Why the Aversion to Read the Instructions?

[John A Lewis]

This post was prompted in part by this topic on Scubaboard.

Why is it that people just don't seem to read the instructions concerning the gear they use in diving? We see it again and again when using dive computers (particularly on boats when divers put them on for the very first time), as well as other types of gear out there (and I'm looking at you, underwater imaging stuff).

Why do they not practice the skills needed to use the gear they have (I'm looking at you again, underwater imaging stuff)? Basic buoyancy, trim and so forth would go a long way towards extra enjoyment of the dive experience. Not disturbing the site so they and everyone else can see what's there would mean a lot.

Why do people have an aversion to additional training--like the Open Water diver who never formally goes beyond that to AOW and so forth? Is there some sort of invisible bubble I'm unaware of that protects people when exceeding their training?

Okay, I've vented--tell me now what you think.

 

[tbone1004]

one could also raise the question of why are dive computer manufacturers still producing junk computers that actually need instruction manuals to figure out the basic functions? It's incredible looking at computers from AUP and others and then you put something like the Petrel in your hand and you don't actually need a manual for the basic functions... Very sad state of things in the industry from a manufacturers perspective, but who knows, maybe all of the shaking up that has happened this year will fix a lot of that

 

[Dive Right In Scuba.]

The problem with reading the manuals for some items, especially computers, is they are unreadable. I bought my first computer 17 years ago, and I still shudder at the memories associated with trying to figure out how to use the darn thing. I remember reading an analysis of the early days of personal computer, back in the days of the Commodore, etc. That analysis said that the very best of the computers went out of business because the sales people could not figure out how to work them, so they didn't show them. The fault lay with the really, really bad technical writers who made the instructions.

With dive computers, to make sure that they don't get sued, they have everything anyone could possibly know in the manuals, and somewhere in the mass of information lies the handful of things the user needs to know.

In curriculum design, the most well respected theories are best described in Understsanding by Design. This system calls for designers to identify the critical things that MUST be understood and make sure instruction focuses on making sure it is understood. Then you work your way down the list of things that are important to know, things that are good to know, things that aren't all that important, and things that you really don't need to know. Instruction is designed accordingly. Manuals I have seen bury the critical instructions amid a flood of trivia.

Students in modern computer-based OW courses should be taught what the handful of truly key functions of a computer are so that they can sort through that mass of information, find what they need, and ignore the rest.

 

[Nuribromanski]

you put something like the Petrel in your hand and you don't actually need a manual for the basic functions...

petrel vry intuitive, but not reading instructions could cause major problems if diver turn on & prgm 2 many gas 4 dive then assume ASC TIME is correct. read instructions!

 

[NAM001]

I have to agree with the petrel comments. it is an intuitive computer. Perhaps what others could learn from them is to get rid of the button sequence to find things. shearwater has it down one button scrolls and the other selects. none of this left left middle top middle middle to get to the ppo2 display. I did read my manual and after the first few pages I realized I may never pick up the manual again. Cant say that for any of my aeris computers. (they are collecting dust).

As for training, I again agree with the OP….. OW in its wholeness is good to 130 ft. however training has broke the OW training into phases basic advanced and deep with their own sub limits with in the ow max of 130. I have always used 60/100/130. Ow's should not dive beyond their training of 60. But no one enforces it. any dive op that does will not get customers to pay the bills. It always takes external forces to make change. gas availability needs a C card to get it to be covered by the insurer of the shop. Perhaps dive ops should have the same enforceable requirement's. Want to get gas show me your card. want to dive to 90 ft ,,, show me the card that you have been formally trained to that depth, or get off my boat. Of course different agency's would have to standardize their cert language. most call deep >100 padi calls it >60. Some I have heard is >130. Is it any wonder why you cant get agreement from the professionals on what is a deep dive. Lowest common denominator is not the answer. Recommended vs mandatory limits and no "scuba police" gives cart blanc to ignore what ever you want and dive anywhere. There have been threads about all these items. They all boil down to. $$$ to those that live from the sport. And the biggy ::::: we are self regulated. We are not..... we are self exploited with no regulation other than what an outside agency, called insurance companies, place on various scuba operations. One only has to broach the topic of a 40% rule or the word commercial and you will have hours of heated debate on the subject. You have techies demanding team diving in a pool and OW"s diving overheads alone. Only when there is an accident or "suicide" for all practical purposes do people come out and say how terrible and how did this happen. Then when the emotions drop, it is finger pointing time, to see who is liable for the death of the stupid. Operators require computers not for the benefit of the diver but for the purpose of operators lawyers (to prove the diver exceeded their training) in event of a death all the while knowing they are sending a diver to a place they are not papered to go. Given the behavior of senior/controlling aspects in our diving support systems why should anyone get a cert beyond what is minimally needed to get air. We have shop owners that have minimal experience them selves. Agency regulation's that prohibit any training unless done through a shop. Kudo's for PADI and some others on that one, for getting it right. Give them the GIR award in that regard. Equipment (computers) manuals are a mess in that unless you dive it all the time you just cant remember the crutches to make it through the menus. KUDOs to shearwater on that one. Give them a GIR award. You would think that with SB and all its opinions some folks would read more to get the straight skinny on things. Then again they probably are and we are seeing the left overs. Its hard t prove what would have been. Lawyers certainly are not exempt from this discussion as it is primarily why manuals are worded the way they are. I want to read how to make the product work from the start and not after chapters of CYA liability crap. Face it when a costume has to have a label that tells the user that it will not let them fly, is not a real invitation to read more if any of it. Perhaps those that do not read have too much example to not follow rules or read or manuals. After all,, they are not just invincible, if it is really important some one will do it for you.

 

[drrich2]

Ow's should not dive beyond their training of 60. But no one enforces it.

This issue, pro. & con., comes up on Scuba Board often. I think the gist of it is, formal course training is not the only way to progress in fitness as a diver for deeper diving, and formal course training doesn't guarantee such if you get it (I'm thinking of the PADI Deep Diver course/cert.). Personally, I chose to get it. But, in 'tropical aquarium-like' conditions, I dove > 60 feet deep before getting the AOW cert.

Operators require computers not for the benefit of the diver but for the purpose of operators lawyers (to prove the diver exceeded their training) in event of a death all the while knowing they are sending a diver to a place they are not papered to go.

I can't speak for them; I believe some practical applications may be in play. Many boat trips entail a guide, leading a dive profile that is neither square nor one the customers can anticipate in detail, so some means to monitor NDL time remaining is needed. Especially since a number of relative newbies or very sporadic vacation divers, or just plain dependent divers, form part of the customer base.

Given the behavior of senior/controlling aspects in our diving support systems why should anyone get a cert beyond what is minimally needed to get air.

An insightful question with different answers even in the same people.

1.) OW - to be 'allowed' to dive (e.g.: rented equipment, provided air fills, allowed on the boat, etc...).

2.) Nitrox - to be allowed to get nitrox fills.

3.) AOW - required by some dive op.s to go on some trips/dives, or as a prerequisite to some other courses someone might want.

If you don't go tech., then I guess those are the 'license to do something' courses, taken at least in part to placate somebody else. There are other reasons to take them, especially if the student has a good attitude.

But pursing your question further, why does anyone take Rescue Diver, any kind of penetration training, a Solo/Self-reliant course, etc...? To gain the knowledge & skills to safely (within reason) pursue dive activities he/she wants to.

Note: A Solo cert. can serve the 'license function' in some situations. I needed it to solo in the local quarry.

Richard.

 

[Steve_C]

I have dive buddies who are insturctor trainers in a couple of agencies. I have a regular dive buddy who has OW and Nitrox and that is it. He has a couple of hundred dives with at least half of them in the 80-110 ft range. He is an extremely safe and reliable buddy.

I got my AOW in a quarry. We found a hole and I hit 65 ft. Somewhere around dive 200 I took deep. By that time I have a number of dives in the 80-100 range but wanted to pick up the cert as part of DM.

Along the way I read the manuals and some factual dive books and did some diving. As far as being safe on deeper dives what made me safe was experience, diving with good divers, and reading the literature. Not my AOW course. I worked up gradually on depth.

My OW was SDI and computer based. But we did go over tables in class. Using them is pretty trivial. I carry a couple in my dive kit. Mainly use for checking MOD and NDL for prospective dives and mix. Usually use my SID nitrox table.

I have two computers. Aeris Atmos and Zoop. Only settings I need to do are Nitrox. With Aeris it comes up right away with one button and then push the other to set the level. After many dives I still use the instructions for the zoop. It is takes several buttons clicks to get to nitrox and set it. Two button is definitely simper than three.

 

[NAM001]

In case I was mis understood I was not asking questions. I was attempting to view form the newby's perspective as if they looked at the scuba industry and said what the heck, if the industry won't police themselves why should I police my self and not just ride the system. The generations we have now are entitled generation and do little for them selves. Its an attitude that drives the system. Get enough loafers in the system and the training must change to accommodate them if ou want to get their daddy's bucks. Those that attempt further meaningful training like you mentioned are the exception to the masses that are our next generation of standard divers. Those exceptions make them selves stand out from the rest solely by their attitude and skills. One should not have to have a master card for someone to say Ohhh your not a shmuck like the others. Can you baby sit??? can we pair them up with you????? NO good deed goes unpunished.

This issue, pro. & con., comes up on Scuba Board often. I think the gist of it is, formal course training is not the only way to progress in fitness as a diver for deeper diving, and formal course training doesn't guarantee such if you get it (I'm thinking of the PADI Deep Diver course/cert.). Personally, I chose to get it. But, in 'tropical aquarium-like' conditions, I dove > 60 feet deep before getting the AOW cert.



I can't speak for them; I believe some practical applications may be in play. Many boat trips entail a guide, leading a dive profile that is neither square nor one the customers can anticipate in detail, so some means to monitor NDL time remaining is needed. Especially since a number of relative newbies or very sporadic vacation divers, or just plain dependent divers, form part of the customer base.



An insightful question with different answers even in the same people.

1.) OW - to be 'allowed' to dive (e.g.: rented equipment, provided air fills, allowed on the boat, etc...).

2.) Nitrox - to be allowed to get nitrox fills.

3.) AOW - required by some dive op.s to go on some trips/dives, or as a prerequisite to some other courses someone might want.

If you don't go tech., then I guess those are the 'license to do something' courses, taken at least in part to placate somebody else. There are other reasons to take them, especially if the student has a good attitude.

But pursing your question further, why does anyone take Rescue Diver, any kind of penetration training, a Solo/Self-reliant course, etc...? To gain the knowledge & skills to safely (within reason) pursue dive activities he/she wants to.

Note: A Solo cert. can serve the 'license function' in some situations. I needed it to solo in the local quarry.

Richard.

 

[Wookie]

As for training, I again agree with the OP….. OW in its wholeness is good to 130 ft. however training has broke the OW training into phases basic advanced and deep with their own sub limits with in the ow max of 130. I have always used 60/100/130. Ow's should not dive beyond their training of 60. But no one enforces it. any dive op that does will not get customers to pay the bills. It always takes external forces to make change. gas availability needs a C card to get it to be covered by the insurer of the shop. Perhaps dive ops should have the same enforceable requirement's. Want to get gas show me your card. want to dive to 90 ft ,,, show me the card that you have been formally trained to that depth, or get off my boat. Of course different agency's would have to standardize their cert language. most call deep >100 padi calls it >60. Some I have heard is >130. Is it any wonder why you cant get agreement from the professionals on what is a deep dive.

This is not a thing. It isn't even a PADI thing. It's a made up thing by certain instructors who haven't read the manual. It's like not honoring a generic VIP sticker. It has nothing to do with "formal training to 90 feet", or anything else you want to make up, it's like you're creating your own standards. When you get an Open Water card, you are certified to 130 feet. You aren't certified to 60, or 90, or 108, you are certified to 130. Now, we throw a caution in there that most people suffer from narcosis at 100 feet, so go get some training or experience before you find yourself narced, but there is no such thing as a 60 foot card, or a 90 foot card, or a 130 foot card aside from the Open Water card. If one was necessary, some agency would have come up with one. The agencies agree, the insurance companies agree, the Navy tables agree, and the operators agree. Why is it so hard to stop instructors from making up their own rules?

 

[NAM001]

Life insurance companies seam to not agree with you...

This is not a thing. It isn't even a PADI thing. It's a made up thing by certain instructors who haven't read the manual. It's like not honoring a generic VIP sticker. It has nothing to do with "formal training to 90 feet", or anything else you want to make up, it's like you're creating your own standards. When you get an Open Water card, you are certified to 130 feet. You aren't certified to 60, or 90, or 108, you are certified to 130. Now, we throw a caution in there that most people suffer from narcosis at 100 feet, so go get some training or experience before you find yourself narced, but there is no such thing as a 60 foot card, or a 90 foot card, or a 130 foot card aside from the Open Water card. If one was necessary, some agency would have come up with one. The agencies agree, the insurance companies agree, the Navy tables agree, and the operators agree. Why is it so hard to stop instructors from making up their own rules?