Identify a problem: Dive accidents.
Proposed measure to reduce accident rate: Re-Certification program.
Analysis to help understand, determine the causes and offer suggestions.
We have identified some of the following causes here which have a propensity to lead to accidents.
1. Inexperience.
We need to realize that inexperienced people are more susceptible to make mistakes, less likely to promptly detect them, and less likely to recover from them, than experienced individuals, in any field. Gaining experience is an important, and largely the sole responsibility of individuals. There are various avenues available for the diver such as: dive clubs, buddys, guided dives, addtional classes, etc. Proceed with caution.
2. Insufficient skills competency.
While this is directly related to number one above, this is a primary issue affecting original certification. Is the newly certified diver sufficiently skilled to prevent most common problems, and if necessary overcome them shoud they arise during a dive? If the answer is no, this is an original certification problem which re-certifying with more of the same will not solve. As MikeF said so eloquently: Re-certify - what?
Undoubtedly skill improvement is also of primary importance to the diver, but the responsibility to assure the diver possesses an adequate level of skill competency to go off on his own rests with the certificate issuing agency.
The issue of detecting deteriorated skill proficiency is addressed below under periods of inactivity, even though this is not the only possible cause.
3. Insufficient physical condition.
The overweight problem has been overblown here. While doctors advise against being very overweight or obese, the important issue here is - adequate physical fitness for diving. Though related, this is a different issue than body weight.
Adequate physical conditioning for diving should be a consideration for certification. Right now, I believe the swim tests have more to do with demonstrating swimming ability than a minimum researched standard of fitness necessary for diving. I mentioned earlier how swimming with SCUBA requires a significant level of physical fitness, which may or may not be equivalent to what is necessary with the current swim tests. Anyone have any data backed by research? And as always, the individual bears responsibility. This is an area where re-certification or some type of periodic fitness test could be valuable. Then again, a log book demonstrating continued diving over long periods of time would generally denote the same point.
4. Insufficient mental aptitude.
Common sense. Discipline.
How many instructors judge mental aptitude necessary for diving? Let me clearly state that this has nothing to do with intelligence. I once helped out a friend by taking her out in my car to practice her driving. This is an intelligent professional person, however she had no common sense when it came to driving. To make a long story short, she persisted, got her license, got into multiple accidents, and finally had her license suspended. Should have never been licensed to drive in the first place. Good judgment and the discipline to practice it is both the responsibility of the certifying agency, in the form of proper assessment, and the individual, in the form of always striving to practice it. On a related issue, I think some agencies convey a dangerous mental aptitude by emphasizing the fun, safe, easy part of diving while de-emphasizing the negatives. At the very least a real picture should be presented with positives and negatives. I know, its not good for sales.
5. Long periods of inactivity.
Very infrequent or long periods in between dives.
This is probably the only issue where re-certification could potentially add some value. However, I see no meaningful value added by a program such as GUEs. Why go through the inconvenience of showing them my log book and paying a fee if there is one, when I can just show it to a dive op or buddy who may want to take a look at it. I would like to know what GUE re-certification conveys beyond that which is equally conveyed by a dive log. What are the benefits to the diver? An honest question. The answer I see so far is none, excluding what is effectively the renewal of an expired license. There was a thread a while back addressing the meaning of certification vs licensing.
A refresher course could offer real value when there is a long period of inactivity, specially for the inexperienced diver. If nothing more, it will be useful in terms of getting some practice back in the water under professional supervision for those who desire it. I phrase it in this context because from experience the dive ops are only interested in covering their liability. Many couldnt care less when your last dive was or who you buddy up with. No doubt some genuinely care. I just hate to see another faked trumped up impediment and expense placed on divers under the guise of we care for your safety. In terms of expecting anything else, its a case of if more of the same, then, you will get the same results.
Regarding the stamped log book idea. If you dont pay to dive - then your dives dont count. No, no.
I dont think their is much evidence to warrant general re-certification, even though I think a case can be made for infrequent inexperienced divers. What we need is better certification courses, not only in terms of skill level standards, but also to provide the added benefit derived from a better informed and likely more responsible diver. An industry regulation already in place. Lets face it, societies are built and function upon rules and regulations. The key is having fair and effective regulations when beneficial, I think most would agree, that overall, dive training certification is a positive development in this sport. As is tank inspections in order to get it filled. Training could be better, maybe tank inspections would be just as adequate every couple of years?
Regulations do not necessarily mean that restriction are all encompassing. They could mainly affect diving with commercial operators, as is the case now. Some cities have their own regulations. To avoid futher regulations, both industry internal and external, it is important to make existing regulations effective. Instead of proposing further regulations, putting our efforts into improving the existing ones would go a long way in reducing the need for any further ones, voluntary or imposed.
PS. I think some here appear to fail to evaluate all the repercussions which result from personal actions, as well as the many interrelationships present. I also think some fail to understand that ultimate reponsibility does not necessarily mean sole responsibility.
