Tech through PADI or TDI?

[DevonDiver]

I'm curious if the recent fatality in Coron, Philippines will... .

I'm curious if the agency/ies would do absolutely anything at all about the sort of irresponsible and prevalent practices that led to that fatality.

I doubt it... because agencies seem to like playing the "statistics game", which empowers them to ignore glaring safety concerns that aren't otherwise supported by a plethora of incidents.

The activities that take place in places like Coron happen frequently (constantly, actually). But reported accidents are very infrequent. So, those fundamentally dangerous activities.. obvious to identify at a cursory glance.. can easily be dismissed.

What we DON'T see in DAN reports.. or agency statistics.. are all the near-miss incidents and non-fatality accidents. Or even those fatalities that get brushed under the carpet...

We don't see those because the onus of responsibility for reporting them lies on the centres, instructors and divemasters themselves.

i.e. the parties whose unethical actions, negligence, unprofessionalism or failure to enact a reasonable duty-of-care may have led to the incident/accident, or been a causal factor in it occurring.

Needless to say, all of those players have a very strong vested interest to NOT report any instance for which themselves might be legally, civil or professionally culpable.

More than that, they might easily find the motivation to obscure or conceal the incident from public view, agency oversight and anyone else that might get them in trouble..

So yeah.. let's say that nothing bad ever happens because there's no collated statistics that illustrate a problem....

*And as a caveat, outside of a single country (the USA), the civil litigation climate is fundamentally less brutal. In many countries where diving thrives as a popular activity (tropical, developing world nations), there's hardly any litigation for negligence etc. So any agency relying upon THOSE statistics is also holding its hands in front of its eyes..

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I'm curious if the agency/ies would do absolutely anything at all about the sort of irresponsible and prevalent practices that led to that fatality.

I doubt it... because agencies seem to like playing the "statistics game", which empowers them to ignore glaring safety concerns that aren't otherwise supported by a plethora of incidents.

The activities that take place in places like Coron happen frequently (constantly, actually). But reported accidents are very infrequent. So, those fundamentally dangerous activities.. obvious to identify at a cursory glance.. can easily be dismissed.

What we DON'T see in DAN reports.. or agency statistics.. are all the near-miss incidents and non-fatality accidents. Or even those fatalities that get brushed under the carpet...

We don't see those because the onus of responsibility for reporting them lies on the centres, instructors and divemasters themselves.

Needless to say, all of those players have a very strong vested interest to NOT report any instances for which themselves might be legally, civil or professionally culpable.

So yeah.. let's say that nothing bad ever happens because there's no collated statistics that illustrate a problem....

I see it as the Ford Pinto case. Ford did a cost-benefit analysis of fixing the problem versus paying out families. Now I'm not accusing agencies of doing the same analysis, but I'm sure the numbers have been mulled over in at least a few minds.

 

[stuartv]

PADI openly says that its limits are required for training dives and recommended starting points for non-training dives. They recommend that divers stay within the limits of their training and experience. Experience can do the job without further training.

Okay, so I think the horse is pretty dead. I will just say this one last time:

You (the collective you, not you personally, and setting aside the legalese fine print) certify OW students and tell them the accepted limit for recreational diving is 130'. They can dive to that depth at any time and there is no requirement for further formal training in order to do that. But, you strongly recommend that they limit themselves to 60' at first and work up to diving deeper gradually.

Given that, I don't see the hypocrisy in certifying a new tech diver and telling them they CAN go to 150', incur unlimited deco, and use 100% O2, but that they should limit themselves in various ways (max depth, max FO2, and/or max deco time) at first and work up to diving deeper/longer gradually.

I don't see a new tech diver with those limits as inherently riskier than a new OW diver with their limits. The tech diver is supposed to have better skills and judgment to balance against the greater risks of deeper diving, deco, and use of 100%.

But, maybe I will understand all that one day when I have more experience of my own.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

You (the collective you, not you personally, and setting aside the legalese fine print) certify OW students and tell them the accepted limit for recreational diving is 130'. They can dive to that depth at any time and there is no requirement for further formal training in order to do that. But, you strongly recommend that they limit themselves to 60' at first and work up to diving deeper gradually.

Hitting the horse one last time, and wouldn't you know it? The stick broke.

I tell them to dive to the limits to which they are certified. Full stop. I'm not going to get hauled into court where I'm on the list of defendants where a witness said "the instructor Kosta said they could dive to beyond 60 feet". If they go beyond their certification limits, I will be blameless.

 

[DevonDiver]

I see it as the Ford Pinto case. Ford did a cost-benefit analysis of fixing the problem versus paying out families. Now I'm not accusing agencies of doing the same analysis, but I'm sure the numbers have been mulled over in at least a few minds.

In the agencies case, the calculation is ludicrously simple...

They wash their hands of all non-training activities (the greatest proportion of what the industry does..) and have zero legal culpability. Virtually no risk.

Versus the cost of implementing and enforcing stricter membership agreements that'd significantly benefit diver safety.

It's a no-brainer...

... if you're a corporate lawyer or finance head.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

In the agencies case, the calculation is ludicrously simple... they wash their hands of non-training activities and have zero legal culpability. Virtually no risk.

Versus the cost of implementing and enforcing stricter membership agreements that'd significantly benefit diver safety, it's a no-brainer...

... if you're a corporate lawyer or finance head.

Many people will put a price on their principles, but certainly not all. Sadly, some have no principles to begin with.

 

[stuartv]

Hitting the horse one last time, and wouldn't you know it? The stick broke.

I tell them to dive to the limits to which they are certified. Full stop. I'm not going to get hauled into court where I'm on the list of defendants where a witness said "the instructor Kosta said they could dive to beyond 60 feet". If they go beyond their certification limits, I will be blameless.

I did not say that you would tell them that, but I can see how what I wrote could be read that way. My bad. That is not what I intended. I said that they can do it - per boulderjohn's last post and the fact that there are no scuba police and that it is generally common knowledge among trained scuba divers that the accepted max depth for recreational diving is 130'. It was just an observation. They CAN do it and many people will tell them there are no scuba police. You might even possibly tell them that yourself. I don't know.

 

[boulderjohn]

I'm curious if the recent fatality in Coron, Philippines will make its way in their 2017 report. I certainly will be looking for it.

I believe they are still just doing North America.

 

[boulderjohn]

the accepted max depth for recreational diving is 130'.

When I dived with Small Hope Bay Lodge in the Bahamas, they regularly took anyone who wanted to go there to 150 feet.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I believe they are still just doing North America.

So I looked at the 2016 report. 146 fatalities for 2014. They analyze 68 that occur in the United States and Canada.

Really?

Why not go to any of the annual DAN fatality reports, check out the descriptions of the fatalities, and identify the code numbers for the lives that would have been saved that year.

That leaves 78 unaccounted for deaths.

Going back to the 68, 6 of those cases, the body was never found, 45 cases the level of certification was not known, 54 cases the number of years diving was not known, 23 cases the depth was not known.

I will quote part of the report:

Root causes, mechanisms of injuries and causes of death were not established in a large number of cases mostly
because of missing information and inconclusive investigation. Based on available data, the most common known
triggers were natural disease (18%) and running low on, or out of, air (9%) (Table 1.7.2-1).

There's just too much simply not known. I agree with Andy here, lives would likely be saved.