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

[nereas]

Many pretty compelling arguments on both sides. Anecdotally, My wife and I just recently graduated from PADI OW/AOW and about the only real complaint I can come up with is that PADI should really put more emphasis on navigation. We just recently dove Catalina Island in CA and navigation in a strong current with a strong surge is essential to keep from having a long surface swim back to the boat, or worse, getting to star in your own version of Open Water when the current takes you out in the channel. Every other trick that place played to try and kill us our OW and AOW courses had pretty much prepared us for. The bone-chilling water, the near zero visibility, flooding mask, getting entangled in fishing line. . . All no problem. But trying to navigate in near zero-visibility water while being pitched and rolled?!?! That was a problem. I'm just saying that it's kind of important to be able to navigate and maybe the training agencies should stress it more. . .

SSI teaches a really good navigation segment in their AOW course. There is an SSI booklet for this too. Besides straight out and back, you will also do squares.

I am not too sure what the squares accomplish, other than a fine tuning drill for compass nav.

Straight out and back is the skill that you normally use in scuba, either from the beach, or else against the current from the anchor on a boat dive.

 

[boulderjohn]

SSI teaches a really good navigation segment in their AOW course. There is an SSI booklet for this too. Besides straight out and back, you will also do squares.

I am not too sure what the squares accomplish, other than a fine tuning drill for compass nav.

Straight out and back is the skill that you normally use in scuba, either from the beach, or else against the current from the anchor on a boat dive.

PADI does squares in AOW as well.

I do agree fully with the original poster that there is not enough navigation in the regular class, and I always try to go well beyond that. When we do our OW classes in a Colorado lake, as I did two weeks ago, you better believe that you get practice in low visibility navigation, although without the pitching and rolling.

Unfortunately, by far most of the diving students will do as they go on vacations requires no navigation skills--just follow the DM. When they are finally confronted with the need to navigate, whatever they had in their classes has been long forgotten. When I was diving the Betty Bomber site in Truk Lagoon, in the briefing they made a joke about reminding us of those funny round things on our consoles in case we wanted to navigate away from the bomber itself to check out the engines and propellers. As it turned out, about 2/3 of our group were instructors, so we could get there and back easily, but the briefing made it pretty plain that having divers who remember how to set a simple heading and reciprocal was unusual for them.

 

[tkdgodess]

national geographic owd has additional navigation skills (square/rectangle and natural references) as well as additional buoyancy skills. Its 5 dives for certification, not 4. My LDS offers NG OWD instead of just OWD.

 

[rstofer]

Combining the above 0-5 and 6-20 experience ranges:

54.4% Novice + Inexperienced (0-20)
18.5% Intermediate (21-40)
5.4% Advanced (41-60)
18.5% Experienced (60+)

YMMV if a value exceeding 50% is significant enough to conclude that there's a correlation of experience to safety. Similarly, YMMV on if you think that a measure of "<20 dives" is close enough to the claim here of "<10 dives".

And unfortunately, the real sin is that I'm pulling from 20 year old reports and this problem still hasn't gone away, nor has DAN publicly taken the Industry Tiger by the Tail and taken them to task, to effect change through "Bad Publicity"

As such, my answer to Hoomi's question is: get DAN to grow a set and finally ... after easily 20 years of dancing around a known risk factor ... publish the accident report data in a Public Forum, and in a form that clearly outlines this 'inexperience factor' as it contributes to Diver injuries & deaths.


-hh

I hate statistics!

OK, let's accept that 54.4% of the reported accidents happen to some definition of an inexperienced divers. But what about the fact that 45.6% happen to experienced divers (where experienced is defined as not inexperienced). Heck, they should know better! They're experienced! I would be more impressed if 100% of the accidents happened to inexperienced divers. Then we could truly say that more training is a good thing (not that I think it isn't).

Looks to me like the safest divers are the Advanced divers BEFORE they start doing any diving because somewhere around 40 dives is where you end your non-professional training. So, if you want to live, get experienced without injury by taking all of the training classes and quit before you get more than 60 dives.

It reminds me of the bogus numbers in the media: "Horrors! 35% of people think something is a good (or bad) idea!" Well, so what! The other 65% (the majority I might add) don't agree.

The only interesting number in the DAN statistics is the low rate for Advanced divers.

Richard

 

[boulderjohn]

I hate statistics!

OK, let's accept that 54.4% of the reported accidents happen to some definition of an inexperienced divers. But what about the fact that 45.6% happen to experienced divers (where experienced is defined as not inexperienced). Heck, they should know better! They're experienced! I would be more impressed if 100% of the accidents happened to inexperienced divers. Then we could truly say that more training is a good thing (not that I think it isn't).

Looks to me like the safest divers are the Advanced divers BEFORE they start doing any diving because somewhere around 40 dives is where you end your non-professional training. So, if you want to live, get experienced without injury by taking all of the training classes and quit before you get more than 60 dives.

It reminds me of the bogus numbers in the media: "Horrors! 35% of people think something is a good (or bad) idea!" Well, so what! The other 65% (the majority I might add) don't agree.

The only interesting number in the DAN statistics is the low rate for Advanced divers.

Richard

Please remember that those are very old stats. I quoted the most recent stats later on, and they are very different.

 

[rstofer]

Please remember that those are very old stats. I quoted the most recent stats later on, and they are very different.

I'm sorry, I didn't see the more recent stats. This thread is getting a bit long.

My point wasn't to pick at a particular set of numbers. Rather, to make the point that it is important to look at the 'other side' of the numbers.

Richard

 

[-hh]

I'm sorry, I didn't see the more recent stats. This thread is getting a bit long.

The more recent stats are also not measured the same, so there's a degree of "Apples vs Oranges" to things which serves to further muddy the waters.

My point wasn't to pick at a particular set of numbers. Rather, to make the point that it is important to look at the 'other side' of the numbers.

A good point, since it can be tempting to present the numbers in a certain fashion in order to advance a particular agenda (which can include hiding of certain facts).

FWIW, to address the comment that you made in terms of how it looks like 'Advanced' divers are safer than 'Experienced', this is an example of how data and sampling can lead to misleading conclusions.

For example, you noticed that the group of 'Experienced' divers has a higher observed numbers of injuries, but is it because they're less safe divers? Because it could be because they're a larger identifiable group, or it could be because they dive more...or both...that's not a good conclusion to make until we know more.



-hh

 

[boulderjohn]

A good point, since it can be tempting to present the numbers in a certain fashion in order to advance a particular agenda (which can include hiding of certain facts).

FWIW, to address the comment that you made in terms of how it looks like 'Advanced' divers are safer than 'Experienced', this is an example of how data and sampling can lead to misleading conclusions.

For example, you noticed that the group of 'Experienced' divers has a higher observed numbers of injuries, but is it because they're less safe divers? Because it could be because they're a larger identifiable group, or it could be because they dive more...or both...that's not a good conclusion to make until we know more.
-hh

The DAN report describes every one of the deaths. No need to be misled by any sampling numbers. All it takes is the time to go through them to see what's what. You can make your own tables if you like to show whatever trends you see there. If you read through this entire thread, you will see that was discussed earlier.

 

[boulderjohn]

I thought I would relate some observations that in themsleves have nothing to do with SCUBA. You can decide how they relate to this or other threads.

Research has been an important part of much of my life. It has at times been a part of my job description, as it is now. It has always been a part of my method of operation. When I get into sticky areas, I research, and when I encounter enough evidence to make me see the error of my ways, I change my conceptions. One of my favorite quotes of all time comes from Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

In my work over the decades, I have frequently been a part of task forces and committees that are charged with making important decisions or recommendations. I am going to describe what I see all too often, including within the last few days. Here, then, is a description of a process followed by a hypothetical committee of 10 people:

Before the group meets for the first time, there is a body of research that is recommended to them so that they can make their decisions based on best evidence. At the first meeting, people talk about their impressions of the research. In those responses, we learn that 7 people have not done the reading. They are too busy with their daily lives, and there is a great deal of joking about that. The 3 people who did the research say they were really surprised by what they found, and it totally changed their perspective.

As the committee does its work, the 7 people who did not do the research continually repeat old thinking and misperceptions. The 3 who did the research keep trying to bring up the results, and there are two kinds of responses from the 7:

• The largest percentage act as if they didn't hear a word that was said and continue to repeat their original beliefs without responding to the objections.
• Others will say, "Well, that is probably a misreading of the data or a poor analysis. I bet that if I had the time to look into it myself, I would be able to show you that the research actually supports my point of view instead of contradicting it as it seems to." Another popular response is, "Those statistics may indicate that, but I bet that if I looked for them, I could find other statistics that support my point."

Eventually, because the researchers are in the distinct minority, the group will present a report that goes along completely with the majority's original thinking. Because their report was required to be based on research, the articles and books they didn't read will be listed in the bibliography.

 

[Thalassamania]

I thought I would relate some observations that in themsleves have nothing to do with SCUBA. You can decide how they relate to this or other threads.

Research has been an important part of much of my life. It has at times been a part of my job description, as it is now. It has always been a part of my method of operation. When I get into sticky areas, I research, and when I encounter enough evidence to make me see the error of my ways, I change my conceptions. One of my favorite quotes of all time comes from Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

In my work over the decades, I have frequently been a part of task forces and committees that are charged with making important decisions or recommendations. I am going to describe what I see all too often, including within the last few days. Here, then, is a description of a process followed by a hypothetical committee of 10 people:

Before the group meets for the first time, there is a body of research that is recommended to them so that they can make their decisions based on best evidence. At the first meeting, people talk about their impressions of the research. In those responses, we learn that 7 people have not done the reading. They are too busy with their daily lives, and there is a great deal of joking about that. The 3 people who did the research say they were really surprised by what they found, and it totally changed their perspective.

As the committee does its work, the 7 people who did not do the research continually repeat old thinking and misperceptions. The 3 who did the research keep trying to bring up the results, and there are two kinds of responses from the 7:

• The largest percentage act as if they didn't hear a word that was said and continue to repeat their original beliefs without responding to the objections.
• Others will say, "Well, that is probably a misreading of the data or a poor analysis. I bet that if I had the time to look into it myself, I would be able to show you that the research actually supports my point of view instead of contradicting it as it seems to." Another popular response is, "Those statistics may indicate that, but I bet that if I looked for them, I could find other statistics that support my point."

Eventually, because the researchers are in the distinct minority, the group will present a report that goes along completely with the majority's original thinking. Because their report was required to be based on research, the articles and books they didn't read will be listed in the bibliography.

I've been in much the same position many, many times. One thing I learned was to make sure that the decision(s) had been made long before the meeting, that I knew the outcome (as a result of many hours spent calling and otherwise pestering the other committee members), and that the meeting itself had, as it's primary purpose, putting a final cap on the issue. There were many times when I was faced with individuals who'd not do the work, I'd insist that they leave the committee, they usually did, when they did not, I would resign. Why put up with that kind of lazy crap? Life's too short.