Right?
We've really been dodging a bullet!
Printable View
I've trained in Mexico, Florida and Europe, taking full cave and equivalents repeatedly. Mexico was the best by far, mainly due to two things - instructor and the fact that warm water and shallow average depths allow for long exposures during training dives. My full cave was 40 hours of watertime as an example. I believe that problem solving from something resembling max penetration is very valuable in that it teaches humility and risk awareness in a way that just doing the dives and short, isolated, exercises cannot. Nothing that we did during my first full cave was anything I'd call risky and noone ever turned off any valves for me but I also cannot see the benefit of watering it down too much. If removing a fin or a supervised entanglement in a suitable training cave is too much then I'd really would not want to dive outside the cavern with that person.
I don't mean to offend anyone I am just surprised, I thought those kinds of drills, mask off,reg riped out, lost fin, valve off, freeflow etc... were standard full cave skills
Came off with a pretty serious "pissing contest" presentation.
Something I'm a little surprised hasn't been raised about these skills. None of them are written into any training agency's standards. Which means two thing:
1) Unless a student signs some sort of statement of understanding before starting the course agreeing to perform these skills the instructor does not have the right to withhold certification if the student hasn't performed these skills.
2) Whether a statement is signed or not, if a student is hurt or killed during the performance of these skills the instructor's insurance carrier is going to say, "You were breaking standards," and deny coverage.
That depends upon the agency's rules.
I think (not sure) the insurance company would have to pay, but the point is they would have to pay--they would have a very tough time defending you in a trial. In a trial, the plaintiff will try to put the blame for the accident on the instructor, and the instructor will need to show that the practices involved in the accident were reasonable and safe. If they are standard practices that are part of normal scuba instruction, the defense is solid. Even if they could somehow convince the jury that the practice is unsafe, the fact that they are standard and agency approved would mean the instructor was being reasonable in using those practices.
If, on the other hand, the instructor was using practices that are not only not part of standard practice but are actually forbidden or discouraged by mainstream agencies, then the defense is pretty much screwed.
I am not a cave instructor, but I am a technical instructor. In my earliest technical training, I was put through a lot of stress activities that are forbidden or discouraged by many or most agencies. I agree that they made me a better diver. On the other hand, there was an incident with some other students in my group where one of those activities, an air-shutting-off activity I had successfully survived myself, went badly, and although both students involved survived, they both could well have died. Now that I am an instructor, I don't do those things. Too risky.
Swiss (not Swedish) I believe.
Fortunately she's still actively teaching and holding herself and her students to amazing standards. http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...5a0bd92db1.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk