 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / April 2006PADI Training vs.. others
I received my YMCA Open Water Cert. about 6 years ago and recently received my Advanced Open Water Cert. through PADI. The latter dive instructor was very knowledgeable and skilled but I have to say that I was really put off by the PADI Training Manual. The text was adequate but the questions at the end of the chapters could have been answered by children. The questions were very simple multiple choice or "yes" or "no" answers. Something like this: "Lung expansion injuries are good for you" (yes) (no) I'm really not exaggerating much at all. I can really see now that PADI wants to virtually assure that you pass the course. As a result as I continue my training I will do all that I can to avoid PADI. I realize that the expertise of the diving instructor is what's most important but I have no faith in an organization which allows such dumb and self evident questions in their training manual. My initial YMCA Certification (written part) was a hundred times more demanding than the PADI Advanced Cert.. Any comments will be appreciated. Sy  SignaturePlease post and reply to sytech@yahoo.com > I received my YMCA Open Water Cert. about 6 years ago and recently > received my Advanced Open Water Cert. through PADI. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Sy There is some very basic "book" knowledge important to entry level courses, but not much. Mostly, it's skill development. As you get further into diving, you may find an interest in algorithm development, history, archeology, diving physics and physiology, gas blending, equipment design, cave mapping or any of the other hundreds of subjects we love to argue about here (or used to, anyway) and which require the kind of knowledge that can be assessed with a written exam. Meanwhile, work on developing yer in-water skills - that's how other, experienced divers will rank you as a good or bad diver. Leave the essays to those that don't dive much. m > > I have to say that I was really put off by the PADI Training Manual. > > ... I realize that the expertise of the diving [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There is some very basic "book" knowledge important to entry > level courses, but not much. Mostly, it's skill development. At the same time, there is a perceived need to have something "non-subjective" that can be easily tested. Doesn't matter if it is to keep the lawyers happy or whatever. > As you get further into diving, you may find an interest in > algorithm development, history, archeology, diving physics and > physiology, gas blending, equipment design, cave mapping or any > of the other hundreds of subjects we love to argue about here > (or used to, anyway) and which require the kind of knowledge > that can be assessed with a written exam. Critter ID, reef ecology, UW photography, SAC calculations, etc. > Meanwhile, work on developing yer in-water skills - that's how > other, experienced divers will rank you as a good or bad diver. > > Leave the essays to those that don't dive much. These merely compliment the sport and round out the person. To be a good diver, the proof is in the diving. -hh >> I received my YMCA Open Water Cert. about 6 years ago and recently >> received my Advanced Open Water Cert. through PADI. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >m In point of fact, skills development is what AOW is about. You should already have the basic knowledge, it's about stepping up a notch. Signaturedillon Could have been is in the past Could be is in the future There is only the now > >> I received my YMCA Open Water Cert. about 6 years ago and recently > >> received my Advanced Open Water Cert. through PADI. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >> > >> Sy This part is Mike Gray's words of wisdom ================= > >There is some very basic "book" knowledge important to entry > >level courses, but not much. Mostly, it's skill development. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Meanwhile, work on developing yer in-water skills - that's how > >other, experienced divers will rank you as a good or bad diver. ===== end excerpt of Mike Gray's words of wisdom > In point of fact, skills development is what AOW is about. You should > already have the basic knowledge, it's about stepping up a notch. > -- > dillon Not always, and that's the complaint of sytech and others -- except they put to much emphasis on BAD PADI instructors and instruction. I am a professional statistician. For the sake of simple arithmetic, if there are 10 times as many PADI instructors and students than some other agency, say SSI, then even if all things are being equal and the same, there will be 10 times as many BAD PADI instructors than bad SSI instructors -- by the merely fact of PROPORTIONS or per capita. Cozumel is THE place to observe all kinds of REALISM in recreational diving. I've met more divers from different states of the USA, more divers from different countries in the world, than the next 10 most popular world class dive locations I've been (also because of the PROPORTION factor). Here's a post I made in 2003 recalling an incidence in AOW Training -- the instructor AND student were diving from the same "wooden slow boat" I dived from, hence I have plenty of time to observe and hear what was going on. http://tinyurl.com/ettma THe anecdotal account was: RF> I've seen some PADI certified divers who are not "qualified" to RF> dive at ANY depth. ;-) I eye-witnessed a PADI AOW diver in-training RF> on a boat dive in Cozumel, by an instructor from Texas (her dive RF> shop instructor, I presume). The student hung on an arm of the RF> instructor the ENTIRE time, came back to the boat with the worst RF> case of mask squeeze I've ever seen -- black all around her eyes. RF> She PASSED her AOW cert, of course. That was in the early 1990s. It was on a Discover shop boat (Vikingo) that took about 2 hours to get from downtown to Palancar. :-) There was plenty of space on the boat to walk around, chat with other divers etc. (not much of that in fast 6-pak boats these days). Said instructor had brought OTHER groups of students to certify in Cozumel before. But that was the first case of an AOW diver who should NOT have been certified to dive at ANY depth at ANY place! There are many DIVERS who dive in Cozumel who are almost as bad as said AOW student -- and those were trained by OTHER agencies, and trained in Germany, Japan, Italy, France, you name it ... For example, when I was diving there for a couple days with Greg Mossman and Sanna, at the Mardi Gras, these were the assortment of divers on my boat: (feb 22: one from Holland with Instuctor, one from Switzerland) (feb 23: couple from Las Vegas with their Cancun DM) (feb 24: two Californian and assorted other divers) (feb 25: two Californian and assorted other divers} (feb 26: one Italian, two Mexican, and 3 Japanese) (feb 27: two Chicagoans, 1 Israeli, and 1 unknown) No obvious incompetent on this trip. :-) But I've seen Italian divers knocking a huge piece of the ceiling of the Cathedral in Punta Sur and other divers who panicked. I even rescued a few strangers who had no buoyancy control and were heading straightdown below 120 fsw and continuing when the DM was too far to grab them by the tank and pull them up! Those stories are in the archives too. In short, there are MANY incompetent divers who got certified, from ALL agencies. Some of the BEST DMs in Cozumel, who taught me some of my diving skills (after I already had my PADI Master Diver cert) were PADI Instructors! It's important to keep in mind not to sterotype anyone or any agency when it comes to scuba certification and dive skills. -- Bob. PADI trained; But mostly self-taught, and informally taught by experienced divers; SSI rubber-stamped Master Diver when my PADI card was lost in my stolen luggage. :-) > In point of fact, skills development is what AOW is about. Which skills specifically? And, developped into what? Matthias > I received my YMCA Open Water Cert. about 6 years ago and recently > received my Advanced Open Water Cert. through PADI. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Sy I would have to say that the best thing to do is to have a talk with the instructor who would be training you rather than going by the reputation of the training agency as a whole. PADI do have a reputation for wanting everyone who takes a course to pass, but the quality of a course is more dependant on the instructor than anything else. I am a PADI instructor, but I have certs from a variety of agencies and mainly keep the PADI rating as it is useful for work (I am a marine biologist and I occasionally train scientific divers, and the PADI courses are useful for getting the basic certs up to the point that non-PADI scientific training can begin). I have met a lot of very good PADI instructors as well as some quite dodgy ones, but the same applies to all of the other major agencies (SSI, BSAC, SAA etc.). You sound like you should be able to get a feel for how an instructor will be, so go from there. You might find that a course from a more technical agency is more what you are after as the academic portions of those courses will be more in depth than a PADI course... Just some thoughts... Dan L. >> I received my YMCA Open Water Cert. about 6 years ago and recently >> received my Advanced Open Water Cert. through PADI. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Dan L. The whole point of a training certification is to provide a framework under which *new* divers can confidently learn to be safe. If the instructor certification is insufficient assurance of basic competance in this regard, then the certificate is worse than useless, it is fraudulent. By definition, a new diver is incapable of properly assesing an individual instructor. > The whole point of a training certification is to provide a framework > under which *new* divers can confidently learn to be safe. No, it's a certification that they have the skills to be safe. There's a significant difference. Lee > I am a PADI instructor, but I have certs from a variety of agencies and > mainly keep the PADI rating as it is useful for work (I am a marine > biologist and I occasionally train scientific divers, and the PADI courses > are useful for getting the basic certs up to the point that non-PADI > scientific training can begin). In other words, it's a quick and certain way to put a card in the hands of a diver. That's a useful tool for you. It's a problem for the recreational diving industry. Lee "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :In other words, it's a quick and certain way to put a card in the hands of a :diver. That's a useful tool for you. It's a problem for the recreational :diving industry. And what problem woudl that be? Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > :In other words, it's a quick and certain way to put a card in the hands > of a > :diver. That's a useful tool for you. It's a problem for the > recreational > :diving industry. > And what problem would that be? In his case, where there's planned follow up for a program only intended to provide the card required to proceed, there's no problem. When there is no assurance that there will be further training, just getting a card that says you're certified is not enough to ensure you are safe. You and I both know that there are plenty of divers around whose cards say they are qualified to dive independently, who are not. I have, and have always had, a problem with any agency that puts sales above safety and, in my opinion, PADI corporate has done just that. YMMV. Lee [Lee wrote:] >> :In other words, it's a quick and certain way to put a card in the hands of a >> :diver. That's a useful tool for you. It's a problem for the recreational >> :diving industry. > >> And what problem would that be? .. >... You and I both know that there are plenty of divers around whose cards > say they are qualified to dive independently, who are not. Perhaps we do know that -- but we also know that there are relatively few recreational diving accidents. How do we reconcile the "facts" that here are plenty of unqualified divers but so few accidents? My own conclusion is that no matter how unqualified we think many divers may be, PADI et al. _ARE_ producing safe divers. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. >>... You and I both know that there are plenty of divers around whose cards >> say they are qualified to dive independently, who are not. > Perhaps we do know that -- but we also know that there are relatively few > recreational diving accidents. No, you don't. You know that there are relatively few diving accidents reported and tracked. There's a huge difference. Lee >>>... You and I both know that there are plenty of divers around whose cards >>>say they are qualified to dive independently, who are not. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, you don't. You know that there are relatively few diving accidents > reported and tracked. There's a huge difference. Exactly. Matthias .. >> ... but we also know that there are relatively few >> recreational diving accidents. > >No, you don't. You know that there are relatively few diving accidents >reported and tracked. There's a huge difference. Lee, you can do better than that! O.K., "technically" you are correct. However, as a practical matter I cannot imagine that a significant number of recreational SCUBA diving accidents are taking place without it being public knowledge. Do you have a reason to believe that a significant number of diving accidents are taking place and being hidden??? No disrespect, but it would take more than your own observations and/or suspicions to change the opinion I stated. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. hammond@not wrote: > Do you have a reason to believe that a significant number of diving > accidents are taking place and being hidden??? No disrespect, but > it would take more than your own observations and/or suspicions to > change the opinion I stated. If you take a look through the DAN Annual Accident report books (DAARB's, for short), you'll see that all of the incidents are of rec divers - - no on-duty DMs, instructors, etc. Don't know if its in the current DAARB's, but there was a statement in one of them from a few years ago that they were purposefully excluding all commercial diving accidents/fatalities from their published reports. -hh "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Don't know if its in the current DAARB's, but there was a statement in :one of them from a few years ago that they were purposefully excluding :all commercial diving accidents/fatalities from their published :reports. What does commercial diving have to do with PADI? Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What does commercial diving have to do with PADI? This reporting exclusion encompasses the PADI-trained DM working on the recreational diveboat, and the PADI-trained Instructor working with students. Charlie's question was: "Do you have a reason to believe that a significant number of diving accidents are taking place and being hidden?" YMMV on how you want to define "being hidden", but that this is data exclusion is unequivicable. Additionally, and as per the latest (March/April 2006) copy of DAN's _Alert Diver_ Magazine (page 24), it states: "The _2004 Report on Decompression Illness, Diving Fatalities and Project Dive Exploration_ reported that 'the average injured diver was not newly certified.'.." Since professional DMs & Instructors are clearly not newly certified (the break points that DAN used for their statement were 5 and 10 years), it may appear that they are the target of this 'at higher risk' type of statement, although IMO its more likely to do with diving frequency creating opportunity. As such, those generic 'PADI Resort DMs' who get in 500+ dives/year are probably at a particularly high overall risk...and because they get paid, DAN considers them to be "commercial" and thus is choosing to not report their accidents to the public via this annual summary publication, even though they're doing recreational dive profiles off of recreational diveboats with recreational dive gear. Full circle: how you want to define "being hidden"? -hh > As such, those generic 'PADI Resort > DMs' who get in 500+ dives/year are probably at a particularly high [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Full circle: how you want to define "being hidden"? Why would you want to compare a resort DM doing 500+ dives a year with recreational divers doing somewhere between 2-200 dives a year? > Why would you want to compare a resort DM doing 500+ dives a year with > recreational divers doing somewhere between 2-200 dives a year? Because physiologically, they're identical. Their dive gear isn't a source of differentiation either. Nor their dive profiles. Nor their breathing mixes. And there's no #dives/year criteria involved either. As such, show me how 'Mother Nature' is able to tell the difference between the two divers. FWIW, do realize that an off-duty DM/Instructor who gets injured is reported. Its only when he is on duty that an accident is excluded. >From a politically blind scientific perspective, this reporting exclusion is not rationally justified. -hh > Why would you want to compare a resort DM doing 500+ dives a year with > recreational divers doing somewhere between 2-200 dives a year? Because if diving were really all that safe, experience would not be a factor. > FWIW, do realize that an off-duty DM/Instructor who gets injured is > reported. Its only when he is on duty that an accident is excluded. Yeah, right. Just like a police officer only gets away with speeding when he's on duty. Lee > Because physiologically, they're identical. Their dive gear isn't a > source of differentiation either. Nor their dive profiles. Nor their > breathing mixes. And there's no #dives/year criteria involved either. > As such, show me how 'Mother Nature' is able to tell the difference > between the two divers. What's the half-time of the slowest tissues? Clearly there's some residual nitrogen as long as 18 hours and longer if you want to believe some of the DAN reports of DCS after flying. A recreational diver will let the tissues fully desaturate in between dive trips. By definition, recreational divers aren't diving daily, except on short-term dive vacations. Furthermore, many DMs don't limit themselves to the same profiles as recreational divers. They're also diving to free anchors or catch subsurface moorings or checking out the conditions, they're yo-yoing to rein in unruly divers, they're working hard loading and unloading tanks in between dives. There's no valid comparison between working commercial divers and recreational divers. > What's the half-time of the slowest tissues? Do tissue half-times somehow change when one gets their DM card? How is that possible? Do DMs grow a new gland or something? > By definition, recreational divers aren't diving daily, except on > short-term dive vacations. By definition, being a 'Dive Pro' merely means that one is receiving compensation: it does not force them to go dive daily, or to accept the higher risk of bounce dives. > Furthermore, many DMs don't limit themselves to the same profiles as > recreational divers. And precisely how is this possible? Afterall, they're using the same COTS dive computers as the 'Recs. > There's no valid comparison between working commercial divers and > recreational divers. While I agree that there may be very generalized trends of more 'demanding' dive schedules, basic human physiology doesn't change with what your career happens to be: Mother Nature has no way of knowing if a diver is or is not being paid for a dive. Charlie asked: "Do you have a reason to believe that a significant number of diving accidents are taking place and being hidden?" If your suggestions are true, it would mean that as a class these divers are incurring higher risk profiles, that would then bear out as higher injury rates. If the injury rates of the Industry's service workers were thus published, it is inevitable that it would be as fodder for a class action lawsuit about unsafe work conditions. -hh > While I agree that there may be very generalized trends of more > 'demanding' dive schedules, basic human physiology doesn't change with > what your career happens to be: Mother Nature has no way of knowing if > a diver is or is not being paid for a dive. More demanding dive schedules. Same physiology. Obviously it's the more demanding part that makes the difference. Again, why should we compare the <100 dive a year rec diver with the 500+ dive a year pro? I see at least a five-fold difference in the number of dives. > If your suggestions are true, it would mean that as a class these > divers are incurring higher risk profiles, that would then bear out as > higher injury rates. If the injury rates of the Industry's service > workers were thus published, it is inevitable that it would be as > fodder for a class action lawsuit about unsafe work conditions. If the general suggestions of this thread are true, that diving is inherently very risky because accidents happen all the time, then as a class these divers are incurring higher risk profiles simply because they risk diving more often. Regardless, the most overworked DMs, where accidents are most covered up, would be in third-world countries without access to class action lawsuits about unsafe work conditions. If U.S. DMs were dropping like flies, you'd bet there'd be a lawsuit. >>While I agree that there may be very generalized trends of more >>'demanding' dive schedules, basic human physiology doesn't change with >>what your career happens to be: Mother Nature has no way of knowing if >>a diver is or is not being paid for a dive. > > More demanding dive schedules. I tend to disagree. They may do different schedules on cattle boats, just in order to not lose the fun in their job. On boats preferred by divers who like to do their own thing, I have observed, that while the DMs tend to have a look around to be assured of the skills of the divers, they shorten their dives considerably be on board in case there presence is needed there. Ok, the most risky part, as you mentioned, is indeed working to refix a mooring, working with wrenches and steel cables at 80m. I did see that. He went immediately on oxygen after the dive, just to be sure. By their frequent diving, they develop, like their clientele who is diving frequently as well, a way of decompressing more efficiently ( no nonsense, this is the opinion of many hyperbaric scientists). Matthias Same physiology. Obviously it's the more > demanding part that makes the difference. Again, why should we compare the > <100 dive a year rec diver with the 500+ dive a year pro? I see at least a > five-fold difference in the number of dives. >>If your suggestions are true, it would mean that as a class these >>divers are incurring higher risk profiles, that would then bear out as [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > action lawsuits about unsafe work conditions. If U.S. DMs were dropping > like flies, you'd bet there'd be a lawsuit. > > While I agree that there may be very generalized trends of more > > 'demanding' dive schedules, basic human physiology doesn't change with > > what your career happens to be: Mother Nature has no way of knowing if > > a diver is or is not being paid for a dive. > > More demanding dive schedules. Nowhere does it say that every DM/Instructor *must* work full time. And while we do often find full time DMs down in the tropics, up north, the DM & Instructor work is part time and seasonal. Both get excluded from the Report because of "who they are", not how many dives worth of risk exposure they incur. > Again, why should we compare the <100 dive a year rec diver with the > 500+ dive a year pro? I see at least a five-fold difference in the number of dives. Because if it is the number of dives that is a contributing risk factor, it is much more scientifically valid to just measure that variable directly rather than indirectly. For an automotive analogy, say we're comparing 4 door sedans in a junkyard and to see how much its been driven, you are suggesting that we look at its registration papers instead of looking at its odometer. > If the general suggestions of this thread are true, that diving is > inherently very risky because accidents happen all the time, then as a class > these divers are incurring higher risk profiles simply because they risk > diving more often. As a generalized class, I don't disagree ... and there is dive accident data being collected on this group, yet it is purposefully excluded from current Industry dive accident report publication. > If U.S. DMs were dropping like flies, you'd bet there'd be a lawsuit. Isn't that an extremely difficult proposition when there isn't any published data for them to start to build a case from? -hh > And while we do often find full time DMs down in the tropics, up north, > the DM & Instructor work is part time and seasonal. Both get excluded > from the Report because of "who they are", not how many dives worth of > risk exposure they incur. In my local waters, DMs don't leave the boat unless it's to assist in a rescue. Any dives the DM does are purely recreational, so they should be considered as recreational divers. Fine. I disagree with the instructor part, though. Often instructors' profiles differ from the recreational divers' profile by bouncing repeatedly, bringing students down to 30', say, one pair at a time, or by limiting surface interval time in order to fit in several OW classes' cert dives. >> Again, why should we compare the <100 dive a year rec diver with the >> 500+ dive a year pro? I see at least a five-fold difference in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > factor, it is much more scientifically valid to just measure that > variable directly rather than indirectly. Not if the pro who not only has a much greater number of dives also has factors further increasing the risk, such as seesaw profiles, anchor retrieving bounce dives, and demanding physical work in between dives. Since there's no way to account for the other risk factors, it's better to discard the data altogether. > For an automotive analogy, say we're comparing 4 door sedans in a > junkyard and to see how much its been driven, you are suggesting that > we look at its registration papers instead of looking at its odometer. No, for an automotive analogy, you're comparing 4-door sedans that average about 12,000 miles a year, and then you want to add in data from 4WD two-ton working trucks that put in 36,000 miles a year. It's not just the number of miles that differ. >> If U.S. DMs were dropping like flies, you'd bet there'd be a lawsuit. > > Isn't that an extremely difficult proposition when there isn't any > published data for them to start to build a case from? Hardly. Expert witnesses are a dime a dozen. You pay one to conduct the surveys and publish the data to your liking. If the defense doesn't like your data, they can feel free to publish contrary data and you can argue it out in court. That there hasn't been a lawsuit relates more to the fact that there's no single deep pocket to go after, making class litigation impractical. Each dive operation would have to be sued. Perhaps PADI and other agencies could be brought in under some theory of respondeat superior, but they'd deny having such microcontrol over individual dive boats and would stick to their standards. Plus you have state workers compensation laws and federal OSHA and other regulations that often preempt an individual's right to sue. A single injured divemaster will never be lucky enough to find a worker's comp lawyer working on a contingency to shell out his own cash to have the requisite studies conducted. > Full circle: how you want to define "being hidden"? How about not disclosed. Lee > :Don't know if its in the current DAARB's, but there was a statement in > :one of them from a few years ago that they were purposefully excluding > :all commercial diving accidents/fatalities from their published > :reports. > > What does commercial diving have to do with PADI? Nothing. It does, however, have a great deal to do with using incomplete accident reports to support a claim that there are very few diving accidents. Lee > .. >>> ... but we also know that there are relatively [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Lee, you can do better than that! I did. Read my latter post where I went though all the kinds of diving accidents that are not likely to be reported. Just because we don't have many reported serious accidents or deaths does not mean that there are not plenty of unreported diving accidents every day, accidents that would have been avoided if a bit more time had been spent on the dangers of diving and a bit less on how safe it is. > However, as a practical matter I cannot imagine that a significant number > of recreational SCUBA diving accidents are taking place without it being > public knowledge. I ask you the same question I asked Greg. How many times have people in this group, or who were in this group, been bent? > Do you have a reason to believe that a significant number of diving > accidents are taking place and being hidden??? Possibly, but your question implies intent. The first dive my wife did with me, back in 1991, she descended directly onto a fire coral covered pipe. Because her reaction was immediate and somewhat severe, we aborted that dive and all other dives planned for that day. It turned out OK, but it could have been otherwise. All we can tell, as frequent recreational divers, is how many people we see on the boats that we recognize as incompetent. The number is way too high. Lee >"Charlie Hammond" <hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com> wrote >> Do you have a reason to believe that a significant number of diving >> accidents are taking place and being hidden??? > >Possibly, but your question implies intent. "Intent"? I appolgize, but I don't know what you want this to mean. "Intent" by whom? To do what? > ... The first dive my wife did with >me, back in 1991, she descended directly onto a fire coral covered pipe. >Because her reaction was immediate and somewhat severe, we aborted that dive >and all other dives planned for that day. It turned out OK, but it could >have been otherwise. Perhaps we are using a different definition of "accident". I am thinking of something that requires professional medical treatment and/or is life threatening. >All we can tell, as frequent recreational divers, is how many people we see >on the boats that we recognize as incompetent. The number is way too high. While I, like you, would much prefer to see the overall level of skill be somewhat higher, this is a choice these divers have made. It isn't really up to us to say that they are wrong. At least _I_ do not want to introduce licensing and mandatory standards; the current, voluntary certification system seems to work admirably well. As to saying that these people are "incompetent" -- by what standards? In my [not so] humble opinion, if there were truely a lot of "incompetent" recreational SCUBA divers, then we _would_ see lots more deaths and serious accidents. We don't, so there aren't. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :All we can tell, as frequent recreational divers, is how many people we see :on the boats that we recognize as incompetent. The number is way too high. I dive for fun, not to assess the other people on the boat. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: > :All we can tell, as frequent recreational divers, is how many people we see > :on the boats that we recognize as incompetent. The number is way too high. > > I dive for fun, not to assess the other people on the boat. Same here, but some of it is so obvious that it is hard not to notice, even when we're not trying to look for it...its hard not to have a general peripheral awareness of your environment. -hh "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Same here, but some of it is so obvious that it is hard not to notice, :even when we're not trying to look for it...its hard not to have a :general peripheral awareness of your environment. so I guess you don't dive with a camera anymore. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > so I guess you don't dive with a camera anymore. On the contrary: I still do. And my ears still work pretty well, so it can be pretty hard to *not* notice someone who's floundering around topside and asking the staff for help, because they're overwhelmed just in trying to figure out how to successfully fall off the back of the boat to start their dive. Once in the water, I probably spend 80% of each hour looking around for interesting photography subjects, not peeking through the viewfinder at a found subject. As such, there's plenty of time to observe other divers while UW, particularly since physiologically, the human eye is attracted to motion. Even if my dive plan choices are to observe them to see which way they're heading so that I can go in the opposite direction, since we're all going to eventually return to the boat, the general nature of "out and back" patterns will mean divers passing other divers. As the dive comes to an end, there will be a gathering near/under the boat for a safety stop near the hang bar. By now, my camera's getting folded up and stowed for easier exiting, and there's 3-5 minutes of watching the world go by and figuring out who's going to head up for the ladder next. IMO, its pretty easy to spot those who are uncomfortable exiting by how they approach the ladder and their execution of their exit...and its smart to keep an eye on them while I'm below them, to hopefully avoid having a dropped weightbelt from hitting me on the noggin. The way I see it, it is basic situational awareness. -hh > .. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of recreational SCUBA diving accidents are taking place without it being > public knowledge. Define public. In Egypt, torists come and go on a weekly basis. They know next to nothing of what happens outside their viz. Dive ops hide most anything from the authorities because they are afraid of being penalized/license revocation/bribes etc. > Do you have a reason to believe that a significant number of diving > accidents are taking place and being hidden??? Absolutely. > No disrespect, but > it would take more than your own observations and/or suspicions to > change the opinion I stated. Matthias .. >Dive ops hide most anything from the authorities because >they are afraid of being penalized/license revocation/bribes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Absolutely. Realy? Care to share? The unsupported ascertion that "Dive ops hide most anything..." is rather weak. There are lots of things that "everybody knows", but which, on further inspection, just don't hold up. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > .. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is rather weak. There are lots of things that "everybody knows", > but which, on further inspection, just don't hold up. Most decompression related diving accidents should be treated with oxygen. Have you ever considerered what a PITA it is to get an oxygen bottle filled up again, say, in Egypt? A normal strategy is to convince the bendees that they've just had a bad day. The worse the education, the more likely they are to believe so. There was a recentis case overview study by an australian physician, which was published in "Caisson", the German hyperbaric and diving medicine's societies (GTUEM)journal, depicting quite a high percentage of diving related accidents, even with more experienced divers. Well I do not share his opinion as to what designates an experienced divers, but there is no doubt in the number of accidents. Accidents like Lee adressed properly. We must be aware that each minor accident we know of represents at least the probability of more severe ones, if not an obscured number withheld for obvious reasons. Matthias Matthias Voss <spammat.voss@gmx.de> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :> Do you have a reason to believe that a significant number of diving :> accidents are taking place and being hidden??? : :Absolutely. And exactly why do you think that? Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > Matthias Voss <spammat.voss@gmx.de> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And exactly why do you think that? As I posted in another response. And because I see people diving. Not to assess them, but to know whom to avoid. Assimilating an approach to accident prevention from civil engineering/ traffic accident research (which I had done several years ago): You observe near accident events, try to classify the causes, and relate them statistically to accidents really happening. Works. Matthias > Assimilating an approach to accident prevention from civil engineering/ > traffic accident research (which I had done several years ago): > You observe near accident events, try to classify the causes, and relate > them statistically to accidents really happening. Works. Sure does, but not if you start with the assumption that, because there's no accident report, there is no danger. Lee >>Assimilating an approach to accident prevention from civil engineering/ >>traffic accident research (which I had done several years ago): [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sure does, but not if you start with the assumption that, because there's no > accident report, there is no danger. That is the difference between a denial culture and an open to discussion one. Matthias >>>Assimilating an approach to accident prevention from civil engineering/ >>>traffic accident research (which I had done several years ago): [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That is the difference between a denial culture and an open to discussion > one. Which do you perceive the dive industry to be? Lee >>>>Assimilating an approach to accident prevention from civil engineering/ >>>>traffic accident research (which I had done several years ago): [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Which do you perceive the dive industry to be? Perceive? They do their best to prove it! With the exemption of replacing pertinax and rubber membranes with silicone ones, technical progress did not do much to improve diving safety. Still, claiming to do so, to be able to do so, is a marketing necessity. Matthias >>>... You and I both know that there are plenty of divers around whose >>>cards [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, you don't. You know that there are relatively few diving accidents > reported and tracked. There's a huge difference. I doubt there's a huge difference. In countries like the U.S., where practically every death gets investigated, I'm pretty sure that DAN's record is near complete. There may be a few missed cases of DCS or minor barotrauma, but any case so mild as to escape attention probably doesn't deserve attention and is more than counterbalanced by falsely attributed "diving accidents" that are really just heart attacks at the wrong place or time, or "bends" that are really just sore muscles. I'm pretty sure that the same standards would hold true for Canada and Western Europe and Japan and Australia. Obviously the standards of reporting vary in third-world countries, but the more professional dive ops will make the necessary reports no matter where they're located. For instance, I doubt Ocean Frontiers in Grand Cayman or Capt. Don's Habitat in Bonaire would cover up any dive-related accidents. In any case, the valid statistics from first-world countries can be extrapolated to the third-world since most of the divers were trained in first-world countries. It might be interesting to see the number of dive accidents attributable to third-world dive instruction, but as Charlie pointed out, the number of accidents, at least those attributable to first-world dive instruction, is "relatively few". >>>>... You and I both know that there are plenty of divers around whose >>>>cards >>>> say they are qualified to dive independently, who are not. >>> Perhaps we do know that -- but we also know that there are relatively >>> few >>> recreational diving accidents. >> No, you don't. You know that there are relatively few diving accidents >> reported and tracked. There's a huge difference. > I doubt there's a huge difference. In countries like the U.S., where > practically every death gets investigated, I'm pretty sure that DAN's > record is near complete. First, not all deaths are investigated, not by a long shot. Second, the subject is diving accidents, not deaths. > There may be a few missed cases of DCS or minor barotrauma . . . How many of the divers in this forum have been bent? How many have been bent more than once? How many have had sinus, ear or other problems as a result of diving? How many have run out of gas during a dive, failed to fine their way back to the boat without surfacing or been stung, bitten or cut by something they failed to avoid? How many have dropped a weight belt from a bench, where it should not have been in the first place. How many times have you seen someone catch a tank that they, or someone else failed to secure properly? Are you still sure there aren't many diving accidents? Lee > How many of the divers in this forum have been bent? Probably very few. > How many have been bent more than once? Probably extremely few. > How many have had sinus, ear or other problems as a result of diving? That's a dive accident? Give me a break. Are you going to count seasickness too? > How many have run out of gas during a dive, failed to fine their way back > to the boat without surfacing or been stung, bitten or cut by something > they failed to avoid? That's a dive accident? Give me a break. It's not an auto accident if I slam my finger in the car door. > How many have dropped a weight belt from a bench, where it should not have > been in the first place. How many times have you seen someone catch a > tank that they, or someone else failed to secure properly? Again, not dive accidents by any stretch, unless some gets hurt. I haven't seen too many people get hurt too often. Even when someone's unsecured rigged 120 fell on my toe, I never would have considered that a dive accident, though it hurt like a mother . . . > Are you still sure there aren't many diving accidents? Yes. Without a doubt. What people usually mean by "accident" is an injury or fatality. A dive accident would be an injury or fatality directly caused by diving. Those that are indirect, such as people falling off the boat or getting seasick or hernating a disc carrying dive gear are not dive accidents by any stretch of imagination. Most people who get "bent" nowadays get treated by a hyperbaric chamber. Those incidents are usually reported and recorded. While shore diving may be popular in certain areas and some people dive off private boats, the majority of divers dive off commercial dive boats. Dive boats will usually record and report dive accidents, especially in the litigation-prone U.S. Perhaps there are a number of shore divers that shrug off their real dive accidents (i.e. DCS, barotrauma), but I believe that number is insignificant today. Do you have any information that would contradict my belief? >> Are you still sure there aren't many diving accidents? > > Yes. Without a doubt. You can lead them to water, but you can't make them drink. > What people usually mean by "accident" is an injury or fatality. What you mean by accident is an injury of fatality. I'm more flexible than that. > Most people who get "bent" nowadays get treated by a hyperbaric chamber. You've got statistics on all those that got bent and didn't get treated? Perhaps you've not heard how denial is one of the greatest dangers for those that get bent, you know, the ones that never visit a chamber. 50% of divers writing this message, when bent, got chamber treatment. I defy you to find either incident in anyone's statistics. > Those incidents are usually reported and recorded. While shore diving may > be popular in certain areas and some people dive off private boats, the > majority of divers dive off commercial dive boats. You have some statistics to show this? Even given that it's true, how many DCS cases are not diagnosed until after the person is off the dive boat? > Dive boats will usually record and report dive accidents, especially in > the litigation-prone U.S. The hell they will, especially in the litigation prone US. Remember the boats, there've been several, that left people behind and failed to report it, even after finding their gear, clothes and personal effects still on the boat? Sure, they'll report it . . . right after they get caught not reporting it. I once ran out of gas, by myself, 128 feet deep, in the back of a cave. Do you remember seeing an accident report? Lee >> Most people who get "bent" nowadays get treated by a hyperbaric chamber. > > You've got statistics on all those that got bent and didn't get treated? > Perhaps you've not heard how denial is one of the greatest dangers for > those that get bent, you know, the ones that never visit a chamber. Actually DAN estimates that maybe 50% of DCS cases go untreated. I don't believe that, unless the "hits" are so mild that they might as well be discounted. >> Those incidents are usually reported and recorded. While shore diving >> may be popular in certain areas and some people dive off private boats, >> the majority of divers dive off commercial dive boats. > > You have some statistics to show this? No statistics needed to prove the obvious. > Even given that it's true, how many DCS cases are not diagnosed until > after the person is off the dive boat? The greater the time between leaving the dive boat and diagnoses, the greater the odds that it's either (a) a mild hit, or (b) not DCS at all. For instance, DAN divides DCS cases into three categories: A-Emergency Cases of DCI. "Symptoms are severe and appear rapidly, within an hour or so of surfacing. Unconsciousness may occur. Symptoms may be progressing, and the diver is obviously ill. The diver may be profoundly dizzy, have trouble breathing or have major abnormalities in consciousness. Obvious neurological injury is seen in altered consciousness, abnormal gait or weakness." B-Urgent Cases of DCI. "Here, the only obvious symptom is severe pain that is unchanging or has progressed slowly during the past few hours. The diver does not appear to be in distress except for the pain, and the neurological signs and symptoms are not obvious without a careful history and examination." C-Timely Cases of DCI. "Symptoms are either not obvious or have progressed slowly for several days. Usually the main signs or symptoms are vague complaints of pain or an abnormality of sensation; the diagnosis of DCI may be in question. " Obviously people are going to get treated for category A DCS. Denial in category A cases only delays treatment, but clearly no one is going to shrug off "obvious neurological injury" for too long. It's the B and C cases where the denial factor might hinder prompt treatment. And the C cases don't bother me. It's likely most of the B cases aren't reported until the diver is off the dive boat, and it's likely that some of these cases aren't reported at all. But since it's estimated that there are only 10-20 DCS hits per 100,000 dives, the number of B cases is only a fraction of 10-20 per 100,000 and the number of unreported B cases is only a fraction of a fraction of 10-20 per 100,000. That ain't too many. (source for 10-20/100,000 hits: http://depts.washington.edu/dcistudy/dcsrisk.html) > The hell they will, especially in the litigation prone US. Remember the > boats, there've been several, that left people behind and failed to report > it, even after finding their gear, clothes and personal effects still on > the boat? Sure, they'll report it . . . right after they get caught not > reporting it. How many? I recall the Sundiver incident last year off Southern California. They reported it. How many similar incidents have there been in the U.S. in the past couple years and how many of those weren't reported until they got caught not reporting it? > I once ran out of gas, by myself, 128 feet deep, in the back of a cave. > Do you remember seeing an accident report? Did you die? Did you get seriously injured? If not, what are you whining about? You made it safely, just like almost all the other recreational divers do day after day after day. Did PADI tell you it's OK to run out of gas 128' deep in the back of a cave? Still, you survived. Just shows how safe diving really is. You're having a go at PADI? You said you did your basic with YMCA... Now if I am not mistaken, one rule my PADI BASIC certification drummed into us was you NEVER EVER dive alone..... or do YMCA teach you that's okay to do? Or was it you just weren't paying attention? Probably the latter. We were also taught to keep an eye on how much gas you have and to calculate how much reserve you needed to safely return to the exit point. And if you ran out of gas, in the back of a cave, all by yourself, what does that tell you????? That you are an idiot for going into a cave without sufficient air, without a buddy and no doubt you're not cave certified. Don't blame the diving schools or instructors for your own stupid incompetence in breaking the basic rules of diving. If the YMCA course is 100 times harder than PADI, perhaps that is the problem. It's too hard for people like you that can't remember the basics of the course, or questions like 'can you dive alone' yes or no....(Hint. The answer is NO) or How often do you check your gas pressure? Only at the surface or throughout the dive? (Hint. It's NOT when you run out of gas in a cave by yourself.) You should NEVER had allowed yourself to be in a position to run out of gas. That is not a fault with the course or the instructors. It is your stupidity that caused that to happen. And you say you want something more technical than what PADI teaches???? Why? You obviously learnt nothing from YMCA I did my OW PADI course 15 years ago, and I can still remember what I was taught in that course. I have done other courses with SSI and find I can remember what they taught me.... But in 15 years of diving, I have NEVER run out of gas, Never dived without a buddy. Never had a diving incident or accident. Why? because PADI taught me NOT TO. My opinion? If you are foolish enough to deliberately put yourself in danger when diving, sell your gear, stay out of the water and tear up your cert card. People like you are the cause of diving accidents. Chil >>> Are you still sure there aren't many diving accidents? >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Lee > You're having a go at PADI? You said you did your basic with YMCA... Now > if I am not mistaken, one rule my PADI BASIC certification drummed into us > was you NEVER EVER dive alone..... And rest assured, Wayne, dipshits like you shouldn't. You're obviously too much of an ignorant dumbass not to closely follow a strict mantra while diving in order to stay alive. <snip embarrassing PADI Master Diver rant> > But in 15 years of diving, I have NEVER run out of gas, Never dived > without a buddy. Never had a diving incident or accident. Why? because > PADI taught me NOT TO. Ergo, PADI divers =never= have accidents. Because they were taught not to. Not real big on critical thinking, eh? I'm PADI trained, and I have around 700 solo dives. > My opinion? No one cares. > If you are foolish enough to deliberately put yourself in danger when > diving, sell your gear, stay out of the water and tear up your cert card. > People like you are the cause of diving accidents. My, my, how opinionated. Maybe you can join us on Memorial Day in Key Largo to demonstrate these superior PADI skills? oh, I touched a nerve did I? And with what you called me, I would suggest you are very over opinionated as well. It doesn't matter who you do your training with. Just personal preference, and there will always be good and bad instructors no matter where you go. But no matter how much you care to flame me, or how much of a dipsh*t you may think I am, if you put yourself into a situation 30m underwater in a cave with no air and no buddy, then you're an idiot. Simple as that. And if you support that kind of diving, you too can join the hallowed halls of extreme mental retardation. And if you are indeed a DM, and support or encourage diving into a dangerous situation without support, backup or anything else, then you've lost the plot about what recreational diving is all about, not me.. And why swear and call me names because I enjoy recreational diving with friends? Can you not carry on a conversation without resulting to vulgarity? I sincerely hope that not all Americans need to use sixth grader language to carry on a conversation as you appear to do. But I digress. By using your own Ergo statement logic , all divers with a buddy = dipshi*s. Perhaps your thinking isn't too critical either, implying that only solo divers are supermen. Maybe it's the way they teach you to dive in America. Don't follow basics, run out of air and have accidents. Hey, your problem not mine. If you want to dive solo, that's up to you. I couldn't care any less if I tried. Maybe one day you'll silt up a cave or get trapped in a wreck, or one of our lovely Aussie sharks will take a bite out of you when you are all by your lonesome. But you're obviously Popeye is the super hero with over 700 solo dives and bad things never happen to super heroes, do they? Well we had a solo diver death over here not long ago. Guess he figured he was really good just like you and didn't need a buddy. Too bad he got into a spot of difficulty with no one to help him.... I'm Sure his wife and kids were happy he dived alone. Oh, and yes he was an experienced diver... Just like you I guess. Hey, Maybe your family encourages you to dive alone.... We can only live in hope. Perhaps I am an ignorant dumbass, perhaps you are as well, but buddy = safety is something which you seem to have a problem with, and as a DM, that is a ridiculous point of view. Oh dear, there I go being opinionated again. But Popeye, that's what makes the world so interesting. Without people like you, who probably delight in encouraging new and inexperienced divers to go solo as the DM on a dive trip, rescue services would probably have nothing to do. I didn't say PADI divers never have an accident. I said I've never had an accident. And yes, as far as I am concerned they taught me correctly. Oh, and where did this Superior PADI skills bit come from? I never stated I was better or worse than anyone else. Perhaps you are more opinionated than you care to think. No, not perhaps, just are. All I said was I have been diving for over 15 years without incident. Since when does that make me superior? I don't believe it does. Far from it. Anyway, you're the one quoting number of dives, not me, so obviously you must be a better diver because you dive solo and I don't. Gee, we're really impressed here I can tell you. As much as I would like to dive at Key Largo, I really couldn't be bothered sitting on a plane for 20 hours to get there over an insignificant argument on a news thread with a person I couldn't care less about.... Go figure. Ultimately it is up to the individual whether they wish to check their air or dive within their capabilities or do something idiotic. Human nature. To quote one of your actors. 'Stupid is as stupid does'. No dive centre can teach common sense, even to the likes of you. And look, I didn't even have to swear at you to make comments..... Now I'll just wait and see what vulgarity you can throw back at me to show everyone what your level of intelligence is, but to partly quote you... I don't care because you missed the point of what the thread was, and you openly support idiocy in diving, and you appear to lack the skills of basic vocabulary. Stay in America. Our sharks would get ill if they bit you. >> You're having a go at PADI? You said you did your basic with YMCA... >> Now if I am not mistaken, one rule my PADI BASIC certification drummed [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Maybe you can join us on Memorial Day in Key Largo to demonstrate these > superior PADI skills? > Stay in America. Our sharks would get ill if they bit you. My money's on Popeye. And if your sharks were made of beef, they wouldn't stand a chance. I always thought Popeye only ate spinach... Live and learn...lol >> Stay in America. Our sharks would get ill if they bit you. > > My money's on Popeye. And if your sharks were made of beef, they wouldn't > stand a chance. >> Stay in America. Our sharks would get ill if they bit you. > > My money's on Popeye. And if your sharks were made of beef, they wouldn't > stand a chance. I like fish. I had a tuna sandwich just the other day. > oh, I touched a nerve did I? Not hardly, but you did make yourself out to be quite a fool. > And with what you called me, I would suggest you are very over opinionated > as well. My diving is meticulously planned and thought out, and works well for me. Your diving is dependent on others, far more dangerous than solo diving. You also feel invulnerable since you have a buddy, setting yourself up for a big fall. The most laughable part of your dive philosophy is how you'll never make a mistake because you were trained not to... > It doesn't matter who you do your training with. Just personal > preference, and there will always be good and bad instructors no matter [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if you support that kind of diving, you too can join the hallowed halls of > extreme mental retardation. Some of us don't need the babysitting. Obviously, you do. > And if you are indeed a DM, and support or encourage diving into a > dangerous situation without support, backup or anything else, then you've > lost the plot about what recreational diving is all about, not me.. I seem to do just fine, like many others here. By not chanting a mindless mantra, among other things. > And why swear and call me names because I enjoy recreational diving with > friends? Can you not carry on a conversation without resulting to > vulgarity? Who initiated the vulgarity? > I sincerely hope that not all Americans need to use sixth grader language > to carry on a conversation as you appear to do. > > But I digress. You hebetate. > By using your own Ergo statement logic , all divers with a buddy = > dipshi*s. That's not what I said. Something wrong with your keyboard? It keeps misspelling "dipshit". > Perhaps your thinking isn't too critical either, implying that only solo > divers are supermen. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > your lonesome. But you're obviously Popeye is the super hero with over > 700 solo dives and bad things never happen to super heroes, do they? Just like they never happen to divers with buddies. > Well we had a solo diver death over here not long ago. Let's see the cite. > Guess he figured he was really good just like you and didn't need a buddy. We had a buddy death over here. Guess he figured his buddy could get him out of any problem. >Too bad he got into a spot of difficulty with no one to help him.... I'm >Sure his wife and kids were happy he dived alone. Oh, and yes he was an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I didn't say PADI divers never have an accident. I said I've never had an > accident. That's not what you said. >And yes, as far as I am concerned they taught me correctly. > > Oh, and where did this Superior PADI skills bit come from? I never stated > I was better or worse than anyone else. Perhaps you are more opinionated > than you care to think. No, not perhaps, just are. You specifically denigrated Lee Bell's dive skills while citing your own, a diver with several thousand dives that is a known and respected diver of accomplishment. He has several thousand dives over a 40 yr period, and, IIRC, his incident occurred before there was cert training, or at least in it's early throes. But you keep right on telling us all about it from your laughable PADI trained viewpoint. <snip further whining> > The most laughable part of your dive philosophy is how you'll never make a > mistake because you were trained not to... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>By using your own Ergo statement logic , all divers with a buddy = >>dipshi*s. > It keeps misspelling "dipshit". He seems to be from OZ. They may have laws there against making mistakes, and hateful spelling. They have to be careful. There is no place left to banish them. Matthias My my, we are getting a little disquieted aren't we... But lets continue. I am mildly amused by your efforts here. You're not the only one that meticulously plans a dive. So do I and more than likely a lot of others. So we'll take that as a given. My dive buddies are my wife and 3 kids. Why would I want to solo dive? We dive, we enjoy. After all it is recreational diving, and I doubt that makes me invulnerable, and it certainly doesn't make me a 'dipshit' as you so quaintly put it. My dive philosophy is to thoroughly plan, check and never dive exceeding the capabilities of the weakest diver. Unfortunately twisting phrases to suit your poison pen doesn't do you justice. It also appears you may have an extremly short memory span. You're asking me who started the vulgarity? Perhaps you should look at your first response.... I'll make it easier for you... Here's a copy and paste... > And rest assured, Wayne, dipshits like you shouldn't. and this.. >You're obviously too much of an ignorant dumbass not to closely follow a strict mantra while diving in order to stay alive. mmmm dipshit and dumbass in the first paragraphs.... So I guess it was you who initiated the vulgarity, or do you want to argue that point as well? You hebetate... Yes, well I'm obviously blunt and dull compared to your exciting life. Surprised I know the meaning are you? > By using your own Ergo statement logic , all divers with a buddy = > dipshi*s. > > That's not what I said. If you can formulate 'Ergo, PADI divers =never= have accidents' then it stands to reason using your own logic that you state all divers without a budy are dipshits. Live with it. Misshaps can occur to anyone anytime. Some are more preventable than others. You have your opinion, I have mine, and neither of us cares about eithers opinion. Lest we agree on something. > Let's see the cite. If I still have the newspaper I'll scan it for you. >> I didn't say PADI divers never have an accident. I said I've never had >> an accident. > > That's not what you said. Yes it was. I said quote" Why? because PADI taught me NOT TO." Can't see where that says everyone. Maybe I need glasses. > You specifically denigrated Lee Bell's dive skills while citing your own, > a diver with several thousand dives that is a known and respected diver of > accomplishment. I didn't specifically denigrate Lee Bell's dive skills. I didn't falsely charge or maliciously state anything against Lee or attack his good name. Lee stated himself the perdicument he found himself in, and I have never cited my dive skills. All I said was I've never had an accident or incident. Maybe it just means I'm lucky. > He has several thousand dives over a 40 yr period, and, IIRC, his > incident occurred before there was cert training, or at least in it's > early throes. Perhaps Lee does have all that experience. He didn't state when it happened. And funnily enough, he might be extremly well known in the states, but not over here. The way he put it in his comment, it could have happened last week. > But you keep right on telling us all about it from your laughable PADI > trained viewpoint. PADI viewpoint, SSI and some others. My comment on PADI was what they taught me in the basic OW 15 years ago. And why have I had to repeat it? Probably because people like you, with your almighty I'm better than you and everyone else attitude who have extreme difficulty in accepting someone else's point of view because it differs to your own, can not accept that recreational diving is not a contest of who can dive the most, who can solo the most or anything else. Wherever or however we dive, for recreational diving, the ultimate goal is to enjoy the dive, and to do it safely. If you have some other objective than that, more fool you. Anyway, you're obviously flaming me because of your association with Lee. Why don't you be a big boy and let Lee speak for himself.. Anyway, it's almost 9pm and I've got a night dive to go on. > My my, we are getting a little disquieted aren't we... Sorry, sweetie, I'm 20,000 posts into my Rec.scuba existence, and a little flower like you hasn't the skill or experience. > But lets continue. I am mildly amused by your efforts here. > > You're not the only one that meticulously plans a dive. So do I and more > than likely a lot of others. So we'll take that as a given. > > My dive buddies are my wife and 3 kids. Why would I want to solo dive? I never said you should or shouldn't. It was you, from ignorance, passing the judgment. Insultingly. > It also appears you may have an extremly short memory span. You're asking > me who started the vulgarity? Perhaps you should look at your first > response.... I'll make it easier for you... Here's a copy and paste... > > > And rest assured, Wayne, dipshits like you shouldn't. Your memory span seems to have forgotten this initial attack from your first post ever to the group: "That you are an idiot for going into a cave" "It is your stupidity that caused that to happen." And several others. > and this.. > >>You're obviously too much of an ignorant dumbass not to closely follow a > strict mantra while diving in order to stay alive. > > mmmm dipshit and dumbass in the first paragraphs.... My mother told me never to lie. > So I guess it was you who initiated the vulgarity, or do you want to argue > that point as well? See above. You have no point to argue. > You hebetate... Yes, well I'm obviously blunt and dull compared to your > exciting life. Surprised I know the meaning are you? Why would I be? After all, you seem to have internet access. I assume OZ has public schools like a first world country. >> By using your own Ergo statement logic , all divers with a buddy = >> dipshi*s. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stands to reason using your own logic that you state all divers without a > budy are dipshits. Live with it. It's still not what I said. When you can learn to quote, we can discuss it. > Misshaps can occur to anyone anytime. Some are more preventable than > others. You have your opinion, I have mine, and neither of us cares about > eithers opinion. Lest we agree on something. How correct. What I -do- care about is you showing up in the group and insulting one of it's most stable, experienced and well known members from your point of abject stupidity. You could have asked questions, or lurked a bit, but you went into full attack with information from one post and that shows you to be a fool. You can dance and spin all you want, but there's no taking back what you so arrogantly posted. >> Let's see the cite. > If I still have the newspaper I'll scan it for you. I'll try and remember not to hold my breath. >>> I didn't say PADI divers never have an accident. I said I've never had >>> an accident. >> >> That's not what you said. > > Yes it was. No, it wasn't. As you clearly cite below. > I said quote" Why? because PADI taught > me NOT TO." Can't see where that says everyone. Maybe I need glasses. So -now- you're saying, PADI taught you how never to have an accident ("But in 15 years of diving, I have NEVER run out of gas, Never dived without a buddy. Never had a diving incident or accident. Why? because PADI taught me NOT TO."), but doesn't teach anyone else that? Hmmm. >> You specifically denigrated Lee Bell's dive skills while citing your >> own, a diver with several thousand dives that is a known and respected >> diver of accomplishment. > > I didn't specifically denigrate Lee Bell's dive skills. I didn't falsely > charge or maliciously state anything against Lee or attack his good name. Now, you're just flat out lying: "That you are an idiot for going into a cave without sufficient air, without a buddy and no doubt you're not cave certified." "Don't blame the diving schools or instructors for your own stupid incompetence in breaking the basic rules of diving." "My opinion? If you are foolish enough to deliberately put yourself in danger when diving, sell your gear, stay out of the water and tear up your cert card. People like you are the cause of diving accidents." > Lee stated himself the perdicument he found himself in, and I have never > cited my dive skills. ""But in 15 years of diving, I have NEVER run out of gas, Never dived without a buddy. Never had a diving incident or accident. Why? because PADI taught me NOT TO." Sounds like a diving skills cite to me. You people do speak English as a primary language? > All I said was I've never had an accident or incident. Maybe it just means > I'm lucky. No, it quite specifically says that you've been "trained not to have an accident". This statement alone makes you the most ignorant and dangerous of divers. I suggest that you "sell your gear, stay out of the water and tear up your cert card. People like you are the cause of diving accidents." I hope a dumbass like you doesn't get your wife and kids killed as well. >> He has several thousand dives over a 40 yr period, and, IIRC, his >> incident occurred before there was cert training, or at least in it's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > states, but not over here. The way he put it in his comment, it could have > happened last week. Still your miss-assumption and your mistake. Not his. Your attack was rude, incredibly arrogant, and unnecessary. >> But you keep right on telling us all about it from your laughable PADI >> trained viewpoint. > > PADI viewpoint, SSI and some others. My comment on PADI was what they > taught me in the basic OW 15 years ago. No, it wasn't You said: " But in 15 years of diving, I have NEVER run out of gas, Never dived without a buddy. Never had a diving incident or accident. Why? because PADI taught me NOT TO." > And why have I had to repeat it? Probably because people like you, with > your almighty I'm better than you and everyone else attitude who have > extreme difficulty in accepting someone else's point of view because it > differs to your own, can not accept that recreational diving is not a > contest of who can dive the most, who can solo the most or anything else. Again, a lie, because you're too ashamed to face the truth of what you wrote. I'm a pretty good diver in my own environment, and know full well where my weaknesses lie. I don't attack people for diving different from me unless, as you clearly did, I'm attacked first. I don't care how or where you dive, don't brag about the difficulties of my dives, and at 1038 dives, consider myself a novice when compared to some posters here. Furthermore, I learned virtually everything I know about diving here, but the most important thing I learned was that the smarter I get, the less I know. Maybe someday you'll be blessed with that wisdom. > Wherever or however we dive, for recreational diving, the ultimate goal is > to enjoy the dive, and to do it safely. If you have some other objective > than th |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message