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

[GrandpaScuba]

Let's look at diving fatalities. In 1970, the U of Rhode Island started keeping yearly totals of Canadian and US diving fatalities. After DAN was created, the records were transitioned to DAN. So, how do the stats compare from the Good ol' Days to the Bad New Days?...

The absolute number of diving fatalities has been trending down, even though the number of divers has increased.

From 1970 to 1980 there were over 100 fatalities per year. But from 1981 through 2006 there have been only 3 years ('82, '98 and '95) with more than 100 fatalities, the rest have all been under. And, since 1996, only 1 year, 1999, has had more than 90 fatalities. The latest year that statistics are available, 2006, had only 76.

Again, this is absolute number of fatalities, even though the number of active divers has grown by thousands if not millions.

Another graph shows cases of DCS per 10,000 dives. This graph only goes from 1996 to 2006, but, it too, shows a steady decrease in accidents year after year.

We can complain all we want that today's divers are not as well trained and more prone to accidents, but the statistics just don't bear it out.

If you want to read the DAN report... https://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/report/2007DANDivingReport.pdf

(BTW - this report also addresses free-diving accidents. And I find it interesting that free-diving accidents are trending up.)

 

[Web Monkey]

The absolute number of diving fatalities has been trending down, even though the number of divers has increased.

The number of people walking around with C-Cards is probably way up, however the number of people that actually strap on a tank and go diving every year is unknown (and unknowable).

There may be fewer injuries and fewer dives, which would make SCUBA about as dangerous as it was in the past, fewer injuries and more dives, which would make it safer than it was, or the injury stats could be related to the number of people that go on "supervised" dives as was mentioned earlier.

Terry

 

[GrandpaScuba]

The number of people walking around with C-Cards is probably way up, however the number of people that actually strap on a tank and go diving every year is unknown (and unknowable).

There may be fewer injuries and fewer dives, which would make SCUBA about as dangerous as it was in the past, fewer injuries and more dives, which would make it safer than it was, or the injury stats could be related to the number of people that go on "supervised" dives as was mentioned earlier.

Terry

Yes, but it certainly must be an order of magnitude more than it was in 1970 (number of divers).

 

[Thalassamania]

Your conclusion that, "We can complain all we want that today's divers are not as well trained and more prone to accidents, but the statistics just don't bear it out." contains two major flaws.

The first, which should be obvious to even the most casual observer is that fatalities are not really the best measure of how well trained or poorly trained a diver is.

I used to work for the National Underwater Accident Center. Permit me to provide some insight into the second:

Our charter from NOAA, NIOSH, OSHA and the USCG was to look into any fatality that was associated with scuba diving that occured either in U.S. waters or that involved a U.S. citizen anywhere. There are many cases in the the NAUDC reports that would not be inluded by DAN in the current reports because there has been a change in philosophy (e.g., we are starting to consider a heart attack at depth as a heart attack, not a diving accident) and a change in masters (government agencies have different axes to grind than do diving industry groups). So there really is no continuity between the URI reports and the DAN reports and one should not read anything at all into changes in the numbers between the two sets of reports.

The NAUDC got very few DCS reports and did not expend much energy on them, except when the case resulted in a fatality. I have little doubt that there has been a decrease in DCS cases. I'd credit two things, first and foremost is the decrease in ascent rate. Back in the days of the 60 FPM ascent rate the studies that were done of actual recreational diver ascents put them between 100 and 120 FPM! Today's computers, with their built in ascent rate indicators beat the crap out of trying to, "follow you smallest bubbles." Second is the computers themselves, the use of computers has greatly reduced miscalculations and operational errors. Third is the availibility of alteranive breathing gas mixtures for diving, especially EAN.

 

[GrandpaScuba]

There may be fewer injuries and fewer dives, which would make SCUBA about as dangerous as it was in the past, fewer injuries and more dives, which would make it safer than it was, or the injury stats could be related to the number of people that go on "supervised" dives as was mentioned earlier.

I learned an interesting statistic from this year's DEMA. Apparently, 1/3 of all divers trained, yearly, in the US are trained here in the Pacific Northwest. We don't have much "supervised" diving up here.

 

[leapfrog]

No, SF was attempting to paint an entire community on the basis of one rather marginal niche organization, during one very short period of that organizations infancy. To make the sweeping claims that he does based on the single exception to the rule requires an overweening belief in personal correctness combined with an overwhelming lack of knowledge concerning the true situation, or a cavalier disregard for truth.

Well, I wasn't diving in the sixties. I was born in the sixties. I have been told this on many occasions by people whose honesty is absolute and have no reason to make such a claim if it is not true. Interesting to note that you now call Y a marginal niche organization. Sounds like a euphemism for "extremists", which is perhaps what they were at the time.

No, I just thought about it and the reality is that I know precisely what is described by the PADI standards and I know precisely what the divers I train do (knowledge that you and SF lack) and everyone who matters to me knows that also. There is simply no reason to waste time and energy stomping on some poor soul who doesn't know any better, some might even consider it cruel.

I still think you guys should have a go it, consider it a 'scientific experiment". BTW, could you please give chapter and verse of the PADI standards in question?

Just how much experience do you have wih insurance risk assessment and rate negotiation?

Absolutely none.

That's not what I said, you're playing with words that go off on tangents, let's not waste every ones time with such foolish sophistry. You are prevaricating and ignoring the statement that is on the table

Not my intention at all. I think my words are straight on target. You seem to be getting a little bit on edge.

When you reduce the standards that used to apply to AOW (which were about the same as another agency's AOW) to those of another agency's "Sport Diver" course (one course down), or when you cut the required hours from 40 to 18, or when you excise rescue from your course ... when you do any of these things, then I'd say that you cut standards.

And I'd say you have modularised.

Oh, by the way ... we done this one before, but since you insist on continuing to mislead people, diving is NOT SAFE!

It safer than a myriad of other sporting activities including football.

Safe means, "without risk."

With that definition, NOTHING is safe.

Diving is not without risk.

On this I agree with you 100%.

It would be reasonable to claim that PADI strove to minimize the risk of diving for millions of people, but brought safe diving ... no.

I agree with you 100%.

That's just the kind of claim that is typical of PADI and that negates new divers' ability to give true informed consent.

Have you seen an Assumption of Risk and Liability waiver form recently plus the medical statement?

In the metaphorical sense that was meant yes, you appear to be hiding.

Hmm ... "modularized," ... is that a new PADI word like "mastery" that doesn't carry with it same meaning that all dictionaries use? Stop hiding behind weird obfustication and deal with the statement that is on the table

No, it's mine.

]Is the entry-level program less that it was? Yes, it is less. When something is "less" may it be properly described as "reduced?"

Yes.

It's not off topic, those are the names that you need to research to cut through the ego and the BS and find out what really went down. Here's a headstart: The first OC training program conducted in the US was convened at Scripps by Connie Limbaugh. Staff included Bob Dill and Andy Rechnitzer. Alex Brylske picks up the story:

The aqualung was brought to America in 1948 by a Navy UDT commander, Doug Fane. The next year, Cousteau sent six units to Rene Bussoz, a sporting goods dealer who owned a store near the UCLA campus. Seeing the potential value of scuba for scientific investigation, a young graduate student by the name of Conrad Limbaugh convinced his professor to buy two of the units. Soon after, Limbaugh, along with an associate, Andy Rechnitzer, began diving throughout the Southern California coast. In 1950, the two enrolled in the Ph.D. program at San Diego's Scripps Institute of Oceanography. There they informally tutored a few of their colleagues in the use of scuba until 1952, when a student at another California university died in a diving accident.
​

Alarmed by the death, the Scripps administration asked Limbaugh to create a training course and manual. The result was the first formal scuba program and textbook in America. In 1954, also concerned over the potential hazards of this increasingly popular sport, the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation sent three representatives Al Tillman, Bev Morgan and Ramsey Parks to San Diego to take Limbaugh's course. This became the first scuba instructor program ever conducted in America. Returning to Los Angeles, the trio formed the nation's first recreational scuba training program. By 1955, of the total worldwide sales of aqualungs (some 25,000 units), 80 percent were purchased in California. The United States clearly had the largest population of recreational divers on the face of the planet.
​

What relevance does the history lesson have to dumbing down of scuba certification courses, i.e, the TOPIC.

I guess that accounts for your lack of background concerning the history of diving and diver training. I can recommend some readings that might help you.

Please, and I mean this most sincerely, send me a PM with the readings. I am always willing to learn and I appreciate the sentiment.

We do Free Ascents and even Buoyant Ascents with all of our students and have done so since 1952 without a single incident.

That's excellent and admirable. I'm still not going to do it with my OW or AOW students, not because it is not part of the PADI syllabus but because I think that by teaching them CESA is sufficient if taught properly according to STANDARDS
It's not a reminder; it's an example of fractured logic.
Let's recap:

I feel that it is a conflict of interest for instructors to sell gear to students. An instructor's duty should be to the student not the dive shop. I suspect that is one of the reasons that there are so many crappy poodle vests out there, and why most instructors make less that fast food workers.

BCDs are "crappy poodle vests"? I think you may be getting a few PMs from our sponsors.....as far as what we all make, maybe it should be the subject of another thread?

No, that was not all that he said. He went into a lot of detail and I responded in similar detail. I wish there was a way to have done it more sweetly, but there really wasn't. I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but unfortunatley that sometimes happens when a nubie jumps into the middle of a conversation that he does not really understand.

I stand by what I said. He just said he enjoyed his training and you ripped his head off.

Glen happens to be the world expert on the question. Care to vie for that title. Care to post your C.V. (please incude all journal publications) so that we can all decide who has a better claim on the title?

I never said I was an expert on the subject so this whole sentence is absurd. It really is of no interest to anyone. AAS in an out of gas situation is practised until mastered. A guy called Frank Whittle invented the jet engine. How many people know his name and who cares?

The relevence to FlyinV's post was to suggest that the expert in the field suggested that his training was inadequate to the task, even though FlyinV greatly enjoyed it.

Dealt with above. FlyinV's training was adequate for him. No one here is interested in Glen.

That's for each of you to decide on your own, if the shoe fits ... wear it, if it doesn't, pass it by. I will however say that SF is wrong in his statement that:

That is simply not true. With the exception of the initial 300 odd associates of the agency, NAUI has never issued, or offered, a leadership credential on any basis other than by formal testing. It simply has never happened. Never!

It's now clear that SF and I are dealing with extremists. You know who you are dealing with....​

 

[GrandpaScuba]

Your conclusion that, "We can complain all we want that today's divers are not as well trained and more prone to accidents, but the statistics just don't bear it out." contains two major flaws.

The first, which should be obvious to even the most casual observer is that fatalities are not really the best measure of how well trained or poorly trained a diver is.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... don't confuse me with facts and data.

You, rightly, nailed some of the earlier posters for quoting anecdotal information about how 'militaristic' former training methods were. But, I still have not seen any hard data to support your argument either, again only anecdotal and intuitive.

But intuition, even from someone with your great experience, can be flawed.

Show me some hard data to support your position. That's all I ask. Otherwise, I have to rely on the data that is available.

 

[Thalassamania]

All I can do is relate the experience and observations of someone who was there, someone who participated in or witnessed many of the watershed events.

I don't know what sort of "data" you could ask for. When I was with the NAUDC we tried to come up with accurate numbers for divers, NAUI and Y gave us their certification numbers, PADI said that they were not able to compile them.

Some of what I am posting is intuitive, since it is common sense, perhaps that's not the word you were looking for. Did you mean inductive, or indicative?

Just what kind of data might you want?

 

[Web Monkey]

I learned an interesting statistic from this year's DEMA. Apparently, 1/3 of all divers trained, yearly, in the US are trained here in the Pacific Northwest. We don't have much "supervised" diving up here.

"in the US" is the important part. A ton of people (including US citizens) get a fast certification in a tropical location or on cruise ship. These are the people that typically get scared or injured and never dive again.

Cold water is mostly self-limiting. We have the same thing here in the NE. There's pretty much no supervised diving aside from classes and it's always drysuit weather, except for about a week in August.

I can't even remember a SCUBA-related injury or fatality around here, except for the dumb-ass that dug a hole under a wreck and crawled in and got stuck while solo-diving.

However the number of people that have told me how they got certified on vacation and then got injured or scared is staggering.

Terry

 

[sweatfrog]

No, SF was attempting to paint an entire community on the basis of one rather marginal niche organization, during one very short period of that organizations infancy. To make the sweeping claims that he does based on the single exception to the rule requires an overweening belief in personal correctness combined with an overwhelming lack of knowledge concerning the true situation, or a cavalier disregard for truth.

Now who's trying to blow smoke? Please read the thread again.

No, I just thought about it and the reality is that I know precisely what is described by the PADI standards and I know precisely what the divers I train do (knowledge that you and SF lack) and everyone who matters to me knows that also. There is simply no reason to waste time and energy stomping on some poor soul who doesn't know any better, some might even consider it cruel.

Just how much experience do you have wih insurance risk assessment and rate negotiation?

There are experts in that area that have degrees in business and law, that I would not attempt to compete with. That is a foolish enterprise on my part.

When you reduce the standards that used to apply to AOW (which were about the same as another agency's AOW) to those of another agency's "Sport Diver" course (one course down), or when you cut the required hours from 40 to 18, or when you excise rescue from your course ... when you do any of these things, then I'd say that you cut standards.​

The times change and as they do, so do courses. The risk (according to you) has increased, but the statistics don't bare out that statement.

In the metaphorical sense that was meant yes, you appear to be hiding.

The pot is calling the kettle black, again.

​

Is the entry-level program less that it was? Yes, it is less. When something is "less" may it be properly described as "reduced?"

Courses change all the time. You didn't teach the same science course, throughout your career. Diving courses also grow and change.

If the people bantering on this thread didn't care passionately about this sport, they wouldn't be posting on this board at all. They probably wouldn't even read it.

Well Walter says that it never existed in Y and I'm telling you that it never existed in NAUI, so the ball is in your court. Please quote the standard that contains the alleged requirement or admit that, with respect to this issue, SF is ... shall we say ... wrong?

I don't know how I got drug into this argument. I never made any comments about free ascents. The only time I have seen it is on a TV show, produced and starring Al Giddings. I don't know which agency, if any, he was involved with.

I will however say that SF is wrong in his statement that:

That is simply not true. With the exception of the initial 300 odd associates of the agency, NAUI has never issued, or offered, a leadership credential on any basis other than by formal testing. It simply has never happened. Never!

Well, I don't have any proof to dispute that. I thought that was a waste of my money, almost 40 years ago. If certifications were/are given away, without proper assessment of the candidate, then it cheapens the whole system, morally and ethically.

With that in mind, when the agency titled in this thread started up, it did the same thing. History repeats itself.