The Philosophy of Diver Training

[DCBC]

Why is it necessary to have a formal assessment of every blessed thing you put in the course?

When we talk about equipment, I take them through the shop and show them all the options available to them. They see jacket BCDs, Back inflate BCDs, and Backplate and wings. They see all manner of fins. We talk about different kinds of masks. We discuss computer choices. I show them different kinds of wet suits and dry suits. I show them the difference between different alternate air setups, including long hoses and bungeed necklaces.

I do not give them a final exam on this to document that I did it. It is not mentioned in the standards.

Wayne, it is not necessary to have a written exam on every bit of value you add to the course. Furthermore, it is actually possible for a student to learn something without a formal written exam.

I'm aware of this. As I mentioned in a previous post, the areas of formal assessment for me are those areas that touch upon safety. Some examples are: air embolism, DCS, narcosis, gas management, panic and in my area tide tables. If the diver is injured or killed, it is likely that these things (and others) are likely involved.

In the case of liability, the instructor will be asked specifically how he addressed these issues. Moreover, how he determined that the Student understood these hazards and the steps he took to reasonably prepare himself for such an eventuality. In my program, I assess everything (although sometimes the assessment is without the student's knowledge). I go over these with the student in the pool before OW, in full gear to my satisfaction.

If I was asked how I prepared the diver to deal with an OOA situation, I would provide a written exercise on gas management, SAR calculations and projected gas usage for a different depth (this is compared to the actual dive and logged). The student is debriefed as part of normal procedures. I would show the check sheet for the student involving: How many times I noticed him check his tank pressure on an OW dive etc., buddy distance errors during the program (they must always be within touching distance unless otherwise directed), u/w communication, buoyancy control, sharing-air D/R (stationary, horizontal and vertical), buddy breathing D/R (stationary, horizontal and vertical), etc. There would be little doubt that when the diver is certified, that I will meet any reasonable standard of care.

When I first started teaching, I didn't do this to such an extent. When I was with DCIEM, I was asked to serve as an expert witness in a number of diving fatalities. Since then, I was much more aggressive about my record keeping; enhancing the number and types of records I keep. Perhaps I'm also more attentive, as I make my livelihood in the diving industry. I can't afford any problems.

 

[Walter]

So the instructor used poor judgment in his additions to the course content.

No. The instructor in your example did not add to standards, he violated them. There's a big difference.

Is it possible to use similar bad judgment in making such decisions without violating specific standards, as that one section of my scenario did? In other words, would you defend an instructor who added instruction that you thought to be dangerous and unnecessary if it did not violate a specific standard?

Tell me the situation, I'll give you an answer.

 

[boulderjohn]

Tell me the situation, I'll give you an answer.

Since I would be using my imagination without knowing SEI standards, let's pool our imaginations.

I just want to know if it is possible for an instructor to use what you would consider poor judgment in adding to standards and thus produce a situation you yourself would not support, or would you support any decision by an instructor as long as it does not specifically violate a standard.

 

[boulderjohn]

All this talk about standards, legal liability, and altitude has had me thinking of a question I have been wanting to ask but have not because it is something of a hijack, but perhaps it is not possible to hijack a thread at this point.

We have talked about whether an instructor can be held liable for a decision outside of established agency standards. What if the decision was within those standards but outside of other agencies' standards?

My thoughts are triggered by a true story and a "what if..." afterthought.

True Story

Recently a student in an agency we have not been discussing planned a dive under instructor supervision and followed that approved plan. When the dive was completed, he and his buddy packed up and drove home, again with the knowledge and approval of the instructor. The dive was at about 5,000 feet altitude, but the dive plan did not make any adjustment for that because the agency says that altitude is not a significant factor in diving and does not believe in making any adjustments for it. The drive home included a mountain pass, but, again, the change in altitude is not considered important by this agency.

During the student's first Navy 6 treatment for DCS, the doctor treating him gave him a copy of Bruce Weinke's book on altitude and diving to read while he was in the chamber. He got lectures from the doctor on the impact of altitude on diving and in the the time following a dive on each of his four chamber rides. After the last chamber ride he had only some residual numbness in a fingertip. End of story.

What if....

What if he had not recovered and had sued? The instructor was acting completely within his agency's standards. The expert witnesses provided by the opposition might include Bruce Weinke himself, representatives from DAN, and possibly key experts from every major agency. The NOAA ascent to altitude tables would be provided in evidence. The instructor would have representatives from his agency saying that they disagreed with these known experts, but what would a jury think?

 

[TechBlue]

All this talk about standards, legal liability, and altitude has had me thinking of a question I have been wanting to ask but have not because it is something of a hijack, but perhaps it is not possible to hijack a thread at this point.

We have talked about whether an instructor can be held liable for a decision outside of established agency standards. What if the decision was within those standards but outside of other agencies' standards?

My thoughts are triggered by a true story and a "what if..." afterthought.

True Story

Recently a student in an agency we have not been discussing planned a dive under instructor supervision and followed that approved plan. When the dive was completed, he and his buddy packed up and drove home, again with the knowledge and approval of the instructor. The dive was at about 5,000 feet altitude, but the dive plan did not make any adjustment for that because the agency says that altitude is not a significant factor in diving and does not believe in making any adjustments for it. The drive home included a mountain pass, but, again, the change in altitude is not considered important by this agency.

During the student's first Navy 6 treatment for DCS, the doctor treating him gave him a copy of Bruce Weinke's book on altitude and diving to read while he was in the chamber. He got lectures from the doctor on the impact of altitude on diving and in the the time following a dive on each of his four chamber rides. After the last chamber ride he had only some residual numbness in a fingertip. End of story.

What if....

What if he had not recovered and had sued? The instructor was acting completely within his agency's standards. The expert witnesses provided by the opposition might include Bruce Weinke himself, representatives from DAN, and possibly key experts from every major agency. The NOAA ascent to altitude tables would be provided in evidence. The instructor would have representatives from his agency saying that they disagreed with these known experts, but what would a jury think?

In the USA that would be a no brainer, the insurance companies would go after the deepest pockets, the agency, the instructor (and everybody else within range) would be dragged in as part of the process, but he was following standards. The waivers that students sign have become so CYA for "everybody" that I am surprised that anybody with a sane mind would sign one. But there again we are talking about a legal system that will allow you to be sued for trying to save somebody's life.

 

[boulderjohn]

In the USA that would be a no brainer, the insurance companies would go after the deepest pockets, the agency, the instructor (and everybody else within range) would be dragged in as part of the process, but he was following standards. The waivers that students sign have become so CYA for "everybody" that I am surprised that anybody with a sane mind would sign one. But there again we are talking about a legal system that will allow you to be sued for trying to save somebody's life.

I'm not sure you answered the question. He was following one agency's standards, but those standards are totally different from the standards of other agencies. Would he be safe if the opposition argues that the agency's standards are wrong, and that a reasonable person should know that?

 

[TechBlue]

I believe that I did, by blindly/absolutely following the agencies standards which seems to be the prerequisite for the instructor to be protected by said agency and their insurance, is your question legal or moral?

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

Positive buoyancy and CESA are self-rescue skills. Tired diver assists as just that, assists. If you reread my statement, you will find that I was talking about sub-surface unconscious/conscious rescue skills.

Why would I need to do that? Rescue is a part of every other initial diver training program that I'm aware of.

Could someone please list all the training agencies that require sub-surface unconscious rescue skills in their beginning open water training?

Or maybe just a list of the training agencies that don't require sub-surface unconscious rescue skills in their beginning open water training?

 

[boulderjohn]

I believe that I did, by blindly/absolutely following the agencies standards which seems to be the prerequisite for the instructor to be protected by said agency and their insurance, is your question legal or moral?

I guess it is true that he would be covered by the insurance. I was wondering if he would win the case.

 

[InTheDrink]

To mix things up a little, here's another slant.

The mortality rate from scuba diving is pretty small, even if training standards are low, in some people's opinions. People aren't dying in large numbers - to the contrary, despite how they look in the water, they're abjectly refusing to die

So there's no big death problem (if there is - someone please correct me)

Now, if there's no big death problem then getting more divers involved can only be a good thing, in my view. The more people that have some understanding of the world beneath the water the better. It will raise awareness of our mutual interdependence and perhaps reduce or slow the pace at which we are killing it.

So, on that basis alone, I'm kinda up for lax training standards. Kinda.

I don't want people to die, and they're not. Not in any numbers of significance.

And I want people to start understanding what they risk losing by unsustainable fishing, of whatever variety. Diving *seems* like a good starting ground.

My only concern is when diver training isn't good enough to keep the interest whetted. People drop out a lot. But this may well be because diving requires more committment that other activities. Who knows.

Agencies can and should provide the minimum to get people going. Same way with driving a car. Your driving test doesn't involve dealing with all sorts of emergencies. That's called advanced driving 1 or 2.

J