gj62:
I don't have an answer for this.
I was in the water in Monterey, CA 3 days every week for almost 3 years and remember only 2 serious incidents where an ambulance was called - one turned out ok, 1 didn't. The 1 that didn't was ruled heart attack. I'm not counting the tired newbies getting towed, seasick diver gagging on their reg, etc, but even if I did I would not say it was an egregious amount.
This wasn't Caribbean diving either - water temp 50-55 in the winter, when the viz is better, 55 to 58 in summer. There are a number of protected beach entries, so that's usually not a big deal, but there are a few dives with rough shore entries. There's usually some amount of surge. Generally you didn't have current on shore dives, because most of the diving was in coves or bays. However, because there are more sites, we didn't see 100s of divers at any one site - the max I can think of would be about 50 - 75 on really busy days at the more popular sites.
My experience there, and in my travel diving since moving from Monterey, is that the frequency with which serious incidents occur at your locations is anomalous.
Don't get me wrong - this does not make it any less serious, but coupled with the report from the other diver after seeing your spot, it does make me wonder if it is not a local issue, as I said before.
I'm not arguing that there is not room for improvement - both in instructor oversight or class content. I just don't see it with the same sense of urgency that you do. I think that is predominantly due to our direct experience, rather than a fundamental difference in how you should approach diving.
Last I heard Laguna (sp?) beach averaged over a fatality per month.
But anyway, I usually try to draw the discussion away from death and injury statistics. As I say unless you have statistics to compare to it doesn't tell you anything.
I try to focus on the observed skill level and relate it to the training standards. For instance...is it any wonder that we so many divers on the bottom when most of the time in training is often spent on the bottom? Will that always result in your death? Certainly not but do we want to wallow in the silt and kick the crap out of every living thing where we dive? Certainly not.
So...when some one sugests that it can be done differently and yield better results...why the arguement especially when weak areas of the standards can be pointed to?
I have written many pages on this site pointing out inconsistancies or illogical aspects of the standards. Few people argue that it's the best way to teach diving. Many, though, argue that it's good enough because the death toll is acceptable.
Some do point out that the goal isn't to train good divers but "good enough" and to get lots of people in the water.
I guess I disagree with what constitutes "good enough" especially since it's so EASY to make a dramatic improvement.
I started out teaching exactly as I was taught to teach. OW, especially dive one was pure hell with divers sinking to the bottom, floating to the surface and siltouts so bad that I couldn't see students. As a new instructor I even got a stern lecture from a long time divemaster who was helping me on how important it was to keep an OW class moving to avoid those problems.
I started playing with different ways of doing things and stealing ideas from other instructors.
Now..on OW dive one every one is diving. We stop often and no one sinks into the silt or shoots to the surface. It's all about as easy as a thing could be. I'm sure there's more than one way to get there too. It doesn't take that much time or cost that much money. A little more up front work in the basics and everything that follows is so much easier and faster that it kind of averages out. The only reason people present for not doing it is that the fatality rate isn't too bad. ok
I really think it's just resistance to change. Diving is still taught mostly on the bottom as was required before the invention of the bc. Dive instruction is stuck in a rut and the agencies are strongly defending their position in that rut.
