Copy/pasted from Divers' Alert Network 2016 Annual Diving Report (I have highlighted some points which I'd like to expand on):
"Ten Most Wanted Improvements in Scuba:
Correct Weighting
Greater Buoyancy Control
More Attention to Gas Planning
Better Ascent Rate Control
Increased Use of Checklists
Fewer Equalizing Injuries
Improved Cardiovascular Health in Divers
Diving More Often (or more pre-trip Refresher Training)
Greater Attention to Diving Within Limits
Fewer Equipment Issues / Improved Maintenance"
I believe it's fair to assume agreement that correct weighting, bouyancy control, ascend rate control and to a at the very least a large extend, equalizing injuries (assuming it relates to bouyancy control during descend), are all quite intertwined.
These, along with gas planning, are very, very basic diving skills.
When Divers' Alert Network call for improvement like this, to me, that's a very clear sign.
On a side note, I think more items intertwine, for instance better cardiovascular health or diving more often, compared to diving within limits (I personally feel that diving within limits is too underestimated - it would seem that DAN feel the same way).
My take on it is, one would be hard pressed to not want to change anything in diver training, when DAN is saying there is a problem with items so closely correlated to basic scuba skills.
Now, I know there are great instructors who go above and beyond in any and all organizations - here, I'm addressing a more general approach to what entry-level diver training should focus on, in light of the above, across the industry.
To me, it seems obvious that when dive students are parked on their knees with a tonne of lead on them, they'll get a poor basis for learning bouyancy (and ascend rate control, obviously), while also creating issues in terms of balancing.
Sitting on the knees and learning how to clear a mask is a great way to certify students who can't clear a mask while hovering, hence creating the perfect foundation for an uncontrolled ascend if a mask is ever kicked off during a dive.
Overweighting will make an ascend/descend more difficult to manage, and there you have your equalizing issues or worse. It will also set up the student in an unbalanced configuration, which means their only chance of recovering from an uncontrolled descend, is to drop the lead belt and instead get an uncontrolled ascend.
As for gas planning, surely we can all agree, divers should be able to calculate how much gas it will take them and another diver to the surface safely, from the deepest point of the dive.
I invite you to do the math on a "50 bar" policy, and a "thirds" policy on a 30m anchorline boat dive.
Spoiler: It's not enough gas in either case, unless using a very big tank (non-global application).
Now, I'm not out to toot my own horn here, but I practice education that is formalized in approaching all of these points - BUT, there is a catch, of course:
It's limiting me as an instructor. I can't comfortably carry out that training with, say, 10 students at a time.
Where I'm at geographically, 4 is my limit.
So, bottom line I have three points:
1) If I have to charge X to run a course and I have 4 students rather than, to illustrate, 10, the cost will be significantly higher per student. Therefore, there is at least some mechanism of quality versus cost relation.
Hence, I postulate that $99 dive courses water down dive training quality.
2) If the foundation that a student learns to dive on, is skewered, that diver will immediately be worse off - exponentially so given progression. As DAN points to, a lot of the issues they see, relate to very specific training paradigms in relatively wide application.
Hence, I postulate that teaching students on their knees and overweight, is watering down dive training quality, and causing issues as mentioned above by DAN.
3) If an industry widely and publicly supports these paradigms, it will become normalized given lack of either intervention or some mechanism of transparency for free market functions to work (customers understanding the difference between best and cheapest);
If or when we see any standards supporting large classes or formal add-on classes to teach skills that should be covered by initial training (bouyancy, for instance), this effectively stands proxy for an authorititary approvement.
Hence, I postulate that the industry does too little to address the issues mentioned by DAN.
However:
In defence of the industry - if I were to set up the worst conceivable environment for an industry to operate, it would certainly include liability for previously taught practices.
When diving organizations, which in a significant number of cases have existed for many decades in a comparatively young industry, are limited in their ability to adapt to new practices due to concerns of liability for the practices previously taught, it naturally and generally limits agencies from adaptation.
For instance, Buddy-breathing protocol:
This protocol makes sense if using one single 2.-stage to support two divers during an exit.
At one point in time, having only one 2.-stage was normal, as 2.-stages were more difficult to obtain.
However, in a world of the present liability paradigm, upon normalization of a spare 2.-stage, how could any agency change this procedure without implicitly making itself vulnerable to such liability in court of law (assuming divers had previously died - for whichever reason - while performing buddy-breathing protocol in an emergency.
And so, buddy breathing was still taught by industry leaders well into the 2000´s, which is unsensible considering the normalization of a spare 2.-stage.
Hence, I postulate that the legislative domain imposes upon customers/divers a risk by maintaing a policy that limits adaptation. Instead, it should hold liable any operator or agency that doesn't fulfill its role to best knowledge available at any given time.
