Suit filed in case of "Girl dead, boy injured at Glacier National Park

[Jim Lapenta]

Wait- aren’t ALL divers taking AOW already CERTIFIED?

So why is there any issue leaving two certified divers in the water?

wait for it……

This is for drysuit. And even for aow, why the hell would you leave 2 divers at 80-100 ft who have never been that deep, to take two others safely to the surface. Especially with the way so many ow divers have been trained when it comes to buoyancy?
This is why the standards are crap and based on greed rather than safety and common sense.
Students are by definition learning something new. Only an idiot would assume they are equipped to handle a problem in a new situation that could be like nothing they have experienced before.
If they choose to do that on their own, that's on them.
But if it happens because they were placed in the situation by an instructor? Totally different animal. At least from a moral and ethical standpoint if nothing else.
And to state that would be OK, indicates the moral and ethical standards of the agency and said representatives of the agency (CDs, ITs, and instructors).
Ie, they have none.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Thanks for responding. Were the ratios in the old standards lower? Asking because I honestly don't know.

I agree that a 2:1 ratio is better, but that's the case for just about every course. There is always a risk that a student is going to bolt, lose buoyancy and ascend too rapidly, panic, etc. regardless of the course. But then dive training would become nearly impossible for many shops. And, as Omisson stated, for courses beyond OWD, the divers are already certified.

Bringing this back to the case at hand, the biggest problem is that the instructor was, to put it bluntly, an absolute effing moron whose sheer stupidity and lack of common sense got someone killed. To me, the failure points were not the standards but in a) PADI letting Snow "earn" her instructor rating in the first place and b) Gull Dive hiring and using someone with such complete lack of common sense as an instructor. The tightest standards in the world won't amount to anything if the instructor doesn't know what he/she is doing, and if dive shops hire instructors who are idiots.

Maybe some shops should fail? And maybe instruction should be priced to reflect the effort and time spent to become an instructor? And going from that, it should be priced to reflect the risk involved in introducing people to an alien environment?

 

[Outbound]

Maybe some shops should fail? And maybe instruction should be priced to reflect the effort and time spent to become an instructor? And going from that, it should be priced to reflect the risk involved in introducing people to an alien environment?

Sure. But then we'd have a lot fewer divers out there, and an activity/sport that is already pretty niche and that tends to skew wealthy will be even more so. Standards need to be based on a balance of safety and plausibility. A 1:1 ratio would be the safest, right? So why not have all courses taught at a 1:1 ratio? Heck, why not two dive pros for every student, just in case?

I'm not trying to be facetious. How many training dive accidents occur each year, what are the circumstances of those accidents, and what can we do to help prevent them? We'll never get to zero training accidents, just like our risk of DCS is never zero so long as we are diving. The goal should be to have zero fully preventable training accidents (and the Mills case was completely preventable) and as few as possible potential training accidents. But that has to be balanced with the economic realities of the dive industry and what is realistically feasible.

I don't know where the line is. I do know that simply saying "Training agencies are greedy and that's why they set the standards the way they do" bugs me as intellectually lazy and highly reductive.

 

[Omisson]

For the sake of argument, when a diver is in "Student" status, are they (by the standards) responsible for themselves, or is the instructor responsible for them.

Remember, they are by definition, being introduced to something (equipment, skills, task loading) outside of their previous experience. Otherwise they wouldn't need direct supervision.

This sadly leads to operators not letting OW divers dive below 60 feet, which is BS IMO, because they haven't been to 60 feet with an instructor.

I dive a drysuit, DPV, use hydraulic tools, and look at fish all without the accompanying specialty card. And I like to think I have some small amount of sense, at least enough that I haven't died in the last 6000 or so dives.

So you think supervision ratios for certified divers taking continuing education is akin to uncertified divers attempting to become divers? I don’t know if the industry would be able to transition to that sort of philosophy- there are some advanced classes with a clear need for low ratios (cave, Tec) and some with little need (boat, fish ID). I think the current ratios reflect the hard data of dive accident risk management.

I strongly disagree that ratios are the issue and so does the collective dive accident data- which- by and large- shows ratios aren’t at issue… diver error is almost 96% of all fatalities… yes you can isolate instructor disasters like Snow but what does that truly represent weighed against the millions of dives that happen without incident.

But to make the point more concretely:
1:1 ratios eliminates all other distractions. So we could argue it’s the ideal- but the impact on costs to learn to dive will be profound and exponentially increased at a marginal increase in safety. Is that really likely?

So, here’s the latest email from SDI:

“After careful consideration and review, SDI has made some major and exciting changes. We have increased ratios for this course, but that’s not all. We have provided guidance for when those ratios need to be reduced. We also made changes to Who Can Teach – and launched a new program called the
Dive Experience Leader in conjunction with those changes.

Why did we make those changes? Mainly because we have come to realize that ratios are not the issue in incidents/accidents in this program – supervision is. By detailing those conditions where supervision becomes challenging, and requiring ratios to be reduced in those conditions, we can ensure adequate supervision.”

This is NOT PADI saying it- so according to SDI specifically RATIOS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

I don’t know how you can look at the DAN accident reports and reach the conclusion that ratios are a problem since they overwhelmingly are not the most common (by per capita or raw) dive accident situs - and the most common thread in diver incidents is actually diver error- rare is the instructor lead transgression we saw here with Snow and Mills (who, lest we forget- did do lots wrong too…) changing ratios in training won’t fix that.

But honest analysis requires an unbiased perspective- something sorely lacking in this whole thread.

 

[Wookie]

I'm not the guy arguing ratios, I'm the guy arguing direct supervision. I have re-examined my position on ratios and decided that I can't control more than 2 students at a time, what someone else desires to do is on them. I am not the best instructor on the planet, I can't control 4 at a time at my advanced age.

Nope, I just want to know if a student learning a skill or a new piece of equipment needs direct supervision and what that consists of.

Yes, I agree that a certified diver, when the instructor can no longer can provide direct supervision, should be briefed to terminate the dive and safely ascend.

I also agree that Snow was a disaster as an instructor, and that she must have gotten lazy since her IDC/IE, because she had to have been taught better than she demonstrated.

 

[Omisson]

This is for drysuit. And even for aow, why the hell would you leave 2 divers at 80-100 ft who have never been that deep, to take two others safely to the surface. Especially with the way so many ow divers have been trained when it comes to buoyancy?
This is why the standards are crap and based on greed rather than safety and common sense.
Students are by definition learning something new. Only an idiot would assume they are equipped to handle a problem in a new situation that could be like nothing they have experienced before.
If they choose to do that on their own, that's on them.
But if it happens because they were placed in the situation by an instructor? Totally different animal. At least from a moral and ethical standpoint if nothing else.
And to state that would be OK, indicates the moral and ethical standards of the agency and said representatives of the agency (CDs, ITs, and instructors).
Ie, they have none.

By your standards only a 1:1 ratio is sufficient to safely teach diving. This is absurd.

Economics- first the costs would rise exponentially- because the normative 4:1 ratio works for paying an instructor and covering classes but 1:1 changes that significantly. Concomitant with that would be need to charge more which data in the industry doesn’t seem to support. Diving is a small niche sport- you’d essentially price out most of the economic middle and lower class divers.

Safety, isn’t improved significantly by ratio reductions and the DAN data doesn’t show it as a significant driver of dive accidents. You can make the abstract safety argument that “all things being equal” lower ratios are safer. True. However - in the real world- the actuarial analysis shows that current ratios are sufficient in safety such that any improvements in lowering them are marginal or statistically insignificant.

In the end we find ourselves with folks like you advocating for some unrealistic training standard that would cripple the industry and drive all but the rich out of it - or we can be honest and look at the data and see where the real problems are and use data to drive the decisions….

 

[formernuke]

she had to have been taught better than she demonstrated.

I have experience where she did her IDC, I wouldn't put money on thar statement.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

We shouldn't conflate training dives versus non-training dives.

While DAN's 2016 report with their top ten changes have been ignored by the industry, had those been universally implemented and that there would be prerequisites for courses to ensure that the students don't require remedial training (as everyone's skills degrade over time if not maintained). The lack of proper open water training and lack of prerequisites lead to smaller ratios.

Now to their credit, SDI has done something that no other agency has done. They give requirements as to where to reduce ratios, as opposed to leaving to the instructor that is often under pressure from the dive center to pack as many customers in an experience come hell or high water.

From: https://www.tdisdi.com/wp-content/uploads/files/sandp/currentYear/SDI/part 2/pdf/individual/SDI Diver Standards_04_Scuba_Discovery.pdf

Environmental Factors Affecting Ratios
1. Full ratio, diver to professional, is based on ideal conditions:
a. All divers in full view
b. Surge is at a minimum.
c. Environmental features allow the professional(s) to see all divers
d. No current/flow
2. Ratio reduction is determined by:
a. Reduced visibility of less than approximately 5m/16 ft; must be able to always
see the entirety of each diver during the dive.
b. Environmental features obstruct view or divers can be lost behind them
c. Strong current/flow or surge
3. Other factors that require ratio to be reduced:
a. Diving from a boat
b. Long surface swims during entries and exits
c. Large groups of divers – not associated with the training

It is disingenuous to say that SDI agrees with PADI on larger ratios.

 

[kammel78]

So you think supervision ratios for certified divers taking continuing education is akin to uncertified divers attempting to become divers? I don’t know if the industry would be able to transition to that sort of philosophy- there are some advanced classes with a clear need for low ratios (cave, Tec) and some with little need (boat, fish ID). I think the current ratios reflect the hard data of dive accident risk management.

I strongly disagree that ratios are the issue and so does the collective dive accident data- which- by and large- shows ratios aren’t at issue… diver error is almost 96% of all fatalities… yes you can isolate instructor disasters like Snow but what does that truly represent weighed against the millions of dives that happen without incident.

But to make the point more concretely:
1:1 ratios eliminates all other distractions. So we could argue it’s the ideal- but the impact on costs to learn to dive will be profound and exponentially increased at a marginal increase in safety. Is that really likely?

So, here’s the latest email from SDI:

“After careful consideration and review, SDI has made some major and exciting changes. We have increased ratios for this course, but that’s not all. We have provided guidance for when those ratios need to be reduced. We also made changes to Who Can Teach – and launched a new program called the
Dive Experience Leader in conjunction with those changes.

Why did we make those changes? Mainly because we have come to realize that ratios are not the issue in incidents/accidents in this program – supervision is. By detailing those conditions where supervision becomes challenging, and requiring ratios to be reduced in those conditions, we can ensure adequate supervision.”

This is NOT PADI saying it- so according to SDI specifically RATIOS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

I don’t know how you can look at the DAN accident reports and reach the conclusion that ratios are a problem since they overwhelmingly are not the most common (by per capita or raw) dive accident situs - and the most common thread in diver incidents is actually diver error- rare is the instructor lead transgression we saw here with Snow and Mills (who, lest we forget- did do lots wrong too…) changing ratios in training won’t fix that.

But honest analysis requires an unbiased perspective- something sorely lacking in this whole thread.

Intentionally or not, you conveniently left out the program they’re referring to is Discover Scuba, which is more of a false equivalence when applied to AOW and drysuit ratios. Or an over generalization if you’re trying to apply their reasoning on one cert to all certs.

 

[Outbound]

We shouldn't conflate training dives versus non-training dives.

While DAN's 2016 report with their top ten changes have been ignored by the industry, had those been universally implemented and that there would be prerequisites for courses to ensure that the students don't require remedial training (as everyone's skills degrade over time if not maintained). The lack of proper open water training and lack of prerequisites lead to smaller ratios.

Now to their credit, SDI has done something that no other agency has done. They give requirements as to where to reduce ratios, as opposed to leaving to the instructor that is often under pressure from the dive center to pack as many customers in an experience come hell or high water.

From: https://www.tdisdi.com/wp-content/uploads/files/sandp/currentYear/SDI/part 2/pdf/individual/SDI Diver Standards_04_Scuba_Discovery.pdf

Environmental Factors Affecting Ratios
1. Full ratio, diver to professional, is based on ideal conditions:
a. All divers in full view
b. Surge is at a minimum.
c. Environmental features allow the professional(s) to see all divers
d. No current/flow
2. Ratio reduction is determined by:
a. Reduced visibility of less than approximately 5m/16 ft; must be able to always
see the entirety of each diver during the dive.
b. Environmental features obstruct view or divers can be lost behind them
c. Strong current/flow or surge
3. Other factors that require ratio to be reduced:
a. Diving from a boat
b. Long surface swims during entries and exits
c. Large groups of divers – not associated with the training

It is disingenuous to say that SDI agrees with PADI on larger ratios.

Is that statement substantially different from what PADI says? I’d argue no. More verbose perhaps, but not really different. If SDI said “You must reduce the ratio to X under Y condition” then I’d agree with what you’re saying. But it seems that the agency is still putting the onus on the instructor to make the judgment call.