"Term limits" on certifications

[MikeFerrara]

I wouldn't consider you a candidate for recertification based on that. You've dived within the last year.

And if I stay out of the water another year?

Divers are taught that when their skills get rusty that they need to do something about it. They are all taught that skills not used deteriorate. Maybe if the agencies, shops and instructors were taking good judgement more seriously new and inexperienced divers would to. I really would try thorough tell it like it is basic training before I ever considered any kind of recertification program. The agencies are too afraid of scaring people. being a little scared might have save some of the dead ones though.

 

[Kim]

Maybe an extreme example but I recently re-read 'Shadow Divers'. Richie Kohler didn't dive for quite a long period and then when he re-started it was straight back down to the sub. Should he have got re-certified first?

 

[drbill]

And if I stay out of the water another year?

Divers are taught that when their skills get rusty that they need to do something about it. They are all taught that skills not used deteriorate. Maybe if the agencies, shops and instructors were taking good judgement more seriously new and inexperienced divers would to. I really would try thorough tell it like it is basic training before I ever considered any kind of recertification program. The agencies are too afraid of scaring people. being a little scared might have save some of the dead ones though.

Oh, Mike, you're testing me... and hypothetically becoming a prime candidate for re-cert!

There is NO question in my mind that more rigorous training would do a lot to reduce this problem. It still wouldn't take care of the divers who become "less fit" for diving or don't dive for extended periods of time.

I've been out of diving for extended periods over the past 44 years. When I got back in, I always started with relatively unchallenging dives, practiced my skills and got comfortable again before tackling a more challenging dive.

And keep in mind that although I like stamped log books (my collector mentality I guess), since I dive solo from shore much of the time, there are no buddies or witnesses to verify my log... just my honesty. Fortunately both of my LDS'es know how frequently I dive since they sell me air.

 

[drbill]

Maybe an extreme example but I recently re-read 'Shadow Divers'. Richie Kohler didn't dive for quite a long period and then when he re-started it was straight back down to the sub. Should he have got re-certified first?

No, as far as I'm concerned he's already "certifiable."

 

[jakubson]

No, as far as I'm concerned he's already "certifiable."

 

[FOUNDATIONER]

50,000 folks died on the highways in the U.S. last year.
All the driver education and police and manufacturers
safety features are powerless to lower this number.
The only cure for problems such as these is a little
known skill called personal responsibility.
IMHO

 

[drbill]

50,000 folks died on the highways in the U.S. last year....

Hmmm... deduct the number caused by alcohol, cell phone use, McDonald's coffee spilled on the lap and what number do you get?

At least I have yet to see a diver use a cell phone underwater!

 

[Kim]

At least I have yet to see a diver use a cell phone underwater!

I'm willing to bet some would if they could. They use them fast enough on boats after the dive!

 

[drbill]

For those of you following this thread, there are two related poll-based threads that might be worth a visit and a vote:

One is whether you have done at least 30 dives over the past three years (36 months), and therefore wouldn't need to be "re-certified"

http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=99537


And the other is asking the question whether you favor re-certification itself.

http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=99514

The more SB members that answer the poll, the more accurate the results may be (I'll leave that to the statisticians 'cause I'm going diving this weekend)

 

[MikeFerrara]

Oh, Mike, you're testing me... and hypothetically becoming a prime candidate for re-cert!

There is NO question in my mind that more rigorous training would do a lot to reduce this problem. It still wouldn't take care of the divers who become "less fit" for diving or don't dive for extended periods of time.

Essentially there's no fitness requirement to become certified in the first place. A diver fills out a medical form. If they indicate that they have one or more of the listed contraindications they need a doctors signiture prior to participating.

Since there is not fitness requirement to become certified, how can there be one to remain certified?

I've been out of diving for extended periods over the past 44 years. When I got back in, I always started with relatively unchallenging dives, practiced my skills and got comfortable again before tackling a more challenging dive.

And keep in mind that although I like stamped log books (my collector mentality I guess), since I dive solo from shore much of the time, there are no buddies or witnesses to verify my log... just my honesty. Fortunately both of my LDS'es know how frequently I dive since they sell me air.

It doesn't sound like you needed a babysitter to get yourself through it.