Why?

[Walt1957]

According to SSI my 11 y/o daughter is old enough to be my buddy. By extrapolation, she is old enough to be in a position where her actions or inactions could effect whether I live or die. BUT, they also say she is not old enough to learn how to save me. They do not allow a child under the age of 13 to take their Stress and Rescue class. I suspect their reasons have to do with physical limitations. Ok, I can understand the potential liability, but wouldn't it then make sense to have a "Jr. Stress and Rescue" just like the "Junior OW" certification, where they could limit the physical lifting but still teach the essentials of life-saving?

Do other agencies have this same hipocracy, or can I get her the training by finding a different agency to teach her? Do I need to train her myself?

 

[spectrum]

For one thing thet Rescue Diver class involves facing some on the spot decisions that can have grave consequences for each party involved. Being in the midst of this course I'm sure that most 11 year olds would not have the maturity to absorb it all. I'm not speaking for you or your daughter here. Size and strength are a factor however the course is really about doing the best you can with what you have be you small or large in size and strength.

While you may take your daughter diving I think you are kidding yourself if you are thinking that agencies see her as an equal in terms of buddy support. A diver out alone with a junior diver is to some extent a solo diver with a support role.

Depending on the agency many of the rescue skills are in OW or some have a S&R AOW module. Additionally what harm is there in you teaching her tows and slowly introducing the other skills?

JR Rescue is an idea but I have to wonder if there would be enough interest to form viable class sizes.

Pete

 

[jiveturkey]

If you can't get her in an actual rescue course, you could at least go to the red cross and get her certified in first aid an cpr. That would be a start.

 

[jviehe]

Sharing air, basic tows, cramp removal etc, are a far cry from surfacing an unresponsive diver, and providing rescue breaths while towing to shore and removing gear. As someone else said, young children are required to dive with an adult, therefore you are in a support role. I dont know if Id call this hypocrasy, but rather just facing the facts. Lifesaving is not a decision most young children can make. Plus all the liabilities that get involved.

FYI, PADI does have a junior rescue diver cert, but they have to be at least 12.

 

[Walt1957]

While you may take your daughter diving I think you are kidding yourself if you are thinking that agencies see her as an equal in terms of buddy support. A diver out alone with a junior diver is to some extent a solo diver with a support role.

Pete

I think that if agencies see it any other way then THEY are kidding themselves. A diver with a junior diver and another adult is a diver with 2 possibly conflicting roles. From all experiments I have done it simply does not work any better to have 3 people dive together any more than just her and me. In a group of three you either end up with one solo diver, or one "lead" diver trying to be a buddy to 2 people, which is not only impossible but removes the fun from the dive. The closest I have come to solving that situation is 2 buddy groups together as a group which provides backup for her but less extra pressure on the others.

 

[Walter]

That's too young to be diving. IMO, any agency that certifies divers under the age of 12 is irresponsible.

 

[Storm]

According to SSI my 11 y/o daughter is old enough to be my buddy. By extrapolation, she is old enough to be in a position where her actions or inactions could effect whether I live or die. BUT, they also say she is not old enough to learn how to save me. They do not allow a child under the age of 13 to take their Stress and Rescue class. I suspect their reasons have to do with physical limitations. Ok, I can understand the potential liability, but wouldn't it then make sense to have a "Jr. Stress and Rescue" just like the "Junior OW" certification, where they could limit the physical lifting but still teach the essentials of life-saving?

Do other agencies have this same hipocracy, or can I get her the training by finding a different agency to teach her? Do I need to train her myself?

Walt,

I'm going to be genrealizing here so please take no offense.

Most young children look to the adult companions (parents, teachers, etc) to be the leader and the one to m ake decisions in a time of stress. To expect a child to have developed the capacity to successfully deal with a higly stressful situation is, perhap, reaching a fair bit.

Most adults deal with stress in one of two basic ways, fight or flight....deal with the situation as best they can or leave the situation entirely. These are the basic instinctive response of a mature and developed adult.

Children have a tendancy to fall outside of this behavior and adopt three potential postures. (Panic, run or freeze) Most young persons rarely develop the mental toolsets, unitl later in life, to actaully deal with a stressfull situation in a manner that can will help and NOT place them in undue risk. Alo rememeber that most young children are entirely devoted to their parents. This placed them at an even greater risk of not making the ultimate right choice.

The first rule of rescue is NOT to create a second victum. It is more likely that a child would not recognize the "worst case" rescue response, and would not have the emotioanl ability to do so...which is leaving the situation and saving oneself. That places the child in futher risk of becomeing the secind victum.

Ask yourself this. How many times have you seen picture or news footage of a child sitting beside an injured or dead adult (war footage, accidents) totaly oblivious to their surroundings, and the potential danger they are in?

All of this is to say, that placing a child in the position of being a FULL buddy support diver and expecting them to be a rescue diver, is placing the child at risk.

I think it great that you got your daughter into the sport early in life (as long as she's interested in it), but I also think that using her as a support buddy, instead of an accompaying part of a three or four perso adult team, is placing far too much responsibility on her, and is also exposing her to a lot of risk.

As one who now has adult offspring I can tell you most certaintly NOT to rush them to grow up....they will do that on their own, and in fact there will be times when you really wish you stop them from doing that.

Peace and safe dives.

 

[spectrum]

A diver with a junior diver and another adult is a diver with 2 possibly conflicting roles. From all experiments I have done it simply does not work any better to have 3 people dive together any more than just her and me.

IMO it depends on the divers involved. We often dive odd numbers with a 3 person buddy team. Some divers do it well and everyone has a good dive. Some are not capable of following and persist in going off on tangents resulting in a game of "where is Waldo". Others will fly in formation just a glance away from the designated leader and we have a great time.

If I were in a position to dive with a junior offspring it would either be with my wife or a well known & trusted buddy or simply with the child. Such a dive is no place for a third diver that is a loose cannon and distraction. Unfortuantely at 16 my youngest has not been bitten by the bug so that's where my story ends.

I admire your objectives. Dive safe end enjoy each other.

Pete

 

[Guba]

What people have a hard time coming to grips with is a simple matter of physical limitations. However, I worry about the deeper implications. I agree with Storm and some others. The psychological implications are too dire to risk by putting a child in a situation for which he/she is not ready to face.

When diving with a child, particularly where the size differences of the adult and child are great, what one has to understand is that the adult is basically diving solo. Certainly, a child can learn to share air and other skills, but when it comes to "rescueing" an adult, particularly a disabled or panicked one, they are at a dangerous disadvantage. That's why I say the adult is diving solo...they just have the added responsibility of taking care of another. To trust a small person with the task of equipment revoval, towing while rendering aid, or even approaching a panicked adult is unwise at best, disasterous in a worst case scenario. And as Storm pointed out, the damage to the child far outreaches just the physical.
Those of us who have been in a "worst case" situation know what this is all about. I have had to "rescue" a diving partner, as have many of us. The thing is my partner didn't survive. We all did the proper things, performed the required skills, took the proper actions, yet my partner didn't make it. I'm a mature adult, yet I suffered psychological damage for a long time (maybe even now, for it hurts to recall the circumstances, but I feel so strongly about this that I share it with you now). To place a child, your daughter, is to risk incredible damage in the form of guilt feelings and immense regret should anything happen to you. I really doubt that she would ever fully recover. However, to include another adult, not only do you decrease the potential for physical harm, you dilute (I did not say abandon) her responsibility and her role. Should something happen (heaven forbid) and another adult is present, she would know that it was not her fault and that little more could have been done.
Is this a worse case scenario? Absolutely. But please look at all the potential risks. Is it worth simply waiting a couple of years before making her a "full partner"? You are the parent and only you can decide.
By the way, as I mentioned, I was devasted by the experience. And I am a professional rescuer, a trained lifeguard and lifeguard trainer, and a 27 year veteran on a fire/rescue squad. I've seen death and lots of emergency situations, and it was still deeply damaging to lose a dive buddy in the water.

 

[Walt1957]

What people have a hard time coming to grips with is a simple matter of physical limitations. However, I worry about the deeper implications. I agree with Storm and some others. The psychological implications are too dire to risk by putting a child in a situation for which he/she is not ready to face ... However, to include another adult, not only do you decrease the potential for physical harm, you dilute (I did not say abandon) her responsibility and her role. Should something happen (heaven forbid) and another adult is present, she would know that it was not her fault and that little more could have been done.

As usual, you and several others have provided valuable input, and a lot to consider.

True as all that you said is, there is another side to it. What if, being very smart and capable, she knows in her mind what the right thing to do is (or the possible options), but the adult does something different, or chooses a different "acceptable option" than she would have, and she allows them to do it their way because they are an adult. Now what happens to her guilt in a worse case scenario? As usual, the answers are not easy when considering kids.