Why ‘everyone is responsible for their own risk-based decisions’ isn’t the right approach to take

[boulderjohn]

The new AOW diver never was neutrally buoyant, swam the entire time mostly vertical. Never once horizontal in the water and neutrally buoyant. In that case I question why the instructor would take someone with such poor skills to that depth? "You should take the AOW course and then you can see the wreck - it beautiful". The answer is easy to figure out - Money. Money for a cert they shouldn't have taken. Money for a dive they shouldn't have been on.

One of the problems with scuba diving is that in determining if the planned dive is within the diver's limits, many divers (especially newer ones) don't really have enough information, and they have to reply on the advice of others. It is not like skiing, where the trail map identifies the difficulty level of each run, or mountain climbing, where a standard system is used to rate the difficulty of climbs.

In my first years of diving, I was primarily a vacation diver, and I took many (not all) of those vacations in Cozumel. For the first years, I used the dive operator at the place I stayed. The only problem I had with them is that they catered almost exclusively to hotel guests, and they were mostly vacation divers, too. Because of that, they dived the basic, run-of-the mill sites pretty much every time, and as my skills grew, so did my desire to visit some of the more challenging sites. Another such diver and I asked if we could dive the Devil's Throat (enter the swim-through at 95 feet; exit at 125), and the operator said he would try to find enough people to fill out the trip. The next day there were 5 of us on the boat, headed for the Devil's Throat. We had a great dive, and we were enthused when we were done. On the boat during the trip back, we learned that two of the divers, a young married couple, had agreed to do the dive when the operator told them what a great site it was. It was deeper than they had been told they should dive on their first dive after getting OW certification, but the operator convinced them it would be no problem. They actually were just fine on the dive, but it did not have to be that way.

 

[KenGordon]

It seems it's rather simplistic to me. There are a lot of vectors that cause accidents and I don't know of any study that supports your claim. That's not to say that ignoring training isn't a problem, but then why blame the instructor?

Violations of safe diving practices among 122 diver fatalities | Shreeves | International Maritime Health or you can read the commentary on almost any BSAC annual incident report.

Here, from 2008,

“As has been stated many times before, most of the incidents reported within this document could have been avoided had those involved followed a few basic principles of safe diving practice.”

Along with the physical skills an instructor ought to impart a proper attitude. That attitude includes taking account of the fact that you don’t know what you don’t know (scuba cliche no 69) and should not exceed your training and experience and should follow the training.

I don’t just blame instructors by the way, I blame the systems they operate within. The instructors are subject to pressures which don’t line up with doing the right thing. Some of those are caused by the customers wanting cheap courses, but those customers are not in a position to understand that 3 or 4 day courses are too short.

 

[Norwegian Cave Diver]

My primary training comes from the PADI system. One thing that is lacking - IMO - is a course on Buoyancy - Trim - Propulsion - that could be added as dive # 5 for an open water class. Not looking for perfection in that class - just an introduction to the idea of swimming horizontal - how not swimming horizontal affects your buoyancy when your swimming and when you slow down or stop. Second PADI should teach fin pivot and then transition to being horizontal - instead of the ridiculous - never to be useful again - crossed legs neutral buoyancy thing.

 

[Dive Sitnalta]

Whats the source for this graphic? I'd love to steal it...

 

[Rred]

Well, GLOC, I would say that your story does not reflect on "who should make the choices" it reflects on the sometimes poor standards that some diving organizations set. Most commercial courses are run by dive shops, who only make money if everyone gets certified, everyone then needs to buy gear, everyone then needs to book trips. Everyone must pass! And in order to do that, standards are compromised, and the course material is dumbed down into bite-size nuggets.

I got lucky, I took SCUBA as a college gym course, taught by the head of the aquatics program, who had been a gen-you-whine D-day USN frogman. His emphasis was on knowing what you were doing, and he was candid about "Not everyone will pass." In fact, half the students didn't show up for the first pool session because they were a bit intimidated. (And you needed seniority to even sign up for the class, it was always a sellout.)

The course was sanctioned by a local NASDS school, which did the certifying at the end. My C-Card never said "Open Water" or "Basic" or "Advanced" or anything else. It said CERTIFIED DIVER, period. And we were taught, again and again, this is how easily you can get killed, and here are at least three ways to get out of any situation. AND, these are the limits and if you stay inside them, you'll probably not get bent.

When I started diving, it was because I ran into a neighbor who was unloading tanks from his trunk, so I fell in with him and other members of a local "college" diving club. Which had been affiliated with the local YMCA and a PADI shop for many years. And I came to learn that PADI offered literally a sleeve full of patches for specialities--that were all covered in my perhaps not so basic training. Did I need a specialty course for night diving? Hell no, blackout diving was part of our course. Navigation and obstacle, with a blackout mask. Whether that was the frogman's doing or NASDS, I don't know. (If anyone remembers, by all means chime in.) Then there was the day we each had to bring in a bottle of soda. Coke, Nehi, whatever. You opened it on the surface, put your thumb over the top, and had to go sit on the bottom of the pool, DRINK THE SODA, and then send the empty bottle up before you surfaced. If you couldn't do that...come back and try again, or you don't pass. (And my poor buddy had a small thumb, so her bottle just kept getting lighter and lighter but never quite emptying.)

And a big hot button: NASDS required "harassment training" in the pool. ANYthing goes, if one of the instructors could panic you and you broke surface with air still in your tank--you didn't pass. Sneak up behind you, turn off your air. Rip off your mask. Buddy breath--and refuse to give the regulator back. You name it. NASDS logic was "If you're gonna panic, you shouldn't be diving." PADI and others said "Yeah, but that's too dangerous." NASDS logic was "Sure, someone could drown, but wouldn't you rather find that out IN THE POOL with rescue at hand?"

It wasn't all about certifying divers, the way a sausage factory pushes out sausage.

Have I made mistakes? Sure. Have I perhaps been luckier than some of those club members, at least one of whom gave up diving after a regulator diaphragm failed and she panicked and spent the day in a chamber? Sure.

But there is a wide variety in training standards, even with "standards". If someone is certified as a *diver* they are the first and last word, they are the divemaster, no matter who else has an opinion. That's what it is about. Not "apprentice diver", not "junior diver", but DIVER.

With that comes the responsibility to know what you are getting into. And if you haven't been trained that far? Well, maybe re-examine what you're paying for.

I've also got a driver's license. And funny thing? I KNOW that doesn't qualify me to drive at Indy. That's still me choice, my responsibility. And my training.

So, you know, the nice guy on the boat says surface with 1000# in my tank? No thanks, I'll surface with half of that without any qualms. And if that means surface swimming to the boat, or pulling the tank down to 300#? I don't care if they're unhappy, that's my choice. On the surface, that's more air than I'll need. My choice.

 

[Schwob]

It sure would be nice if somewhere in the constitution early on maybe, it also said:
The burden of adulthood is that thou shalt be responsible for your own actions and their consequences. Period. Don't like it, buy insurance or don't act.
Sorry, I know it ain't so...

 

[The Chairman]

“As has been stated many times before, most of the incidents reported within this document could have been avoided had those involved followed a few basic principles of safe diving practice.”

Yet, you chose to use the word "ignored". There are many vectors that cause a diver to "not follow" basic principles. I don't believe that "ignored" is the best word to use there. Here's a case in point:

One thing that is lacking - IMO - is a course on Buoyancy - Trim - Propulsion - that could be added as dive # 5 for an open water class.

This user feels that trim/buoyancy/propulsion should be a dive number five where I feel it should start at the very beginning in the pool and be a part of each and every dive in OW.

These are but two, out of a plethora of ideologies as to how important trim, buoyancy and propulsion are to safe scuba much less how to teach them. How many accidents are attributable to being out of control? I've no idea, but I think it would be quite a few. As an industry, we haven't even agreed on what is adequate for OW divers in this regard. I'm certain that one reason none of my students have been injured is my attention to this skill.

We understand the diver/student/customer suffers the injury. But who is RESPONSIBLE?

I want to readdress this point. My concept of "responsibility" lies within the determination of who pays the bill. Yes, we live in a litigious society that wishes to assign blame to anyone but the individual who made the mistake. The person who really "pays" the bill in any accident is the one who pays with their blood and tears. I make sure that my students understand this and realise that they should establish, understand and honor their limits. Safe diving is no accident.

 

[boulderjohn]

Well, GLOC, I would say that your story does not reflect on "who should make the choices" it reflects on the sometimes poor standards that some diving organizations set. Most commercial courses are run by dive shops, who only make money if everyone gets certified, everyone then needs to buy gear, everyone then needs to book trips. Everyone must pass! And in order to do that, standards are compromised, and the course material is dumbed down into bite-size nuggets.

I got lucky, I took SCUBA as a college gym course, taught by the head of the aquatics program, who had been a gen-you-whine D-day USN frogman. His emphasis was on knowing what you were doing, and he was candid about "Not everyone will pass." In fact, half the students didn't show up for the first pool session because they were a bit intimidated. (And you needed seniority to even sign up for the class, it was always a sellout.)

The course was sanctioned by a local NASDS school, which did the certifying at the end. My C-Card never said "Open Water" or "Basic" or "Advanced" or anything else. It said CERTIFIED DIVER, period. And we were taught, again and again, this is how easily you can get killed, and here are at least three ways to get out of any situation. AND, these are the limits and if you stay inside them, you'll probably not get bent.

When I started diving, it was because I ran into a neighbor who was unloading tanks from his trunk, so I fell in with him and other members of a local "college" diving club. Which had been affiliated with the local YMCA and a PADI shop for many years. And I came to learn that PADI offered literally a sleeve full of patches for specialities--that were all covered in my perhaps not so basic training. Did I need a specialty course for night diving? Hell no, blackout diving was part of our course. Navigation and obstacle, with a blackout mask. Whether that was the frogman's doing or NASDS, I don't know. (If anyone remembers, by all means chime in.) Then there was the day we each had to bring in a bottle of soda. Coke, Nehi, whatever. You opened it on the surface, put your thumb over the top, and had to go sit on the bottom of the pool, DRINK THE SODA, and then send the empty bottle up before you surfaced. If you couldn't do that...come back and try again, or you don't pass. (And my poor buddy had a small thumb, so her bottle just kept getting lighter and lighter but never quite emptying.)

And a big hot button: NASDS required "harassment training" in the pool. ANYthing goes, if one of the instructors could panic you and you broke surface with air still in your tank--you didn't pass. Sneak up behind you, turn off your air. Rip off your mask. Buddy breath--and refuse to give the regulator back. You name it. NASDS logic was "If you're gonna panic, you shouldn't be diving." PADI and others said "Yeah, but that's too dangerous." NASDS logic was "Sure, someone could drown, but wouldn't you rather find that out IN THE POOL with rescue at hand?"

It wasn't all about certifying divers, the way a sausage factory pushes out sausage.

Have I made mistakes? Sure. Have I perhaps been luckier than some of those club members, at least one of whom gave up diving after a regulator diaphragm failed and she panicked and spent the day in a chamber? Sure.

But there is a wide variety in training standards, even with "standards". If someone is certified as a *diver* they are the first and last word, they are the divemaster, no matter who else has an opinion. That's what it is about. Not "apprentice diver", not "junior diver", but DIVER.

With that comes the responsibility to know what you are getting into. And if you haven't been trained that far? Well, maybe re-examine what you're paying for.

I've also got a driver's license. And funny thing? I KNOW that doesn't qualify me to drive at Indy. That's still me choice, my responsibility. And my training.

So, you know, the nice guy on the boat says surface with 1000# in my tank? No thanks, I'll surface with half of that without any qualms. And if that means surface swimming to the boat, or pulling the tank down to 300#? I don't care if they're unhappy, that's my choice. On the surface, that's more air than I'll need. My choice.

Are you sure NASDS required all of that, or was it your individual instructor going beyond the requirements of the course because he had all that extra time?

I ask for two reasons.

1. I took a week-long workshop from the last owner of NASDS (now with SSI), and he spent a lot of time talking NASDS history, and I did not get the sense that the requirements then were really any different from other agencies.
2. Check the very detailed threads on the famed case of Gabe and Tina Watson. Tina was a newly certified diver in Australia, who died at the beginning of her first dive while he husband failed to save her. His efforts to save her were so very inept that he was actually accused of murder. Expert analysis, however, showed that she was so startlingly inept as new diver that she simply could not handle achieving buoyancy immediately upon upon entering the water and began to sink uncontrollably. Her husband's failure to save her was finally determined to be because he was so very, very incompetent. Tina had been recently certified as a diver by NASDS. Gabe was a certified NASDS Rescue Diver.

 

[Mr Carcharodon]

When did this you can only dive to 60 FSW with OW happen? As far as I can recall PADI certified us to dive to 130 FSW (40 MSW) from the beginning even if going immediately to that depth was not recommended. My certification happened circa 2000 so maybe things has changed. When did it change?

 

[drrich2]

This may be a philosophical/ideological/political thing. Part of being an “individualist” is this idea of personal responsibility and a distrust of authority.

Very much so. The OP articulately explained why placing responsibility on the diver is not the best rational way to achieve an optimal outcome...if diver safety (assuming serious injury & fatality correlate strongly to accepted low-risk diving practices) is the only 'good' considered.

Of course, other 'goods,' such as enjoyment, broadening one's experience (getting to go on more types of dives), self-actualization and self-determination (fulfillment and having liberty to make your own decisions about what to attempt to do) are also 'goods' in the view of many.

Sometimes optimally pursuing these 'goods' are in conflict; witness the efforts of some to get the Eagle's Nest dive site in Florida closed; the basic idea seemed to be that if it's open, some unqualified divers taking excessive, unwise risks (a.k.a. 'fools' to some, I believe) will go there and get themselves killed. Society can prevent that by preventing everyone from diving it. But should they?

It's also reminiscent of the debates we've had on threads hashing out the medical disclaimer questionnaires; do you withhold info. (i.e.: answer 'no' to everything) or provide the info., empowering (or obligating) the dive op. to exclude you from diving with them, at least unless you jump through the hoops they demand?

It's true the conventional concept of personal responsibility for one's own decisions often assumes one either has the means to make an informed decision, or the resources available to consult and acquire that knowledge (ideally knowing it might be wise to do so).

It's also true that 'responsibility' often translates to 'liability' in the real world, and if you make someone besides the diver responsible, someone besides the diver will be making the decisions...and some of us value our liberty more than that.

Safety is very important. It's not the only 'good' influencing views, though.

Richard.