What is the problem with doing a Scuba Review/Refresher?

[AfterDark]

Hi all,

A question that has been puzzling me for a while now. I work in a divecenter/resort that organizes daytrips (located outside of the US) and we have a pretty strict policy regarding Scuba Review/ Refresher which causes the occasional discussion with customers. Simply stated, we require proof of recent diving experience, and if someone hasn't been diving for more than 6 months* we ask of the customer to do a Scuba Review before joining the divetrip. They can either do the refreshere here before trip departure or on another location, whatever is most convenient for them.
For me, this seems like a very reasonable policy especially considered the fact that our dives are unguided (in the water, of course there's a DM/Instructor at hand giving a detailed briefing and helpin with dive planning if needed) so we need to be reasonably sure that everyone is up-to-date with their skill and knowledge about procedures.

What baffles me is the amount of people that insist that they do not need a refresher and refuse to do one. Interesting enough, it's mostly people with 10-20 dives and a gap of 8 months to 2 years (!) that feel like they don't need to do a scuba review, whereas that's the demographic that probably will have the most benefit from it.

I'm curious to know what the objections are against doing a Scuba Review and hope you can enlighten me. I really feel that we're not being unreasonable in our request (especially considering local liability policies which are quite different than, let's say, the US) and we're not asking an outrageous amount of money for a scuba review either. Any of you has been presented with this issue from a customer's perspective? What did you think? Do you refuse to do a refresher? Why?

*Of course we take experience level into account, there's a very gray area here that we have to take into account.

IMO diving is like riding a bicycle once you learn you never forget. I’ve had lapses of months even a year or two didn’t matter a wit. In fact any dive I make after a lapse are solo so I don’t ruin someone’s dive if I have issues.

If refreshers are required I only ask that the op be up front about it and the conditions that require it, so I can go somewhere else if I fall into those conditions. AfterDark don't do no refreshers.

 

[chrisch]

Oh, I was aware the DM was sizing me up; but it seems many other places require these refresher courses- demonstrating mastery of all the skills you learned in OW. Or checkout dives which are shallower dives than the regular dives. That first day, we dove the same profiles as we did the whole week. Now maybe if someone in the group proved to be a basket case in the first few minutes, we wouldn't have gone so deep? In my week of diving, while the DM never found out that I kind of freak when I lose my regulator or mask. Based on how day 1 to day 2 went, I think she ruled me fairly competent, as there were a lot less frequent air checks on day 2 (with some divers, she would actually look at the gauge for them). Now, she probably picked up on the fact that I might be a problem (I hold my mask and regulator to my face when in tight spaces with lots of other divers kicking around)- but the "checkout" of my skills really didn't say anything about how I might do in an emergency....

Thanks for sharing that and your honesty. Firstly, I hope you get chilled with the issue and good luck in the quarry. These are things you can overcome with a little patience and effort. Second, this reinforces my view of the so called "value" of the check out dive. You are adding weight to my view that it is more or less useless as a safety tool and exists just for the convenience of the DM/guide and the dive op.

 

[chillyinCanada]

Chrisch, I'm missing where most any of us thought the checkout dive was for anyone else's but the dm/guide and dive op? Many of us are just sayiing that we accept that the checkout dive is happening. I use it to my personal benefit to check my gear, my weighting, my attitude etc., get together know the dm/guides style . . .

The major objection is a requirement for a refresher.

 

[gypsyjim]

Thanks for sharing that and your honesty. Firstly, I hope you get chilled with the issue and good luck in the quarry. These are things you can overcome with a little patience and effort. Second, this reinforces my view of the so called "value" of the check out dive. You are adding weight to my view that it is more or less useless as a safety tool and exists just for the convenience of the DM/guide and the dive op.

Possibly for their own liability protection too?
Always tough on the bottom line if one of your divers offs them self on a trip they paid you $$ to do. Accepting their $$ can be seen as assuming responsibility for those you have taken diving......

.....so knowing before hand who is incompetent and or downright dangerous to themselves and others might be a valuable bit of information to have?

Just a thought.

 

[chrisch]

Chrisch, I'm missing where most any of us thought the checkout dive was for anyone else's but the dm/guide and dive op? ..

Fair enough - then they should pay for it

Possibly for their own liability protection too?...

That's the bit I struggle with too. Unless the dive is a proper, full, assessment I can't see how you can weed out those people likely to have problems from which a liability claim might arise.

Looking at the many responses from people that undertake these types of dives it appears to me to be a buoyancy based sorting process that allows the dive operator to group up people for their (dive op's) convenience. It's a chance - for those that take that route - to upsell some additional training. It's a chance for those visitors that need it to do a weight check and avoid the instabuddy from hell.

Have I got it? If so many thanks for solving a long running mystery for me! I think I will continue to avoid check out dives and the ops that use them.

 

[AfterDark]

Possibly for their own liability protection too?
Always tough on the bottom line if one of your divers offs them self on a trip they paid you $$ to do. Accepting their $$ can be seen as assuming responsibility for those you have taken diving......

.....so knowing before hand who is incompetent and or downright dangerous to themselves and others might be a valuable bit of information to have?

Just a thought.

Liability protection?!?! Who deemed them good for diving? A resort wants to approve someone's capabilities of diving, ok be carful what you ask for. If that someone is a relative mine and something happens to them on the dive, I'd be all over that resort for telling my relative he/she was capable of diving ! The resort approved the diving, the liability is with them!

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

Gee wiz Eric, I took a 3 day OW course several years ago. I was already comfortable in the water, and with my work schedule, it was the only way I could fit it in. Now after a couple hundred dives, I generally hover and let the wildlife come to me, scull around for a walk in the park, or sometimes I take a nap...seems like a pretty small hole you're stuffing all us pigeons (i.e. fakers and posers) into...

If you can go 6 months and not forget how to slide the BCD onto a tank, cinch it down, attach the reg, clear a mask, flood a mask and clear, take off the mask put it back on and clear, take a reg out of your mouth and recover/clear it, then you are not the person I'm talking about.
I also doubt you are the person I'm talking about since you care enough about diving to actually go onto a forum and read about and discuss diving.
The people I'm talking abouty are the ones who BARELY make it through open water. I've DM'd some classes where I've overheard some of the students on the beach after an intense skills dive say "God, I hope I never have to do that again!".
The comment should have been, "That was hard, but I think if I try it several more times on my own with my buddy I should be pretty good at it after a while".
I've seen divers of all levels pass OW. People with their eyes so big they look like dinner plates - one thing goes wrong and they bolt like a missle, on the edge the whole dive, blowing through air like a freeflow, flailing like a bird in the wind.

A poser is a person who gets into diving for reasons other that the diving itself. They will use the look as a costume or a front to get something besides a dive, usually a member of the opposite sex or to impress their peers and to gain status by doing an activity that is considered dangerous and adventurous.
They could care less about the actual nuts and bolt of diving, that is irrelevant. All they want is the image.

A faker is someone who gets into diving to please someone else but who's heart really isn't into it. These people will do anything to avoid disappointing a loved one or someone who is dominant. They too suck at skills because they really don't want to do it.
They fake that they like it and want to do it, but the sooner they forget everything about it the better off they'll be.

Scubarose, if you are going insist on everybody that's been out for 6 months or more to do tune up I think you are missing a critical point.
What you should be doing is checking everybody at least on the first dive that has been open water cerified in the last 6 months period.
I'll bet half of those people will have difficulty with several of the basic skills.
I think you are letting too many poor divers through and flagging off too many competent divers with your approach.
A 15 or 20 year veteran with 500 dives in cold water that has been out of the water for 2 years will more likely be a better diver than a newly certified diver with 20 dives that has been out for 2 months.

 

[Redshift]

I think the main problem people may have is the mandatory refresher course based on nothing else but the date of the last dive. What if their skills are still good? Not saying they won't deteriorate, but it will depend on the person. Maybe they'd take it more lightly after they had a check dive. And there could be also given a choice of instead having a personal guide. Then they could have a closer assistance and practice skills during normal dives and not have to lose time in class scenarios.

Check dives are more common and in some situations I'm not against them. Others are abusive. I went on a live aboard in the Red Sea and the first dive was a check dive. They didn't explicitly call it like that, but we all knew. It was in a shallow sheltered place. It was fine because we were all thick suit / dry suit, steel cylinder divers and going to a place where the dive configuration was different, so it was helpful for us. We were also be going to some places where there could be currents and deep dives so the DMs needed to see we were good enough for it.
On a different year, a group of friends of mine did also a live aboard and after that they had a couple extra days on a hotel where they could do some day dives. They required a check dive, in a very very shallow area and with mask clearing, reg retrieval exercises. That's not so easy to justify.
I also understand not taking unknown divers straight to more demanding spots, but I was once asked to do a shore check dive before being allowed on a boat dive. My 3rd OW course dive was already a boat dive and most of my dives are boat dives. I found it unacceptable and took my money elsewhere.

 

[chrisch]

This is a very interesting discussion. I am enjoying reading people's experiences. Thank you all for sharing.

Here's a thought for you. You go to a car hire company, present your licence and credit card and select the car you wish to hire. Should the car hire company - ask you when you last drove a car and if more than 6 months require you to take a refresher course - ask you to drive round the car park, parallel park and demonstrate an emergency stop before letting you take the car out - or, having seen your poor driving skills refuse to rent you the big sedan or SUV and insist you take a sub-compact?

Cars kill far more people than scuba diving.

 

[gypsyjim]

Liability protection?!?! Who deemed them good for diving? A resort wants to approve someone's capabilities of diving, ok be carful what you ask for. If that someone is a relative mine and something happens to them on the dive, I'd be all over that resort for telling my relative he/she was capable of diving ! The resort approved the diving, the liability is with them!

I imagine that if your loved one died on a dive you'd be all over the op, no matter what they did or did not do.

I am only suggesting that a resort or dive operator might want to have a simple way to quickly spot a "diver" they will have to keep an extra close eye on, to at least try to minimize their exposure to the exact sort of reaction you describe.

A simple "skill check", vs a full review class is a difference.

The skill check might just be a quick way to spot and head off potential problems, and probably would have no legal impact. My guess , of course.
I have done these skill checks several times at resorts, and while I did not find them intrusive or a problem, some divers did, and noisily stalked away and refused to dive with the op. Often a solo dive traveler, and so having to buddy up with insta-buddies, I for one always liked to listen to how other divers responded to this need for a check out session, I always picked a diver who cheerfullly set up their gear, and did the skills as a potential buddy. I strictly avoided any diver who was too good for those skill check, or saw them as beneath them, figuring I did NOT want to ever need to depend on them in the water.

On the other hand, I suspect that actually requiring the paid "class" for any diver who did not show current active participation in the sport, might be exactly what a lawyer would suggest to prevent someone like you being all over them if there should be an accident. Or, as some think, it could just be a way of boosting the bottom line ($$)