Teaching contradictions: differing dive training philosophies

[DCBC]

DCBC, I think that they're drawing the wrong conclusions.

The article states: "Experience from treating diving accidents indicates that a large proportion of divers suffering from pulmonary barotraumas (PBT) or arterial gas embolism (AGE) were engaged in training dives, specifically emergency free ascent (EFA)."

This study relied on, "the average number of dives performed and the proportion of in-water skills training dives (that) were obtained from the major Belgian dive associations." Unless the system in Belgium is radically different from elsewhere in the world, I find it open to serious question.

Additionally, even if one is to grant all the assumptions and simplifications made, the bottom line is that study is only meaningful if you stay inside the box of the course(s) sampled. While I have no doubt that some exercises pose more danger than others, I suggest that this can be dealt with with care and attention to detail. I point to the science community's experience with Scripps Model courses where, during entry level training, each and every student performs between 50 and 100 buoyant free ascents as part of the training exercises. There has never been a single accident during such training. I advance two explanations for this: the first is staff quality as evidenced by the Local Dive Shop operated course in the Auburn University pool that resulted in fatality some years ago using precisely the same exercise without staff supervision; and the second: the many, many repetitions of the skill, starting in a free diving mode and then progressing much later to scuba.

I believe that an Emergency Swimming Ascent (CESA) can be taught properly and the subsequent risk to students is an acceptable one. That said, training programs are becoming shorter and require less of a commitment on the part of the student. You can't compare the Scripps Model (or even my program) to the standards of some agencies today.

The standards for all levels of Instruction, basic through instructor examiner have become lets say, much more "student friendly." When when an Agency looks at the viability of requiring ESA/CESA, consideration must be given to the expected length of time that will be devoted to this skill, the level of diving ability of the student and instructor and what is to be gained by the finished result. It wouldn't surprise me that 10 years from now, that some certification agencies will reduce their program to a one day training schedule. What areas of the current training program will need to be cut to accommodate this?

Thal, you and I have witnessed a reduction in what is required for certification (several times over the years). I'm afraid that this tendency will continue. Once we are long gone, some of the current instructors on SB may find themselves defending what they feel is required to new instructors that brag about how great their six-hour training courses are. CESA isn't required and the "old timers" are reflecting on the day they when it was and the fact that it's still a valuable skill-set. The new instructors will say that the statistics don't warrant it. The student can take another course to learn this (and optional things like clearing a mask without a purge valve). The "old timers" will feel the same frustration that you and I have felt over the past few years... Time marches on and quality becomes a relic. Go figure...

 

[The Chairman]

When when an Agency looks at the viability of requiring ESA/CESA, consideration must be given to the expected length of time that will be devoted to this skill, the level of diving ability of the student and instructor and what is to be gained by the finished result.

At least one has determined that the skill sets a bad, bad precedent for it's students. They believe that while in open water, skills should be demonstrated in situ as they are needed. Most classes I see don't start to resemble a normal dive and I think this puts the student at a disadvantage after the dive. IOW, the emphasis of their diving abruptly changes from doing serial skills to what? The fun and wonder are more accidental rather than the actual emphasis of their dives. I can't count the number of pie eyed divers on their first dive after certification looking lost as to what they should do now. Training for competency, rather than simply mastering serial skills, resolves all that. It's my opinion that this approach produces not only competent but far more relaxed divers that will remain divers since they have a purpose.

 

[DCBC]

Despite these propositions, some diving certification agencies in Belgium still require many ascent skills, especially EFA, performed from a depth of 10 msw, 30 msw, and 40 msw.This skill is actually taught in Belgium without a regulator inserted in the mouth in an approach meant to mimic as closely as possible an emergency “ out ofair situation."

​

Hi John,

I'm aware that CMAS is a major player in Europe. CMAS requires an emergency ascent in its training programs. As I've mentioned, the specifics of how this is to be undertaken is dependent upon the applicable CMAS branch. In this case, it would fall to CMAS Europe. Although I'm unaware of their specific requirements, I'd be surprised if this was ever undertaken with the regulator out of the mouth. As you're aware, if the regulator is functioning the diver can expect some air to be delivered on ascent. Taking the regulator out of the mouth would negate this benefit.

My students do a CESA (reg in mouth) on each ascent after the initial check-out dive (to the safety stop). This cumulates in a 50' CESA on the final dive. Advanced classes do a minimum of 100' CESA as a matter of routine (sharing air ascents are also made in both courses). Perhaps the 40M ascent refers to the maximum sport diving depth of 130 FSW and is intended for the advanced programs (CMAS 2 Star Diver) in a similar way as I employ it. The maximum depth of a CMAS 3 Star Diver (Dive Leader/DM) is 56M or 184 FSW.

 

[DCBC]

At least one has determined that the skill sets a bad, bad precedent for it's students. They believe that while in open water, skills should be demonstrated in situ as they are needed. Most classes I see don't start to resemble a normal dive and I think this puts the student at a disadvantage after the dive. IOW, the emphasis of their diving abruptly changes from doing serial skills to what? The fun and wonder are more accidental rather than the actual emphasis of their dives. I can't count the number of pie eyed divers on their first dive after certification looking lost as to what they should do now. Training for competency, rather than simply mastering serial skills, resolves all that. It's my opinion that this approach produces not only competent but far more relaxed divers that will remain divers since they have a purpose.

I understand what you're saying. I believe that it all depends upon the length of the training program. If an Instructor has more time, it's reasonable to expect that the students will accomplish more and will develop more confidence.

Thal has mentioned the Scripps Model Course. It's understandable that in a 100+ hour program an Instructor should be able to accomplish twice what I accomplish in a 50 hour program and four times that of a 25 hour program.

It comes down to the question of how much knowledge/skill is reasonably required for a new diver to possess on day one? I believe that this is primarily dependent upon the usual diving conditions that the newly certified diver will face. This obviously varies from one geographic location to another, but there are some who fail to recognize this at all and one standard for every diver somehow makes sense to them (?)

There are several skill-sets that can come under scrutiny: emergency ascent, buddy-breathing, watermanship ability, etc. As the standards drop, the courses become shorter and more subsequent courses become available. The competency of the diver who comes out of these programs is also lower. From this perspective, I can't help but question the integrity of some Agencies. I'm certainly aware of the benefits to "the business of diving," as more money can be made which generates equipment innovation. This is a good thing in that the increase of consumers results in a stronger diving tourism industry.

I am however, concerned about the downside. One argument often taken is that the statistics don't support a greater number of diver deaths. Another argument made is that the diver is encouraged to take more training. However based upon my personal observation, there aren't many newly certified divers that I'd feel comfortable with if they were diving with myself, or a member of my family. I also suspect that not 100% of these divers will seek further training, which translates to a high number of divers diving with a questionable level of knowledge and skill.

I've asked myself why Solo Diving is on the rise? Could it be that there are many people out there who don't want to be buddied with an incompetent diver? I wonder...

 

[boulderjohn]

You also clearly remember your instructor doing those seven bounce dives. What kind of example is that setting for you? Not a very good one. Do you now view bounce dives as being OK?

The idea that the instructor must do 7-8 bounce dives during a dive seems to be important to you--you keep bringing it up over and over again.

For PADI, CESA is a dive flexible skill that can be done on dive 2, 3, or 4. That means that on the occasion--fairly rare, actually--that there are 8 students in a class, the instructor only has to do a maxmum of 3 CESAs on a dive.

But why pick on CESAs? Look at all the OW requirements and count how many times an instructor (and students, for that matter), have to do ascents in the OW dives, especially in poor visibility when the instructor must remain in close contact with all students at all times during a dive. Does NASE require an air sharing ascent the way PADI does? If so, how does NASE handle that bounce dive requirement?

Hi John,

I'm aware that CMAS is a major player in Europe. CMAS requires an emergency ascent in its training programs. As I've mentioned, the specifics of how this is to be undertaken is dependent upon the applicable CMAS branch. In this case, it would fall to CMAS Europe. Although I'm unaware of their specific requirements, I'd be surprised if this was ever undertaken with the regulator out of the mouth. As you're aware, if the regulator is functioning the diver can expect some air to be delivered on ascent. Taking the regulator out of the mouth would negate this benefit.

The line you quoted did not come from me. It was a quote from the article you cited. According to the article, it is very common in Belgium for CESAs to be performed in training from depths of 40 meters (more than 130 feet) with the regulator out of the mouth. The only thing I know about training in Belgium is what I read in that report.

 

[Bob DBF]

I wonder what your students FIRST reaction is to a problem then? Simply bolt for the surface? Yeah, I don't like that precedent.

Actually a CESA is the alternative to bolting to the surface if the solution to my problem is not found after all the other tools at my disposal are exhausted. CESA is another tool in the box, it's just the last tool. Like any other procedure, you need to train to do it properly and see that it is effective which will develop confidence in it's use over more drastic, and possibly fatal, action.

Granted, with all the new gear available it will rarely be used, but if it is seen as a precedent to bolt to the surface for a new OW diver, my conclusion would be that the class instructor and standards should be reviewed.



Bob
-----------------------------------------------
Trained when J-valves solved the OOA problem, sometimes.

 

[boulderjohn]

Actually a CESA is the alternative to bolting to the surface if the solution to my problem is not found after all the other tools at my disposal are exhausted. CESA is another tool in the box, it's just the last tool. Like any other procedure, you need to train to do it properly and see that it is effective which will develop confidence in it's use over more drastic, and possibly fatal, action.

Just to pick nits, for PADI it is the next to last tool.

In the CESA, the diver is supposed to control the speed of ascent by dumping air from the BCD to avoid ascending too rapidly. The last tool is the buoyant ascent, in which weights are dropped and the buoyant diver heads for the surface with the only means of control being flaring.

 

[TSandM]

It seems to me that making students do a CESA on every ascent is training students to go to the "bolt to the surface" response as a first choice. Maybe that was reasonable in the days of J-valves that could prove to be in the wrong position, but it is not reasonable now.

I don't have your experience, DCBC, but I have over a thousand dives in many parts of the world. I have YET to see anybody have to do a CESA. I have yet to see anybody completely out of gas, including tourist divers -- low, yes, and they signal the DM and share, but not OUT. This is true in warm water, and in cold water.

I think one of the hardest things we run into in training divers is to extinguish the immediate rush to the surface as a response to problems. The last thing on earth I want to do is train it INTO somebody.

 

[DCBC]

DCBC, The line you quoted did not come from me. It was a quote from the article you cited. According to the article, it is very common in Belgium for CESAs to be performed in training from depths of 40 meters (more than 130 feet) with the regulator out of the mouth. The only thing I know about training in Belgium is what I read in that report.

I'm aware of that John, however you included it within your post (sorry for any confusion). I would assume that Belgium diving certification would primarily be represented by the Nederlandse Onderwatersport Bond (NOB); which is a member of CMAS. I thought that some input on CMAS standard might be helpful. Like you, I have no idea of what agency would teach in the manner listed.

 

[tstormdiver]

I think one of the hardest things we run into in training divers is to extinguish the immediate rush to the surface as a response to problems. The last thing on earth I want to do is train it INTO somebody.

One of the things I truly try to instil into my students. I try to teach them to correct the problem underwater first,.... & if that doesn't/ won't work, then to make as controlled an ascent as possible.

I try to teach them in this order of best to worst methods to get the surface
* Watch & monitor gas to avoid the situation altogether
* Alternate air source air share
* Buddy breathing (very rare to happen, but try to make them familiar with it)
* Controlled Swimming Emergency Ascent
* Emergency Buoyant Ascent

I inform them that the further down the list they go, the higher the chances of potential DCS.