Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
> if allowed. Do you think its safe for your grand mother to tech dive, or > your 16 year old daughter?? Do you believe everyone in America should try > tech diving ? _I_ do not believe most people should "tech" dive. Neither do I believe that _I_ should enforce my assessment on them. Until someone signs a paper and hands it over to me (with ALOT of cash for the headaches) I do not wish to make anyone's decisions for them. > OK, lets say you do believe this. Do you think their right to dive should > exclude them from taking training classes and passing skills tests??? Do you You are mixing 2 very separate issues. The right to do something you want to do has nothing to do with taking a certification class. > think they should just be mailed a tech card, because its their right??? No, separate issues. Training classes are something that most people choose to take to help them reach a goal, to learn about a type of diving they want to do. > Probably, you will agree that each of these new potential tech divers should > have to go throught the academic portion, and skills portion, of tech > training. Should we insist that they can swim across the pool???Or is this Training classes have every right to set their requirements. After all, they choose what they advertise as wanting to teach. A "smart" training class IMO will realize its true goal (IMO), and only strive to do that as well as possible; to impart the knowledge and skills needed to do the dive and be sure the student learns the skills and knowledge (including the risks). I'm not taking a trimix course to be sure I can do a 200 yd swim with 200#'s of gear, I'm taking it to learn how mix works. I'll know whether or not I can do the surface swim, and plan my dives accordingly. If that means restricting my diving to a 10'x10' hole so I never have more than a 5' surface swim, well that's up to me. That's where I take responsibility for myself. I took the course and paid $$ to learn. > an invasion of their rights???Oh, maybe we do need to know they can swim a > certain distance, and we must also know that they are not epileptic or must > not have some other extreme medical contraindication. Should've been screened out at OW1, I would imagine. Then again its up to that diver to decide if they want to go against conventional wisdom, that they value the diving beyond the added risk. The "tech" course is nothing more than an "adder". > minimum fitness standards, Please state what standards are needed and how you justify them. How do you justify that the person who can swim 200 yards in XYZ minutes, will be capable, and the one who can only swim 180 yards in the same time won't be ? If you want to get he-man, then make sure the diver can walk 200 yards in full gear, with a stage and deco bottle. Very applicable for Fla diving, but what about the guy out West who wants to mix dive in a missile silo, with no flow, and can park 10 ft from the entrance? Should you not certify this guy because he can't pass your test, a test that really have no bearing on the diving he does? This is where you have to look at the goal of the course. Are you trying to make a "safe" diver, or a "prepared" diver. If you just want a "prepared" diver you focus on making sure that diver knows all they need to know about how to conduct that dive without complicating things by making sure they can do that dive under any circumstance (200 yd walk to the entrance, 200 yds surface swim in the ocean, yadda yadda yadda.) It then makes life a lot easier (IMO) for the training agencies. No longer will someone be able to come back and claim they didn't prepare them for every possible condition, that the certification card somehow meant they should be able to ignore the ascent line and thus have to do a 500 yd surface swim. If a student gets hurt after the class, the process is very cut and dried. What did the course purport to teach? Did it teach that material to the standards of the industry? Were the (needed) skills taught? Were the (needed) skills tested? Was the knowledge taught? did the student demonstrate comprehension of that knowledge? Were the risks dicsussed? Did the student demonstrate an understanding of the risks? Note the (needed) qualifier? What is really needed to dive mix? Ability to rig a deco tank? probably. Ability to rig a travel tank? probably. Ability to swim 200 yards with all this and board a boat in 10' seas... not really. And understanding the risks does not mean the student AGREES with YOUR valuation of the risk. After all many divers think caving is nuts. Should those OW instructor NOT pass their OW students who express an interest in pursuing caving somewhere down the road? Who are they (and who are you) to impose your evaluation of risk on someone else? > The second issue is already happening---from the huge number of accidents > over the last 2 years, good boats are getting to be afraid to take tech > divers out, because of the very low standard of ability to tech dive that is > presently exhibited. In florida alone, tech divers from some shops have > become jokes, because they have no more abilities than PADI or NAUI divers, > just a lot more equipment and horrendously unsafe proceedures and gear > configurations, and alot more macho attitudes. ....and becuase the boat that > agrees to take them out----is essentially playing russian roulette. So now, if the boat would also purport to not try to do things it cannot do (such as make sure the diver dives safely), then that would be simpler as well. Never saw Greyhound get sued when I used them as my taxi to the ski slope. They provided a service to me... transportation. Why should dive boats be different? As long as they find the wreck, and do what they tell the customers they are going to do with regard to where/when the boat will be when the divers ascend, then they have provided the service they claimed. Hey this is simplistic I realize, but wouldn't it be nice if things were this simple? I think the ONLY way it can get there is by people settling for nothing less. When we claim a dive shop will create "safe" divers we expect that and want to sue when something happens, and since a promise of safety was made then there is the appearance of a brach of a contract (a foolish one IMO). So don't promise the "safe" part. Ski instructors don't claim to make you safe. They claim to teach you the skills you need. And the way the lawsuits stop and the CYA silliness stops is by people expecting nothing less than this responsbility from others. So that when someone sues, the defense will be able to call scuba expert anfter scuba expert who will tell the jury that the instructor taught exaclty what was required, has the test documentation to show the student learned what was needed for the type of diving covered by the course, and thus the student had the tools to conduct the dive within standards recognized as adequate by the industry, and thus the instructor has no liability. I'll put it this way, you don't want to see me on a jury when you are trying to sue someone when that someone did their job. You used a coffee maker to dry your socks and burned the house down.. too damn bad. > because so many divers are opposed to standards of fitness, we may soon find I contend that for many course the standards of fitness have no real applicability. I guess in that view there would be more courses, more compartementalizing of things. Of course under that view as well, there wouldn't be any checkout dives for basic nitrox, so the courses would be more plentiful, but also cheaper. > My idea will NOT keep a diver who is medically fit from diving. It will make > sure they have trained enough to pass the fitness portion. And training > standards will become tighter, meaning the tech divers will actually have to > pass skill tests, and can not just be given a card because they paid the > money ---i.e., they will not get passed through until they have really > learned the material, and have become adept at using it. Yes, but will the diver be able to learn what they want and need, or what you think they need? Again while good fitness is certainly desirable and should improve one's safety while diving, how do you handle the guy who is doing very calm dives but wants to use mix? He wants to learn about mix, and less importantly, but also needs the bloody card to get the fills. Somehow it doesn't make sense to deny that guy a card just b/c he can't pass fitness tests that have no relevance to the diving he is doing. I'd rather leave it to each individual to take responsibility for seeing that their diving does not exceed their fitness level. After all the instructor has no long term control over that anyway. I can be fit now, get all my cards and pig out for 5 years in front of my TV, smoking and drinking, then pull out that card and go get a mix fill. Why try to control something you really have no control over? It just makes things more complicated than they need to be. Again, there are people who think no one should dive b/c of the risk, what makes their desire to "protect" us not ok (since you obviously don't obey them, nor do I), but your desire "correct" ??? You obviously decide for yourself that the risk of diving is acceptable to you. Why do you want to deny that right to others? Regards, Mike -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]