Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
ArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneous
Discussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK Scuba
DirectoryScuba Clubs

Scuba Forum / General / August 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

An example of why low PADI standards can be bad

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Alan Street - 14 Aug 2006 01:22 GMT
From the diveaccidents mail list:

Finally a more detailed report(s) from an accident last year...

First from August 9th:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2304901.html

Second from August 12th:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2309489.html

-----
Deaths of divers 'may have been avoided'
By Simon de Bruxelles

THE world's leading diving course was criticised yesterday for allowing
novices to progress too quickly, during inquests into the deaths of
three men off the coast of Cornwall.

The US-based Professional Association of Diving Instructors (Padi)
course, which is undertaken by a million people a year, was singled out
for allowing beginners to gain an advanced level after just eight
dives, four of them in a pool.

A diving expert and a police diver said that people were risking death
by going out with insufficient training and experience. Philip Bryson,
head of the Diving Diseases Research Centre in Plymouth, told one
hearing: "I do not believe that someone with eight dives should be
classified as an advanced diver. It is madness."

Peter Tapper, a diver with Devon and Cornwall police, said: "The whole
process moves along far too quickly."

Nigel Meadows, the Plymouth Coroner, was told that the common factors
in the deaths last June were existing medical conditions, alcohol and a
lack of experience.

Mark Jackson, 41, from Southwell, Nottinghamshire, dropped his weights
when his diving partner ran short of oxygen. He died from an embolism
when air trapped in his lungs formed bubbles in his blood.

In a separate incident, Albert Tythecott, 65, from Barnstaple, North
Devon, suffered a cerebral gas embolism due to rapid decompression.

Christopher Sidgwick, 40, of Chelmsford, Essex, drowned after he
mistakenly used a reserve tank of air that ran out. A verdict of
accidental death was recorded at all three inquests.

Padi defended its course, saying: "Accidents do occur."

-------------------------
Diving 'experts' not ready for the deeps
By Will Pavia

Too many novices who gained qualifications on holiday are not prepared
for more dangerous British waters
IN GLOOMY waters off the coast of Cornwall, Kerry Sale lost her grip on
the diving line.

Before that day in June last year, she had completed four dives in the
calm waters of a disused Midlands quarry.

Then, armed with an Open Water Diver certificate from the Professional
Association of Dive Instructors (Padi), she travelled to the South
Coast with a diving instructor and a friend, Mark Jackson, for a
weekend exploring sunken wrecks.

"If I'm doing something I tend to follow the rules," she told The
Times. "A Padi instructor suggested that we dive the wrecks. It never
occurred to me to say, 'Will it be all right?' " But rolling off the
back of the boat on her second dive that day, she felt unprepared for
the dark waters and currents that swept over the James Egan Layne, a
merchant ship that had been sunk by a U-boat's torpedo in 1945.

Ms Sale ran short of oxygen. "As I was ascending, I got separated from
Mark," she said. "I just lost control."

Mr Jackson, 41, the head of a Nottinghamshire building company,
jettisoned his weights and made a rapid break for the surface to call
for help. Having done so, he fell unconscious. He had ascended too
fast. Air trapped in his lungs had formed bubbles in his blood, and he
died of an embolism.

This week the story was retold in a coroner's court in Plymouth,
together with the tales of the deaths of two other relatively
inexperienced divers.

Ms Sale, 38, was told that she should not have been in the water and
was lucky to be alive.

Mr Jackson was said to have been overweight, and suffering from high
blood pressure, asthma and depression, which he had failed to declare
on his Padi medical form. He had been drinking the night before.

At a second inquest a novice diver, 64, was said to have died after
surfacing too fast, and at a third, a builder, 40, who had been diving
for a year, was said to have mixed up his air supply tanks. Both had
also been drinking the night before. The coroner, Nigel Meadows, said
he hoped that the hearings would serve "as a warning to all the schools
and novice divers".

Two expert witnesses at the hearing were less cautious in criticising
the set-up of what is one of Britain's fastest growing sports. PC Peter
Tapper, a diver for Devon and Cornwall Police, said that too many
novices took short courses on holiday, in calm clear waters, and
returned thinking themselves fully qualified for the colder, rougher,
darker waters of Britain. Philip Bryson, the head of the Diving
Diseases Research Centre in Plymouth, said that British training bodies
had streamlined their courses to compete with Padi, the world's largest
diving training organisation. "We have people presently diving who feel
they are advanced but have no experience whatsoever. The diving
community needs to be totally re-educated."

Ms Sale has not dived since that day in June.

Mr Jackson's widow, Julie Jackson, a mother of four, told The Times:
"He had dived in Kos, and in Florida and Egypt. I thought he was pretty

experienced until I listened to the expert witness, who doesn't call
anyone an expert until they have done 200 dives. I think the training
organisations need to tighten up."

Next month Rick Raeburn, the chairman of the British Diving Safety
Group, will consider the coroner's findings at the organisation's
meeting. "We will look at anything we can do to improve safety," he
said.
Jerome's Sock Puppet - 14 Aug 2006 03:31 GMT
"Mr Jackson was said to have been overweight, and suffering from high
blood pressure, asthma and depression, which he had failed to declare
on his Padi medical form. "

PADI didn't kill that dude.

"At a second inquest a novice diver, 64, was said to have died after
surfacing too fast,"

I'm not PADI certified, but I know for a fact they teach slow ascents,
and make you practice them in the pool and in the water.  PADI didn't
kill that one, either.

"and at a third, a builder, 40, who had been diving for a year, was
said to have mixed up his air supply tanks."

Sucking gas off the wrong bottle can kill you in the pool.  PADI didn't
do him in, either.

I'm gonna have to go with stupidity and hubris as the culprits with
these deaders.   PADI, certifying almos %85 of the OW divers in the
world, is going to come up a lot when there's an accident.   85% of the
time, I'm guessing.
Scott - 14 Aug 2006 03:40 GMT
> I'm gonna have to go with stupidity and hubris as the culprits with
> these deaders.   PADI, certifying almos %85 of the OW divers in the
> world, is going to come up a lot when there's an accident.   85% of the
> time, I'm guessing.

Yeah, but simple logic doesnt elicit the same emotional, visceral,
satisfaction as painting an entire agency as incompetent.
Jerome's Sock Puppet - 14 Aug 2006 03:45 GMT
> > I'm gonna have to go with stupidity and hubris as the culprits with
> > these deaders.   PADI, certifying almos %85 of the OW divers in the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Yeah, but simple logic doesnt elicit the same emotional, visceral,
> satisfaction as painting an entire agency as incompetent.

Yep.  Instead, I think we should mock the fat asthmatic deader.

He was so fat, he's dead!  HAHAHAH!!!!
Scott - 14 Aug 2006 04:00 GMT
> Yep.  Instead, I think we should mock the fat asthmatic deader.

> He was so fat, he's dead!  HAHAHAH!!!!

All agencies require a minimum level of physical fitness, and unless things
have changed, a doctors release.

SCUBA is not a particularly strenuous sport, or doesnt have to be, but
still...

If ya wheeze climbing 20 steps, probably out to stick to poker or casino
life.

For example, there isnt enough money in the world to get me into a ring with
Tito Ortiz.
Jerome's Sock Puppet - 14 Aug 2006 04:08 GMT
> If ya wheeze climbing 20 steps, probably out to stick to poker or casino
> life.

One of the funniest dive disaster stories I've ever heard involved a
huge fat guy in a custom drysuit so overweighted he got stuck on the
bottom.  With his scooter.

The funny part is how he tried to get off the bottom.  Using the
scooter.

That probably wouldn't have been funny if I'd been trying to dive that
sight, but since it was someone elses newly minted mud hole, I get to
laugh.

They didn't let him die, though, even though they wanted to.
Star - 14 Aug 2006 06:20 GMT
> > > I'm gonna have to go with stupidity and hubris as the culprits with
> > > these deaders.   PADI, certifying almos %85 of the OW divers in the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> He was so fat, he's dead!  HAHAHAH!!!!

A fat, asthmatic, diabetic guy lied on his medical form for one of my
tech classes.  Another student caught him shooting up and squealed; he
refused to be the guy's buddy.  I sent the fat-asthmatic-diabetic guy
packing.  Should I have kept him in the course?  I don't teach PADI.

* , removing tongue from cheek
Jerome's Sock Puppet - 14 Aug 2006 09:50 GMT
> A fat, asthmatic, diabetic guy lied on his medical form for one of my
> tech classes.  Another student caught him shooting up and squealed; he
> refused to be the guy's buddy.  I sent the fat-asthmatic-diabetic guy
> packing.  Should I have kept him in the course?  I don't teach PADI.
>
> * , removing tongue from cheek

I'm not sure if you're being facetious, or I'm missing your point.

Are you suggesting that PADI should have caught the guy seruptitiously
shooting up?
Dillon Pyron - 15 Aug 2006 23:15 GMT
>> > > I'm gonna have to go with stupidity and hubris as the culprits with
>> > > these deaders.   PADI, certifying almos %85 of the OW divers in the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>* , removing tongue from cheek

Fat guy is found sitting on the sailboat at Windy Point Private in
about 60 feet of water.  Nobody around him.  We take him to the
surface where he's incoherent.  While we get him to shore, someone
shouts "he's a diabetic, I think he's hypoglycemic".  So we give him
some Coke and he perks up.  Turns out he forgot whether he'd taken his
insulin and gave himself a second shot, just to be sure.  Then went
out for a fun dive, alone.  This was in an AOW class.  He had taken
the OW class the week before from the same instructor.  Said
instructor found out he hadn't reported being diabetic on his medical
sheet and kicked him out of the class.  And tore up his PIC from the
OW class.  I still have the incident report from that one.
Signature

dillon

How much power does it take to run a server farm?
A googlewatt.

Popeye - 14 Aug 2006 19:32 GMT
> "Mr Jackson was said to have been overweight, and suffering from high
> blood pressure, asthma and depression, which he had failed to declare
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> world, is going to come up a lot when there's an accident.   85% of the
> time, I'm guessing.

 My, what a basic clarity you have.

Signature

                                 Popeye
   The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -
    deliberate, contrived, and dishonest - but the myth -
         persistent, persuasive, and realistic.  - JFK
                    www.finalprotectivefire.com

Lee Bell - 14 Aug 2006 20:37 GMT
> PADI didn't kill that one.

PADI didn't kill any of them.  PADI also didn't train them well enough to
keep them from killing themselves.

Lee
dechucka - 14 Aug 2006 23:25 GMT
>> PADI didn't kill that one.
>
> PADI didn't kill any of them.  PADI also didn't train them well enough to
> keep them from killing themselves.

you can never train someone well enough to stop them killing themselves
Lee Bell - 15 Aug 2006 02:33 GMT
>> PADI didn't kill any of them.  PADI also didn't train them well enough to
>> keep them from killing themselves.

> you can never train someone well enough to stop them killing themselves

Maybe not in Australia, where your operators keep leaving their customers
miles from shore.  Here in the States, YMCA, NAUI, SSI and TDI seem to have
done OK with me.  44 years and still going strong.

Lee
Magilla - 15 Aug 2006 02:56 GMT
>>> PADI didn't kill any of them.  PADI also didn't train them well enough
>>> to keep them from killing themselves.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> miles from shore.  Here in the States, YMCA, NAUI, SSI and TDI seem to
> have done OK with me.  44 years and still going strong.

   I have, somewhere on a dusty shelf, not one but three PADI "C" cards.
Made 88 dives before I got my first "other", one from SSI, a no-dive Nitrox
Cert.  Had 130 dives with PADI as my highest cert level before I started
cave training, prior to DIRF, and passed in the normal window.  Somehow, I
not only survived, but learned enough to make a transition to "technical"
diving carrying only PADI cards.  'nuf said.

Curtis
dechucka - 15 Aug 2006 03:09 GMT
>>> PADI didn't kill any of them.  PADI also didn't train them well enough
>>> to keep them from killing themselves.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Maybe not in Australia, where your operators keep leaving their customers
> miles from shore.

they were only septics so that doesn't really count

>Here in the States, YMCA, NAUI, SSI and TDI seem to have done OK with me.
>44 years and still going strong.

and PADI and NAUI have done OK with me but so what. IMHO stupidity/slackness
will overcome any training. In fact your comment about the N Q'land operator
highlights my point there were rules in place and the crew were trained to
not allow this to happen but it did due to slackness and stupidity.
Lee Bell - 15 Aug 2006 13:38 GMT
>> Maybe not in Australia, where your operators keep leaving their customers
>> miles from shore.

> they were only septics so that doesn't really count

See my earlier comments, in another thread, about French Canadians.

BTW, even knowing the origin of the term "septic" it's not a term everyone
it applies to much appreciates.

> and PADI and NAUI have done OK with me but so what. IMHO
> stupidity/slackness will overcome any training.

You won't get an argument on this point from me.

> In fact your comment about the N Q'land operator highlights my point there
> were rules in place and the crew were trained to not allow this to happen
> but it did due to slackness and stupidity.

I won't argue that one either.  My comments were a bit of a cheap shot.

As someone else pointed out, similar things have happened here.  In one
similar case, the crew failed to conduct an effective diver count, the boat
returned to shore where the crew noticed gear and clothing left aboard and
should have noticed that the count of rental tanks was short, and still
nobody thought to report anything until the next day when relatives called
to check on the missing divers.

Lee
dechucka - 15 Aug 2006 22:22 GMT
>>> Maybe not in Australia, where your operators keep leaving their
>>> customers miles from shore.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> BTW, even knowing the origin of the term "septic" it's not a term everyone
> it applies to much appreciates.

Well IF you do know the origin you know it is very innocent

sensitive aren't we what would you prefer to be called Yanks or citizens of
the USA

>> and PADI and NAUI have done OK with me but so what. IMHO
>> stupidity/slackness will overcome any training.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> and still nobody thought to report anything until the next day when
> relatives called to check on the missing divers.

you may have got the incidents mixed up because this is exactly what
happened in FNQ.

My point remains that most deaths on SCUBA are caused by stupidity or
slackness, yes there are some when equipment failure or plain bad luck comes
into play but this is not the fault of the certifying agency. In fact if any
of these deaths /accidents could be blamed in any way on the certifying
agency than I am sure that in a litigious country like the US the law suits
would be flying. Downunder I haven't heard of this happening but maybe it
is.
Limey - 16 Aug 2006 11:50 GMT
"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote
> dechucka wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> BTW, even knowing the origin of the term "septic" it's not a term everyone
> it applies to much appreciates.

Lee, unless dechukas using a different "septic" than I know of, it's not
derogatory in any way.....it's certainly no worse than being called a Limey.
;0)

LD.
Lee Bell - 16 Aug 2006 13:36 GMT
> Well IF you do know the origin you know it is very innocent

Yeah, but a nickname that ends up as something that is full of sh.t isn't
attractive no matter how innocent the path that led to it.

> sensitive aren't we what would you prefer to be called Yanks or citizens
> of the USA

Yanks would seem better to me, at least from those living in Oz.

> you may have got the incidents mixed up because this is exactly what
> happened in FNQ.

Not mixed up.  Except for how far they were from shore, the events were very
similar.

Lee
dechucka - 16 Aug 2006 23:45 GMT
>> Well IF you do know the origin you know it is very innocent
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Yanks would seem better to me, at least from those living in Oz.

Sorry mate septic will do or seppo if you really are so sensistive, come on
a bit of cultural sensitivity you don't want to be a drop kick do you

>> you may have got the incidents mixed up because this is exactly what
>> happened in FNQ.
>
> Not mixed up.  Except for how far they were from shore, the events were
> very similar.

Happens all over the world with these PADI trained boat operators :-(
Lee Bell - 17 Aug 2006 13:36 GMT
>> Not mixed up.  Except for how far they were from shore, the events were
>> very similar.

> Happens all over the world with these PADI trained boat operators :-(

Actually, that's one of the few things I don't blame on PADI.  They don't
train the boat operators, but they damned sure do impose restrictions on
them.  I'd bet anything that the rules are quite specific regarding head
counts.

Lee
dechucka - 17 Aug 2006 21:52 GMT
>>> Not mixed up.  Except for how far they were from shore, the events were
>>> very similar.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> them.  I'd bet anything that the rules are quite specific regarding head
> counts.

How can PADI put restrictions on boat operators?
Lee Bell - 17 Aug 2006 23:57 GMT
> How can PADI put restrictions on boat operators?

The majority of the boats are operated by shops affiliated with a training
agency.  You want to advertise yourself as a PADI 5 start facility, you play
by PADI's rules.

Lee
dechucka - 18 Aug 2006 00:11 GMT
>> How can PADI put restrictions on boat operators?
>
> The majority of the boats are operated by shops affiliated with a training
> agency.  You want to advertise yourself as a PADI 5 start facility, you
> play by PADI's rules.

Must be different over here or I just dive from independent boats
dechucka - 18 Aug 2006 00:15 GMT
>>> How can PADI put restrictions on boat operators?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Must be different over here or I just dive from independent boats

Having said that especially diving in Q'land has become a lot more strict
since the 2 seppos ( sorry citizens of the USA ) were lost. You actually
sign yourself back onto the boat but that is a gov regulation, I assume
under  Health and Safety laws
Lee Bell - 18 Aug 2006 12:51 GMT
> Having said that especially diving in Q'land has become a lot more strict
> since the 2 seppos ( sorry citizens of the USA ) were lost. You actually
> sign yourself back onto the boat but that is a gov regulation, I assume
> under  Health and Safety laws

I read the proposed Q'land diving rules after the two incidents in one year,
both by the same operator as I recall.  They were pretty strict.  I was not
pleased to see that kind of government controls imposed on the sport
anywhere and certainly not in such a popular dive destination.  I've not
seen the rules actually adopted.  Are they available on line somewhere that
does not require me to pay for them?

Lee
dechucka - 19 Aug 2006 13:26 GMT
>> Having said that especially diving in Q'land has become a lot more strict
>> since the 2 seppos ( sorry citizens of the USA ) were lost. You actually
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> not seen the rules actually adopted.  Are they available on line somewhere
> that does not require me to pay for them?

Try here http://www.dir.qld.gov.au/workplace/subjects/diving//. ( I was put
onto this by a mate, I haven't read it so don't know if this is what you
want)

As a diver the only thing I really noticed in Q'land was the signing on that
you were back on board and that has been going on for quite a few years now.
I assume that there is probably more paper work for the operators. I haven't
been on live aboard for a few years now ( non diving wife and I like to
spend holiday time with the kids ) so I don't know how the new regulations
have effected them.

ps  had a couple of magic dives off Wollongong NSW  first on the " Bombo "
and second around 5 Islands ( Toothbrush Is ) so I am a happy bubble blower
tonight
Dillon Pyron - 18 Aug 2006 03:38 GMT
>> How can PADI put restrictions on boat operators?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Lee

Insurance.  PADI (actually V&B, but what the heck) will insure almost
anything if you're willing to follow their rules.  Hell, they'll even
insure me.
Signature

dillon

How much power does it take to run a server farm?
A googlewatt.

Popeye - 15 Aug 2006 05:31 GMT
>>> PADI didn't kill any of them.  PADI also didn't train them well enough
>>> to keep them from killing themselves.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Maybe not in Australia, where your operators keep leaving their customers
> miles from shore.

 Don't tell those two lawyers that got left in the Keys for 36 hours.

> Here in the States, YMCA, NAUI, SSI and TDI seem to have done OK with me.
> 44 years and still going strong.

 Popeye, PADI 3-day wonder.

 Almost 10, and still 'a kickin.

Signature

                                 Popeye
   The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -
    deliberate, contrived, and dishonest - but the myth -
         persistent, persuasive, and realistic.  - JFK
                    www.finalprotectivefire.com

Lee Bell - 15 Aug 2006 12:45 GMT
>> Maybe not in Australia, where your operators keep leaving their customers
>> miles from shore.

>  Don't tell those two lawyers that got left in the Keys for 36 hours.

1. Are you sure you want to use lawyers to make your point?
2. The lawyers were recovered.  The Lonagrins weren't.
3. I'll bet it was a PADI affiliated operator that left teh lawyers.

>  Popeye, PADI 3-day wonder.
>  Almost 10, and still 'a kickin.

Perhaps you're the exception that proves the rule . . . or just maybe, you
survived some mistakes that would fit well with those listed in the UK
article.

Lee
Limey - 15 Aug 2006 12:59 GMT
> >> Maybe not in Australia, where your operators keep leaving their
> customers
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> survived some mistakes that would fit well with those listed in the UK
> article.

I must be another exception. My belief is that the number of exceptions will
surprise ya. We are actually the rule.....IMHO of course.

LD.
Popeye - 15 Aug 2006 21:34 GMT
> >> Maybe not in Australia, where your operators keep leaving their
> customers
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> 2. The lawyers were recovered.  The Lonagrins weren't.
> 3. I'll bet it was a PADI affiliated operator that left teh lawyers.

 They were still left, and I didn't know PADI taught seamanship.

>>  Popeye, PADI 3-day wonder.
>>  Almost 10, and still 'a kickin.
>
> Perhaps you're the exception that proves the rule . . . or just maybe, you
> survived some mistakes that would fit well with those listed in the UK
> article.

 Near as I can tell, they produce about 200,000 rule exceptions every year.
Lee Bell - 16 Aug 2006 13:05 GMT
> They were still left, and I didn't know PADI taught seamanship.

Knowing you have all your divers aboard before you leave the dive site is
not seamanship.
Aren't you the one that first named "Captain PADI?"  8^)

>  Near as I can tell, they produce about 200,000 rule exceptions every
> year.

Near as you can tell, there's never a problem.  Your inability to see what
every one else seems to see clearly is well established.

Lee
Grumman-581 - 16 Aug 2006 15:59 GMT
> Knowing you have all your divers aboard before you leave the dive site is
> not seamanship.

I believe that might be classified as simple "inventory control"...
<grin>
Popeye - 16 Aug 2006 23:10 GMT
>> They were still left, and I didn't know PADI taught seamanship.
>
> Knowing you have all your divers aboard before you leave the dive site is
> not seamanship.

 Neither is it basic dive training.

> Aren't you the one that first named "Captain PADI?"  8^)

 In reference to his diving rules, of course...

>>  Near as I can tell, they produce about 200,000 rule exceptions every
>> year.
>
> Near as you can tell, there's never a problem.  Your inability to see what
> every one else seems to see clearly is well established.

 You're casting a broad net with that "everyone else", and still don't have
a scrap of non-circumstantial evidence to indicate what you consider that
everyone sees is "well established".
El Mecky - 17 Aug 2006 08:32 GMT
>> not seamanship.
>
>  Neither is it basic dive training.

So if the skipper is trained in seamanship and the divers in diving skills,
leaving someone behind is due to...? Poor logistics training? Unadequate
math skills? Unsatisfactory engineering skills not to recognise an abacus'
values change with waves?

General stupidity isn't a lack of training but a minimal brain defect. And
you shouldn't run a boat with that!
El Mecky - 15 Aug 2006 11:38 GMT
> Here in the States, YMCA, NAUI, SSI and TDI seem to have done OK with me.
> 44 years and still going strong.
>
> Lee

Your driving school also did okay with you, 44 years and still going strong.
But with the same logic they do are the worst driving school arround as they
also tought a guy who drove himeself into a pole after a fierce evening in
the local pub.

Now you say that's the guys fault and not the driving schools? Extrapolate
that thought to diving!

Seriously, when I started to look for a scuba-course nearby I had a
preference for the "vijverdal"-pool as it was 4,5 meters deep and 32 degrees
celcius warm (they ussually have revalidation-patients there and the first
director of this now mental hospital was a fervent diver) and litterary
across the street of my inlaws (babysitting the children every friday
night!).

I also had a choice there as there are three diving schools there each
friday. A BSAC, a PADI and an NOB (dutch federation, linked to CMAS). I
visited all three of them at least twice, speaking with several instructors
of each club. Before I went there the first time I had already had a few
strolls over the information highway.

I had absolutely no confidence in the sole instructor of the NOB course, so
they fell off. The BSAC course was free (the training) except for the
membership of the club. They would start teaching me right away and it would
take about a half year to my first outdoor dive and about a year to get
certified as a 1* diver. I found that quite a long time. Moreover, if I
asked what stuff they would teach me and in what order and what I could do
after that I got very long, unorganised answers. So I asked how they tested
if I knew everything to know and managed all skills. The explained that I
was certified after my instructor decided that I was suitable for
certification.

The good thing about this system is the instructors tend to ask a lot of
their candidates before certifying them, just to be on the safe side. The
bad thing is the system is based on loss of knowledge (like the belgian
driving-license system). We teach one guy 30 things and over the years he
teaches other people who teach others who...
No exams to take or any form of controll to check if all the necessary has
been mentioned. If he forgets something important or if I do something per
accident right without knowing why, I can still fail (and thus might get
injured) afterwards without ever knowing what I did wrong.

On the other hand that is also exactly the problem that I have with PADI.
Although their material (books, videos, DVD's, printed standarised exams
etc) are very complete and modular and handle all the stuff that's needed to
know, the time between learning and examining is to short. Before jumping in
the pool they tell you what to do and how to do it. Then you jump in and do
it. If done allright, that station is passed and that skill is considdered
managed. That's a bit to fast. especially to fast to feel secure and
skilled.

Then again, while knowing I've been thought almost all there was to know,
having all the materials in house (you háve to purchase the books and
videos/dvds), I can resume my experiencing in my own pase, repractising the
skills freely in my own time in the pool with the club and re-reading my
theory in my own time. Kinda like the way I was taught to drive: manage the
car and the traffic rules safely and carefully, then get my driving permit
and start learning to drive my car with confidense and experience.

Thus I was PADI certified. I signed the form, filled it in truthfully, got
my medical checkup, both as required by PADI and wanted by me, got the extra
check for PFO, consulted my reumatologist about my wishes and effects on my
medication and started diving in the same conditions as in wich I was taught
or better, as the PADI system and certification require. I did get my
advanced and nitrox in as soon as possible (nitrox to stay on the safe side,
not to go very deep or very long).

I have 26 dives now since december (almost every sunday) and start really
managing my buyoncy. Not the required skills, but really hoovering about 5
centimeters higher or lower if I feel like it, without giving it any
thought. Still practising navigational skills and most of the time just
having fun looking arround and seing what there is to be found at the
bottom.  No sea dives yet, just the local lakes and holes and although
certified to 30 metres stayed arround 15-20.

Then again, fools can take a PADI-class, kill themselves and give PADI a bad
name. I can take a PADI-class, dive as safe and responsible as possible and
nobody ever hears about it. If I look arround in my club, the PADI-system
grew a bunch of very responsible safe divers.

Frank
Lee Bell - 15 Aug 2006 13:31 GMT
>> Here in the States, YMCA, NAUI, SSI and TDI seem to have done OK with me.
>> 44 years and still going strong.

> Your driving school also did okay with you, 44 years and still going
> strong. But with the same logic they do are the worst driving school
> arround as they also tought a guy who drove himeself into a pole after a
> fierce evening in the local pub.

I didn't have a driving school and, to the best of my knowledge, there are
no schools certifying people as competent to drive.  That's done by the
government.  Since you brought it up, however, I have to agree.  Those
certifying drivers aren't doing a real good job either.  Next time I'm
posing on rec.driving, I'll mention that.

> Now you say that's the guys fault and not the driving schools?
> Extrapolate that thought to diving!

When did you hear me say anything about whose fault it is relative to
driving.  In fact, in driving and in diving, there's more than enough blame
to go around.  The fact that PADI, or whoever, didn't provide the service
they sold, is their fault, and, in a self regulated industry, ours for
accepting it.  Poor training has certainly been a factor in some diving
deaths.  That does not mean that there weren't other factors involved.

> I had absolutely no confidence in the sole instructor of the NOB course,
> so they fell off.

The instructor is always a key factor in training.

> The BSAC course was free (the training) except for the membership of the
> club. They would start teaching me right away and it
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> can still fail (and thus might get injured) afterwards
> without ever knowing what I did wrong.

That does not sound like the BSAC that is frequently discussed by my friends
in the UK.  I'm given to understand that they, in fact, have standards
considerably more stringent than anything any of the major US agencies have.
I'm sure that there is some poor training by all of the agencies, including
BSAC, but, in my opinion, only one agency makes a point of marketing it.

> On the other hand that is also exactly the problem that I have with PADI.
> Although their material (books, videos, DVD's, printed
> standarised exams etc) are very complete and modular and handle all the
> stuff that's needed to know . . .

Where did you find buddy breathing in their curriculum?
What's their requirement for swimming ability?

> . . . the time between learning and examining is to short. Before jumping
> in the pool they tell you what to do and how to do it.
> Then you jump in and do it. If done allright, that station is passed and
> that skill is considered managed.

Interesting statement, "considered managed."  I don't know about you, but
managed is not a goal I consider appropriate.  I prefer mastery of essential
skills.  Part that you left out, by the way, is what h appens when the skill
is not done all right the first time.  Students that, say, fail to clear
their mask the first three times, getting it on the fourth, are passed on
the skill.  The problem is, when you're diving on your own, you don't get
four chances.

> That's a bit to fast. especially to fast to feel secure and skilled.

Yep.

> Then again, while knowing I've been thought almost all there was to know .
> . .

Friend, trust me, you haven't been taught even close to everything there is
to know.  Any course that told you otherwise, has exactly the kind of
problem that I am most concerned about.

> having all the materials in house (you háve to purchase the books and
> videos/dvds), I can resume my experiencing in my own
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> and carefully, then get my driving permit and start
> learning to drive my car with confidense and experience.

In this country, the normal progression is Driver Education at around age
14, followed by testing by an independent government agency who then
licenses (not certifies) you to drive during daylight hours only, under the
direct supervision of an adult licensed driver.  At age 16 (is it still
16?), you are allowed to drive at night, still under direct supervision, or
take additional testing, including driving in actual conditions and parking
under simulated conditions.  A lot of people fail one or more times before
being licensed.  Those that pass, are issued a license (not a certification)
to drive unsupervised for non commercial purposes, but are required to carry
liability insurance before they do.  Those that wish to do more advanced
driving, including operating commercial vehicles and, in most cases, racing,
do attend additional training that, in some cases, may certify them as
competent . . . and mistakes are still made.

I don't know about you, but I don't want that level of government
involvement in diving.  Divers are not much of a risk to others.  If they
screw up, chances are, they're the only one that dies as a result.  The one
thing that is as sure as sunrise tomorrow, though, is that the government
will get involved if the industry does not self regulate as promised.
Letting PADI claim that certification only means training was given is not
self regulating as promised.

> Thus I was PADI certified. I signed the form, filled it in truthfully, got
> my medical checkup, both as required by PADI . . .

Does PADI require a medical checkup in the US these days or do they still
accept a checklist signed by the student?

> . . . and started diving in the same conditions as in wich I was taught or
> better, as the PADI system and certification require

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such requirement in the States.
Experienced divers on this list have consistently recommended exactly that,
but a C card from any PADI training center is accepted all over the world.

> I did get my advanced and nitrox in as soon as possible (nitrox to stay on
> the safe side, not to go very deep or very long).

You make me wonder if you got what you paid for from your nitrox course.
Nitrox, as you should know, is not for going very deep.

> I have 26 dives now since december (almost every sunday) and start really
> managing my buyoncy. Not the required skills, but
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>local lakes and holes and although certified to 30 metres stayed arround
>15-20.

No disrespect intended, but come back after a few hundred more dives and
revisit the issue of how comprehensive the training you received really was
and, when you do, remember that, right now, you've taken two courses more
than most certified divers ever do.

Lee
Tina - 26 Aug 2006 23:54 GMT
> I don't know about you, but I don't want that level of government
> involvement in diving.  Divers are not much of a risk to others.  If they
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Does PADI require a medical checkup in the US these days or do they still
> accept a checklist signed by the student?

No checkup, Just a checlist-
They even tell you explicitly so you do not mark any condition that if
you mark one of them,  then (oh no) you will have to go to the Dr...
therefore is giving you the subtle clue about "not marking anything".
I have noticed this in all of them I visited.

In fact the instrictors become DM and even MSD inless than 5 years and
I do not think they dive every week, and if they do is during the
summer in the same lake, so how much experience is this?.

> No disrespect intended, but come back after a few hundred more dives and
> revisit the issue of how comprehensive the training you received really was
> and, when you do, remember that, right now, you've taken two courses more
> than most certified divers ever do.
>
> Lee
Popeye - 15 Aug 2006 21:34 GMT
> Then again, fools can take a PADI-class, kill themselves and give PADI a
> bad name. I can take a PADI-class, dive as safe and responsible as
> possible and nobody ever hears about it. If I look arround in my club, the
> PADI-system grew a bunch of very responsible safe divers.

 The Truth.
Grumman-581 - 15 Aug 2006 00:14 GMT
> PADI didn't kill any of them.  PADI also didn't train them well enough to
> keep them from killing themselves.

Awh, come on, Lee... You're not suggesting that we interfere with
Darwin, are ya'?
Lee Bell - 15 Aug 2006 02:31 GMT
>> PADI didn't kill any of them.  PADI also didn't train them well enough to
>> keep them from killing themselves.

> Awh, come on, Lee... You're not suggesting that we interfere with
> Darwin, are ya'?

Good question.  I'm not sure.  I'm still hung up on getting what you paid
for.

Lee
Grumman-581 - 15 Aug 2006 03:41 GMT
> Good question.  I'm not sure.  I'm still hung up on getting what you paid
> for.

A piece of paper / plastic that although legally not required, makes
it easier to get an air fill than without it... Yeah, it's a racket,
but at least it's a one-time expense... I don't think that we should
be hindering Darwin though... Sometimes the gene pool needs a bit of
cleaning... If a person can't teach themselves how to dive, should
they really be allowed to contribute to the gene pool?
Lee Bell - 15 Aug 2006 12:55 GMT
>> Good question.  I'm not sure.  I'm still hung up on getting what you paid
>> for.

> A piece of paper / plastic that although legally not required, makes
> it easier to get an air fill than without it...

1. That's not what the agencies market.
2. If you think it's legally not required, try diving with any government
operated organization or on any government managed property.

> Yeah, it's a racket, but at least it's a one-time expense...

Don't I wish.  I had to have an advanced card to do some "advanced" dives.
I had to have a nitrox card to get some nitrox fills.  You have to have at
least a cavern certification to do some cavern dives and a cave
certification to do some cave dives.  You have to have an advanced nitrox
card to get some trimix cards and a trimix card to get some trimix fills.

> I don't think that we should be hindering Darwin though... Sometimes the
> gene pool needs a bit of cleaning... If a person can't
> teach themselves how to dive, should they really be allowed to contribute
> to the gene pool?

If the government could be trusted to leave things alone, I'd probably
agree.  I almost do anyway.  What I have a problem with is an agency, any
agency, that issues a card certifying someone to be competent when they are
not, in fact, competent.  When corporations failed because certified
statements were not accurate, the CPA firms responsible for certifying those
statements were held responsible.  In many cases, they were bankrupted by
the liability for their failure to provide the service they got paid for.
When a diver dies because the agency that certified them failed to do its
job well enough, it's not their fault.  Suddenly, certified only means they
received some training.

Ask Grace if she thinks a bl.wj.b is sex.

Lee
-hh - 16 Aug 2006 02:20 GMT
> What I have a problem with is an agency, any
> agency, that issues a card certifying someone to be competent when they are
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> job well enough, it's not their fault.  Suddenly, certified only means they
> received some training.

The Agency's leaders were raised in the "Duck and Cover" 1950's?

In the meantime, the Dive Destination at which this story happend...

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.scuba/msg/d19c2b49e5bc5f56?dmode=source>

is getting a second Chamber installed later this year for treating DCS.

Gosh, just can't figure out why they would need it!

-hh
Popeye - 16 Aug 2006 03:33 GMT
>> What I have a problem with is an agency, any
>> agency, that issues a card certifying someone to be competent when they
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> is getting a second Chamber installed later this year for treating DCS.

 That's -really- not what I'm seeing as a cite...

> Gosh, just can't figure out why they would need it!
>
> -hh
Popeye - 16 Aug 2006 04:08 GMT
> In the meantime, the Dive Destination at which this story happend...
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Gosh, just can't figure out why they would need it!

http://www.smp-ltd.co.uk/news.php

"A Single Lock Hyperbaric Chamber is sold to Cayman Islands". This Chamber
was to be used in association with a Children's Group, treating Cerebral
Palsy.

http://www.caymannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000036/003687.htm

On Grand Cayman, the chamber is used in particular for diabetic wounds that
won't heal, and also gangrene and carbon monoxide poisoning, said Mr
Elliott.

This last illness occurred fairly frequently after Hurricane Ivan, when some
people ran generators in closed areas, he added.

The Brac chamber will be smaller than the one in Grand Cayman, holding one
bed rather than two. It is expected to be on the Island in September, and
will then have to be put into operational order with all the ancillary
equipment attached before use.

 Gangrene and carbon monoxide poisoning?

 Must be PADI Master Diver specialties.

> -hh
Some Random Dude - 16 Aug 2006 08:27 GMT
>  Gangrene and carbon monoxide poisoning?
>
>  Must be PADI Master Diver specialties.

http://www.emedicine.com/plastic/topic526.htm

about a third of the way down in the tables:

Table 3, hyperoxygenation,

table 4, Leukocyte oxidative killing,

one means more oxygen available, helping with the CO poisining, the
other helps with Necrotising Soft-Tissue Infections, which is exactly
what gangrene is.
Some Random Dude - 16 Aug 2006 08:32 GMT
>>  Gangrene and carbon monoxide poisoning?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>other helps with Necrotising Soft-Tissue Infections, which is exactly
>what gangrene is.

check out table ten for dosages. both CO and gangrene have 90 min @ 3
ATA oxygen.
-hh - 16 Aug 2006 12:48 GMT
> http://www.caymannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000036/003687.htm
>
> On Grand Cayman, the chamber is used in particular for diabetic wounds that
> won't heal, and also gangrene and carbon monoxide poisoning, said Mr
> Elliott.

Convenient how you neglected to mention:

"It is essential that volunteers are available around the clock because
sometimes people wait until the middle of the night to report suspected
dive related injuries, he said."

and:

"As well as treating emergency dive related illness...the chambers can
be used to treat various other medical conditions..."

The reporting entity, the CaymanNetNews, is a local newspaper written
by Caymanians for Caymanians, so it is written towards their interests.
Since the majority of Caymanians don't scuba dive, it isn't surprising
that the article gets into the "What's in it for me?" discussion and
talks about the chamber's utility for the non-tourist non-diver local
community.

> This last illness occurred fairly frequently after Hurricane Ivan, when some
> people ran generators in closed areas, he added.

Ivan was in September 2004.

> The Brac chamber will be smaller than the one in Grand Cayman, holding one
> bed rather than two. It is expected to be on the Island in September, and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>   Must be PADI Master Diver specialties.

What is kept quiet and out of the press is that there's approximately
one evacuation flight per month from the Cayman Sister Islands (Cayman
Brac/Little Cayman) over to Grand Cayman to put a bent diver through
their chamber.

I've *personally* known three such individuals.  IIRC, their dive
accidents occured on Rock Monster, Greenhouse Reef and the 356 Wreck,
and I've specifically searched for published media reports on each;
they're not to be easily found, if found at all.

Just because you don't see any reports on them from 1,000 miles and a
country away, doesn't change the ground truth.  Doesn't matter if we're
talking the Caribbean or the Sandbox.

-hh
Popeye - 16 Aug 2006 23:06 GMT
>> http://www.caymannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000036/003687.htm
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Convenient how you neglected to mention:

 I put both URLs up, Hugh.

 It's not like chambers hang a sign out that says "Drive through service
only after 9pm".

> "It is essential that volunteers are available around the clock because
> sometimes people wait until the middle of the night to report suspected
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> talks about the chamber's utility for the non-tourist non-diver local
> community.

 Nothing you've presented indicates any increase in DCI's or any relevant
numbers to show how many dives are done annually in a vacation diving arena.

>> This last illness occurred fairly frequently after Hurricane Ivan, when
>> some
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> country away, doesn't change the ground truth.  Doesn't matter if we're
> talking the Caribbean or the Sandbox.

 The national numbers are what they are.

 In the absence of a scrap of evidence, one would have to assume that the
Caymans falls into line with them.
-hh - 17 Aug 2006 12:40 GMT
> Nothing you've presented indicates any increase in DCI's or any relevant
> numbers to show how many dives are done annually in a vacation diving arena.

I've never claimed that the numbers have changed.

What has changed, however, is how air evacuation service is being
provided.

Politically, Island Air was driven out of service by backers of the
Government-owned Cayman Airways, so air service to Little Cayman and
Cayman Brac is now a monopoly (again).

Island Air had to return their Twin Otter awhile ago, but had been
holding on as a private charter service, but within the past ~4 months,
just sold off the last two of their aircraft.

This means that Island Air is no longer around to risk night flights
out of Little Cayman's non-illuminated grass airstrip.   It also means
that no one leaves aircraft overnight on Little Cayman anymore, which
means that a night evacuation flight from there would have to incur an
even higher risk unlit night landing there first.

Feel free to ask Grumman how large of a set of brass ones it would take
to do this once.  Then how much harder the brass has to be, to be
expected to do this repeatedly - ie, once per month.

> > Just because you don't see any reports on them from 1,000 miles and a
> > country away, doesn't change the ground truth.  Doesn't matter if we're
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>   In the absence of a scrap of evidence, one would have to assume that the
> Caymans falls into line with them.

No disagreement.  The statistics for the non-fatal accidents that
result in DCS Chamber rides is generally reported at around 1 in 10K
dives.

In the Sister Islands, there's reportedly 196 hotel rooms + 190 other
guest rooms available...

As per a link from:
<http://www.caymanislands.ky/statistics/occupancy_reports.asp>

Being conservative, I'm only going to count only the traditional resort
tourist hotels (196).  The dive ops do get customers from the house
rentals, etc, but for the most part, its under 5%.

For hotel occupancy rates (same source as above, different link), its
not broken out for the Sisters.  For last year, it says they averaged
(annualized) a 55.8% occupancy rate.   The 10-year annual minimum for
all of the islands combined for hotels only is just 50.6% (for others,
the 10 year low was 37.7%).  I'll use the latter and that for each
non-diver, there's a triple or quad occupancy, so I'll round down to
just double occupancy on average.  Similarly, because of down days
before flying home, etc, I'm going to assume that afternoon dives and
hardcore divers will offset this to the point where we can KISS assume
that everyone does an average of only 2 dives per day.

Thus:

196 rooms @ .506 occupancy @ 2 each = 198 divers --> 396 dives/day -->
11,880 dives per 30 day month.

11,880 / 10K = 1.2 incidences expected per month.

FWIW, I've cross-checked this vs the number of local op diveboats,
their capacity, and typically the rates/capacities that I've seen them
run - - this is within my expected range:

12 (Caymaniac) @ McCoys
20 Newton (Yellow Rose III) @ Pirate's Point
15 (Coral Star) @ Southern Cross Club
15 Seahawk (Lucky Star) @ Southern Cross Club
20 Newton (Holiday Diver?) @ Neptune's Berth
15 Newton (SeaEsta) @ Paradise Villas/Conch Club

20 Newton (Island Sister) @ LCBR
20 Newton (Cayman Sister) @ LCBR
20 Newton (Reef Fanta Seas) @ LCBR

20 Newton (Big Sister) @ BRBR
20 Newton (Little Sister) @ BRBR
20 Newton (Twin Sister) @ BRBR

20 Newton (Brac Fever II) @ Divi
18 PH (Ocean Fever) @ Divi
18 PH (Island Fever II) @ Divi
14 putt-putt (Ocean Fever) @ Divi
18 (seasonal rental) @ Divi
18 (seasonal rental) @ Divi

---------------------
287 - 323 capacity

20 Nekton Liveaboard
20 Aggressor Liveaboard

--------------------
363 total capacity

For 198 divers, this would be a "diveboat occupancy" rate of
69%-61%-55%, depending on how you want to count.  There's also two
Pro42's not listed that used to be part of the Reef Divers fleet (one
at LCBR and one at BRBR); I'm not sure if they're still around anymore
or not.  If included, these would add another 30-36 to capacity, which
would drop this average down to 50%.  However, considering how crappy
they performed in bluewater, I believe that they were written off/sold
circa Hurricane Ivan/2004.  I've not included the old Brac Aquatics
Outrunner, Reef Runner or Little Cayman Diver, as they're all long
since gone, nor have I included a private fishing boat that is known to
occasionally take out divers, particularly since they lack the licence
to do this.

AFAIC, the math is consistant to the 1x/month rate I reported.  Feel
free to poke holes in it.

-hh
Popeye - 18 Aug 2006 13:25 GMT
>> > Just because you don't see any reports on them from 1,000 miles and a
>> > country away, doesn't change the ground truth.  Doesn't matter if we're
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> result in DCS Chamber rides is generally reported at around 1 in 10K
> dives.

 Where does this number come from?

 Who has quantified the number of dives done anywhere?

> In the Sister Islands, there's reportedly 196 hotel rooms + 190 other
> guest rooms available...
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> hardcore divers will offset this to the point where we can KISS assume
> that everyone does an average of only 2 dives per day.

 What a bunch of lightweights (and I edited that from a different word).

 My friend that goes to Bonaire dives 5-6 times a day.

 I don't disagree, however, I've been astounded to meet Rec.scubans that go
on a "dive vacation" and do two dives a day so they can try out restaurants
and go shopping and sh.t.

 Stunning.

 I'll still consider it conservative.

> Thus:
>
> 196 rooms @ .506 occupancy @ 2 each = 198 divers --> 396 dives/day -->
> 11,880 dives per 30 day month.
>
> 11,880 / 10K = 1.2 incidences expected per month.

 This hardly supports your premise for the need of a second chamber.

> FWIW, I've cross-checked this vs the number of local op diveboats,
> their capacity, and typically the rates/capacities that I've seen them
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> AFAIC, the math is consistant to the 1x/month rate I reported.  Feel
> free to poke holes in it.

 I'm not sure exactly what you just said, but it dazzled me.

 I know to trust your math.

 My point would be, who says 1/10,000?

 My last numbers, from 2001 DEMA, says 2.7 million -active- divers, 12
dives a year or more.

 5000 annual incidences of DCS per DAN, relatively steady over the years.

 It's also my contention that this number is inflated.

 If chamber rides were a thousand bucks a piece instead of all you want for
$36 a year, I'd bet there'd be a significant decrease in reported incidents.

 Also, as to your above, with a conservative estimate of around 140,000
dives a year, 1 incident per month sounds trivial, especially when you
can't -begin- to quantify cause.

 Was it really DCS, or indigestion?

 Was it caused by deficient OW training, or hang over?

 Did the guy have 25 dives?

 3k?

 200 dives over ten years?

 You certainly seem to be reading a lot into this.
Grumman-581 - 18 Aug 2006 16:21 GMT
>  My friend that goes to Bonaire dives 5-6 times a day.

Obviously they are not getting sufficiently narced on each dive...
<grin>
-hh - 18 Aug 2006 22:52 GMT
> > ...  The statistics for the non-fatal accidents that
> > result in DCS Chamber rides is generally reported at around 1 in 10K
> > dives.
>
>   Where does this number come from?

I don't recall offhand, but it is a number that has been used on many
occasions here.  IIRC, it has been published in DAN's "Alert Diver" and
I'm sure that Mike Grey can expound on it further.

>   Who has quantified the number of dives done anywhere?

If nothing else, it is quite easy on a small island to count diveboats
and how many tanks they can carry, then look at their schedule and
calendar...FWIW, I've been on most of the boats on that list.

> > ... where we can KISS assume
> > that everyone does an average of only 2 dives per day.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>   I don't disagree, however ...

I intended to be a non-disputably conservative value.  If you want to
assume 10% more dives, then the expected number of accidents per month
will go up by 10%.

> > 11,880 / 10K = 1.2 incidences expected per month.
>
>   This hardly supports your premise for the need of a second chamber.

The need for the second chamber is to assure 24/7 availability of
providing appropriate medical service, and it was the loss of 24/7
capability to fly a patient over to Grand Cayman in the context that
the applicable medical need was locally deemed to be "frequent enough"
to merit buying a chamber just for the Brac & LC.

Do keep in mind that the use of Island Air as a custom charter also
kept an injured diver "away from the eyes" of traveling tourists and
their perceptions on dive safety.

>   I know to trust your math.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>   5000 annual incidences of DCS per DAN, relatively steady over the years.

DEMA's 2.7 million active, times their 12 dives/year each = 32.4
million dives per year.  Divided by DAN's 5,000 chamber rides per year:
results in 1 chamber ride per 6,480 dives as per these statistics.

Which would yield an expected value of 1.8 accidents per month on the
Sister Islands.  Could be possible that my source was ill-informed, or
was under-reporting to try to play down the risk.  Or it could be that
its right, but the Sister Islandss get a slightly better quality of
diver that tends to be better than average at avoiding things that
cause DCS.

>   It's also my contention that this number is inflated.

Well, 1:6480 is more frequent (a "higher risk") than the 1:10K value I
used.

>  If chamber rides were a thousand bucks a piece instead of all you want for
> $36 a year, I'd bet there'd be a significant decrease in reported incidents.

I don't doubt that there's probably some false positives in the
reporting.  However, there's also some non-reported cases too.  I know
one individual (initials DM) who bent themself on a fast ascent
bringing up a customer, and did an immediate IWR (left solo at the
mooring while the boat took the victim in), then proceeded to stay dry
for 6 months before all symptoms finally cleared.  Why would they do
this?  Because this was back in the "bad old days" of the 1990's, where
a Dive Pro wouldn't be able to get a job offer in the Industry if they
were ever officially diagnosed / treated for DCS.

>  Also, as to your above, with a conservative estimate of around 140,000
> dives a year, 1 incident per month sounds trivial, especially when you
> can't -begin- to quantify cause.

We invariably consider such risks to be trivial ... until it happens to
us.

>   Was it really DCS, or indigestion?
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>   200 dives over ten years?

IMO, it really doesn't matter:  the population of divers is going to be
a heterogeneous blend of all types, and this has all already been
counted into the 5000 annual incidences of DCS per DAN:  they're simply
reporting the "all causes" gross count, and not getting hung up over if
the DCS was caused by a  hangovers, deserved, stupidity, insufficient
traning, undeserved, etc.

>   You certainly seem to be reading a lot into this.

Even though we consider it to be "very safe", we all know that diving
carries some level of risk.  The question I have is:  why are we be so
surprised when "The Statics of Large Numbers" produces the results that
it says will invariably happen?

It doesn't matter if we have a 1 in 10K risk or a 1 in 20K risk or
whatever:  with 30+ million dives per year where that risk is applied,
the math is brutally straightforward as to how many DCS cases we can
consequently then expect.  My question is: why do we always then act so
surprised when the *statistically expected* then actually happens?
Afterall, we're rarely shocked to see a Stop sign after we pass a "Stop
Ahead" sign!

-hh
Dillon Pyron - 18 Aug 2006 23:05 GMT
>>> > Just because you don't see any reports on them from 1,000 miles and a
>>> > country away, doesn't change the ground truth.  Doesn't matter if we're
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>  Where does this number come from?

If you trust DAN, they have a pretty good annual stats book.  One of
these days I'm going to buy one.

>  Who has quantified the number of dives done anywhere?

I have. 1,692,418.

Just don't know the units.

>> In the Sister Islands, there's reportedly 196 hotel rooms + 190 other
>> guest rooms available...
[quoted text clipped - 121 lines]
>  You certainly seem to be reading a lot into this.
>
Signature

dillon

How much power does it take to run a server farm?
A googlewatt.

Lee Bell - 18 Aug 2006 23:14 GMT
>> 196 rooms @ .506 occupancy @ 2 each = 198 divers --> 396 dives/day -->
>> 11,880 dives per 30 day month.
>> 11,880 / 10K = 1.2 incidences expected per month.

>  This hardly supports your premise for the need of a second chamber.

Depends on the chamber and other things it is used for.  If it's a one
person chamber, two would seem to be a minimum since there's a fair chance
that both members of a buddy team will need one at the same time.

>  If chamber rides were a thousand bucks a piece instead of all you want
> for $36 a year, I'd bet there'd be a significant decrease in reported
> incidents.

Probably so, but let's not forget that denial is common relative to DCS
issues.  It is, in fact, the reason many fail to get treatment and end up
with permanent damage.

>  Was it really DCS, or indigestion?

I've had both.  There's no similarity at all.

>  Was it caused by deficient OW training, or hang over?

There's a difference?  Were you taught that alcohol made DCS more likely?

Lee
Popeye - 19 Aug 2006 03:01 GMT
>>> 196 rooms @ .506 occupancy @ 2 each = 198 divers --> 396 dives/day -->
>>> 11,880 dives per 30 day month.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> person chamber, two would seem to be a minimum since there's a fair chance
> that both members of a buddy team will need one at the same time.

 I stand by the statement.

 Nothing so far has shown any -increased- incidence of DSC, particularly
due to any general deficiency in OW training.

 Nothing here has shown an abnormally high incidence of DCS in the area.

 Not in the slightest.

>>  If chamber rides were a thousand bucks a piece instead of all you want
>> for $36 a year, I'd bet there'd be a significant decrease in reported
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> issues.  It is, in fact, the reason many fail to get treatment and end up
> with permanent damage.

 The numbers are still no indication of an upward trend.

 Double the numbers, still an infinitesimal incident rate.

 Especially pertaining to the argument, when it's unknown what percentage
of these incidents were caused by poor training.

>>  Was it really DCS, or indigestion?
>
> I've had both.  There's no similarity at all.

 Speaking from hindsight, and great experience.

 I know of a specific incident where a woman was treated for a bent pinky,
received on 20 minute, 20 ft training dives.

 4 interstate trips to a chamber.

 Pinky bends.

>>  Was it caused by deficient OW training, or hang over?
>
> There's a difference?  Were you taught that alcohol made DCS more likely?

 What's the Number 1 physiological characteristic of hangover?
Grumman-581 - 24 Aug 2006 17:36 GMT
> Feel free to ask Grumman how large of a set of brass ones it would take
> to do this once.  Then how much harder the brass has to be, to be
> expected to do this repeatedly - ie, once per month.

Well, since you asked ...

On the order of sphincter tightening experiences that I've had...

Landing at night without a landing light on a well lit airport is not
that big of a deal after the first couple of times that it happens to
you...

Landing at night with a landing light, but without runway edge lights,
but in a major metropolitan area airport where the ambient light
reflected off the clouds provide quite a bit of secondary illumination
-- quite a bit more sphincter tightening...

Landing at night with a landing light, but without runway edge lights
and at a remote rural unfamiliar airport with only some guy at the
other end of the runway in a truck with his headlights on, but no
major obstacles along the flight path -- somewhat sphincter
tightening...

Quite frankly, my landing light doesn't provide me with enough light
to actually see the runway until I'm about ready to flare anyway...

Even when you have one person marking the end of the runway with their
truck and the headlights shining down the runway, it's difficult to
get lined up on the runway... You know where the runway *ends*, but
you don't know exactly where it starts... It is nice to know *both*
points so that you can draw a line between them and figure that the
runway runs along this line...

Summary -- those little lights on the edge of the runway are really
nice to have at night...
Limey - 15 Aug 2006 13:02 GMT
>>> PADI didn't kill any of them.  PADI also didn't train them well enough
>>> to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Good question.  I'm not sure.  I'm still hung up on getting what you paid
> for.

I paid fer a pice of plastic that helped me buy air. I had been diving,
quite happily (and actively) by myself for 2 or 3 years before that. Of
course, I wouldn't argue that padi ain't a rip off, but you know what ur
getting ahead of time, or at least you should.

LD.
Dillon Pyron - 15 Aug 2006 23:43 GMT
>> PADI didn't kill that one.
>
>PADI didn't kill any of them.  PADI also didn't train them well enough to
>keep them from killing themselves.
>
>Lee

Long story here.  I've been sued before.

I had a class of four teens, the oldest was 17, the youngest 15.  The
17 yo had some trouble with his ESAs, but after a few tries (oh, my
ears) he got it right.  Twice.  In a row.  One of the few "rules" that
I still follow religiously is "look up, reach up, swim up".  Well, try
as I might, he couldn't get that through his head, although in the end
he finally glommed on to it before I flunked him out.

His family goes out to CA 6 months for his first OW dives since the
class.  Cut back to class.  I always tell my students, multiple times,
that the OW C-card only qualifies them to do the most basic dives and
they should never dive beyond their training and that they should just
do plenty of basic dives until they're ready for AOW, but dive first.
Finally, I tell them that "you are not properly trained nor prepared
for deep diving or night diving".  I even have this penciled into my
manual.

So kid goes on a boat with his family.  First dive is on a wall, 60
foot max.  DM spots him at 90 ft, goes down and gets him.  By the time
they get back to 60 feet, his tank is dry and he has to ascend on the
(very pissed) DM's aux.  Second dive is a hard bottom of 45 feet and
nothing "seems" to go wrong.  This is all in the incident report and
depositions.  Third dive is a night dive.  Fifteen minutes into the
dive, kid goes missing.  He's found the next day in 35 feet of water,
almost exactly under the boat.  He has a head wound and drowned.
Theory is that he turned his light off and ascended, hitting the boat
with his head.  Given the amount of trauma, the belief was that he
also ascended way too fast.  The blow was apparently sufficient for
him to bite through his mouthpiece.

I was sued for being negligent in my instruction.  Apparently I should
have taught him how to ascend at night.  V&B told me to not sweat it,
as long as I taught "to the book" (see above rule).  About two weeks
later I got a call from Lesser & Lesser, PADI's attornies (and mine,
in this matter, although I do have my own trained shark).  They told
me to not sweat it and that they would "make it go away".  Two months
after that I was informed that the suit had been dropped.  I did find
out that the had sued me for $1 million, the DM for one million and
the boat for five million, all the extents of our insurance.

Did I do anything wrong?  I went out of my way to make sure that he
learned his skills, but he was, quite literally, in over his head.
Kids forget lots of stuff in 6 months, look at what happens after
summer vacation.  We all forget skills that we don't use for 6 months
right after we learn them.  It's sad that he died, and I would have
sent a note or something if my lawyer hadn't told me not to.
Signature

dillon

How much power does it take to run a server farm?
A googlewatt.

Popeye - 16 Aug 2006 02:00 GMT
>>> PADI didn't kill that one.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> right after we learn them.  It's sad that he died, and I would have
> sent a note or something if my lawyer hadn't told me not to.

 That speaks for itself.

 I'd say the kid turned his light off and was trying to sneak up under the
boat.

 That his family would sue you 6 months later is an indication of -their-
issues, not yours or PADIs.
Lee Bell - 16 Aug 2006 12:59 GMT
>> Long story here.  I've been sued before.
>> I had a class of four teens, the oldest was 17, the youngest 15.  The
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> as I might, he couldn't get that through his head, although in the end
>> he finally glommed on to it before I flunked him out.

If we made that "Stop, Look and Listen" like we used to recommend when
driving across railroad crossings, we'd probably save a few lives.  Diver
encounters with moving propellers are way too frequent.

>> Did I do anything wrong?

Depends on what you mean by wrong.  The easy answer is yes, but that's not
entirely fair.  The more important question is whether you knowingly did
something wrong.  You'll have to answer that one for yourself.

Several mistakes were made:

The first was training someone not responsible enough to dive safely.  In
hindsight, it's pretty obvious this kid wasn't responsible enough.  Only you
can judge whether you knew, at the time, that he was not prepared for the
responsibility of diving safely.

Passing him, if that's what you did, was another mistake.  Again, however,
the nature of the mistake depends on what you knew at the time.  If you
honestly believed he understood the concept of the ascent and would follow
the training, you did your job, perhaps even beyond the level that your
agency requires.  If, on the other hand, you didn't believe he understood
and would follow the training, you should not have issued a certification.

The point of this thread, however, is not what you did or didn't do, but the
marketing, training standards and quality assurance of the agency you
represent, whatever agency that may be.  There are several items related to
this:
1. In hindsight, what do you now think of the standard for passing someone
with an obvious problem performing a criticical skill?  Do you now think
performing it twice in a row is enough or do you, perhaps, think that it
might be a good idea to give it a rest and retest it another day?  Do you
think standards that don't provide enough time to give it a rest and test
another day may be trying to do a bit too much, a bit too fast?  This, by
the way, is one of the conclusions of the article that started this tread.
2. In  hindsight, what do you think about agancy standards that issue any
certification at all to a student who is not qualifed to dive below 60 feet,
on a wall, or at night?  Do you still consider the OW course to be adequate
for issuing the student a card that says, to him and others, that he has the
ability to dive safely without supervision, or do you think he should know a
bit more than that before a card is issues?  Again, do you think perhaps the
training tries to do too much, too fast for some students?
3. Do the standards of your agency include telling the student something
more than "the OW C-card only qualifies you to do the most basic dives?"  Do
the standards include knowledge of the kind of dives that are not "most
basic" and why?  Do they include telling students that dives and night
dives, even shallow ones, are advanced?  Do they include training on
recognizing and assessing risks not specifically mentioned in their
training?
4. What agency was the dive operation and/or DM associated with?
Presumably, they looked at the card, knew what it meant, and took the kid on
three dives, all of which were beyond the level the agency sets for the OW
card.  What do the standards say about taking an OW certified kid who had to
be rescued on an OOA dive to 30 feet beyond the depth he was certified for,
on a night dive that also exceeds  his certification level?

Lee
Dillon Pyron - 16 Aug 2006 22:14 GMT
>>> Long story here.  I've been sued before.
>>> I had a class of four teens, the oldest was 17, the youngest 15.  The
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>driving across railroad crossings, we'd probably save a few lives.  Diver
>encounters with moving propellers are way too frequent.

Something I am ultra paranoid about in Cozumel.  There are way too
many boats moving around out there and when you're the last one up,
nobody is looking at you.

>>> Did I do anything wrong?
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>can judge whether you knew, at the time, that he was not prepared for the
>responsibility of diving safely.

That I lay totally on the shop.  I take secondary blame for taking
them on in the first place.  I'm not a parent and have never had
direct dealings with the squirelliness of teens.  That's the only
class of teens I ever taught.  And the only teens I'll ever teach.
Except maybe my neighbor, and I don't think her father would approve
of the look I give her when she's in her swimsuit.

>Passing him, if that's what you did, was another mistake.  Again, however,
>the nature of the mistake depends on what you knew at the time.  If you
>honestly believed he understood the concept of the ascent and would follow
>the training, you did your job, perhaps even beyond the level that your
>agency requires.  If, on the other hand, you didn't believe he understood
>and would follow the training, you should not have issued a certification.

I "thought" he had it.  He was the most attentive one in class, at the
pool and the lake.  He did an excellent job with skills in the pool
and I, foolishly in retrospect, gave him multiple chances to
demonstrate/learn (they're not check out dives, they're
"instructional" dives).

>The point of this thread, however, is not what you did or didn't do, but the
>marketing, training standards and quality assurance of the agency you
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>another day may be trying to do a bit too much, a bit too fast?  This, by
>the way, is one of the conclusions of the article that started this tread.

In retrospect, I should have put the whole bloody class in the pool
again and reviewed before we went back to the lake.  But I let myself
be pressured by the shop owner (who was also my DM) and the parents.
That was MY primary mistake.  One I will openly admit to.

>2. In  hindsight, what do you think about agancy standards that issue any
>certification at all to a student who is not qualifed to dive below 60 feet,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>bit more than that before a card is issues?  Again, do you think perhaps the
>training tries to do too much, too fast for some students?

It was a three week course.  It worked in the past, but, not being a
parent, I was unprepared for a bunch of high schoolers.  Y