Why waste money on training!?

[DCBC]

Well I can´t say that I disagree with you on the changing of training philosophy and that they are allowing more people to do things even if some of them are not deemed "fit" to do so. ...But I have to say that I´m ok with that...I want everyone to at least go underwater once, to see what I've seen and the world that they´ve been missing. That´ll show them how precious the ocean and the marine life is and how they are endangered. (The same goes for the mountain one).

I feel that everyone who carries a gun, drives a car, flies an airplane, dives or climbs a mountain with me should be competent to do so. If it ends up costing the taxpayer anything to recover their body, I feel Society should expect competence. Too many *ssholes take risks that they're not prepared for. If they want to kill themselves, they can hang themselves at home. Historically, others have been injured or killed in the effort of saving them. This shouldn't be tolerated let alone be encouraged imo.

What I'm suggesting is that certification agencies insure that reasonable standards are maintained. The education of the general public can be done with documentaries, TV Specials, etc. Like many in my generation, I got interested in diving (and environmental protection) by watching Sea Hunt and National Geographic Specials (Cousteau). I didn't have to become a certified diver to begin to understand these concerns. When I decided to undertake the challenge, I didn't expect it to be easy. Like most things in life, it's appreciated if you have to work for it. Why is it that today things are so easily obtained?

I realize the argument that because my Dad had to walk to 2 1/2 miles one way to his grade one class in -40 degree temperatures that I have to do the same (I get it). But I think that it goes too far when you lower educational standards solely because you can increase profits by getting more people into a sport to increase diving equipment sales (the reason why PADI was started).

Also the gears today are much more reliable than the ones in the past, they still require maintenance of course but everyone can use them. I don´t think that in developing these equipments everyone was thinking of profit, some though about sharing their vision to others and not only specialists or expert. Scuba diving shouldn´t be restricted to good swimmers only. There are many places to dive that are safe and doesn´t need constant surveillance.

I agree; every diving environment is different and subsequently must have different course content. How then can one standard be put into effect world-wide? What percentage of non-swimmers who complete a 2 1/2 day course are competent to dive unsupervised? Why is this even allowed?

As far as equipment is concerned, it's a foot race. If you make a better widget, chances are you will sell more of them and increase profit to your stakeholders. It's just good business. People aren't making the equipment better through the kindness of their hearts. That said, every piece of equipment will eventually fail. Pity the diver whose safety is dependent on it, if they don't have the training, fitness, confidence and skill-sets to survive the experience.

---------- Post added February 25th, 2014 at 02:46 PM ----------

...So the problem arises when one of those divers is in a recreational environment and has to deal with divers who were all trained differently. Recreational agencies will have a few differences, but in the end, what they teach is very similar.

Buddies should go over this before getting wet, so there is no miscommunication. So I don't really see this as a problem for military divers diving with recreational divers.

You make a good point, but recreational agencies are not the ones giving the training. Depending on the agency, instructors can teach in dissimilar ways (both in course content and scope).

 

[bobfmdc]

I love this thread! Wish I had time to read it all.

I started like all my friends in the mid 60s--buy some second hand gear and go diving. It wasn't complicated then because you only had one hose. You could put it wherever you wanted. No BC, no computer, no air gauge. We dove to 70 - 90 feet and came up when you couldn't breathe anymore. The rules were simple: don't hold your breath and live by the Navy tables. I got my NAUI cert only because the dive shops stopped selling me air without a C-card, because all the dive shops nationwide decided that there was money in instructions and none in air sales. So I took an instructor spearfishing and he gave me a card after checking that I could do an 80 foot free ascent.

Got bent once, but I knew what I was doing was very risky. It didn't work out well, but a lot of the stuff I did back then was worse.

More seriously, I think the dive courses are worthwhile, and the gear now days is really great. But I question whether the dive courses are really putting out divers who are universally better than we were on our first few dives, if that. Most are ok, and if they stick with it they will do just fine.

The problem is with the marginal person. I don't think they get the training they need to be entry-grade safe. I recall that the courses back in the 60s and 70s were 30-40 hours long, and half or more was spent in the water. There was even some mild hazing to separate those with anxiety from the others. They even practiced some rescue work in the basic course.

Dive shops don't do that in the basic courses now, I think. Gotta get that student back for the "advanced" courses to generate the bucks. In the meantime, once another dive shop extracts another $150 from the student for an "open water" dive (maybe in a crowded quarry), they are free to do whatever they want. Of course I recognize that there has to be a good business plan--isn't this what diving is about these days?

 

[DaleC]

I also think that everyone should be responsible for his/her own life. You´re going to have to deal with the consequences of diving without an instructor even if you´ve been warned. If someone only did his OW and went alone on a dive even though he´s been taught not to during his courses then he kinda deserves what´s coming to him.

Absolutely. I've posted about 80 videos showing what I received so far as a result of just going diving : coldwatervintage - YouTube

Several people have noted that, in earlier times, there was a sort of self selecting process that produced introductory divers who were already very comfortable in the water and possessed of basic water skills. Being self reliant, either in training or diving, is not that big a leap in that regard, especially considering the basic nature of the dives being done.

Today, with lowered barriers, and given the current climate for pushing almost every dive to it's limits, there is a lot of distance to travel to get from A to B. It is not uncommon for the industry to begin pushing people into making decisions to turn tech or pro after only 20 dives. People just finished OW routinely sign up for trips half way around the world with people and equipment they are completely unfamiliar with.

I wouldn't wish to exclude anyone from diving but one should be aware that such a population, weighted by people from the second grouping, will look at self learning differently than a population weighted by people from the first.

I suspect the modern diving community is largely made up of people who are consistently pushing their personal safety envelopes, either by being unskilled in basic water skills, being in unfamiliar surroundings or rusty because of sporadic diving, and who rely on the "professional" to define what is safe for them.

Personally, I've always done well defining what is safe for myself. What is funny is that the center grouping tries to place people who are well grounded in self reliance/learning with those who are fool hardy, bending the continuum and lumping both ends of the spectrum into one. This says more about the groups distorted perception than it does about the people they are criticizing. Whenever I have a distorted view of a group, I look for the solution to that error in my own thinking and not in attempting to correct the group I'm wrongly observing.

 

[TMHeimer]

edwardjohnson, You hit on one of my old pet peeves. "Good swimmer" must be defined. I like someone who has a proper stroke (not swinging head side to side for each arm stroke, etc.). My theory is if you have a proper stroke you are probably OK-- you need not be able to achieve an Olympic time. If not, you will probably be in trouble if you have a long way to go. You have to then define what being "able" to swim means--does it mean getting a short distance (say the OW 200 metre swim) without a heart attack? It's a "life skill" as very experienced instructor on SB says. Probably never needed during scuba diving (try thinking of a scenario where you don't have fins), but just something you should be able to do. In fact, in a perfect world, a swim test for OW would not have to be required--Who in their right mind would take scuba if they couldn't swim........?(wish I could do that "popcorn" thing).

 

[Rhone Man]

I started like all my friends in the mid 60s--buy some second hand gear and go diving. It wasn't complicated then because you only had one hose. You could put it wherever you wanted. No BC, no computer, no air gauge. We dove to 70 - 90 feet and came up when you couldn't breathe anymore. The rules were simple: don't hold your breath and live by the Navy tables. I got my NAUI cert only because the dive shops stopped selling me air without a C-card, because all the dive shops nationwide decided that there was money in instructions and none in air sales. So I took an instructor spearfishing and he gave me a card after checking that I could do an 80 foot free ascent.

Ah, the good old days. Reminds me of the stories my Dad used to tell. I'm sure he exaggerates, but at least from the comfort of his armchair today every profile seemingly ran like this:

• Dive until you couldn't breathe any more.
  
• Pull the J-valve.
  
• Swim like hell for the surface.
  
• Look to see where the boat is.
  
• Swim along the surface to the boat and grab the anchor line.
  
• Descend back to 10 feet to do any deco that you had accrued, or at least as much as you could until the air reserve expired.
• Swim like hell for the surface again.

• Repeat.
  

 

[John C. Ratliff]

With or without scuba, diving and underwater swimming make unusual demands on the participant both physically and psychologically. A person will run more than ordinary risks in this kind of activity if he has certain physical defects, if he is not in good general physical condition and "fitness," or if he tends toward emotional instability. If he does not mind accepting the risk, this might be considered his own business. However, he should not expect an organization which sponsors training or other activities in the sports to welcome him with open arms. Sponsorship involves concern (and sometimes some actual responsibility) for an individual's own safety, and instructors and fellow participants also deserve consideration. Both physical condition and swimming ability are important.

Swimming Ability and Watermanship

1. Tread water, feet only, 3 minutes.
2. Swim 300 yards without fins.
3. Tow an inert swimmer 40 yards without fins.
4. Stay afloat 15 minutes without accessories.
5. Swim under water 15 yards without ins--without pushoff.

These requirements are not difficult, but they do indicate a degree of watermanship which would enable an individual in difficulty to help himself without the aid of specialized gear.

Council for National Co-operation in Aquatics, The New Science of Skin and Scuba Diving, Third Revised Edition, Association Press, New York, 1970, page 15.

During my NAUI ITC in 1972, (SB-72), we had to do in-water mouth-to-mouth (actually do it on each other) through about 200 yards of surf on a fully-equipped diver sans weight belt. During that exercise, I lost one of my Jet Fins, and had to do the exercise one-finned. There are times when fins come off, and through surf is one of those times.

SeaRat

PS--there is quite a gender bias in this text. I hope those reading it realize that this was simply a product of the times.

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

During my NAUI ITC in 1972, (SB-72), we had to do in-water mouth-to-mouth (actually do it on each other) through about 200 yards of surf on a fully-equipped diver sans weight belt. During that exercise, I lost one of my Jet Fins, and had to do the exercise one-finned. There are times when fins come off, and through surf is one of those times.

We were still doing mouth to mouth rescue tows hundreds of yards to shore in the mid 1980's when I was trained and started teaching. Our program at UC Berkeley continued training this way until at least the late '90s, long after this was already gone from recreational OW classes. A really great skill to have, IMO.

 

[Bob DBF]

edwardjohnson, You hit on one of my old pet peeves. "Good swimmer" must be defined. I like someone who has a proper stroke (not swinging head side to side for each arm stroke, etc.). My theory is if you have a proper stroke you are probably OK-- you need not be able to achieve an Olympic time. If not, you will probably be in trouble if you have a long way to go. ?(wish I could do that "popcorn" thing).

There is good swimmer in the technical sense who has the proper stroke, then there is the good swimmer that can slog along going from one technically flawed stroke to another, with fins or not, until they get to safety or hypothermia takes them out. I'm in the latter, not pretty but with enough sense to know my swimming limits and try to stay within them, when on SCUBA or not. Could be it's just from getting old.

I'm with you on the popcorn.


Bob

 

[flots am]

We were still doing mouth to mouth rescue tows hundreds of yards to shore in the mid 1980's when I was trained and started teaching. Our program at UC Berkeley continued training this way until at least the late '90s, long after this was already gone from recreational OW classes. A really great skill to have, IMO.

It's an impressive skill, but no longer taught because it wastes precious seconds getting the diver back to the boat/shore where actual, useful treatment can be performed.

flots.

 

[TMHeimer]

There is good swimmer in the technical sense who has the proper stroke, then there is the good swimmer that can slog along going from one technically flawed stroke to another, with fins or not, until they get to safety or hypothermia takes them out. I'm in the latter, not pretty but with enough sense to know my swimming limits and try to stay within them, when on SCUBA or not. Could be it's just from getting old.

I'm with you on the popcorn.


**********************************



I see your point Bob. There are many takes on this subject. You can be technically flawed, but still in the ballpark, as I'm sure you are (my guess is you have no major flaws, just not getting the most out of each aspect of the stroke). I'm by no means perfect technically, but my 2 competitive swimming brothers got me in the ballpark for the DM test. Something most of us will agree on is if you really can't swim -- ei. not in the ballpark-- you're nuts to take up scuba, surfing, etc.


John C. Ratliff, You have actually mentioned a finless swim situation that got me thinking. Wow. Maybe someone finally has come up with such a scenario I can swallow. It's not a situation I have or probably ever will be in--that's one heck of a lot of surf-- 200 yards. Assume your fin strap broke? In my defense, you did have one remaining fin (I DROPPED ONE entering on a shore dive and one-finned around for 5 minutes to find it). But still, thanks for the good post.