Yukon tangent thread

[Ken Kurtis]

...

They switched from the 225 yard requirement to the exact verbiage I posted.

Except that what you posted merely talks about technique. Technique is not a standard. A standard is something that can be measured. "15 stroke cycles" is not something that can be measured in this way since for each individual it may be different. That would mean that Michael Phelps in a swim test would go 100 yards and Joe Schmo would go 20 yards, but both would do 15 stroke cycles. That's not a standard. That's BS.


...

And to be clear again, I've got the S&P on my computer. That's where I lifted my quotes from. It is the 1996 version that's still curent. I went to the NAUI website and signed in to the members-only area to double-check for any updates I might have missed, giving you at least the benefit of the doubt. There were no updates on the NAUI website that even remotely dealt with dilution, let alone elimination, of the 225-yard swim requirement.


...

It was revised about a decade ago and excluded the 225 yard requirement.

Again, you spout BS. I'm looking right now at the "NAUI Scuba Instructor Guide", copyright 2000. (Let's see, this would be the same time you allege this "change" took place.) In Section 4 (Confined Water Sessions), Session One (Swim Evaluation and Introduction to Skindiving Skills), under the heading "Swimming Skills Evaluation," it says:

"As previously noted, these skills are to be completed prior to certification and should be used as an evaluation of the student's comfort in the water before the use of skin or scuba equipment. Each skill should be briefly demonstrated to show the student how the skills can be successfully done.
..........207m (225-yd) swim, non-stop, any stroke
..........10-minute survival swim
..........15m (50-ft) underwater swim"


...

- Ken

 

[JahJahwarrior]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Hopefully it is becoming clear that off topic posts and posters are being removed. If more users require help in understanding how to stay on topic, then more help will be dispensed. If necessary, the thread will be removed. Lets get back on topic of discussing this accident, and this accident only, so we can learn and better ourselves as divers instead of dissolving into petty discussions.

---

 

[Fish-R-Man]

I
You forgot to mention diving with a buddy. That is taught as rule #1, even before you are taught to read your pressure gauge. At least it was when I was taught.

I received my first cert in 1972 in San Pedro, Cal. Diving with a buddy was taught. The problem was, there were not a lot of divers then so most of the time, a large number of divers went solo. As far as a pressure gauge, I didn't even own one until long after I started diving. That was the accepted practice then. I had numerous out of air situations using J valves in kelp with no SPG. The main reason that I am probably here today is because we practiced free ascent and had much better water skills than a lot of the divers I see today. I still dive solo regularly.
To assume that this gentleman died because he was solo, or that he was unable to multi task well enough to manage a camera on a dive of only 100', I think is pure speculation. To lump all individuals as poor divers or candidates for a death sentence because they solo dive or enjoy photography is ludicrous IMHO.

 

[AfterDark]

Perhaps we as a community should enlist our lawmakers to ensure that there are standards in the US, and even abroad, for accounting for divers on a charter boat. I am not a fan of more regulation, but this seems like such a small thing to ask of dive charter operators, and at no cost to taxpayers.

PLEASE NO!! How about as responsibile divers we should shout out when a boat begins to leave without a head count? How about we stop depending on the boat driver to keep us safe while diving. How about some personal responsibility?

 

[Thalassamania]

I was actually curious because nearly a decade ago they switched to the following:

"Demonstrate novice level swim stroke proficiency in any of the following strokes: crawl, side, breast, elementary back or back stroke. Classic stroke combinations are not necessary to meet this requirement as long as forward progress is achieved. , e.g. no particular kick or arm action is necessarily required and alack of either is also acceptable. Students shall complete at least 15 continuous stroke cycles while being evaluated by an instructor. A stroke cycle is considered to be either arm or leg action or a combination thereof resulting in forward movement until repeated."

In other words, if thrashing in the water results in forward motion, you can be a scuba diver. If they have changed back (and I hope they have), it was only in the last year or two. The good news is that I don't know any NAUI instructors that use that standard. They all adhere to the 225 yard requirement, or 200 m, which is probably what you were thinking of when you stated 200 yards. The flip side of that is that I don't associate with bad instructors. And there are plenty of them around.

First of all, switched from what to what? You started out in your previous post by claiming there was no swim standard and asked me to document that. I did.

Now you quote something that has nothing to do with there actually being or not being a swim standard but seems to tell people what kind of swimming is acceptable for the swim standard that you say doesn't exist.

You asked me to quote chapter and verse so I'd ask the same consideration of you (and I'm not trying to be contentious here, I just think you're incorrect).

Can you tell me what page in the current NAUI Standards & Practics (S&P) this appears?

This just doesn't sound like NAUI jargon for standards. NAUI generally writes in bullet points, as in the example I cited in my previous post of the swim standards. Whjat you're quoting either comes from another agency, or they're something that's in a glossary-of-terms definition which, technically, are not the standards.

Not to make this sound like agency-bashing, but terms like "stroke cycle" (akin to "fin kick cycle") are more commonly found in PADI literature, not NAUI.

You sure you're not mixing apples and oragnges? Because you did specifically ask about NAUI and I specifically cited for you what I believe to be true (with a page reference no less).

Hopefully you'll return the courtesy.

- Ken

Not to derail this but does anyone wonder how "Master Diver The Engineer" is allowed to teach classes to all these students who need to be retrained? According to my PADI DM book I may assist in a class provided I am a certified DM, not "Master Diver" and can't actually teach the class.

Shenanigans. Any competent instructor (which you are not), can ascertain a student's ability to swim within a few strokes. Also, NAUI allows any instructor to increase standards as they see fit, so this standard excludes absolutely NOTHING. The only person who should be hanging their head in shame here is YOU. You act like you have these high standards and you have accomplished NOTHING worthwhile. It's evident to me that you certainly don't understand what it takes to be an instructor and your online hubris would indicate that you would make a lousy student.

It's been said that engineers know everything about nothing while architects know nothing about everything. I guess some engineers only pretend to know everything.

Couldn't stay away, could you? Even after telling people not to feed the trolls...sad.

Call shenanigans if you want. Then go pick up a copy of the NAUI S&P. That is precisely how it reads. Sure, a competent instructor will go beyond that requirement, but who said the people certifying these non-swimmers are competent? The rest of your blah blah blah crap is just you getting butthurt that I am RIGHT. You don't like it, do what I do and try to change it by helping people learn the right way. Don't try to suppress information just because you don't happen to like the facts as you tried to do with multiple PM's earlier. Talk about weak.

This kinda reminds me of the new member meeting I attended when I was elected to the Explorers Club. Sir Edmund Hillary was there to give us a little talk. What he said, in essence, was, "be careful what you say, because this is one of the few places in the world where you can almost guarantee that someone else in the room has been there."

I'll tell you what, TheEngineer, despite NetDoc's warning, you have fallen afoul of Ed's dictum (feels kinda funny to refer to him as "Ed," I didn't know him that well, but he was rather insistent on that point, "Hi. call me Ed please." is what he'd say when introduced). Anyway ... I happen to be the person that wrote NAUI's standards when the piece about 15 strokes was introduced, that was my verbiage.

Here's the idea: it only takes a few strokes to tell if someone is a good swimmer or not. If they're having trouble, let them swim the 225 yards, but if they dive in and immediately fall into a dynamite crawl or breast stroke ... do you really need to waste time going any further? The concept is not that 15 strokes is all that a diver should have to swim, the concept is that within 15 strokes a competent NAUI Instructor can easily judge a student's level of watermanship.

 

[ScubaSteve]

I wholly agree that the boat royally effed up when they took off without a diver. I personally think that that should be an easy thing to avoid (but admittedly I have never run a dive boat). But what most of you guys are arguing for is a babysitter. The Engineer refuses to accept that each and every diver is responsible for their dive and their plan. If that plan is solo and the charter allows it, then the charter has done nothing wrong. Solo diving does not kill. I agree with Thal and a couple others that diving solo does reduce a diver's options for assistance and aid should it be needed, but solo diving does not kill.

This accident was not caused by solo diving. No accident is caused by solo diving. Every accident is caused by some other factor such as a bad decision or a medical condition (just to name a few possibilities). Would this diver be alive had the boat not left? Nobody knows. Would they be alive had they been part of a buddy pair? Nobody knows. For both of those, it is likely safe to say that the diver's chances would have at least improved but bnobody knows what the outcome would have been.

It is important for the boat to carry certain first aid items such as Oxygen, and for it to be there when you surface. This I agree with. The boat effed up only for leaving.

A good start would be that when I surface the boat is there and the crew remembers that I was diving and perhaps did a roll call before leaving me behind.

With your rationale why should the boat even staff a DM, have CPR training or carry Oxygen. Perhaps they shouldn't even need to be certified divers and just serve up some food and watch you dive.

The boat should provide a safe and fun atmosphere and even though every diver is responsible for himself a boat should be able to perform a rescue in case it's needed. Or is that too much to ask for a professional OP? Perhaps it's too much to ask for them to pick up the up the radio even to call for help when there is a problem. Let the distressed diver take care of that too.

I expect more for my money. Most dives around here are almost $100. I expect professional crews which I will find on the other 2 dive boats in town now and not the Humboldt.

 

[fjpatrum]

I have to say how annoying threads like this are.

I am not associated with the boat that had the accident. But having first hand knowledge of the accident since I was in the area and speaking to officials during the rescue operation yesterday am extremely frustrated at the amount of BS and how much everyone feels like they have to speculate. Wait for the report, offer your RIP and stop reading into news reports. They are all different. If you know someone who witnessed the accident get the knowledge from them directly and keep the rumors off the boards.

After saying that, I can tell you that about 90% of your comments are not accurate at all and do absolutely no good for the diving community.

Captain Brandon
TDI Technical Rebreather Dive Master

How about telling us what you do know, instead of telling us we're 90% wrong but not offering details?

This is the way this board (incidents and accidents) works and, for that matter, how human beings work. We're inquisitive, suspicious, and generally we jump to conclusions based on the information we have at hand, factual or not.

 

[Gdaaym8z]

At least 3/4 of the posts in this thread have nothing to do with the accident.

It should really get purged.

I think your estimate may be a little low....

I'm very sad that we have lost a fellow diver. I am sad that my friends who run this boat are having to deal with a very tough situation that will no doubt have far reaching consequences.

My thoughts are with the family of the diver and I hope that they don't get sucked into all this drama on the board....I'm sure at least one of them is reading this thread. (or will be soon)

I'd be much more interested to read about cert agencies swim standards in a more appropriate thread....basic scuba discussions pherhaps?

Thank you to the posters who have posted useful information....it is appreciated.

Gday

 

[The Chairman]

I'll tell you what, TheEngineer, despite NetDoc's warning, you have fallen afoul of Ed's dictum (feels kinda funny to refer to him as "Ed," I didn't know him that well, but he was rather insistent on that point, "Hi. call me Ed please." is what he'd say when introduced). Anyway ... I happen to be the person that wrote NAUI's standards when the piece about 15 strokes was introduced, that was my verbiage.

Here's the idea: it only takes a few strokes to tell if someone is a good swimmer or not. If they're having trouble, let them swim the 225 yards, but if they dive in and immediately fall into a dynamite crawl or breast stroke ... do you really need to waste time going any further? The concept is not that 15 strokes is all that a diver should have to swim, the concept is that within 15 strokes a competent NAUI Instructor can easily judge a student's level of watermanship.

To state the obvious: My declaration of Shenanigans stands.

One of my chief complaints is when non-qualified personnel make comments about this or that agency. When a non-instructor for any agency starts pontificating about what a particular standard does or does not mean, it makes my blood boil! If you want to know the true meaning of any standard for any agency, ask one of their instructors and then ACCEPT what they say. It's almost a given that a non-instructor will not understand the ramifications or implementation of a particular standard and you only make yourself look STOOPID when you act like you're in the know when you're clearly not. This often happens when competing instructors implement their version of argumenta absurdium, and try to stuff an extreme definition down our throats.

To continue to do so, after being castigated by various INSTRUCTORS for that agency is nothing more than arrogance. Claiming them to be facts while misrepresenting those very facts is nothing short of ludicrous.

Here, I'll stop. Lest I post my real feelings about cyber wannabe instructors who don't have a friggin' clue. That would really be harsh.

FWIW, since I have responded in this thread, I can no longer moderate it. Mea culpa. I have asked a non-participating mod to split the thread as he sees fit (time permitting).

 

[Jax]

:focus:

County of San Diego: Press Releases

Case Number: 10-01903
Name: Robert Michael Clampitt
City of Residence:
DOB: 08/03/1962
Gender: Male
Place of Death: N 32 46 45 W 117 16 57, San Diego CA
Place of injury: N 32 46 45 W 117 16 57, San Diego CA
Date/Time of Death: 9/11/2010 4:20:00 PM
Date/Time injury: 09/11/2010 Unk

Summary: The decedent was a divorced 48 year old Caucasian male who was retired from the military and living alone in his apartment in City Heights. On 09/11/10, the decedent and thirteen other patrons boarded a Waterhouse Charter for a diving excursion. All fourteen divers entered the water for their first diving stop at the Yukon wreckage and the decedent was diving solo. He was later found submerged under the water unresponsive and was brought to the surface where cardiopulmonary resuscitative efforts were initiated. San Diego Lifeguards then transported him to their headquarters where they were met with paramedics. Despite continued efforts, he was pronounced dead at the scene.

Cause of Death/Updated Cause of Death: Pending
Contributing Conditions:
Manner: Pending
Investigating Agency: San Diego Police Next of kin notified? Yes