What does certification REALLY mean?

[Thalassamania]

I see that part of that information (listed below) is regarding the changes allowing recreational Instructors to teach nitrox.

"On February 17, 2004 (see Federal Register notice 69 FR 7351), OSHA amended 29 CFR Part 1910, Subpart T - ("Commercial Diving Operations"), to allow recreational diving instructors and diving guides to comply with an alternative set of requirements instead of the decompression chamber requirements in the existing 29 CFR Part 1910, Subpart T standards. The final rule applies only when these employees engage in recreational diving instruction and diving-guide duties; use an open-circuit, a semi-closed-circuit, or a closed-circuit self-contained underwater-breathing apparatus supplied with a breathing gas that has a high percentage of oxygen mixed with nitrogen; dive to a maximum depth of 130 feet of sea water; and remain within the no-decompression limits specified for the partial pressure of nitrogen in the breathing-gas mixture. This final rule became effective on March 18, 2004."

This is burocracy at it's best. It's scary to think that the government in it's infinite wisdom will ever be out of debt again. The pencil necked geeks have got those guidelines laid out so that you have to be a commercial operation to be able to keep it going.

If the government ever takes over recreational diving, the whole sport will not survive.

All of this, just to blow a few bubbles?

I know you Republicans love to blame "da gubberment," but you need to take that to the "Pub," and share it with PF, it happens to be against the TOS in this thread.

Actually this is not bureaucracy at it's best, it's the short sightedness of the agencies. OSHA asked them back in the 1970s when the original recreational exemption was being prepared, how they should differentiate between commercial divers and recreational instructors. The agencies suggested that recreational instructors do, no-D, 130 foot limit, open circuit, air only diving. That's what they got as a definition. Decompression was out, deeper than 130 was out, CCR was out, Surface supplied was out, any media except air was out. So don't blame the government for this one, the agencies got exactly what they asked for, they just asked for the wrong thing. I guess you don't remember when DEMA was opposed to NITROX and when the Cayman Chamber claimed (at the behest of the operators) that they couldn't treat someone who was hurt while diving anything other than air?

We in the science community felt that those sorts of limitations were short-sighted and so we developed an exemption that was based on the purpose of the dives, the type of work being done, the qualities of the divers, the administrative structure and the right to refuse to dive without penalty. We were able to protect our ability to use any equipment and any technique to any depth as long as our administrative structure (Diving Control Board with a major or it's members being scientific divers) concurred.

 

[Peter Guy]

Thal, any idea how many University programs there were in the 60's? Mine was at Washington State University but I don't know when it started (I took the class beginning in Sept. 1966).

 

[Thalassamania]

If you mean training programs, then it's just about every institution, even most J.C.s. If you mean programs that partook of the Scripps model, then there were many more than I knew of. Back in the 60s there was a "Scripps-ish" program on most every campus of the University of California system as well as the California State College system, Scripps, Woods Hole, Universities of Miami, Michigan, Washington, Puerto Rico, Delaware, Oregon, Maine, New Hampshire, Florida, Texas A&M, and Ohio State and many others that I did not know about.

 

[sweatfrog]

Actually this is not bureaucracy at it's best, it's the short sightedness of the agencies. OSHA asked them back in the 1970s when the original recreational exemption was being prepared, how they should differentiate between commercial divers and recreational instructors. The agencies suggested that recreational instructors do, no-D, 130 foot limit, open circuit, air only diving. That's what they got as a definition. Decompression was out, deeper than 130 was out, CCR was out, Surface supplied was out, any media except air was out. So don't blame the government for this one, the agencies got exactly what they asked for, they just asked for the wrong thing.

It seems to me that makes you part of the problem, since you were heavily involved with the agencies, at that time.

I guess you don't remember when DEMA was opposed to NITROX

Sure I do, it was persona non grata and very expensive to get classes from the few that would teach it.

and when the Cayman Chamber claimed (at the behest of the operators) that they couldn't treat someone who was hurt while diving anything other than air?

They wouldn't fill a nitrox tank, even if you were diving the Carrie Lee and wanted a stage bottle. There was no discussion about it. Any rogue diving could get you (as an operator) in trouble in a heartbeat.

We in the science community felt that those sorts of limitations were short-sighted and so we developed an exemption that was based on the purpose of the dives, the type of work being done, the qualities of the divers, the administrative structure and the right to refuse to dive without penalty. We were able to protect our ability to use any equipment and any technique to any depth as long as our administrative structure (Diving Control Board with a major or it's members being scientific divers) concurred.

That still limited those people to diving within that community. I've participated in a lot of sports that have cliques and that one sits right up there.

 

[Rhenry]

This is what happens when an industry does not have a set of standards. Too many problems arise and the government gets involved, and there you go into regulation and more control and more regulation until it takes an act of congress to buy a paperclip!!
The issue here is not what we want or don't want, nor is it what OSHA wants it is a mater of public safety. If the "public" does not see what we do as safe, there will be government intervention.
The only way to get out of this is for us as a group and the industry as a whole get behind this. We need a set of standards that ALL certifying agencies MUST follow and it must have teeth in its rules and regulations. If we had a uniform certification process with a set of safety standards built in we would not be in the lime light. The real issue is we all can't agree on what the standard should be, and nobody wants to get involved. This is a prime case for government intervention, when nobody steps up the government will. It will always be this way as long as we argue over everything and don't get involved.
We have an opportunity to come up with a set of standards and set the bar for certification. We have an opportunity to make a difference; it is up to us as a group here to play a major role. I am willing to bet there will not be too many takers, it is hard work, and you will not make everyone happy. The agencies will not be happy with you either, as they will have to step up to the plate or rick going out of business. In short it will be a messy job but in the end after all the crying ends we will be better off then where we are now.

 

[Thalassamania]

It seems to me that makes you part of the problem, since you were heavily involved with the agencies, at that time.

No, I was working rather hard on the science exemption, the agencies, in their infinite wisdom, did not take our advice and follow our model. If you care to go into the comment docket you can find the exact language that we recommended for the recreational exemption.

Sure I do, it was persona non grata and very expensive to get classes from the few that would teach it.

Back before the were agency "classes" I taught NITROX use for free.

That still limited those people to diving within that community. I've participated in a lot of sports that have cliques and that one sits right up there.

Science Diving is hardly a "clique" it is a separate and distinct community from which the separate and distinct recreational community sprang.

This is what happens when an industry does not have a set of standards. Too many problems arise and the government gets involved, and there you go into regulation and more control and more regulation until it takes an act of congress to buy a paperclip!!

You are right, regulation does not occur unless there are problems, disagreements and discord.

The issue here is not what we want or don't want, nor is it what OSHA wants it is a mater of public safety. If the "public" does not see what we do as safe, there will be government intervention.

OSHA is only involved in employer/employee situations, it happens that many diving instructors are employees and thus fall under their pervue. But you are right in general, there is no regulation unless the is a perception of unnecessary risk.

The only way to get out of this is for us as a group and the industry as a whole get behind this. We need a set of standards that ALL certifying agencies MUST follow and it must have teeth in its rules and regulations. If we had a uniform certification process with a set of safety standards built in we would not be in the lime light. The real issue is we all can't agree on what the standard should be, and nobody wants to get involved. This is a prime case for government intervention, when nobody steps up the government will. It will always be this way as long as we argue over everything and don't get involved.

The real issue is whose cash cow is going to get gored.

We have an opportunity to come up with a set of standards and set the bar for certification. We have an opportunity to make a difference; it is up to us as a group here to play a major role. I am willing to bet there will not be too many takers, it is hard work, and you will not make everyone happy. The agencies will not be happy with you either, as they will have to step up to the plate or rick going out of business. In short it will be a messy job but in the end after all the crying ends we will be better off then where we are now.

What makes you think that there is any sort of "opportunity?" I sure don't see one. And if past history is any measure (just look at the OSHA thing) then we know that the recreational industry is rather short sighted.

 

[rstofer]

This is what happens when an industry does not have a set of standards.

There is RTSC which is a member organization that several agencies belong to. Presumably they play a part in whatever the standards are for member agencies.

So, we do have standards. They may not match what someone might consider ideal but they are standards.

The thing is, there is no problem. We don't lose a lot of new divers and experienced divers die from doing things no noob would ever consider. Is there any proof that training to a higher standard would result in fewer fatalities? Not subjective "well it must be true" but actual, concrete, fact. What specific skills would an agency need to teach to prevent fatalities among experienced divers?

In fact, if you follow that line of thought, you would outlaw deep, cave and wreck diving immediately. These are all high risk dives and they do account for more than their share of accidents.

Too many problems arise and the government gets involved, and there you go into regulation and more control and more regulation until it takes an act of congress to buy a paperclip!!

Has there been any discussion by any governmental agency wanting to get involved with recreational diving? There may be, of course, but I haven't heard it. There just isn't a problem that needs to be solved.

That the current standards seem low to some divers on SB isn't really relevant. The industry has an association. Member agencies jointly develop whatever standards there are and, hopefully, adhere to those standards. Membership is not compulsory - NAUI isn't a member. But there is no reason to believe that the NAUI standards are any different than PADIs.

In terms of OW certification, there are a few compulsory skills and that's about it. Do the skills required by the agency to the satisfaction of the instructor and you are certified. Simple as that! If a student wants to learn more skills, they can take AOW, Rescue, specialties, DM, whatever. It's all available. But it isn't compulsory.

This whole issue is a tempest in a tea pot. There is no problem, nobody can show from the DAN statistics that there is a problem and, by and large, diving is safe with the existing standards. If there was any chance a lawyer could show that PADI was negligent, there would be lawsuits flooding the industry. There aren't. If there were, you wouldn't be able to buy training from any agency.

There's nothing to see.. Just move along...

Richard

 

[Thalassamania]

Your making the classic mistake of assuming that fatalities are the best measure of the existence of a problem. If we all love to dive and can only get 10% or so of our students to keep at it, I'd say that something's very wrong.

The RSTC is nothing, nothing at all. A shill and a sham. It represents the lowest common denominator of standards as shared by all of its members, it does not set the bar ... it lowers it.


Anyone with an interest in this topic should read these posts: 1, 2.

 

[rstofer]

Your making the classic mistake of assuming that fatalities are the best measure of the existence of a problem. If we all love to dive and can only get 10% or so of our students to keep at it, I'd say that something's very wrong.

But that's a personal choice on the part of the diver. It isn't necessarily related to agency standards. In fact, dramatically higher standards might eliminate more candidates before they ever get started. That 440 in 12 minutes seems a little excessive. Not a lot of people swim at that level.

It could be that something else interests them more. Maybe they like sailing as we do. Maybe it's golf. The interest in the sport just isn't there or it loses when compared to other activities.

Maybe the issue is money. Scuba diving has to be one of the all time expensive personal sports. No, it's not anything like sailing but I imagine it exceeds the cost of many other sports. Or maybe the perceived benefit of diving doesn't exceed its' cost. The money goes elsewhere.

Perhaps the sport is too strenuous. I realize that there are ways to limit the physical impact of diving but beach entries isn't one of them. Wearing a 20# weight belt and a 40# pack over 1/4" of rubber isn't the way a lot of people want to spend their time off. Visiting a chiropractor 3 or 4 times a week can certainly be off-putting.

Or just maybe they don't care for some of the personalities they encounter along the way. Shop operators, instructors and other divers may not be the types of people they want to hang out with.

Perhaps they are afraid of the sport. Much of that can be overcome with training and experience. But the new student may never get that far simply because of the other issues above.

One way to overcome the fear factor (for lack of a better term) is more education. It would be nice if everyone could agree that AOW comes the week after OW as a matter of practice. NAUI used to have the right idea: OW I, OW II, Advanced Open Water. These 3 classes, taken in immediate succession, had the student doing about 15 dives with an instructor before they started diving on their own. I realize not everyone agrees that taking the courses back to back is a good idea. But I think it does a lot to build confidence. The Rescue course should follow as soon as possible; the goal being self-rescue.

OW is never going to be expanded to cover the contents of the NAUI sequence. But that doesn't mean new divers should not be encouraged to take the classes as quickly as possible. It seems that some shops offer OW a couple of times a month but AOW less often. Certainly there is a little filtering going on but I wonder if they are really trying their best to sell AOW. After all, the equipment sales occurs during, or shortly after, OW.

The RSTC is nothing, nothing at all. A shill and a sham. It represents the lowest common denominator of standards as shared by all of its members, it does not set the bar ... it lowers it.


Anyone with an interest in this topic should read these posts: 1, 2.

I agree! It just provides cover by having an industry association.

Even though NAUI is not a member, they have realigned their program to match PADI. That is unfortunate. One way they could have differentiated their product was to maintain the original sequence. Around here (south of Sacramento), NAUI doesn't have a presence AFAICT. That's too bad! I would like to have my grandson certify with them. But that might be nostalgia. There may be no difference between PADI & NAUI at this point.

I think there are a lot of reasons people don't continue with the sport. If I had originally certified at La Jolla or Monterey, I would never have continued. In fact, based on doing a little skin diving at La Jolla as a teenager, I was able to stay away for quite a long time. There's not a lot to recommend diving in cold water from the beach and not everyone lives in Florida, or wants to.

If continuity is the concern, I'm not sure that higher agency standards are the answer. I think the higher standards would just filter out the less dedicated candidates and the result would be fewer divers that hang around longer. But they were always going to hang around. The less dedicated never bothered to get certified in the first place. Oh, and they would never have bought gear and that's really what OW training is about; gear sales.

Richard

 

[rstofer]

Maybe new divers aren't made to feel welcome. It's that way in a lot of organizations.

Look at the polls and threads around SB. Nobody wants to dive with a new diver. If they have less than 50 or 100 dives, they are considered to be a less than welcome dive buddy. There are a couple of obvious reasons for this and at least one makes sense: the more experienced diver really doesn't want to take on the responsibility of mentoring a new diver and providing their backup plan. They have their own interests in diving and mentoring isn't it.

I know there are thoughtful and caring divers that are more than willing to help new divers. Fortunately, there are these kinds of people in every activity. But they are the minority. The majority are in it for themselves. They paid for the boat trip and they want to dive. They don't want to have the dive cut short and they certainly don't want to do a lot of handholding.

Or, maybe they did the handholding a couple of times with less than satisfactory results. I'm sure we all have tales about this subject. Never again!

The result is that new divers get paired with other new divers and we have the blind leading the blind. That is not the kind of thing that inspires confidence on the part of a new diver.

Dive clubs might be a help but I imagine they operate the same as any other club where there are natural pairings, long term relationships or cliques within the organization (perhaps based on interests) and, again, the new member isn't made to feel welcome. It is certainly that way in the boating business: sailing clubs and the like.

The answer is probably more education. If the new diver would just take OW, AOW & Rescue as quickly as possible, their skill level would increase dramatically. They would automatically be considered a more suitable dive buddy. Take a bunch of specialties! Not for the topic but for the supervised dives. Get the skill level up and get the dive count up.

But, it's self-defeating. Nobody wants to dive with a new diver and by the time the new diver has taken enough classes and has gained enough experience to be a suitable buddy, they don't want to dive with new divers either!

It takes real dedication to get to 100 dives. It isn't the diving, it's the hoops.

I don't have any suggestions on how to solve this issue. I really believe more supervised dives is part of the solution and I think dive clubs have a serious role to play.

But it isn't the agency's fault!

Richard