Why waste money on training!?

[DCBC]

...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........?

As I mentioned, my in-water pool test is done continuously and includes:

400m surface swim;
15 mins drownproofing
2 min tread water
2 min tread water (arms only, feet crossed)
2 min tread water (feet only, wrists held out of the water)
10 lb weight belt recovery
25m underwater swim

The purpose of this, is to evaluate the individuals in-water efficiency and comfort. I could care less about style, but concern myself with in-water efficiency and fitness.

As you correctly point-out, a fully equipped diver will seldom be without his equipment. If this equipment malfunctions and s/he is using it as a crutch, disaster has and will continue to result.

Quite simply, in training a diver an instructor should look at what is reasonable. What level of comfort and skill should a person have, to face the diving environment where he is being trained? How much discomfort should the student possess? In other words, how close to panic should a person be if they get caught in fish-line, have their mask flood unexpectedly, loose their buddy in zero visibility, or have their regulator free-flow? An instructor either trains for this eventuality or they don't. It's reflected in the training hours and course content of the program.

 

[edwardjohnson]

Most basic certifications today like the OW doesn´t "allow" you to go too deep. You are also warned to never dive alone by yourself and taught to check your equipment before jumping in. The OW also teaches basic scuba manoeuvres like air sharing, signals, recover regulator, staying calm and buoyancy control. This doesn´t mean you can just jump in anywhere and a certified diver knows that, it doesn´t require geniuses. There are people who of course think they are underqualified and totally cool to dive 120 ft unsupervised with a OW certification, but is it the training agence´s fault?

I think you can compare it to skiing, there are so many missing and even deaths in skiing, I´d say more than scuba diving. What is the requirement to ski? Nothing? It is a recreational sport where you take risks like any other. If these "assholes" want to waste their thousands of dollars to go die in a mountain or underwater, that´s their choice. Also don´t forget that these sports require insurance, to make sure local rescue authorities are reimbursed and hospital fees paid for. Everyone´s happy at a succcess but everyone hates failures.

If you raise the training level there will still be underqualified divers who venture out too far for their own good, endangering themselves and others. Just like those who got their handgun license and think they could use a shotgun. It´s the diving centers that have to measure and inform divers of the risks of each dive spot that they operate in. If an ******* thinks he´s hot enough to jump in anyways it´s his own life, and we would probably be better off without him.

The standards are there, it´s what the instructors teach and what the student learn. There could always be a day where a great instructor simply "forgot" to tell a student something. But yes swimming and in-water efficiency should definitely be added to the required skills list...

 

[DCBC]

I think you can compare it to skiing, there are so many missing and even deaths in skiing, I´d say more than scuba diving. What is the requirement to ski? Nothing? It is a recreational sport where you take risks like any other.

Yes skiing is a recreational sport where no training is required (just like diving). I have no objection if someone wants to ski a double diamond run and kill themselves running into a tree. I do however feel that they should be legally responsible if they run into me and I'm the one that's killed because they didn't exercise a reasonable degree of care.

If I Heliski, I expect that the operator of the service to ensure that the other skiers on the helicopter have a reasonable degree of skill before they make the run. I'd be ticked, if all my day (and financial cost) was taken-up with rescuing someone who should have had the common sense not to be there in the first-place.

If you raise the training level there will still be underqualified divers who venture out too far for their own good, endangering themselves and others.

Again, I agree with you. To me it comes down to what is reasonable.

The standards are there, it´s what the instructors teach and what the student learn. There could always be a day where a great instructor simply "forgot" to tell a student something. But yes swimming and in-water efficiency should definitely be added to the required skills list...

Yes, the standards are there and they should reflect a reasonable level of fitness and skill level to dive in the environment that the students are trained. Unfortunately this is not the case. Do you think it reasonable to put a non-swimmer in the North Atlantic in 3 to 4 foot waves? Is this reasonable in your view?

Certainly the Standard is sufficient for clear, warm, shallow water in a vacation setting for guided dives. It is insufficient however for other more demanding environments. As soon as you establish an international standard that cannot be changed, I think it best not to base this standard on the best conditions, but the worst ones. Otherwise establish a minimum standard and allow the instructors to modify the program accordingly. Unfortunately, not agencies agree with this philosophy.

 

[Redshift]

Most basic certifications today like the OW doesn´t "allow" you to go too deep. You are also warned to never dive alone by yourself and taught to check your equipment before jumping in. The OW also teaches basic scuba manoeuvres like air sharing, signals, recover regulator, staying calm and buoyancy control. This doesn´t mean you can just jump in anywhere and a certified diver knows that, it doesn´t require geniuses. There are people who of course think they are underqualified and totally cool to dive 120 ft unsupervised with a OW certification, but is it the training agence´s fault?

You focused more on depth, but many things can happen where depth is not the problem. We often read accounts of incidents where the divers were not deeper than their certification allowed.
So, besides those skills you have enumerated, there are others which should be taught if the standard is to certify a diver who can independently conduct dives with a buddy of the same level. And more than teaching the skills, they should be able to do them confidently.

I think you can compare it to skiing, there are so many missing and even deaths in skiing, I´d say more than scuba diving. What is the requirement to ski? Nothing? It is a recreational sport where you take risks like any other. If these "assholes" want to waste their thousands of dollars to go die in a mountain or underwater, that´s their choice. Also don´t forget that these sports require insurance, to make sure local rescue authorities are reimbursed and hospital fees paid for. Everyone´s happy at a succcess but everyone hates failures.

Skiing does not involve buddies who rely on the skills and knowledge of another person. When a certification says a diver has to dive with someone else, that someone else, on the other hand, has to have a minimum degree of proficiency.
And here there are two problems that have been discussed, one is the fact that different agencies have different views on what that minimum should be, even though the divers obtain the "same" certification level and the second is that different agencies (and instructors) have different requirements as to how a skill is shown to have been learned. Some allow for a one-off success to tick the skill box while others require a consistent demonstration of the skill. That can create differences between divers even from the same agency. And even without going beyond their cert limits they will put themselves and others in risk.

(Skiing doesn't require more insurance than diving. I've dived in places where insurance was mandatory and in places where it wasn't. I haven't been asked for insurance when skiing.)

If you raise the training level there will still be underqualified divers who venture out too far for their own good, endangering themselves and others.

That will always happen. Although instructors here have a part as well. They should understand the diver and see what their motivations are and how they will behave.
But I think we are more discussing the fact that many divers don't have the skills for the certification they hold, more than the fact that there are divers going beyond their certifications.

 

[DCBC]

This brings up the question about instructor/operator responsibility. In the case of diver injury or death, quite often a civil case will determine negligence. This is based on what was done and what the instructor/operator failed to do, which was reasonable under the circumstances.

Simply following any Agency's 'training standards' is insufficient to negate liability. The instructor/operator has to show that they acted in a reasonable manner. As soon as you take someone's money to teach them how to dive, you accept the responsibility to ensure that the student possesses a reasonable level of knowledge and skill before you certify them to dive.

Some other questions that come to mind:
Are the Agency Standards sufficient under the circumstances?
Did the instructor ensure that the Standards were met?
If anything was added, were these reasonable under the circumstances?
If anything wasn't added, was it reasonable to do so under the circumstances?

Most (but not all) Agencies require students 'to master' a list of skills to dive 'independent of supervision' in conditions better than or equal to those in-which the student was trained. If the diver is certified without these conditions being met, the instructor may be found liable.

What percentage of divers do you feel fall into this category having either failed to meet the Standards or the instructor not teaching what was required (whether this was within the Standards, or in addition to them)? For divers that were certified without attaining a reasonable amount of knowledge and skill, what role did the Agency's Standards play? Was the desire to roll-out the numbers (increase profits) on the part of the LDS/instructor play a roll?

 

[Redshift]

Yes, the standards are there and they should reflect a reasonable level of fitness and skill level to dive in the environment that the students are trained. Unfortunately this is not the case. Do you think it reasonable to put a non-swimmer in the North Atlantic in 3 to 4 foot waves? Is this reasonable in your view?

Certainly the Standard is sufficient for clear, warm, shallow water in a vacation setting for guided dives. It is insufficient however for other more demanding environments. As soon as you establish an international standard that cannot be changed, I think it best not to base this standard on the best conditions, but the worst ones. Otherwise establish a minimum standard and allow the instructors to modify the program accordingly. Unfortunately, not agencies agree with this philosophy.

Not only the minimum requirements are not enough for training in some places, they are also not enough for divers trained in easier places to move to harder places. Yes, the standards do mention they are certified to dive in conditions which are similar to those of their training, but which conditions were those exactly? Does the DM in the new dive centre even know that place? Is he going to say "Sorry, if you want to go diving with us you need to book for a private guide"? How many times does that happen in reality? And by not happening, they are not only endangering those divers and others, they are breaking their agency standards and maybe incurring in liability if something happens.
On the other hand, and to be fair, do we have that many accidents? Maybe incidents, yes and those are not usually publicised...

---------- Post added February 26th, 2014 at 01:40 PM ----------

Most (but not all) Agencies require students 'to master' a list of skills to dive 'independent of supervision' in conditions better than or equal to those in-which the student was trained. If the diver is certified without these conditions being met, the instructor may be found liable.

That's why I think that although there are excellent instructors in any agency, some agencies make it easier for there to be bad instructors.

 

[DCBC]

Not only the minimum requirements are not enough for training in some places, they are also not enough for divers trained in easier places to move to harder places. ...On the other hand, and to be fair, do we have that many accidents? Maybe incidents, yes and those are not usually publicised...

You make an excellent point. It would be helpful to have different categories of diver certification, dependent on diving environment. Unfortunately however, there are more pressing concerns. I'd be happy if the Agencies established reasonable standards (for the diving conditions); and instructors refrain from certifying those who didn't meet this standard.

That's why I think that although there are excellent instructors in any agency, some agencies make it easier for there to be bad instructors.

Yes, but when there's a dollar to be made, some agencies structure their programs accordingly. Buyers often select McDonald's over a sit-down restaurant; they just don't want to invest the time. When you play to the lowest standard, quality is often a casualty.

BTW I like McDonald's; it certainly has its place in Society. I didn't however, want my children to go to a McDonald's type of educational facility (university or diving). When all is said and done, I don't believe that short-cuts are preferable; dedication and study over time prove to be the greater teacher...

 

[DaleC]

If you raise the training level there will still be under qualified divers who venture out too far for their own good, endangering themselves and others.

I'm not buying that one. Keep levels low so you can keep people safe? The uneducated are actually better off than the educated? Stuff the Cultural Revolution was built on. And you actually included the part where those who reject lowering their knowledge are enemies of the greater good. If you take two groups, those who are educated in skills, and those who are not - I suspect the first group would be less likely to get injured. Show me one activity where this is otherwise.

If these "assholes" want to waste their thousands of dollars to go die in a mountain or underwater, that´s their choice... If an ******* thinks he´s hot enough to jump in anyways it´s his own life, and we would probably be better off without him.

Why all the hate. Did someone actually endanger your life by taking on a personal diving challenge or are you just opposed to such people on principle. Do you also lump in all those naive divers who die in benign conditions while under the attendance of dive professionals dong something they were told was safe.

It´s the diving centers that have to measure and inform divers of the risks of each dive spot that they operate in.

This may show a bias towards resort diving on your part. In my experience a shop teaches the course, issues the card and then you are on your own. Where you go, with who and what you use is none of their business - but they will rent you the gear to do it. One of my most nerve wracking dives (for the other person) was with a new diver who showed up at an altitude dive with rented gear that she did not know how to assemble or deploy.

 

[Bob DBF]

Originally Posted by edwardjohnson View Post
If you raise the training level there will still be under qualified divers who venture out too far for their own good, endangering themselves and others.

I'm not buying that one. Keep levels low so you can keep people safe? The uneducated are actually better off than the educated? Stuff the Cultural Revolution was built on. And you actually included the part where those who reject lowering their knowledge are enemies of the greater good. If you take two groups, those who are educated in skills, and those who are not - I suspect the first group would be less likely to get injured. Show me one activity where this is otherwise.

I continually thank my lucky stars that my dad, who taught me to dive, the mentors I had later, and my OW instructor all insisted on me knowing as much as I could about diving. The thinking then was that the more you knew about diving and your own limitations, the the safer you could plan and execute your dives, and should there be an issue, the more likely that you could respond properly and survive an incident. Although my personal experience is not data, that mindset has kept me reasonably safe for over 50 years of diving.

Under-qualified divers exist because they are given c-cards which say they are qualified and they believe it to be true because the instructor said so.



Bob

 

[John C. Ratliff]

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.

TMHeimer,

Yes, I had one fin, but it was a real chore to complete that exercise one-finned!

Have you ever had a diver on one of your boats (I'm assuming since you are a dive master that you dive boats) jump in without his or her fins?

I ask that because even with the best of checklists, it is possible to be without your fins. In my USAF career as a pararescueman, we had the mission of jumping on the Apollo space capsule if it strayed away from the U.S. Navy. We only got one, Apollo 1, which was unmanned and deliberately skipped across the atmosphere to see where it would land. However, for every Apollo mission, USAF was on alert and ready to deploy, and we trained a lot for the Apollo mission. These were called Apollo SIM-EXs, or Apollo Simulated Exercises. They involved making a parascuba jump onto an Apollo capsule after it had been "caught" by the ADDRS (Aircraft Deployed Drift Reduction System). The PJs (pararescue aircrew designation) got ready, and made the jump. But one of them jumped without his fins. He got into the water, and simply completed the job sans fins.

There were a few questions about military training for scuba. I went through the U.S. Naval School for Underwater Swimmers at Key West, Florida in 1967. The school took three weeks to complete. I have written extensively about this for a book I'm hoping to publish later, but let me summarize. Week one was conditioning, swimming and pool work. Week two was understanding scuba, and week three was the qualification week. Here are a few things I wrote for my book:

In the second week we were introduced to scuba, which stands for self-contained underwater breathing apparatus. We used the older-style double hose regulators, which convert the tank's high pressure air to the air pressure of the surrounding water/air, and give it on demand. The right hose was for inhalation, the left for exhalation, and the exhaled air exited into the water at exactly the same spot as the diaphragm which controlled the inhaled air. Captain Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Emile Gagnan had patented this process in the 1940's, just after WWII, and the regulator we used was only a second generation design away from the one he originally marketed.

We learned how to disassemble, clean, repair, reassemble, and test the scuba gear. We knew it backwards, and forwards, inside out. Interestingly, some of the regulators had black housings, and the interior parts were plated with gold rather than chrome-plated steel. The reason was so that they were anti-magnetic...


...The compass courses were open water swims. At first, they were minimum equipment, meaning a life vest, mask and fins with booties. Our fins were Navy issue ones with a blade about a foot long and stiffening ribs. They were of a open heel design, which allowed us to carry them easily, but the heel strap was solid rubber, without any type of adjustment. The blade was as stiff as plywood, so these fins were hard to push through water. But they did give us good acceleration when we needed it.

The two things that the U.S. Navy instructors at the Underwater Swimmers School in Key West impressed upon us was the buddy system and the masks on the forehead. "Who do you think you are, Mike Nelson?" they'd yell if they saw a mask on the forehead. The idea was that the mask on the forehead is in an ideal position to be washed off by a wave.

The open water swims started at 500 yards, and progressed to 1000 yards, then to 1500 yards. Means and I did well on the initial swims, and never became separated. This was important, because if a team was seen in the water and out of arm reach, they had "broken buddy contact" and were penalized. The penalty: carry a "buddy line" for 24 hours, only the buddy line was an eight-foot long piece of rope, 4 inches thick, off one of the ships. The negligent buddy team even had to sleep with this line...

We progressed in our training to open water scuba. One dive, in the harbor, tested our ability to function in near-zero visibility. We were given a tool bag, and each buddy team had to go to the bottom of the harbor and assemble a flange with bolts and nuts in the zero visibility water. When we surfaced, we were to hand the assembled flange to the instructor. Means and I waited our turn, then stepped off the pier into the brown water. It was cool, but not cold, and the water seemed to allow us to see about three feet. Then we dove to the bottom, and as we swam deeper, the light penetrating from the surface disappeared, until at the bottom, in forty feet of water, we could not see a thing. I handled the bag, and gave Bob each part. He placed them in the holes, and I felt for the holes on the opposite side of the flange. Then Bob pushed a bolt through, held it while I found a nut to attach. Soon, and the flange was assembled. We followed the safety line to the surface and handed the assembled unit to the instructor. We had passed easily.
From the manuscript, Between Air and Water, the Memoir of a USAF Pararescueman, Copyright 2014, John C. Ratliff

SeaRat