Near Drowning at Ginnie Springs

[Pugsly55]

See what sheepskin-selling winds up with?
<<100 years ago, to get a PhD or Masters you had to break new ground in whatever field you were studying. No new groundbreaking reseach in your dissertation, no degree. Period. There was a real VALUE to those credentials back then, in that you really WERE an expert in some field.?>>

You still have to do something that has never been done before for a PhD. How meaningful your new "contribution" is to the world of science or whatever is up to you and the institution you go to. But, PhD. does not necessarily equate to ethical (your example of you boss's boss) or common sense.

<<Nowdays you pay your money, take your class, pass some "standard" and get your sheepskin. It now represents nothing more than a C-card, really, and may actually represent less. Indeed, all it means is that you will put up with Bull Sxxx (BS), More Sxxx (MS), or being Piled Higher and Deeper (PhD). It no longer means that you actually understand the subject matter or even its foundation!>>

You will always find schools or dive instructors that turn out an "inferior" product, but where you go and who you learn from is up to you. The learning part, how much and how in depth, has as much to do with the student's motivation than the instructor.

<<All that matters is that you fed the machine with money, put up with the machine for the prescribed amount of time, and it spat out a piece of sheepskin.>>

All that matters to who?

<<In such a world, it is not impossible to avoid buying the sheepskin. However, you DO need to know what you're doing, because you cannot fall back on that piece of paper - indeed, you have to be able to PROVE that you know what you're doing.>>

No doubt. But, it is harder to get someone to let you prove you know what you are doing without a diploma or c-card than without one. A diploma helps you get an interview, but once there, the best interview usually wins, not the highest diploma.

<<When I started diving, I believed the agency "party line", because that's all I had. It didn't take long for my BS gong to start sounding though, and the more research I did, the more loudly it rang.>>

I agree that there are many qualified people diving without certifications. But, if I own property used by cave divers, do I let a person go in who has no proof of some base level of knowledge? Hell no, his wife sues my butt and takes everything I own IF he doesn't come back out.

If the cave is not on a property who regulates who can and can not dive there (are there any?), if someone wants to go in the cave without proper training (whether learned by experience from "mentors" or certs), it is there own fault whatever happens. It is like the bikers with or without helmets. I think it is stupid to motor around without protecting your head, but if someone doesn't, fine, they, hopefully are organ donors and will save a few other people in need of what the donor has put at risk needlessly.

 

[Gibbon]

The "Libertarian" diver, on the other hand, has no such agenda. He has no desire to convince others that his way should be followed to the exclusion of others, because if you do or don't he gains nothing. Since he's going to dive alone, and dive how he/she wants anyway, whether you agree or not is just a matter of academic discussion. He can gain nothing by your agreement, nor lose anything by your disagreement. While he will defend his position, his defense is academic rather than practical; he believes what he believes, but he gets no benefit from you believing it too. If you think he's F.O.S., then you do - it has no effect on his diving at all.

HOLY WOW, you mean the whole point of this "academic discussion" is just that??? There will be no effect on either party??? :O My Goodness, I am shocked.
You've just given the reason why this thread has no point. :krach:

 

[Michael Schlink]

I don't know how this is going to come across, BUT I think I would agree with you across the board. I'm not sure about the dependancy that's a little "iffee"(sic) I have the problem in opposite directions between "reef" diving and cave diving. When I'm in OW on rare occasion is their a diver of my experience or skill, now before that sounds as as it does let me say there are reasons for this. If I am instructing it better be that I'm the best in the water but often when I travel I'm with a group, often my former students or less experienced divers.
There are occasions when I'm diving with "piers" and I find that quite relaxing and a different type of enjoyable.
On the other hand when I'm cave diving I'm in a different position. Am I weaker diver, probably, heck I want to be the weaker diver versus being the stronger diver but I certainly understand that I need to be self sufficient and able to support my buddy. I look at diving the way I play (not often enough) raquetball-I only get better when I play someone better. So when I'm caving am I depending on my buddy, I don't think so, but I do prefer to dive with someone of AT LEAST my skill level or better, do you think this is unfair to my buddy, I don't think so because we do know and understand each others capabilities-Dive safe-Dive Alot-M

 

[Pugsly55]

<<Yes, but...Mike, you and I both know that being qualified doesn't necessarily make you immune to doing something stupid. Indeed, people who are qualified have done something stupid and gotten in trouble.>>

Strongly agree. This goes for your whole PhD. thread as well. Be qualified did not necessarily mean they would make smart decisions in all things or anything.

<<I agree that such a situation as put forth is unlikely at best, but people have been known to ignore the obvious all on their own, and once someone is "gone" mentally the rest doesn't really matter. So whether there are no directional indicators or they're being "missed" (or ignored!) isn't really the issue - that one of the team is simply refusing to go the way you KNOW is correct to exit is.>>

Isn't the whole point really when one person is not sure where the exit is and one person is at least reasonably sure? The whole point of a partnership of any kind is having someone equally qualified who can pick up where your brain has failed you and you for them. It doesn't mean it will happen, but they may help you if it does.

Anyone who would go the wrong way and doom themselves is an idiot. The point is not following them the wrong way, but how long you have to convince them that your way is the right one.

 

[Warren_L]

The inverse happens too. I've cited my calls to the Spiegel Grove charter shops. They ALL wanted AOW cards. A logbook printed from a computer showing dozens of dives below 100', some with mandatory decompression, was insufficient. Never mind that you can enroll in AOW with a whole FIVE Lifetime dives from some agencies, and 25 from others. A diver in that situation is safe to dive that site? Yet a diver with dozens of deep, long, decompression dives, but without the card, is "not good enough." Uh huh. (Oh, they did all offer to sell 'ya the card.) It was enough to make me want to drag my own boat down there and tie it to one of the mooring balls!

I wonder though, if this perhaps is a by-product of the litigious society we live in. It would be far easier to apply a uniform rule to the public regardless of individual circumstances than to have to go to the trouble of validating each individual case by case. If a minimum requirement of AOW is required, the onus is then off the operator to show that due diligence was exercised to ascertain the qualifications of the divers in question if they were able to produce an AOW card (and hence lessen the burden of risk or responsibility). While there are divers like yourself who may not have AOW cards (and for which these cards would virtually be meaningless), but I'm certain there are those who don't have them and have no business diving dives (at least yet) that require an AOW card to be shown.

 

[Warren_L]

Well, in point of fact I do have it (and a few others), but what I was seeking to determine was whether these operators were interested in a customer's ability to dive, or whether they were more interested in someone spending $195, even if there was no chance in Hades they were actually ready for that dive.

Thanks for clarifying - you didn't mention in your post you had one so I did not want to presume otherwise.

However, perhaps the dive operators' motives for wanting to see an AOW card are not motiviated so much by having divers spend money on courses but rather to reduce the risk associated by taking on the responsibility of verifying the qualifications of divers (leaving the certifying agencies to do so by virtue of this AOW card) and allowing less-than-qualified divers in. I suspect the truth generally lies somewhere in between.

 

[pt40fathoms]

Thanks for clarifying - you didn't mention in your post you had one so I did not want to presume otherwise.

However, perhaps the dive operators' motives for wanting to see an AOW card are not motiviated so much by having divers spend money on courses but rather to reduce the risk associated by taking on the responsibility of verifying the qualifications of divers (leaving the certifying agencies to do so by virtue of this AOW card) and allowing less-than-qualified divers in. I suspect the truth generally lies somewhere in between.

Very good point, in a court of law I could see the following questions and answers taking place. (I'm not a lawyer, but have seen lots of em on TV :54: )

Prosecutor: Did you verify that the diver was in fact qualified to dive to the site that your charter had taken them?

Charter Operator: Yes

P: How

CO: I checked his logbook and it showed that he had lots of experience doing dives like the one we were doing that day.

P: Did you at any time verify as to the authenticity of the logbook?

CO: Well I don't think anyone would make false log entries.

P: So you didn't verify that the log was accurate and true. Yes or No.

CO: No.

P: Have you ever heard of someone making false entries in a logbook in order to go on dives or take training lessons that require a certain number of logged dives?

CO: Well, I have heard of it happening. But...

P: And is their not in fact training offered by certified and licensed agencies that would have provided training and a certification card that would verify absolutely as to the qualification of this diver to safely conduct the dive that day?

CO: Well, yes, but...

P: Did this diver have this certification, yes or no?

CO: No.

I'll stop here, and let your imagination fill in the rest of the courtroom drama. Needless to say, although the AOW card may have flaws, it at least says that "someone else" has certified this diver as "qualified". Leaving the charter operator free of the responsibility and subsequent liability.

 

[OneBrightGator]

Oh, one of them was an intentional decompression dive too, albiet a very mild incursion as the gas I had was a bit "hot" for the depth beyond the point I reached; I didn't deem it safe to go deeper given my personal PO2 limits. If I had known before I went what I discovered when I got there, I would have had a lighter mix, brought my deco bottle full of 50% and gone a LOT further.

This is why we have statistics like: "95% of cave fatalities are untrained divers" Keep this up, and you'll be one of them.

Ben

 

[theskull]

"My personal PO2 limits"???
Do we get to pick these ourselves now?
Like roulette numbers?

theskull

 

[MikeFerrara]

I'm a big fan of Darwin.


By checking credentials and "enforcing" some standard they are stating that such a standard insures safety to one degree or another.

Actually I think by checking cards they are leaving the standards issue up to the agency and the insurance company. If an agency says that you're qualified for the dive, the insurance company will insure the oporator for having let you dive and the oporator minimized the decisions that he makes.

On the other hand, if they look at your log book and decide that you're qualified they may have to prove in court that they are qualified to make that determination and who are they?

The same concept holds for using an agencies training standards. I can teach a lousy class but do it to standards and I don't bear responsibility for the design of the course. The agencies standing in the industry does that.

If I design a course and the methods come into question, I might first have to prove the validity of the class even though it may be much better...says me.