PADI vs NAUI

[flots am]

There is a measurement as I have stated. Now if you don't like the measurement or don't feel it's complete enough to draw a conclusion that is way different than no measurement wouldn't you agree????

You've stated it, but that doesn't mean it exists.

AFAIK, there is good data on the number of divers treated in chambers and hospitals in the US.

There is no data on how many dives are done annually. Not "bad data" not "incomplete data" but none. nada. zilch. Nobody knows who dives and how often.

I'm not being obstinate and saying "PADI's data is no good" or "DAN's data is no good", what I'm saying is that it's impossible for anybody to have data, therefore the calculation is impossible.

Lets say that both last year and 20 years ago 50 divers ended up in hospitals with SCUBA related injuries.

Is this good or bad? There's no way to know. The numbers above are irrelevant because the percentage can't be calculated without knowing the total numbers of dives/year.

I know you say "there is a measurement". Where is it? Who compiled it? What does it include? Not me. Not my friends. In fact, I don't know who it could include.

If someone in my town gets shot, is this a big deal? Maybe.

If I live in Silerton TN, that would be 2% of the population. If I live in LA, it would be a banner year for public safety.

The size of the denominator is everything.

flots.

 

[endurodog]

Haa your right flots I just made it up, it doesn't exsist.

This has degenerated into the typical internet debate. I'm out, believe what ya want.

Good diving to you all

 

[Thalassamania]

Thal and others the fact is that diving accidents have gone down over the decades the same decades that training time has been shrank. Like it or not it's a fact, as Thal has stated "It would not be much of a stretch to make the claim" that this proves the point.

There is no hard evidence that shorter courses have made diving accidents more common. There is no hard evidence that longer courses would decrease accidents.

We all can twist any statement, lets look at Thals statement about the 100 course, who is taking 100 hour courses, those with a increased interest in diving. Now if we can talk the student that is in it for the weekend course into even taking a longer course is he going to put the same effort into the course.

At some point all training becomes a diminshing returns. For a basic student trying to get in the water where do we hit that? Where we make the course longer, more expensive, that he just says he isn't going to do it at all.

There are stats on dive accidents. Those are the stats I reference. In trying to answer the basic question then and not use stats. Why make the courses longer and tougher. I stand by the figures that accidents have gone down, the training is working, and increasing the time in the class will drive students away and not decrease the accident rate. If it's not to decrease accidents then why do it?

Now with that said there are many factors that influence all of this and I understand that but I'm just trying to get to the point of what is the rational to increased class length. I have my beliefs of why some are so strongly for this and I'm trying to understand if there is some reasonable rational for it

There is a measurement as I have stated. Now if you don't like the measurement or don't feel it's complete enough to draw a conclusion that is way different than no measurement wouldn't you agree???? If you get bent and go to the hospital or you die it is going to end up in the database unless you lie about the cause.

I spent many years as the Programer/Analyst for the then National Underwater Accident Data Center (NAUDC) that DAN subsumed in the late 1980s. All of the pre-DAN numbers are numbers that I helped to put together, so I can speak with some authority on this subject.

The problem with your analysis is that you are using a suspect (more about that later) numerator without any denominator. Raw numbers of fatalities mean nothing, to make them meaningful you need to have a "per something". Fatalities per diver, fatalities per dive, fatalities per certification, etc. Since there are no denominators using the raw fatality number (even if it were a valid number) would still be meaningless. You could explain the change by claiming that the number of dives had dropped, the number of divers had dropped, etc. But let us also look at the numerator, has there been a sequence of numbers collected with consistency through the years? The answer to that is no, there has not been. Our charter at the NUADC was not to look at the numbers so we could judge change over time, it was (dictated by our funding sources, NOAA, NIOSH, OSHA and the USCG) to look in the causes and possible preventions. So we cast our net wide, if someone died in the water with scuba gear on, we were chartered to look into it. So our raw numbers were high, leading to the old argument of, "is an underwater heart attack a diving accident?" or, "if someone is run over by a boat is that a diving accident?" When DAN took over their bias was to throw out such incidents since there was nothing about diving per se to be learned from them and because DAN's medical bias pushed them in the direction of anatomical/physiological/medical modalities. So if you are just looking at raw numbers and want to argue that risks have dropped because the raw numbers have dropped, you are not just on shaky ground, you are dead wrong.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

If you are an instructor, don't use agencies with low standards or who don't allow instructors to add requirements to their classes.

Personally, I feel this could use one extra word.....

If you are just an instructor, don't use agencies with low standards or who don't allow instructors to add requirements to their classes.

If you are a teacher, very few students will not learn whatever you teach them.

Thal teaches science students to dive. I may be over simplifying it a tad, but they are basically nerds and geeks, they are not typically what I think of when I think of folks in peak physical condition. They would probably flunk out of most PADI classes

I would propose that Scripts 100 Hour (or same, same different name) students, who chose to sign up for those scientific diver courses, are passionate about what they are doing and are not what one usually pictures when using "geeks and nerds."

Below is a 4th year U Penn Marine Biology major who got PADI certified at the Grand Wailea resort between Christmas and New Years ('07). I only conducted OW dive #4 (pictured). The rest was conducted by a true turn and burn NASE Intro Teacher who has been working at that resort for more than 10 years. I can guarantee that he is not as demanding of his students as I am, but he sells photo disks of nearly all his dives and he teaches his students to be good dive photo models.

The few mandatory skills of dive 4 were breezed through in less than 10 minutes and then I did my typical certified diver photo tour of Wailea Point; deeper than 50 fsw, I got my teeth cleaned, she did not, longer than 60 minute dive. I had to go under 500 psi to get her to 500 psi, and surprise, surprise; the turn and burn teacher did not have her overweighted.

​

This last photo is my half brother, ~30 minutes after completing the requirements of his PADI OW cert. At the time of his certification (summer '06) he had just been accepted for a U Penn post grad research position in Gene Therapy, and his summers at Bodega Marine Laboratory, although dry, had been a big reason for his acceptance, and a big reason for his attentiveness during his PADI OW Course. Unlike his jock-ish oldest brother/instructor, his hobby was the other half of his dual Denver University Bachelor's Degrees; decidedly non jock-ish Concert Pianist.

​

 

[flots am]

Haa your right flots I just made it up, it doesn't exsist.

This has degenerated into the typical internet debate. I'm out, believe what ya want.

It's not a debate and I'm not trying to "win" anything.

It's just math. (x/y) only works if you know both "x" and "y".

flots

 

[endurodog]

Flots where did anyone say anything about "winning". Keep going down that path.

Thal ok we can debate the numbers all you like. I disagree with your take on the numbers and you disagree with mine.

Tell me this simple question. Is there a problem with the accident rate your trying to fix? I don't see a present accident rate that is bad and I don't believe a longer course is going to improve that. What accidents in particular are you seeing you want fixed by increasing the training?

We will boil this down very simply, lets see how confusing it's getting.

 

[endurodog]

Found an intersesting article on it, its a little old but still makes some good points.

http://http://www.dtmag.com/Stories/Dive%20Skills%20and%20Videos/10-99-feature.htm


and here is the last paragraph, make your own take on it:

"Thus, we can deduce that over the past 27 years — and particularly over the past 14 years — as recreational scuba diving has become a more popular activity, the trend regarding fatal accidents has declined significantly. While even one accident is too many, we nonetheless have much to be proud of when it comes to our safety record. So how safe is diving? That’s a question every diver must answer for himself, but I’m not about to lose any sleep over it."

 

[flots am]

Tell me this simple question. Is there a problem with the accident rate your trying to fix? I don't see a present accident rate that is bad . . .

The point you keep missing is that there is no "accident rate" you can't tell if the accident rate is bad or not because it can't be calculated.

It's simply not possible to determine if SCUBA is more or less safe than "the good old days" because the data required to do so has never existed.

Your opinion, or even that in an industry mag is irrelvant because there is no data behind either.

If you feel SCUBA is safer or worse than it was, you can go forth and be happy with your decision, however you should know that this is just your "feeling," with no math or science behind it.

flots.

 

[endurodog]

Flots data does exist, agree with it or disagree it does exist. Thal even says that he compiled some of that data. You can say it's all made up in my mind but how bout what he complied???? You can say it's not enough to justify my arguements, you can say it's incomplete but saying it doesn't exist, your dead wrong.

You can make your own take on the data that is there then "you can go forth and be happy with your decision" live in denial that there is any data there if you like.

 

[Thalassamania]

Flots where did anyone say anything about "winning". Keep going down that path.

Thal ok we can debate the numbers all you like. I disagree with your take on the numbers and you disagree with mine.

Yes, but the difference is that I am intimately familiar with the available data, hell I helped create the early year data in the sequence, and you are not. Allow me to assure you that the methods of collecting and classifying are so radically different that the inclusion of both sets of data in the same set, graph, analysis, anything, does great violence to any semblance of reality.

Tell me this simple question. Is there a problem with the accident rate your trying to fix? I don't see a present accident rate that is bad and I don't believe a longer course is going to improve that. What accidents in particular are you seeing you want fixed by increasing the training?

We will boil this down very simply, lets see how confusing it's getting.

All accidents will be effected by increasing training, but the ones that I am most concerned with are training accidents and accidents that occur shortly after training.

As I have demonstrated: recreational diving in its current form is much more dangerous than playing baseball, football or even car racing. There is no reason that it should be, since a model that will virtually assure a safety record that will beat playing baseball, football or car racing exists. Absent that model we could argue till the cows come home, but that model is there and that safety record has both a numerator and a denominator and was audited by the Federal government. The denominator really doesn't matter in this case, since the numerator is zero.

Found an intersesting article on it, its a little old but still makes some good points.

http://http://www.dtmag.com/Stories/Dive%20Skills%20and%20Videos/10-99-feature.htm (note: link fixed)

and here is the last paragraph, make your own take on it:

"Thus, we can deduce that over the past 27 years — and particularly over the past 14 years — as recreational scuba diving has become a more popular activity, the trend regarding fatal accidents has declined significantly. While even one accident is too many, we nonetheless have much to be proud of when it comes to our safety record. So how safe is diving? That’s a question every diver must answer for himself, but I’m not about to lose any sleep over it."

Alex is a nice guy, but he has as little understanding of the problems with the "safety record" as you do and he is a long time PADI apologist to boot.

Flots data does exist, agree with it or disagree it does exist. Thal even says that he compiled some of that data. You can say it's all made up in my mind but how bout what he complied???? You can say it's not enough to justify my arguements, you can say it's incomplete but saying it doesn't exist, your dead wrong.

You can make your own take on the data that is there then "you can go forth and be happy with your decision" live in denial that there is any data there if you like.

Data does not exist in a vacuum. The early data I helped compile is radially different in the way it was collected and in its focus. What I said is that your use of the data is faulty because you do not understand the multiple weaknesses in the combined data set. You (like Alex before you) are drawing conclusions that the data does not, in fact, support. It would be like taking ten years of data on apples and then twenty years of data on oranges and then reaching some conclusion without ever recognizing that you were, in fact, comparing apples and oranges.