Out of air incident

[elan]

actually in this case agencies do matter, it's either within standards or not. If an instructor feels they must break agency standards to teach what they think is a "good" course, they shouldn't be teaching for that agency and find another that allows.

So again, what agency allows you to disable equipment?

Not going down this rabbit hole, sorry

 

[elan]

If they can't handle 6m/20ft and problems with a wing, then it's probably better that they don't dive in the nasty real world where you can't blame someone.

Totally agree, 20 ft 40ft vis (it was before the drill haha) no current and 75f plus degree is a totally controlled environment- as easy as it gets.

 

[elan]

If the instructor does this, he should probably warn in advance that he plans to do such things in the briefing.

Absolutely this was a training dive we were warned to expect various kind of failures. Nothing crazy though.

 

[cerich]

Not at all.

It's practicing things that *can* happen and you *must* resolve in order to survive.

I had an incident where my hip dump valve decided to leave me for an independent life on the bottom. Resolved it; no problems.

Mollycoddling students doesn't do them any favours.

you keep on ignoring that the same training outcomes can be achieved without the risk from disabling equipment.

Anyhow, you do you

 

[boulderjohn]

If they can't handle 6m/20ft and problems with a wing, then it's probably better that they don't dive in the nasty real world where you can't blame someone.

I'm sure a jury would be very sympathetic if I were to say something like that.

 

[Edward3c]

If they can't handle 6m/20ft and problems with a wing, then it's probably better that they don't dive in the nasty real world where you can't blame someone.

The UK HSE didn't agree with deviation from agency standards when they had instructors jailed after the death of their students. Being a police officer didn't prevent the sentence, for one.

 

[Wibble]

Are courses that prescriptive? Do instructors have no flexibility? No scope for improvisation?

 

[elan]

you keep on ignoring that the same training outcomes can be achieved without the risk from disabling equipment.

Anyhow, you do you

Its off topic and does not help the original poster. And actually quite the opposite as it distracts from the main line. If you want to discuss the way different agencies teach the skills you can just open a separate topic. My post was talking about how pre-dive checks should not be compromised by “saving” pennies on the gas which is in line with what we were discussing here.
You keep pushing it to deviation from standards for some reasons. Thats a great topic but not relevant to the topic of discussion.

 

[boulderjohn]

Are courses that prescriptive? Do instructors have no flexibility? No scope for improvisation?

They have plenty of room to make individual adjustments, but if they add elements that can be considered dangerous, elements that their agency (and others) do not condone because they consider them dangerous, then the plaintiff's attorney will demand that they explain why their judgment in using such an exercise is better than the worldwide agencies that have been studying this for many decades.

 

[Wibble]

And of course lawyers know everything. Doctor says you can go home… have to wait for the lawyer to agree before you can leave.