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

[Omisson]

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.

Apologies for reading more into the post- it’s good we agree Snow was a disaster and that her original training couldn’t have allowed for such monumental deviations from standards.

That said, I also agree each instructor has to be honest about their capacity to handle students… maybe 1:1 is the limit sometimes or for some people. Sometimes it’s 2:1 or maybe 4:1…. But when we talk agency or RSTC standards there is a need for some baselines. So that is where I think we have no choice but to be actuarial about it: what does the dive accident data tell us.

In this case- whether or not we like it- the facts are pretty clear: there is NO significant increase in accident probabilities caused by ratios as they are now- and comparing improvement versus gains to be made by lowering them cannot yield a significantly better outcome- because we know they are not a statistically significant component of any dive accidents recorded NOW.

Thats the point I’m trying to make- people claiming “ratios are the problem” are making just so story arguments - the data shows no such issue exists…. Yes intuitively lower ratios are safer- but in actual practice there is no evidence reducing them could significantly improve diver safety… why ?because the data doesn’t support any significant amount of diver accidents associated with them.

 

[Omisson]

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.

No- it’s an example of data driving decisions not “feelings”. You “feel” lowering ratios is a way to safer dive training. But there is NO empirical evidence that ratios have played any part in dive accidents to date. One example does not a statistic make.

 

[formernuke]

Could be because anyone with common sense knows those old ratios where f=<%÷% and lowered them themselves when they taught. I know several who did this and if I become active again I will.

 

[Omisson]

Act

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.

Actually quite the opposite. The DSD takes barely trained folks into the water who have no experience diving and requires them to be with a professional at all times.

A Drysuit or AOW class presumes the diver has experience and prior training and DOES NOT require a dive professional to be with them at all times because they’re already certified divers… to dive the specialty they are expanding their dive skills. Fundamentally different and theoretically less problematic.

 

[Omisson]

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.

You mean like this?

"Because PADI Standards defi ne learning and performance requirements for course or programs conducted anywhere in the world, they must fi t a large variety of teaching circumstances. • Maximum limits – Standards for ratios and depths are listed as maximum limits. This means that you must apply sound judgment in determining what is appropriate for training each time you conduct a course or program. It’s your professional responsibility to conduct a risk assessment by evaluating variables such as water conditions – temperature, visibility and water movement – entries/exits, the individual abilities of each of your student divers, the number of certifi ed assistants available, your abilities and limitations, etc., to determine what ratio will fi t the situation; reducing the ratio from the maximum, if needed. Conduct this risk assessment before the dive, and continue to assess and evaluate during the dive, taking into account changing variables:

3. Reduce ratios for safety and control as needed based on risk assessment variables such as:
a. Water conditions – including movement, temperature, visibility, depth, aquatic life, entry/exit logistics.
b. Weather conditions
c. Dive requirements
d. Number of certified assistants
e. Your personal abilities, limitations and familiarity with the site
f. Participant age, ability, experience and comfort level

4. During multiple-level training, use the most conservative course ratio.
5. If certifi ed divers join noncertifi ed divers (entry-level or Discover Scuba Diving), count the certifi ed divers in the ratio, and stay within the student diver/participant ratio for the least qualifi ed person.

Risk Mitigation, Professional Judgment and Responsibility Conduct risk assessments for your student divers by evaluating diver, environmental, equipment, physical and psychological variables (as described in PADI’s Guide to Teaching) during PADI courses and programs. Always err on the side of caution and conservatism when making decisions and applying judgment in your PADI programs. Train divers to minimize stress and anxiety and to avoid panic in the water. Recognize outward signs of diver anxiety and panic and stay focused so nothing distracts you from intervening with a person who is stressed and anxious. Be vigilant and diligent in your duties. See Membership Commitment in the Professional Membership Guide."

PADI Instructor Manual pp 20-22

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

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.

I don't as they are giving conditions in which ratios are to be reduced. I thin.k SDI gives the instructor enough ammunition to push back on the dive center. While no agency wants to lose dive centers over to other agencies, I would expect that SDI HQ to back up an instructor who makes a case as to when to reduce ratios when their dive center says otherwise.

That would be a shiitstorm from SDI pros if that doesn't happen. Obviously we are talking about a theoretical future event.

 

[Omisson]

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?

Over a 20-year period, there was a death rate of 1.765 per 100,000 divers under training with an instructor. By way of comparison, the death rate in certified divers 18 per 100,000 according to DAN Americas statistics. (John Lippmann, DAN Asia-Pacific Founder, Chairman and Director of Research)

In the 1.765 per 100K how many involved a ratio issue? Seems that it was 0-1. In overall deaths - 33% of the scuba-related deaths appear to have been cardiac-related (can't really blame anyone for those deaths, can we?). Of the remaining 67% equipment trouble and gas supply trouble (including running out of air) were the most common triggers of dive deaths, each accounting for 18% of accidents (36% total). Rough water was also prominent, being identified as the likely trigger in 15% of the accidents. Anxiety and stress appeared to have been a trigger in 11% of cases and buoyancy-related problems in 5%. In none of the identified cases but one was the instructors direct supervision attributable to the death (a Utah case in 2011), but in that case numerous other factors also seemed to be in play (water conditions, overweighting, malfunctioning equipment, and possibly forged/misleading or improper medical forms concealing an underlying illness/condition contraindicated to diving).

so tell me again how instructor ratios are a real issue in diving related injuries?

 

[chillyinCanada]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

WITHDRAWN

If your post is not specifically about the litigation of the topic case, your post is off topic. Further off topic posts will be removed

---

 

[kammel78]

No- it’s an example of data driving decisions not “feelings”. You “feel” lowering ratios is a way to safer dive training. But there is NO empirical evidence that ratios have played any part in dive accidents to date. One example does not a statistic make.

No, I'm not actually arguing for lower ratios.

My issue is you taking an outcome from a very specific piece of logical reasoning (higher starting ratios regarding DSD) and applying it to other scenarios. And if you follow their reasoning, they're actually saying that ratios do matter, and that we shouldn't generalize them because they're conditional.

That same reasoning applied to this scenario could have a logical outcome of, considering these factors (mixed class, instructor experience, DM experience, temperature, conditions, whatever...) the ratio should be reduced to 2:1 or whatever. THIS is exactly what your Discover Scuba example is proposing, moving towards an "ideal" starting ratio and then reducing that number based on factors that we know can attribute to potential risks. No different than your PADI quote, except SDI is taking it a step further and qualifying those conditions and quantifying the ratio reduction.

This dogmatic approach of requiring empirical evidence to propose best practices is short-sighted at best. We know diving statistics can be wildly misleading and misrepresentative of reality. And the argument that just because an instructor didn't cause an issue means an instructor with fewer students couldn't have helped prevent a death becoming just an accident, is again extremely myopic.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

There are a lot of incidents that never make it to the media. Remember there is a motivation to sweep incidents under the rug. Deaths are harder to do so, but close calls are quite easy.