PADI Rescue - Swim tests
- Thread starter rileymartin
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Cool - your students are lucky indeed!
I've been fortunate to have similarly demanding instructors (PADI no less) in my dive training experience. As you say "it's not out of the question".
The real question is: Can you fail him for something that you add; something that falls outside of PADI Standards? If you can't, why test him on something that if he does fail, you have to pass him anyway?
This is the chink in PADI's armor.
No, You are correct! I can't fail him out of the course, But PADI standards states very clearly that the individual instructor has the final say on who his or her students are.
So before we do any rescue course work, Show me you can swim!
If you know how to swim you should not be worried, If you don't, You don't belong in this class.
But my real problem with the direction the thread went, "This is a standards violation" HOG WASH!
Rich, I think that you walk a fine line with PADI if you turn away people that have the prerequisites to take a Rescue program. Showing the program Instructor that the person can swim is not part of the prerequisite. These are PADI Advanced Divers.
It's been a few years since I taught through PADI because of the restrictive nature of their program. But unless things have changed a great deal, I don't think that a complaint to quality management would find you on the right side of the argument.
Rescues are hard. Any instructor who requires a tough swim standard is doing both the rescuer and the victim a favor in any real-life rescue scenario. A rescue requires fast action. Speed and efficiency go hand-in-hand to place a rescuer close to a victim.
Any lifeguard who went through a real rescue test will tell you that it takes so much energy out of you no matter how strong a swimmer you are when it is time to go. The most important rescue skill a rescuer needs to know is the knowledge of one's fitness threshhold.
Even most lifeguard swimming time standards do not satisfactorily assess a rescuer's ability to meet the challenges the ocean can throw at you. The American Red Cross advanced life-saving swim time of 500 yards in 10 minutes or less wasn't based upon any scientific study, but was arbitrarily chosen.
The National Park Service lifeguards at Sandy Hook were so dedicated to preserving lives and the public trust that they are spearheading an effort to increase world-wide surf lifeguard swim test standards which will more accurately test a rescuer's ability to meet the demands of ocean swimming and rescue. To that end, they utilized the only research on the subject performed by Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper, M.D. involving swimming and running tests.
From the World Conference on Drowning Prevention:
Kenneth H. Cooper, M.D., developed yardstick units that permitted comparison between performance levels in running and swimming - both of which are truly job-related factors in surf-lifeguard work. He termed the yardstick units “aerobic points.”
As of 1970, Cooper had supervised aerobic testing of more than 30,000 men and women. Based on that, he claimed that the ability to run 1½ miles in under 12 minutes better indicated one’s potential endurance capacity than the ability to run 1 mile in under 6 or 7 minutes. As a consequence, Sandy Hook adopted the endurance-run standard of 1½ miles in under 12 minutes. Cooper also claimed that running 1½ miles in under 12 minutes netted one “7½ aerobic points,” as did swimming (overhand crawl) 600 yards in under 10 minutes. Given this reported endurance-capacity equivalence, as measured in “aerobic points,” Sandy Hook adopted the endurance-swim standard of 600 yards (overhand crawl) in under 10 minutes.
In 1980, a conference was convened in Galveston, Texas. Those in attendance represented the following organizations (listed in alphabetical order):
American Camping Association
American National Red Cross
Boy Scouts of America
Council for National Cooperation in Aquatics
Girl Scouts of the United States of America
National Center for Disease Control
National Park Service
National Safety Council
National YMCA
United States Coast Guard
United States Lifesaving Association
The conferees adopted an endurance-swim standard that represented the consensus of the entire group. However, it should be noted that the consensus at which they arrived represented a midpoint compromise between two rather divergent points of view that were not only strongly held, but also strongly argued. One view was: Any minimum performance level should not water down existing high standards. This was the view of the surf-lifeguard agencies, such as the City of Huntington Beach, California. One view was: Any minimum performance level should not eliminate large numbers of people. This was the view of the non-surf-lifeguard organizations, such as the American National Red Cross.
The following summarizes the main components of the compromise finally deemed acceptable - first, by all members of the specialist work group; then, by all attendees at the concluding plenum:
1.The new swim standard would simply set a minimum performance level. Surf-lifeguard agencies would be free to set higher performance levels.
2.The new swim standard would build on a national swim standard already widely accepted- specifically, Red Cross’ lifesaving-program swim standard of 500 yards.
3.The new swim standard would be expressed in meters. For, at the time, there was an expectation that the United States of America would relatively soon go metric.
4.The new swim standard would change Red Cross’ lifesaving-program swim standard of 500 yards-to 500 meters (roughly equal to 550 yards).
5.The new swim standard of 500 meters (≈550 yards) would lie midway between the Red Cross’ 500-yard swim standard and Gateway’s 600-yard swim standard.
6.The new swim standard would provide an objective and measurable cutoff time clearly defining acceptable versus unacceptable performance.
7.The new swim standard of 500 meters (≈550 yards) would use the Gateway’s cutoff-time requirement of “less than 10 minutes.”
8.The new swim standard would have at least some basis in research. For Gateway’s timed- swim standard had a basis in research.
It should be noted that one of the hoped-for outcomes of the cited 1980 Galveston Conference was that the above-cited national organizations would [adopt] the recommendations from the conference into their respective national programs.
United States Lifesaving Association (U.S.L.A.) formally adopted the above-cited national-consensus, timed-swim standard by unanimous vote at a meeting of its national board of directors on May 3, 1984. This action merely endorsed officially U.S.L.A.’s commitment to having adequate minimum standards. U.S.L.A.-certified agencies had been meeting or exceeding the cited timed-swim standard before 1984.
So, how does this information apply to recreational divers who seek "Rescue Diver" certifications, as well as Divemasters and Instructors? First, as a professional lifeguard and a professional instructor, I've had to makle my share of rescues in both capacities. Most of these rescues happened when I wasn't on duty or when I was just diving for fun. The most difficult scuba rescue was when I had been underwater for 3.5 hours and had stage bottles and a huge Pro 14 canister light to deal with during a long surface swim after being in deco. I ditched the bottles for greater speed to reach two divers who were in trouble as their friends called for help. At the time, I was competing in U.S. Masters Swimming and that kicked my butt more than any practice or any lifeguard test I had ever taken due to drysuit and drag. The easiest scuba rescue I made was while freediving. I was streamlined, at the surface where I heard the diver yell for help, and I had the longblade freediving fins for propulsion. At the time, my full time job was as a beach lifeguard supervisor so I was physically and mentally ready. The toughest swimmer rescue I had to make was within 2 weeks of returning to the water to get back into swimming shape. It was a surf entry in rough surf, required me to make a long swim an area of rips, and I had no equipment so I had to place the victim in an alternate cross-chest carry. I don't know how that would have turned out had I not gotten back in the pool 2 weeks prior to being on a foreign beach and teaching a scuba instructor course.
While "Rescue Diver" may be just a certification, the ability to rescue is a way of life. Not long ago, the Lessons for Life article in Scuba Diving magazine had a tale about an instructor swimming to rescue a diver and nearly drowning her in the process since he became fatigued once he reached the victim. It could have been a double-drowning had a divemaster from one of the dive boats at the site not arrived in time.
Standards for "Rescue Diver" and for dive leaders in any agency may say one thing, but you owe it to yourself, your family, and to a victim and a victim's family to be ready when the call for "Help!" sounds above the waves or when you find a diver in trouble below.
Don't discount swimming as a necessary skill. Learn to swim hard, swim fast, and swim efficiently in scuba gear and without. You'll never know where you'll be or what you will be equipped with when a life is in danger.
Any lifeguard who went through a real rescue test will tell you that it takes so much energy out of you no matter how strong a swimmer you are when it is time to go. The most important rescue skill a rescuer needs to know is the knowledge of one's fitness threshhold.
Even most lifeguard swimming time standards do not satisfactorily assess a rescuer's ability to meet the challenges the ocean can throw at you. The American Red Cross advanced life-saving swim time of 500 yards in 10 minutes or less wasn't based upon any scientific study, but was arbitrarily chosen.
The National Park Service lifeguards at Sandy Hook were so dedicated to preserving lives and the public trust that they are spearheading an effort to increase world-wide surf lifeguard swim test standards which will more accurately test a rescuer's ability to meet the demands of ocean swimming and rescue. To that end, they utilized the only research on the subject performed by Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper, M.D. involving swimming and running tests.
From the World Conference on Drowning Prevention:
Kenneth H. Cooper, M.D., developed yardstick units that permitted comparison between performance levels in running and swimming - both of which are truly job-related factors in surf-lifeguard work. He termed the yardstick units “aerobic points.”
As of 1970, Cooper had supervised aerobic testing of more than 30,000 men and women. Based on that, he claimed that the ability to run 1½ miles in under 12 minutes better indicated one’s potential endurance capacity than the ability to run 1 mile in under 6 or 7 minutes. As a consequence, Sandy Hook adopted the endurance-run standard of 1½ miles in under 12 minutes. Cooper also claimed that running 1½ miles in under 12 minutes netted one “7½ aerobic points,” as did swimming (overhand crawl) 600 yards in under 10 minutes. Given this reported endurance-capacity equivalence, as measured in “aerobic points,” Sandy Hook adopted the endurance-swim standard of 600 yards (overhand crawl) in under 10 minutes.
In 1980, a conference was convened in Galveston, Texas. Those in attendance represented the following organizations (listed in alphabetical order):
American Camping Association
American National Red Cross
Boy Scouts of America
Council for National Cooperation in Aquatics
Girl Scouts of the United States of America
National Center for Disease Control
National Park Service
National Safety Council
National YMCA
United States Coast Guard
United States Lifesaving Association
The conferees adopted an endurance-swim standard that represented the consensus of the entire group. However, it should be noted that the consensus at which they arrived represented a midpoint compromise between two rather divergent points of view that were not only strongly held, but also strongly argued. One view was: Any minimum performance level should not water down existing high standards. This was the view of the surf-lifeguard agencies, such as the City of Huntington Beach, California. One view was: Any minimum performance level should not eliminate large numbers of people. This was the view of the non-surf-lifeguard organizations, such as the American National Red Cross.
The following summarizes the main components of the compromise finally deemed acceptable - first, by all members of the specialist work group; then, by all attendees at the concluding plenum:
1.The new swim standard would simply set a minimum performance level. Surf-lifeguard agencies would be free to set higher performance levels.
2.The new swim standard would build on a national swim standard already widely accepted- specifically, Red Cross’ lifesaving-program swim standard of 500 yards.
3.The new swim standard would be expressed in meters. For, at the time, there was an expectation that the United States of America would relatively soon go metric.
4.The new swim standard would change Red Cross’ lifesaving-program swim standard of 500 yards-to 500 meters (roughly equal to 550 yards).
5.The new swim standard of 500 meters (≈550 yards) would lie midway between the Red Cross’ 500-yard swim standard and Gateway’s 600-yard swim standard.
6.The new swim standard would provide an objective and measurable cutoff time clearly defining acceptable versus unacceptable performance.
7.The new swim standard of 500 meters (≈550 yards) would use the Gateway’s cutoff-time requirement of “less than 10 minutes.”
8.The new swim standard would have at least some basis in research. For Gateway’s timed- swim standard had a basis in research.
It should be noted that one of the hoped-for outcomes of the cited 1980 Galveston Conference was that the above-cited national organizations would [adopt] the recommendations from the conference into their respective national programs.
United States Lifesaving Association (U.S.L.A.) formally adopted the above-cited national-consensus, timed-swim standard by unanimous vote at a meeting of its national board of directors on May 3, 1984. This action merely endorsed officially U.S.L.A.’s commitment to having adequate minimum standards. U.S.L.A.-certified agencies had been meeting or exceeding the cited timed-swim standard before 1984.
So, how does this information apply to recreational divers who seek "Rescue Diver" certifications, as well as Divemasters and Instructors? First, as a professional lifeguard and a professional instructor, I've had to makle my share of rescues in both capacities. Most of these rescues happened when I wasn't on duty or when I was just diving for fun. The most difficult scuba rescue was when I had been underwater for 3.5 hours and had stage bottles and a huge Pro 14 canister light to deal with during a long surface swim after being in deco. I ditched the bottles for greater speed to reach two divers who were in trouble as their friends called for help. At the time, I was competing in U.S. Masters Swimming and that kicked my butt more than any practice or any lifeguard test I had ever taken due to drysuit and drag. The easiest scuba rescue I made was while freediving. I was streamlined, at the surface where I heard the diver yell for help, and I had the longblade freediving fins for propulsion. At the time, my full time job was as a beach lifeguard supervisor so I was physically and mentally ready. The toughest swimmer rescue I had to make was within 2 weeks of returning to the water to get back into swimming shape. It was a surf entry in rough surf, required me to make a long swim an area of rips, and I had no equipment so I had to place the victim in an alternate cross-chest carry. I don't know how that would have turned out had I not gotten back in the pool 2 weeks prior to being on a foreign beach and teaching a scuba instructor course.
While "Rescue Diver" may be just a certification, the ability to rescue is a way of life. Not long ago, the Lessons for Life article in Scuba Diving magazine had a tale about an instructor swimming to rescue a diver and nearly drowning her in the process since he became fatigued once he reached the victim. It could have been a double-drowning had a divemaster from one of the dive boats at the site not arrived in time.
Standards for "Rescue Diver" and for dive leaders in any agency may say one thing, but you owe it to yourself, your family, and to a victim and a victim's family to be ready when the call for "Help!" sounds above the waves or when you find a diver in trouble below.
Don't discount swimming as a necessary skill. Learn to swim hard, swim fast, and swim efficiently in scuba gear and without. You'll never know where you'll be or what you will be equipped with when a life is in danger.
You ain't kidding! Last year out at the Resor I had to jump in, swim out to an unconscious diver about 25 ft off the bow, then tow her about 75 feet to the stern (in a current and 2-4' seas) before getting her out of her gear and helping get her out of the water.
That 75 foot swim was a HELL of a lot harder than any 100yrd "tired diver tow" I ever did in a quarry...
:shocked2:
I disagree, This was taken directly from the PADI instuctor manual.
"For all levels of certification beyond Open Water Diver, you must screen and
evaluate all student divers to ensure they meet the required prerequisites and
possess the necessary knowledge and skills to enter the program."
Nuff said!
Don'tcha just wish more did that instead of pushing divers who are barely qualified to be in the water into advanced classes?
Similar threads
