Non professional divers taking very young children diving (even in a pool)

[Basking Ridge Diver]

Admittedly this isn't very analogous to a dive shop refusing to assist a potential customer, but as a broad principle, I don't see why a business can't make a decision to not do business with someone based on the business owner's own principles (so long as otherwise not prohibited by law).

I see this as two points -
1st point - Question - Can a business decide to not transact with a customer based on principles. Answer - Yes.
2nd point - Question - Can a customer decide to not transact with a business based on principles. Answer - Yes.

I am not sure who is in a better position - but given economic events - I would think a live customer in a store is a valued customer and repeat business is easier to retain than new customers are to attract to come into your store. You only get to make a first impression once - so make it a good one.

 

[bl6394]

Prudent is not going in the water as there are dangers there. Prudence is better based on experience, skill and maturity (whether and adult or youth) than an age or specific certification. And I would rather have a skilled youth than a immature and reckless adult any day. Parents are the best source for prudence with their children! We must make decisions every day for them and know their true limitations better than anyone else.

Specifically I was commending on your comment "I showed him the depth limitations for Jr. Open Water Divers in the Instructor Manual" which is patently false or misleading information. I am sorry but as a CFI in flying, I may not always agree with a FAR but I would quote it exactly and then state "but I/PADI recommend..." and then explain the reasoning. Giving false or misleading reasons is disingenuous and leads to distrust. As a father of a diver, I have had numerous instructors quote 'limitations' as if they are the law, they are not. They also use these as excuses which is wrong. The fact is there are no limitations in diving, only recommendations and these should be heeded based on skill and experience. Part of this is based on my own experience years ago when as an Open water with about 500 dives including deep I was given a hard time by a dive shop (reasons included), but they had no problem with my newly minted AOW buddy with a grand total of 9 dives... most of them with me! We need to put common sense back into diving and dive training.

Packrat12 - we are probably not going to find any common ground here... But I like a challenge.

Your first paragraph seems to argue that a parent is the primary guardian and are in a unique position to know their children's strengths and weaknesses. So far we agree...

Then you assert that the depth limitations in the PADI Instructor Manual is "patently false or misleading." You then proceed to explain how as a CFI - you would have handled a dive training situation - to which you did not a witness - in a superior manner by explaining the PADI Standards as a "recommendations." You then conclude by ranting about you personal experiences and frustrations when a dive shop gave you a hard time.

Ok ... great. Sorry they gave you a tough time...

If I've understood your position - allow me to clarify mine. As an instructor - I do what I can to communicate skills and knowledge to my students that will result in a reasonably safe and fun experience for them. And when children are involved - I am at my most vigilant.

In this particular instance - it was important to communicate to grandpa that he was planning to take a child under his care into circumstances outside the training agencies recommended depth limitations and what the potential consequences might be. It was not entirely academic - as grandpa was also asking me to lead him and his grandson on a deep dive that day - and I had to explain why that would not happen. This is consistent with my training and agency's standards. As an instructor, among other things, I'm obliged to reinforce depth and supervisory restrictions. When you become an instructor - you learn why being compliant with training standards is important for the sport, for divers under your supervision, and for your own benefit as an instructor.

You are correct in asserting that training standards and limitations are recommendary in nature. In fact any law - including the FAR's - may be considered recommendary in nature - until consequences are applied. But much like the FAR's - agency standards are based upon accidents, injuries, and deaths. You may choose to ignore them, arguing with hubris, that your skills and experience give your special rights and privileges. And I wish you luck with that, because the consequences of a mistake can be significant.

Safe diving,

 

[Bob DBF]

I see this as two points -
1st point - Question - Can a business decide to not transact with a customer based on principles. Answer - Yes.
2nd point - Question - Can a customer decide to not transact with a business based on principles. Answer - Yes.

I am not sure who is in a better position - but given economic events - I would think a live customer in a store is a valued customer and repeat business is easier to retain than new customers are to attract to come into your store. You only get to make a first impression once - so make it a good one.

You forgot
3rd point - Can an ex-customer ask all his friends to shop elsewhere and disparage the shops name in any conversation in which he participates. Answer - Yes.


I am not a fan of the 3rd because, in most cases, the actual facts of the event that caused the displeasure are never brought up, and the business has no way to respond.



Bob
--------------------------------------
“92% of respondents reported that a positive recommendation from a friend, family member, or someone they trust is the biggest influence on whether they buy a product or service.”
Paul M Rand

 

[boulderjohn]

That's easy to answer. Because most people that post here have an economical incentives to force you to get trained and buy gear before you every try the sport

There is no economic incentive for a shop to discourage teaching 5-year old children in a backyard pool, because the shop cannot teach 5-year old children anywhere under any circumstances. There is no competition.

There is no economic incentive for a shop to discourage teaching ANYONE in a backyard pool, because in the long run that person will need to be certified in order to continue to dive. In fact, having people trained in the backyard pool is a positive economic incentive for the shop, because if the person likes it, he or she will eventually come for certification.

Here is a true story from as long ago as the late 1960s to illustrate what I mean. The person in question had been taught to dive by his father when he was 7 years old, and he had logged literally thousands of dives over time without being certified. Back then it was much easier to get away with that than it is today. He went on a week long intense dive trip in Australia, but the captain of the boat insisted that no one could dive without certification. He was flatly refused permission to dive, even though he had paid a lot of money to be part of this dive trip. The crew of the boat pleaded with the captain to relent in just this case, and the captain finally did allow him to dive, which I am sure would not happen today. As soon as the diver returned home, he went straight to the nearest PADI shop and got OW certified so he would not have to go through that again. That diver's name is Jean Michel Cousteau.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I am not sure who is in a better position - but given economic events - I would think a live customer in a store is a valued customer and repeat business is easier to retain than new customers are to attract to come into your store. You only get to make a first impression once - so make it a good one.

Great, so despite Grandpa having shown signs of poor judgment, the shop weighs the risk and reward, and figuring that the risk of anyone getting hurt by Grandpa's little adventure is low, decides to do business this one time. Grandpa likes the shop's great customer service and comes back for another tank so HE can go diving in the local lake by himself, as he managed to get someone to fix his ancient reg. This is not someone the shop wants to keep doing business with.

 

[DaleC]

John, your points about home schooling are well taken but can the same not be said about today's formal dive education? It seems to be a case of hit and miss, with some students coming out adequately trained while others are certified but cannot even set up their own gear.

Bob brings up the point about customers disparaging a shops name yet here a shop (or employee of) is disparaging a customers reputation without him being able to defend his side of the story.

---------- Post added June 19th, 2015 at 08:19 AM ----------

Great, so despite Grandpa having shown signs of poor judgment, the shop weighs the risk and reward, and figuring that the risk of anyone getting hurt by Grandpa's little adventure is low, decides to do business this one time. Grandpa likes the shop's great customer service and comes back for another tank so HE can go diving in the local lake by himself, as he managed to get someone to fix his ancient reg. This is not someone the shop wants to keep doing business with.

The problem with this sort of thinking is you are pretty well exactly describing me when I started diving. Years and thousands of dollars later I probably know more about diving than many instructors (not to blow my own horn), mentor others, have explored most of the waterways near my local, have taken fundies and regularly write for a dive magazine. And I don't do business with a certain shop partly because the owner always had to act like he knew better than me. I'm still diving and that shop is now closing its doors.

It could also be said that shops don't know what they don't know.

 

[boulderjohn]

John, your points about home schooling are well taken but can the same not be said about today's formal dive education? It seems to be a case of hit and miss, with some students coming out adequately trained while others are certified but cannot even set up their own gear.

Of course. Some people do come through the instructor training program and then do a crappy job. The current lawsuit for the death of the boy scout is a good case in point. I could list many examples. As a former school administrator, I will attest to the fact that despite the far, far more rigorous teacher training programs, many very poor teachers slip through and are contaminating our classrooms. It is possible that the guy down the street might give better legal advice than the lawyer you hire. It is possible that the diagnosis your sister gave you for that stomach pain might be more accurate than the one your doctor gave. It happens.

But you are suggesting a percentage equality between the trained and the untrained. You are suggesting that it is equally likely to find an incompetent work with a trained individual as with an untrained individual. As I said earlier, look at the divers you see on typical dives in resort areas--with what percentage would you entrust the life of your 5-year old child?

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet. --Damon Runyon​

 

[packrat12]

Packrat12 - we are probably not going to find any common ground here... But I like a challenge. .. Safe diving, Hey we do have common ground here

"you would have handled a dive training situation - to which you did not a witness - in a superior manner by explaining the PADI Standards as a "recommendations." - Actually I used how you specifically stated that these are the PADI LIMITATIONS as if they are the rules, which they are not. It would be a perfect time to explain your reasoning and recommendations and not imply that they are the 'rules' used by PADI. It is also a perfect time to properly define the 'rules' as defined by PADI for the non training part of the certification. As for my rant, it is very common to see many instructors mis-represent or patently give false information about what the PADI rules and recommendations are, especially when interchanging the training requirements with actual rules and recommendation for certified divers. Then I believe you said something like 'why would you exceed training limitations'. Well we do that in many dive levels from OW, AOW and even technical. Experience sets this, not the basic training limitations. By the way, we set these on solo flight students also, wind, cloud height, visibility, and cross wind component during their learning process. These are lower (more restrictive) than FAR but we use them to limit risk. We also require the student to know and understand the FAR limits. Once certified, they can either go to the limits (Often stupid) or gain experience and continue to raise them as able.

As for grandpa, I was not there and cannot comment on his apparent skill from being there, nor that of his child. I can understand and agree with your issue with compliance as an instructor. For a CFI, even being in the back of an airplane presents risks to their certifications when they are not instructing. That said, if you have ever read any of my comments on the age discussions, you will find that I fully accept the words My Insurance, My Company do/do not allow what ever. It is when it is quoted as a PADI certification requirement that I will state things such as be exact on the rules and then state what are recommendations.

"In fact any law - including the FAR's - may be considered recommendary in nature - until consequences are applied" - Not so. I/anyone can die even when following rules/regulations and recommendations so there is no guarantee that following them or breaking them will cause consequences. Yes they are set based on many principals including safety, liability and other reasons. If I break a FAR, it is possible that I may NEVER fly again. My licenses may be revoked and fines levied. In the diving world there are no fines, no revocation, just recommendations. Training recommendations are just that, for training. They limit liability on everyone involved and often are used specifically to protect the student from the instructor. They are also a good starting point for a newly minted 'what ever level' diver to use as personal limitations. Once experience is gained, they are not necessarily limiting any longer. Other recommendations such as Recreational limits help set expectations and are based on sound reasons and should be understood by all involved.

I can also say at 13, my child was diving to 130' safely (yes I do use the Recreational limitations). Her skill set is matched with any diver planning dives at the high end of the Rec level. Her ability was honed by many dives over many seasons, getting progressively more complex and challenging. At this point, I regard her at the same level as my wife (both Rescue) with similar attributes. There would be no reason for me to follow the 'training limitations' at her level of skill and experience. Common sense and overall ability is what is her limiting factor now.

Lastly, "And I wish you luck with that, because the consequences of a mistake can be significant." - I actually am very personally aware of this. I have lost over 10+ friends/known people to flying with deaths involved totaling nearly 30. I also have lost 2 friends to diving. I take diving very seriously but do take expectation to mis-information.

 

[Lorenzoid]

The problem with this sort of thinking is you are pretty well exactly describing me when I started diving. Years and thousands of dollars later I probably know more about diving than many instructors (not to blow my own horn), mentor others, have explored most of the waterways near my local, have taken fundies and regularly write for a dive magazine. And I don't do business with a certain shop partly because the owner always had to act like he knew better than me. I'm still diving and that shop is now closing its doors.

It could also be said that shops don't know what they don't know.

I was referring only to the specific case of the Grandpa, not "this sort of thinking." Did you walk into the shop with an ancient reg and ask to have it fixed or whether they had any cheap regs so you could put your grandson on scuba in a pool? To me, "this sort of thinking" is simply a dive shop owner using her brain to make a judgment based on what a customer told her on the spot about his intentions.

 

[boulderjohn]

I can also say at 13, my child was diving to 130' safely (yes I do use the Recreational limitations). Her skill set is matched with any diver planning dives at the high end of the Rec level. Her ability was honed by many dives over many seasons, getting progressively more complex and challenging.

It is my understanding (and I could be wrong) is that the recommendations against deeper diving for junior divers over age 12 is not so much based on skill or dive safety. It is instead similar to the recommendation against women diving while pregnant. Women are advised against diving while pregnant because of the theoretical damage that could be done to the fetus as the mother's nitrogen-rich (and O2 rich blood passes through its body. How well does a fetus off-gas during decompression? With small children, the fear is the potential damage caused by the higher ambient pressure on growing bones. It is well known that career commercial divers have a high risk of bone necrosis. Like diving while pregnant, the concern is theoretical and unproven, but most people want to play it safe. Like diving while pregnant, it is unlikely that a study will ever be designed that will safely test it.