which diver are you?, part *three*

Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
> One wonders if that same faithful following in the past had provided the
> necessary funds to rebuild, thereby providing them the confidence to
> spend those funds knowing that their faithful following would remain so
> securing them a future among the survivors.


Yes, the "faithul" did provide the funds, in a manner of speaking: they
were the source of the reliable revenue stream that allowed the business
to prosper without having to go through "feast or famine" cyclic pain.

As such, the resort had the resources to buy plywood before the storm,
which minimized damage, which meant that it cost less to clean up
afterwords, etc, etc.


Case in point: in November 2004, two months after Ivan hit the Caymans,
Pirate's Point on Little Cayman was completely rebuilt. Of the guests
that were there for Thanksgiving week, several of them put down their
deposits to reserve their rooms for November 2005.

Meantime, on the Brac (which got a lesser hit), I understand that
neither Divi nor Brac Reef have fully completed the reconstruction of
their docks. Wonder how many room deposits they have received in the
past six months that were for a full year in advance of the stay...



-hh

I figured I'd beat this to the punch...


One thing I found conspicuously absent from captkeywest's article (See
Which Diver Are You parts I & II) was the failure to mention the roles
and responsibilities of the professionals who are providing dive
services to the general public....


....you know, that "public" of which "Scott" wants to have annual
recertifications for...


True, OW divers have no annual testing requirements. However, is this
not also the case for the DM's and Instructors too?


Since they have a professional duty of care, it would seem to me that
"Scott" has focused on...well, I won't say the "wrong group", but at
least the "Least Important Group"....for his idea of requiring periodic
quality control testing from.



So if we're going to examine the claim of "A yearly checkout dive
shouldn't put a burr in anybodies swimsuit!", then let's start with
those paid dive professionals to set a good example. To assure customer
safety, what should their renewable standards be?


Well, an annual medical physical is a good starting point.

It should probably also screen for drug and alcohol abuse,
since these staffers often also the boat drivers too, and
these problems are unfortunately too common in some areas.


Next, we want to make sure that there's a performance swim test and an
actual teaching skills test of some sort.

The challenge here is that since these skills/fitness is
needed most at the beginning of the dive season, so a mere
annual requirement will be insufficient, since it will be
human nature to slip its scheduling to when the season is
winding down and they're in the best shape to pass the test.

Hence, to make sure that the standards are being met when
they're needed and since dive seasons vary from region to
region, the simplest way to address this is to simply make
this a requirement that has to be renewed every 6 months.
Yup, it must be done more often than the OW customer, since
they're being paid to have a duty of care over said customers.


What else? Well, since the surface is one of the most dangerous parts
of a dive, some sort of commercial boat driver performance test would be
appropriate to require.

Ditto for safety inspections of the boat for required safety equipment
and so forth, and since diving is international, we can't rely on
individual governments to set these standards, so it must come from the
private industry - - - EG, the Dive Agencies - - - and be part of the
definition for "PADI 5 STAR", etc. Again, since there's the seasonal
influence again, these should again probably be required every 6 months.

Which also means an annual Red Cross First Aid refresher class, which
was a prerequisite to get Rescue Diver and DM. Got to wonder how many
people have these cards, but haven't maintained their Red Cross card.



This all sounds like a lot, but there's clearly more that should be
added. And the good news regarding all of this is that these recurring
testing requirements are all legit business expenses, so their costs can
be passed along to the consumer. And if they're standardized across the
dive industry, no one outfit will be at a competitive disadvantage over
the others.


Which then brings us finally to "Scott's" idea of requiring annual
recerts for their customers. Well, if the dive industry adopts all of
the above, then I'll *begin* to consider the idea.

Personally, I see problems with it in that its very easy for an "Annual
Dive Vacation" to not hit 12 months on the nose year after year...it
could be 11 months this year and 13 months next, which illustrates the
arbitrary nature of the "annual" criteria.

Similarly, I do not generally enjoy having to jump through some new
administrative hoops to demonstrate to some DM who was born after I was
certified that I'm not going to promptly drown the moment that I drop
off the back end of the boat.

Finally, when I'm rusty, I go down to my local diveshop's pool and get
wet ... but this is free and it results in no sort of documentation to
satisfy a ticket-puncher. As far as I'm concerned, there is no problem.


FWIW, I personally think it would be much simpler for a dive shop to
just use the existing data that they collect from their customers - -
eg, their Agency & C-Card number - - and mail a quarterly report back to
said Agency's Quality Assurance Department. The QA department then does
some statistical aggregation to find out which of their instructors are
producing the students who are gathering the most complaints about poor
diving skills. Congratulations! We've now identified our worst
Instructors who are the root cause of our problem.

Before taking the dramatic steps that will only disrupt and alienate
their customer base, the industry should try the easy stuff that they
can do on their own at very low cost and 'zero' customer involvement.



-hh

"H Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com> wrote in
message news:{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-

> ...you know, that "public" of which "Scott" wants to have annual
> recertifications for...

"wants to have annual recertifications for"?

Would it be too much to ask that you gain some grasp or understanding of
what I said before assigning opinions to me?

Ross Garrett wrote:
> "H Huntzinger" wrote:
>
> > ...you know, that "public" of which "Scott" wants to have annual
> > recertifications for...
>
> "wants to have annual recertifications for"?
>
> Would it be too much to ask that you gain some grasp or understanding
> of what I said before assigning opinions to me?


FWIW, I didn't think I was attributing this to you, Ross. If I messed
up this attribution, I'm sorry.


In part I, captkeywest attributed this thread series to a:

"( credit to Capt. Scott F.)"

His attribution in Part II was merely to Scott, which I assumed was a
gloss-over referring to the same individual as from Part I.

Since there hasn't obviously been any thread participant by the name of
"Scott F"...and there haven't been any in all of rec.scuba...its
unclear if this is a real or fictionalized person, but in any event,
its pretty evident that its not someone who's reading here. As such, I
chose to put the attributed 3rd party name in quotes.

AFAIK, you're not the "Scott" that was being referred to, but if I'm
incorrect, do feel free to clarify this.


-hh

-hh wrote:
> Ross Garrett wrote:
> > "H Huntzinger" wrote:
> >
> > > ...you know, that "public" of which "Scott" wants to have annual
> > > recertifications for...


> In part I, captkeywest attributed this thread series to a:
>
> "( credit to Capt. Scott F.)"
>
> His attribution in Part II was merely to Scott, which I assumed was a
> gloss-over referring to the same individual as from Part I.
>
> Since there hasn't obviously been any thread participant by the name of
> "Scott F"...

Just out of curiosity, I went to the WEB search of Google and
used the keywords "Captain Scott F Florida Keys" and promptly
got 262,000 hits.

It turned out there are quite a few captains in Florida with
either the FIRST name of Scott, or the LAST name of Scott,
and either could have been "Captain Scott". In short, there
are too many Captain Scotts in Florida to even be able to line
them up for suspects.

-- Bob.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1121355884.441783.315890@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

> FWIW, I didn't think I was attributing this to you, Ross. If I messed
> up this attribution, I'm sorry.

Hey, no problem. I am not Scott, but I was the person who mentioned annual
certs, though not as a proposition but rather as a remedy for the fact that
shops and operators can't possibly count on cards meaning anything given the
current state of certification. I don't want to have to do an annual, but I
understand why boats and shops don't trust the simple possesion of a card to
mean someone is competent and safe.

Sorry if I sounded like a dick. Sometimes typed words don't represent
sentiment.....at least when the keyboard is in the hands of a ham-fist like
myself.

Ross Garrett wrote:

> I don't want to have to do an annual, but I
> understand why boats and shops don't trust the simple possesion of a card to
> mean someone is competent and safe.

I've got the perfect solution to the problem. People who don't trust their customers
to use their product should find a different product to sell.

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.

HH wrote (snip)
>those paid dive professionals to set a good example. To assure customer
>safety, what should their renewable standards be?
>Well, an annual medical physical is a good starting point.
> It should probably also screen for drug and alcohol abuse,
> since these staffers often also the boat drivers too, and these
problems
>are unfortunately too common.

as a driver heres some of the forms I submit;

http://www.nemaritime.com/uscgtestforms.html

disqualifiers:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What may disqualify me from obtaining a USCG License?

The USCG Application Form 719B contains a Narcotics, DWI/DUI, and
Conviction Record Section. If you have had any court convictions,
DWI/DUI, refusal of alcohol/drug test, loss of driver's license, CG
Letter of Warning, or other situation you see as a concern, please
contact New England Maritime and we will confidentially discuss your
individual situation or direct you to the proper USCG personnel to
alleviate any confusion prior to signing up for class.

What is a USCG Physical exam?

The USCG Physical Form 719K and USCG Drug Test Form 719P are
prerequisites in obtaining your USCG License and may disqualify or
restrict your license. The Coast Guard requires a physician to ensure
you are of sound health, have no physical limitations that would hinder
or prevent performance of duties, are physically and mentally able to
stay alert for 4-6 hour shifts, and are free from any medical
conditions that pose a risk of sudden incapacitation which would affect
operating, or working on vessels.

Your Physical Exam will indicate any vision, color vision, blood
pressure, hearing, medications, physical impairment, or medical
conditions. Any of these conditions does not necessarily prevent you
from obtaining a USCG License, but may require additional information
and/or tests from your attending physician. Please contact New England
Maritime to confidentially discuss your situation.

The USCG Drug Test must be performed by a SAMHSA Accredited Laboratory
for a DOT 5 Panel of Marijuana metabolites, Cocaine metabolites, Opiate
metabolites, Phencyclidine, and Amphetamines.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

source of above text:

http://www.nemaritime.com/faq.html

"Steve" wrote

>> I don't want to have to do an annual, but I understand why boats and
>> shops don't trust the simple possesion of a card to mean someone is
>> competent and safe.
>
> I've got the perfect solution to the problem. People who don't trust their
> customers to use their product should find a different product to sell.

8^) I like it. It's not how the world works, or at least how it has worked
for a pretty long time, but it sure sounds right to me. If we could add
"people (divers) who don't use the product responsibly can't hold operators
responsible for the results of mistakes the diver, him or herself, makes.
Finally, I'd love to add that both divers and operators can, and should,
hold the certification agencies responsible for failure to provide the level
of training they contracted for.

Lee

-hh wrote:
> (USCG requirements...snip)
>
> That may help one aspect of quality control, but how do you make all of
> the, say, Cozumel operators conform to it?

Cozumel operators have no incentive to conform to USCG license
standards, if thats your desire lobby congress to annex Mexico and then
the rest of the world.

> That's one item down, I await your response to the rest.

instead of snivelling about being treated as a diving tourist on a
tourist dive boat devoted to servicing the tourist dive industry you
could do what I do and dive from a private or rented boat.....!