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

[GrandpaScuba]

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.

Just what kind of data might you want?

You say the number of fatalities is not "the best" measure, so I presume that some other measure is better? I want to see those measurements.

The Y and NAUI gave you numbers because they are both non-profit. The rest of the agencies are for-profit and "customer data" is considered "proprietary intellectual property."

 

[300bar]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Dear fellow members,
DO refrain from name calling and other insults.
thank you

---

 

[Thalassamania]

You say the number of fatalities is not "the best" measure, so I presume that some other measure is better? ...

Presume away, but there are no good measurements available, save the general agreement as to the high (70 to 80 percent) dropout rate. It's not just that fatalities may not be "the best" its that total fatalities is likely to be no measure at all, even if we had both a numberator and a denominator, which we don't. When quantitative measures fail, as they seem to in this case, the next best thing is the subjective opinions of experts with direct experience. I think that's Sam Miller, and me, a very few others on the board here, but when it comes to opinions concerning the old NAUDC data, I'm about all you can get, since John McAniff passed away last year.

 

[Standingbear56]

Hi Everyone,
One of the interesting things I came away with from this year's DEMA from taking Instructor's Risk Management Seminars is that the insurance companies do have all the statistics as to how many injuries/fatalities there are, and what training agencies were involved. The problem is that neither the agencies nor the insurance companies can go public with this information, because of the lawsuits involved. While a vast majority of the lawsuits are nonsense ones (minor accidents where it is cheaper to pay off someone rather than go to trial), very few of the major suits, if any, have resulted is the request for any changes in standards or training methods. Since no agency can operate without insurance coverage, and the insurance companies have not required any major changes, one must suppose that the current training methods are considered sufficient. While many of us don't agree with this, apparently it is a fact, at least according to those who pay out the awards granted in the lawsuits. If the insurance companies, whose job it is to minimize their losses aren't demanding changes, like it or not, that does send a message.
Safe Diving,
George

 

[J.R.]

One of the interesting things I came away with from this year's DEMA from taking Instructor's Risk Management Seminars is that the insurance companies do have all the statistics as to how many injuries/fatalities there are, and what training agencies were involved. The problem is that neither the agencies nor the insurance companies can go public with this information, because of the lawsuits involved.

"Can't" or "Won't"??? It seems to me that the information would be subject to disclosure in a suit... if it exists.

 

[Web Monkey]

"Can't" or "Won't"??? It seems to me that the information would be subject to disclosure in a suit... if it exists.

"Can't" because it doesn't exist.

PADI knows exactly how many OW certs they've done, and I suspect their insurance company also knows (although I beleive they may be self-insured).

They also know how many times they've been sued.

The do not, however know how many of the divers they've certified still dive or how many dives they do, which means they have no way to quantify the risk level or effectiveness of their current training standards.

From their point of view, nothing could be better than someone who pays for training then never dives again. They got paid and there's no risk.

Terry

 

[Thalassamania]

All that the insurance companies are concerned about is their profit, not the actual level of risk in the industry. The more dangerous that they can paint it, the higher the rate that they can charge. The only data the the insurance companies actually have is claims, and incidents reported to the agencies, neither of which is a real measure of anything.

Insurance companies like to operate in areas where there is enough "action" to keep the consumer (e.g., insturctor) scared enough to pay premiums, but where the actual payouts leave them a good profit. Keep that in mind.

I don't know the current situation, but I've no reason to expect that is has changed, but it was fairly common knowledge that in years gone by some agency officials made more money from "finders fees" and other kickbacks from insurance groups then they did from their normal salary.

 

[leapfrog]

I don't know the current situation, but I've no reason to expect that is has changed, but it was fairly common knowledge that in years gone by some agency officials made more money from "finders fees" and other kickbacks from insurance groups then they did from their normal salary.

Holy Smoke, amigo. If that's true it could ruin quite a few reputations, I suspect. Thinking about it, I guess you are right, otherwise where do the insurance companies get their info from?

 

[Thalassamania]

How can one ruin the devil's reputation? Where is Daniel Webster now that I need him?

 

[leapfrog]

May I humbly suggest that you don't need Daniel Webster for neither have you sold your soul to Mr.Scratch nor would such an attorney do you a better service than you could do unto yourself? Without a doubt you have demostrated that you can argue both sides of an argument if you swould so choose (rarely is that your whim). Beware of the jury.....Blackbeard lurks amongst us,,,,,