of any agency make profits. Profits are what keeps agencies and instructor operating.

The "Put Another" term has nothing to do with making profits. That term refers to making standards so low that the instructor is selling certifications instead of selling training. Any time there's a situation where anyone can buy a certification, the instructor and/or agency is putting profits ahead of safety. That is wrong when ever it happens. If it happens with PADI, it's wrong. If it happens with any other agency, it's wrong. Those who use that term honestly believe PADI's standards are so low that the product is not training, but is c-cards.

This thread is now moved to I2I

I believe that is a mistake. The original poster does not have access to I2I and was still participating when you moved it to where she can not see it. There is nothing in this thread that should be in the I2I forum. This type of discussion has no business in the I2I forum. Please move it back to where it belongs.