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

[oldschoolto]

This sounds like the lawyers that would try and get me to testify against dropzones and instructors when a person died skydiving.. "The poor person didn't know jumping out of a airplane could lead to their death"

And I can't understand how you can be a fighter pilot and not understand or want to understand the risks of scuba diving...

Jim...

 

[boulderjohn]

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?

As someone who has been a professional since not too long after you were certified, I can assure you that nothing has changed. What is going on here is a difference in how people understand and communicate their understandings, how things are remembered, and how concepts are understood.

Then, as now, people were/are initially certified within certain limits, including depth. The depth then and now was a maximum of 60 feet. Then and now, people are told to stay within the limits of their training and then extend them through training and experience. It is important to understand that in that context, the word "and" includes the concept of "or." Training, experience, or both can be used to extend your limits. The recommended limits for people with AOW, both then and now, was/is 100 feet. The final limit for all recreational divers, then and now, is 130 feet. Beyond that, you are in the realm of technical diving.

 

[oldschoolto]

So sh

As someone who has been a professional since not too long after you were certified, I can assure you that nothing has changed. What is going on here is a difference in how people understand and communicate their understandings, how things are remembered, and how concepts are understood.

Then, as now, people were/are initially certified within certain limits, including depth. The depth then and now was a maximum of 60 feet. Then and now, people are told to stay within the limits of their training and then extend them through training and experience. It is important to understand that in that context, the word "and" includes the concept of "or." Training, experience, or both can be used to extend your limits. The recommended limits for people with AOW, both then and now, was/is 100 feet. The final limit for all recreational divers, then and now, is 130 feet. Beyond that, you are in the realm of technical diving.

So hunting lionfish at 190' is Tech hunting... LOL...

 

[boulderjohn]

So sh


So hunting lionfish at 190' is Tech hunting... LOL...

If you are incurring a decompression obligation, then by most definitions you are outside the realm of recreational diving. With almost all decompression algorithms, any time spent at 190 feet demands a decompression stop. With PADI, which wa the context of the question, it is definitely true.

 

[Rred]

John-
I'm sure the Coke (and the day we chased some poor goldfish around!) were not in the NASDS curriculum. I have no way to check on whether the blackout diving was. The harassment training was NASDS, it was discussed as being a point of dispute between them and most other agencies at the time.
Part of the point is that most courses are under time pressure (time is money, instructors have the gaul to want to be paid) and a basic c-card these days seems to just mean "Can play in still water but is ready for more instruction." As opposed to what is now called AOW.

 

[Steve_C]

Expecting quality for next to nothing is a malignancy.

Price is loosely associated with quality. An instructor charging more or less does not make the instructor better or worse. If the instructor works for a shop the extra money may go to the shop rather than the instructor anyway.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

Believe it or not, a lot of research by a lot of different scientists and experts in the field has gone into the curriculums of current open water training. As has marketing strategy, time frames for completing OW, the amount of info that can be absorbed by a student in that time frame, and the limitations placed upon the amount that can be achieved in that time frame. There is a lot to balance out, it’s complicated and a lot of highly respected people have made many contributions to what is current training.

In a perfect world, the instructor teaches the material thoroughly as written by the agency. The student reads through all the material and understands it, then takes the class and performs all the skills, then gets OW certified.
The student should have enough knowledge to safely dive within the limitations of that training. Once the student leaves the class and begins diving on their own, neither the agency or the instructor have direct control over that diver and can’t be held responsible for their actions.
If a student suspects that an instructor is incompetent then they should seek out a second or third opinion similar to how you question the medical establishment. It’s up to the consumer (student) to verify for themselves that they are getting quality training through whatever means possible. They are responsible for doing their own home work.
For the OP going down to a depth beyond what is written in the materials and knowing it, then they should have reported that incident to the agency.
The agencies can only do the best they can do. Trying to police a world wide instructor network is not easy. It takes pro active consumers to speak up. It’s not a perfect world and the buyer must beware.
So yes, the student is responsible for making the instructor and agency responsible through actions that they themselves initiate if they feel they have been wronged, and ‘if’ they have evidence that they were indeed wronged, misguided, or ripped off.
The student needs to be smart enough and aware enough not be a victim. Saying “they don’t know what they don’t know” doesn’t cut it with me. They have to know something, so stay within what you know, and if you don’t know it then take another class and learn it. If they didn’t cover it then don’t do it!
Ultimately, you are responsible for yourself in this life.
Sh!t happens.

 

[KenGordon]

If a student suspects that an instructor is incompetent

The student needs to be smart enough and aware enough not be a victim.

How is a new student supposed to do these things? They have no knowledge to decide that the instructor is incompetent. On the other hand the instructor will probably have the branding of a large multinational company behind them. And there is the power relationship.

 

[KenGordon]

The student should have enough knowledge to safely dive within the limitations of that training. Once the student leaves the class and begins diving on their own, neither the agency or the instructor have direct control over that diver and can’t be held responsible for their actions.

And if they do not have enough knowledge?

Direct control is not required to be responsible, influence is exerted by the culture put forward by those running the training.

Can you see that you are saying, if the diver (ex student) does something wrong it is the divers fault/responsibility, and if the trainer does something wrong it is also the divers fault. I see it is the diver’s problem, but they were not entirely responsible.

By the way, leaving the class doesn’t have to be the end of the story of instruction. That is just one training model, there are other ways.

 

[GLOC]

Thanks for all the comments so far. Some great discussion points. The reason I made the OP was that there is often no black and white answer to such questions. Human behaviour is a consequence of the system we operate in and we need to create a system whereby risk is more obvious than it currently is in diving. Furthermore, sometimes the option to dive should not be given. Rather than taking my money and getting me to sign an additional waiver as an OW diver to dive to 30m/100ft, they shouldn't have let me dive. End of. I wasn't 'mature' enough to make that decision with only 9 dives to my name at that point.

In terms of 'I didn't know what I didn't know', while you might not agree with the premise, it is a truism as it is what the research which Dunning-Kruger showed. Those who are incompetent are hit by a double bind - they don't know what they don't know, even worse, they don't they don't know they are incompetent. The irony is at the other end of the scale - those who are 'experts' know far more than they would believe they know and at the same time, they don't understand why those who are incompetent can't see their incompetence. This was the topic of the presentation I gave at TekDiveUSA16 and part of it was based on the research paper from Dunning-Kruger. The book 'The Killing Zone' by Craig Paul is worth a read for those who want to explore how General Aviation/FAA addressed the problem of pilots flying into clouds without an instrument rating. The Killing Zone is the experience level (approx 150 hrs) where the majority of GA fatalities occur. Unfortunately the diving community does not collect such useful data.

What is the solution?

The solution is to be more open about the near-misses, incidents and accidents which happen. Not to hide them in small communities. Without a clear understanding of the scale of the problem, it is hard to make risk-based decisions. You will always have those who intend to go beyond the limits (either through innovation or because they are genuinely 'reckless' and don't mind end up dead or seriously injured) but in the majority of cases, those who break rules are doing it for 'valid' reasons. I wrote on this topic for TDI/SDI recently.

Another part of the solution is to consider something called the 'Fundamental Attribution Error'. Attribution is how psychologists label the reason behind an action. Internal or dispositional attribution is because the behaviour is due to something directly related to the dive e.g. mood, trait, personality, 'being stupid' etc whereas external or situational attribution is because the behaviour is due to the system in which they reside e.g. they may have had an argument that morning and so their mind was elsewhere, their training was incomplete and so executed an action which they thought was correct, they were subject to peer pressure to complete the dive despite not have the experience to do so. So when you see something that didn't go to plan or is unexpected, consider how and why it made sense for that person to do what they did. Most of the time, the reason isn't internal/dispositional it is external/situational. As such, if we don't address the external factors, others will be subject to the same issues.

I go back to the point right at the start, by transferring all responsibility to the diver through waivers doesn't help improve diving safety. This is a system problem which includes manufacturers, agencies, instructors, dive centres/operators AND the divers/students and their families. Having safety-critical knowledge being passed down with very little (if any) assurance that the information is correct doesn't help the consumer. Providing no/very little information to the divers about how decision-making and situational awareness is made up, doesn't help either.