I'm an avid diver; got certified as soon as I turned 12 years old and have had some great adventures and life lessons diving and continuing my training and education. After many many conversations and encounters on dive boats with others (some seasoned, most tourist / rec divers) - I believe that 90% of the industry sees diving akin to a roller coaster ride instead of Skydiving. The risks with scuba are there for you to see and the situation can get deadly very quickly, but most people don't see the inherit risk or shrug it off. I've watched countless divers who are renting their bc/reg/tank/computer not even go through the most basic safety checks prior to diving. They simply trust the operator and jump in. This is not a "batteries included" sport. It is that lack of preparedness that leads to fatal accidents, people who don't respect the sport for what it is and the dangers that come with it. If you don't plan your dives, understand the dive profile, then you are going to panic of make a stupid decision when you shouldn't. When I was younger, technical dives; cave and deep, where my two favorite things to do, the amount of planning it took to pull off the dives was enjoyable and I enjoyed pushing myself in to those situations and the focus it required. Now that I have kids, I won't do those dives anymore b/c I understand that when you plan them, there is a greater than 0 chance that you don't come back and its not worth it to me to take that chance.
Older Navy diver instructor walks in "So I know each of you is coming into this class with different levels of experience. What we're going to do first is a short test on your proficiency for 20 minutes.
It will be graded on completeness, not correctness. You are not expected to know all the answers. I'm just interested in gauging what you know.
Be aware, there are a lot of questions for the time, so I suggest you work quickly to get through all of them. Make sure you read and follow all instructions.
Do not turn your paper over and start until I've handed all of them out and said go.
hands out tests
Go."
12/14 people in the class start furiously scribbling
The first sentence on the test?
"If you read this sentence, please continue to hold your pencil, but do not write on this test. Wait until time has expired."
It always stuck with me as one of the best lessons about diving. Both in what you should do, and what our natural inclinations to actually do are.
We had a Chemistry teacher who tried a similar sort of thing on us when I was about 17.
"OK class, today's lesson is going to be a dictation, get your books out and start taking this down"
I can't remember the exact content but effectively he started off with some familiar organic chemistry and then veered off to stuff that was pretty obviously wrong.
I'm proud to say that I'm the one that said "Eh ... that doesn't seem like a valid equation ... ?"
"Good! Never just copy this stuff down without engaging your brain!"
(Or at least that's the way it goes in my memory, 17 was a long old time ago!)
I was not a great student but at one point in college I realized that I wasn't listening while taking notes. I was just mindlessly copying everything exactly as was written on the white board missing out on what my teachers said.
I stopped taking notes at this point and started paying attention instead. My grades improved. This might not work for everyone but something to try if you struggle retaining lecture content even as you take a bunch of notes.
In a physics or maths class that seems impossible unless the prof is teaching directly from distributed notes or the text book. Some of the better classes I had were those where the prof just gave out their notes and we could focus on what was said rather than writing it out, in that case if you zone out it's your fault.
Actually I was a Math major the biggest thing for me is 1. notes can be very cryptic after the class without the verbal context. A lot of course also have that advantage where the teacher would provide notes afterwards so yeah focusing in on what was said was the highest value.
It was my fault that I zoned out, that's why I had to find a way to avoid it.
Funny, for me it's the opposite. Can't remember it if I don't write it down. I don't have to read it afterwards, I just remember what it was by remembering writing it.
I've found that taking notes in cursive helps my listening comprehension, for whatever it's worth. But it makes it harder to use my notes as a reference later.
yes, ive had similar experiences, and thinking back on it, why take notes when you can just record the lecture and play it back later.... better to engage in the lecture, since thats why we are there in the first place!
We had a similar one of those in school. The first question of the test was 'read all questions before you start.' Then it had stuff like poke holes in the paper, draw things, random stuff, the very last question though was,
'Now that you've read all the questions, just write your name in the top corner and turn your paper over.'
Yeah...a lot of my classmates ended up with holes and scribbles on their tests...
When you are doing a safety check list, you don't skip and do whatever part of the checklist you feel comfortable doing.
You do it from top to bottom.
Multiple people have died in accidents because they focused on small issue ignoring the larger problem.
So when it's time to check safety in scuba diving, you should better follow the instruction instead of doing whatever you want.
Example. There is no point to worry about "Is your mask clean?" when you are going to run out of oxygen and drown.
If you are still unsure of the why, then you have had a fortunate life. There are many times you will get a set of "instructions" where somewhere something is wrong or incomplete, but you won't know that until you've worked your way through them. Ikea comes to mind. It is often very helpful to read through all of the steps involved first to make sure you actually have all of the parts/pieces you need and to make sure they make sense before starting. So I say again, that if you've never run into one of these situations, then you've been lucky.
I’m not questioning that you should read all the questions, I’m saying it’s ambiguous what you should do if you’re given the following task list:
1) read all tasks
2) do x
3) do y
4) do z
5) now that you have read all tasks, just write your name and do nothing
I don’t understand why I should not do x,y,z. Task 1 is telling me to read all tasks, not to execute any. Why should one, when reading 5), decide to execute that particular one, but not the other ones?
To me, the correct procedure would be to read all tasks (task 1), then continue executing task 2), etc.
I had one of those in fourth or fifth grade. It had items like "squawk like a chicken", making it obvious to everyone whether or not you read the directions.
Those who followed first sentence instruction did correctly one question. And ignored all the others in test that was supposed to be graded on completeness.
He also claimed the goal was to gauge their knowledge. Again, that was lie. And those who scribbled were literally trying to fulfill stated goal of test.
> It will be graded on completeness, not correctness. You are not expected to know all the answers. I'm just interested in gauging what you know.
In overwhelming majority of situations, of you sabotage goal of event due to following likely faulty mutually conflicting instructions, you will be blamed for it.
Given a set of mutually conflicting directives, one must exercise discretion to prioritize. I felt (at the time and reflecting on the experience now) that it was clear which held the higher priority.
To me, ignoring that one and answering questions gives more sense.
According to instructions, the test was judged on completeness. The instructor expected the students to pick set of instructions that make test less complete.
In this variant, answering majority of questions and leaving that one missed is rational behavior.
I'd be worried about someone who receives that instruction, receives an anomalous instruction on the test, and decides to ignore the anomalous instruction.
Other versions of this test include the last question being "Don't answer any questions". The habit the teacher was trying to impart was "read the whole paper" first before answering any questions -- particularly if there are multiple choice questions.
One of my middle school teachers gave that sheet out to the class. I was that one kid that took it seriously, but had no prior-example knowledge to even bother reading ahead.
The test with the bail-out at the start sounds logically fine. The test I was given was just a cruel trick from a trusted source of tests / knowledge provision.
This is an irrational party(professor) trick that wastes everyone's time.
An argument could be made for "read the (short) instructions at the start". An argument cannot be made for this. There is often very little value to skimming the entire question set before the exam.
It's been a very long time since I had to do any tests, but back in my school days, with multiple-choice tests, I evolved a method of quickly answering everything I was confident to know 100% throughout the entire test in a first pass, reserving the rest for subsequent increasingly slower passes.
What tended to occur was the earlier fast passes at the very least warmed up the cache upstairs, and some previously unclear questions became obvious. Then for the remaining questions, they often had dependencies with other questions and their answers, which I could use to deduce probably correct answers.
This was obscenely effective. To the extent that I would ace tests in classes I barely attended and never turned in homework for, in some cases culminating in teachers publicly accusing me of cheating on the exams. Though some of that was also due to switching from private to public school where I had already learned the material in the previous years.
I once used this method and spent the last ten minutes of a test just guess-and-checking the solutions to a question I didn't remember the formula for. Of course, it was the last one I checked. (I wasn't confident enough to early return).
I used the same method and can confirm it was very effective for me as well.
An added bonus is reduced stress about time limits. After the first pass you have a big chunk (if not most) of the test done in little time - this feels good and also leaves you with a clearer idea of how much work and time is left.
I don't know about you, but for my tests on a curve where I might not be able to answer all the questions, doing the quick skim to answer the low hanging fruit before getting to the harder problems is a good way to make sure you don't run out of time and lose out.
I did the same, but if I'm doing that skimming and I know the answer to question 12 is (c), I fill in (c) and keep going. I don't read all the questions, then go back and try and remember which of the questions I knew the answers to off-hand. Instead, I'd do the test in 3 passes.
1. Answer all questions that I know the answer instantly or (for math type tests) can solve within a few seconds. Skip anything not quick.
2. Go back and answer questions that I know I can solve. These usually take a minute or two (since the easy ones should already be done). If there happens to be a question I know I can solve but also know will take "too much time," skip it.
3. If there's time left, work through any remaining questions (hopefully there aren't that many), making a best effort to prioritize the ones I'm more confident that I can solve in the time remaining.
Also, content of later questions can be useful earlier, and getting some background brain cells working on the hard stuff while you churn through the easy stuff could be worthwhile.
It's a good lesson, but it's a lesson about taking tests not about the material. I can see arguments for and against including that in any given class.
In some tests I have seen future questions answer previous ones. For a contrived example:
"Q1: What color was the bookshelf? A. Red B. Green C. Blue"
"Q2: What sentimental item did John take from the red bookshelf?"
I was never sure if it was on purpose to reinforce reading all questions before answering or if it was merely poor test design. Usually it was more subtle than my contrived example but it did bump my scores on some tests up a bit.
I agree. More over, half of these have genuinly mutually exclusive instructions.
And from those mutually exclusive requirements you are supposed to pick the "least likely one" else you are wrong. It is good example how manipulation works however. You put people into unsolvable situation and then blame them.
Which is to say diving is a sport that can be safe, but only assuming you are actively and honestly engaged in making it safe.
I am not diving but I am sailing and for the most part sailing is a safe sport assuming you are prepped including mental preparation. If you are not, things can get downhill pretty fast.
I consider diving one of the sports where you place yourself in a situation where you are dead by default unless you have paved the way for you to escape. Same is flying, skydiving but so is going into a corner in a car or motorcycle at the max speed you can handle.
Tangential, but driving never quite feels safe if you are pushing the car. At least not without inspecting the entire suspension every month or two. And that's ignoring anything internal, like your clutch fork giving out, or bending a rod, or your inner tie-rods disconnecting, or your brake cable tearing, or...
If you are pushing the car on a public road it means you have already failed at driving safely.
Driving safely != not cause an accident
Driving safely == not be in an accident
You can be the best driver in the world driving the best car in the world and it doesn't matter, because some idiot will not look in their mirror when changing lanes and suddenly you are in an accident.
To drive safely on a public road means to take care for your abilities and your car but most, most importantly, too give wide berth to other road users and to drive in a way that will minimize the accident if it happens.
Understand everybody makes mistakes. If you aim to drive safely you need to make it your responsibility to drive in a way that will allow yourself and others make mistakes and still not cause an accident. In other words, give margin for error.
Some examples:
-- try to minimize your time in somebody's blind spot.
-- observe traffic behind you, not just in front of you. I have on multiple occasions avoided a car hitting me from behind, twice at a difference of speed that looked like at least 100km/h. Being aware where the cars are gives you ability to act instinctively without hitting somebody.
-- try to maintain slow relative speeds with regards to other road users. For example, never drive fast around cars stuck in traffic.
-- always have a backup plan for every maneuver. For example, do not have fast closing speed to the car in front of you with a plan to change the lane just before you hit it. You need to maintain the ability to break in case the car in front of you suddenly slows down or in case you can't change the lane for whatever reason,
Just to be clear, I specifically mentioned public road.
Driving on a closed track is completely different business.
While definitely not as crazy dangerous as some people would paint it, I don't feel you can ever drive as a sport and be completely safe.
Driving as a sport is by definition pushing the boundary on how close you can get to crash so if you are good at driving it means you are getting closer and closer to the limit.
I think this is confirmed by how many professional drivers died in crashes. And it seems the better you are the higher the chance you will die in a crash.
> I believe that 90% of the industry sees diving akin to a roller coaster ride instead of Skydiving
As a licensed skydiver who got out of the sport partially because I didn't like the culture, I assure you that a huge amount of the skydiving industry also views it like a roller coaster ride.
I dropped my motorcycle endorsement when I had kids. There were too many death notices in the newspaper where a guy about my age was killed because a car "didn't see them" and turned right in front of them.
In most cases there wasn't an indication that they were speeding or drunk or on drugs, just that other people weren't paying attention. And maybe that the rider didn't allow for that.
It's not actually the people riding like lunatics that manage to kill themselves on motorcycles at high rates. It's the old guys, riding back from "biker nights" at the bar, in full branded gear to include the do-rag and t-shirt. Lots of single rider, single bike accident with substantial alcohol in the blood.
I've ridden for many years, and I also fly small planes, so I'm quite aware of my higher-than-average risk profile, and have gone through a lot of studies and reading to determine how I can, as much as possible, mitigate the risks while still enjoying the activities.
For motorcycles, riding regularly, in full gear, while sober, gains you an awful lot. Riding infrequently is hard because you don't maintain the muscle memory, full gear turns most crashes into a "Invent new cusswords to remove the paint from your helmet, get up, and walk away" event (not all, obviously, but if you crash without gear, it's going to either suck a lot or end your life, and if you crash in gear it's a lot less likely to suck or kill you), and "bike nights at the bar" are just dumb.
Knowing the limits of your bike is also helpful. I did a few track days, decided I didn't want to go down this route, but very much appreciated the chance to learn (in a safe environment) how much further than my normal limits I could ride on the bike. I couldn't ride anywhere near the limits of my bike, and knew it, but I expanded the envelope of "I know I can make this bike do that," and it was occasionally useful. The guys riding wheelies down the highway, against what most people believe, actually don't kill themselves terribly often. They know the limits of their bike, they know what they can make it do, and if there's something that requires a rapid response, they can make the bike do it on demand. One of those guys has a car pull out in front of them, they're either able to stop competently, or aim for the new gap, lean the bike over, cut through the gap, and flip off the car. The guy who rides a big cruiser 300 miles a year to the bar is more likely to mentally lock up, lock the brakes (before antilocks were standard), and slam into the side of said vehicle. Often while sliding on the ground first, having locked the rear tire.
You also, if you're riding regularly, learn in a hurry how to identify the cars to watch out for. Maybe the slammed Honda with a fart can, park bench, and body damage is being driven by someone's mom, who is the most respectful person on the road. Don't care, I'm going to assume it's likely to do something very abrupt and stupid. And, often enough, they do.
But if you wear gear, ride a lot, and understand the limits of your bike, you can manage a lot of riding miles, very safely. As much as people make fun of the old couples on Goldwings in the glow-stick yellow riding gear, a lot of those people ride 30k+ miles/yr, for many, many years, entirely safely.
This is getting long, but general aviation accident records contain a lot of the same sort of thing - "Here's a short list of quick ways to die in an airplane. Don't do these and your life expectancy will increase dramatically."
And nothing here means that you can control all the risk. Sometimes, shit happens and there's nothing you can do about it, despite all your preparations (Gann's Fate is the Hunter is a great read on the subject). But you can radically balance the scales in your direction with the right planning.
In the United States, cops pull over most bikes, especially after 10 pm. It's almost like they just hate bikers?
The bikers I know are not getting buzzed at the local watering hole, and aiming the bike home. It's not the 70's.
In my county, the fatal bike crashes are usually new high end high performance bikes, on country roads. They are experienced, but pushing it. They are cold sober.
The days of having a few beers, and driving home on the bike, or even an old car, must be down across the county?
Cops realized a while ago that most Americans have no qualms over arresting a guy over a DUI, and they are villigant.
To vigilant in my opinion. (I heard in Texas if a dui defendant can prove they were not physically, or mentally impaired, while doing a computer simulation, they might get out of a dui? This might be just a rumor? I feel it's more fair, especially when a marginal dui can significantly impair your economic viability for years, especially for the poor.)
In upper class neighborhoods, it's usually the only crime they can solve, after pulling over 50 sober drivers?
My brother got a DUI over .04 BAC. He also had weed in his system from the day before, and clumsily told the cop the truth when asked. Bored officer, "Did you take any drugs?". My naieve brother, "well yesterday I smoked some weed.". Arrested, and lost the case.
My point is the DUI scare is real among everyone, but the naieve.
When I had my motorcycle, I was pulled over so many times for no reason it was maddening. It's the main reason I don't ride anymore.
Getting pulled over for no reason other than a cop hoping to nab a marginal dui is really irritating.
I've gotten to the point where I have two dash cameras always activated, and I try to not go out past 10 pm in an old car.
(I can offer this, if you are ever in Marin County CA, expect to be pulled over if driving a motorcycle at night. Also expect to be pulled over if you look ethnic, or drive an older vechicle. We have a bunch of bored cops, and they look for anything they can to fill up that duty sheet. Oh yea, they peer into bars, and follow patrons home.)
Marin County will also pull you over on a bicycle because they don't like cyclists. And issue several hundred dollar tickets for going too fast, passing cars while they are stopped in a turn lane, riding over a crosswalk with small children... https://twitter.com/WarrenJWells/status/1386328677378494468?...
Thanks for this thread. A weird experience makes sense now: I met this man when he was on a bike. I figured it was a local asshole trying to be aggressive to a stranger in front of the woman he was riding with, with maybe 20% odds of also being an off duty cop.
Either that, or the Sausalito community just really shares a passionate opposition to cyclists rolling along the uncontested sides of quiet T intersections.
One part of being human is the ability to rationalize situations rather then be rational about the situation. Two very different things.
Our biases prevent us from recognizing this in ourselves ever.
Not saying you're rationalizing your behavior, but I'm saying it's a possibility. The only way to know for sure is to provide data to back up what you're saying.
What is your statistical risk profile based off of the conditions your provided?
It's certainly a possibility, and I've not sat down with a spreadsheet to optimize my risk profiles.
I like riding motorcycles, so I try to do it in as safe a way as reasonably possible. Right now, given that I'm typically on ill-handling sidecar rigs, that involves gear and no longer riding two wheels frequently.
I like small planes. Again, I try to find safer ways to do it.
But I recognize that these are still riskier activities, and I do them because I enjoy them, entirely aware of the risks involved.
"Trying to do the research to be able to quantify my risks and mitigations in a spreadsheet" doesn't sound terribly enjoyable to me, so I've no intensions of doing it.
The median age of riders is ~50 while the average age of fatalities is 42. People over 50 make up significantly less than half of fatalities.
However, you are still kind of correct- the number of fatalities picks up strongly at 50+. People 35-45 tend to be the safest. People 50+ are still on average significantly safer than <30, even those who are first riding late in life.
Motorcycle fatalities are heavily associated with risk-taking more than anything else. There are more people like that <30, but there are plenty of Boomers riding recklessly as well. 27% of motorcycle riders in fatal accidents are alcohol-impaired, by far the highest of any vehicle category. Passenger cars and light trucks are 21% and 20%.
> motorcycle riders in fatal accidents are alcohol-impaired,by far the highest of any vehicle category.
I think this is attributable mostly to the fact that fatality rate on any motorcycle accident is higher (for obvious reasons) and that alcohol is especially a contributing factor to single vehicle accidents.
If you are tipsy and go into a corner a bit fast in a car you can usually react in a way that will save it; many "gut" level reactions on a motorcycle will cause bad things to happen (e.g. most braking while already in a corner). Touching a soft shoulder is much, much easier to recover, etc.
> The median age of riders is ~50 while the average age of fatalities is 42. People over 50 make up significantly less than half of fatalities.
I'm not sure if you were trying to imply there was some connection between those sentences? You could easily have more than 50% of fatalities over 50, and still get an average of 42 (for example, deaths clustered mostly in either twenties or fifties).
Are they? Cause motocycle incidents I knew of were all young overconfident guys. No alcohol was involved and it was during the day. The traffic rules were broken tho (speed and aggressive riding).
> It's not actually the people riding like lunatics that manage to kill themselves on motorcycles at high rates.
There are a couple of high risk groups. One is young guys with a combination of inexperience and a desire to go fast(er than conditions/skills allow). Another is older guys, often who haven't ridden for years if ever, who get into trouble. Again inexperience is a big factor in both.
Last time I looked at the numbers, the peaks were at 6 months to a year of experience riding, and the second at 3 to 4 years. The first peak being generally due to inexperience, the second to overconfidence.
Lack of regular experience is definitely a contributing factor. Muscle memory has a half life.
Indeed. This is part of why I sold one of my motorcycles - a powerful, fairly aggressive sport touring bike. It was my daily driver for about 2.5 years, and I rode it typically 7 days a week, around 1300-1500 miles a month. I knew the bike, and I had the "edge" - there was no question about what the bike was going to do. I knew it, I knew how it responded, I knew what I could ask of it. If I didn't ride for a few days, I could feel that the edge was dull when I got back on - there was just a little something missing, corners were a smidge sloppier, etc.
And I was no longer riding enough miles on that bike to keep that. I knew I was ham fisted when riding it compared to what I used to be, and I just don't put enough miles on anymore that I was able to keep it up.
I now ride the motorcycle version of a Russian tractor (one of a few Urals - sidecar rigs), and they're both entirely different from two wheels and demanding in different ways. But they don't have the sort of instant response of a sportbike either. A good sportbike does what you asked, right now. Capable of it or not, it does what you told it to do, and if that includes an unintentional wheelie, well, you did ask for it with your throttle inputs. The Urals have their own nasty handling corner cases, but are a lot more forgiving in many ways, and you really have to muscle them around at times. A subtle input gets entirely ignored.
For broadly similar reasons I have a 650cc twin sports tourer. It is docile, mild mannered, and has enough reserve power at the speed limit should I need it.
The older guys scare me more, especially on scenic drives like Blue Ridge. They can outright bully normal drivers (surrounding them to force them to go faster). Of course, these are the vast minority of motorcyclists, but it's still a recurrent issue.
One thing about places like the Blue Ridge is they are popular enough for tourism that they draw people from all over the country - including those who have never or rarely driven similar roads. That plus being crowded can be a perfect storm for stupid accidents.
Interesting. I'd be curious to read your thoughts on mitigating risk with general aviation. Is there a checklist somewhere of "always do these 20 things" or do you have to comb the NTSB accident records yourself?
You don't have to comb the NTSB records - they're aggregated by various groups.
A lot of them involve loss of control of some form or another - typically in instrument flight conditions, often enough by someone who either doesn't have an instrument rating or is badly out of practice. A VFR only pilot in the clouds has a lifespan measured in minutes.
Running out of fuel for some reason is depressingly common - and while an off-airport landing isn't automatically fatal, "pilot failed to monitor fuel in flight" is a pretty stupid reason to crash.
And avoid light twins. They're a lot more demanding when an engine fails, and typically don't handle off airport landings very well. There don't tend to be many injuries with twins - either you handle everything properly and land safely, or the aircraft leaves a small smoking crater in the ground.
A lot of it is simply looking at the sky, forecast, and deciding "You know, this just isn't a good day to put a small airplane in the sky." I consider night VFR to be fairly risky too. Clouds are invisible, visual illusions in sparsely populated areas are common, and it's hard to find a nice flat area to land if your engine quits at night.
Sometimes this just makes me think that every pilot needs some IRF experience and a fuel gauge that has an alarm that says 'land now, you moron' or such.
Small airfcraft fuel gauges are notoriously unreliable. If it's reading low, yes, be alarmed. But sometimes the float gets stuck, so if your estimate for how much fuel you should have burned puts your fuel lower, trust that.
At least in the UK, getting a private pilot's licence did involve a couple of hours of simulated IFR. Not enough to do anything complex. But enough to turn 180, and be able to follow detailed controller instructions.
In the US, you need a couple hours of simulated instrument time as well. One difference in the US is that you can legally fly VFR at night - even if it may be unwise in a lot of areas. A lot of countries (I believe the UK is one of them?) require an instrument ticket for flying at night.
If you're up over, say, Iowa at night? Tons of farms, flat, lights everywhere? It's fine. Pretty, you can still see stuff, and short of an invisible power line for an off airport landing, it's almost like flying during the day.
Out in Idaho, in the mountains? You're pretty dumb to fly VFR at night. There's no light anywhere, lots of hard rock, and plenty of clouds that like to appear with no warning.
But, yes, fuel gauges suck. The problem is that even if you put something like a fuel totalizer in, you still only know how much has gone into the engine, not how much is left in the wings. I understand a loose or missing fuel cap will drain a Cessna's wing tank in about 10-15 minutes.
Huh. Wait, aircraft use float based fuel gauges still? I thought everything had gone electro-resistive since you'll get the same measurement regardless of orientation of the tank if you place your sensors right.
I remember coming across that as a specific design challenge to overcome. Floats don't read the same when flying upside-down.
Most of the US General Aviation fleet is from the 1950s to 1980s. They still use floats.
Those who fly upside down on purpose tend to either not care about the fuel readings when upside down, or fly something modern enough. But I can't imagine an airshow performer is paying any attention to the fuel gauges. "I have a 15 minute routine, I have an hour of fuel onboard, and I'm surrounded by an airport, which is a good place for an emergency landing."
“not even go through the most basic safety checks prior to diving”
From my experience the dive operators in tourist spots often don’t want you to touch anything. Kind of makes sense because most tourists like myself only have a very vague recollection of the procedure.
It's a vicious cycle though: tourists don't know how to dive safely so instead of making sure they know, we'll just set up their gear and throw them in the water. Tourists learn that this is normal, and become even less likely to know how their gear should be configured, which makes the next operator more confident in their decision to not let the tourist set up their own gear.
The crew on a dive boat in a tropical destination could very well be a 20 year old newly certified divemaster who's been up all night partying - there's no way I'm letting that person be responsible for making sure my air supply is connected and turned on before throwing me in the water, or any of the other standard pre-dive (BWRAF) safety checks that all certified divers are taught to do.
The problem dive locations have is a lot of people a) overstate experience or what they remember, b) are unfamiliar or have not tested equip they will be diving with and c) equip is not familiar to operator if they bring their stuff.
People don't dive enough. So they buy all sorts of new stuff for their big new drift dive vacation. In some cases they've literally not been underwater with it for even 20 minutes. Also makes it harder to do an at a glance x-check for folks if you don't know their gear. And some gear harder to deal with (ie, adding weights underwater) if someone turns out underweighted.
My own feeling - unless someone is current with their equip or has current diving - start with a hard bottom dive at 40'.
You touch on what I think is an important consideration. A lot of people want to get into diving but just don't have the time to do it consistently enough to be fully on top of it. They have a few days vacation and go do a nice destination and expect to jump right back in at the same level they have done before, or even worse they buy some new gear as if gear makes up for practice. Like with a lot of things, there is no substitute for time in the water as a diver. Good decision making and technique come from lots of consistent practice, that most people don't have the time to do.
You should, according to PADI norms, be offered a refresher dive. It costs $10 more and you spend 15 minutes with a dive master reviewing basic skills before a normal dive. The dive master also then knows to keep you close during the dive.
This is exactly what the resorts I've been to do. Dives are free (All inclusive, Couples Jamaica) but if don't have a dive book with a signed off dive in the last year it is 50$ for a refresher/skills test.
I've normally felt really safe on these but once there was way to many people for them all to be babysat and the group actually got split up due to 'issues' that the following guide had to help with.
Plenty of resorts and other destinations offer resort and discovery diving. You do need be 10 years old, but no prior experience needed, after some basics some places let you do 1-2 open water dives in the same day! All equip is provided. You really DO NOT configure any of your stuff on these dives (you do get comfortable breathing underwater). It's a scuba dive "experience".
Unless you are a diver please don't comment with this type of snark - seriously.
" Discover Scuba Diving is a quick and easy introduction to what it takes to explore the underwater world. To sign up for a PADI Discover Scuba Diving experience, you must be at least 10 years old. No prior experience with scuba diving is necessary, but you need to be in reasonable physical health. Are you ready to try it out? "
Resort Diving is mostly safe, the dive profile helps keep you safe. At 30ft, a lot less can go wrong. You can easily survive a rapid ascent from 30ft, heck you likely don't need to actively blow bubbles unless you took a huge breath or are ascending super fast. OP who hasn't dove in a while shouldn't make their first dive on vacation a 120ft bottom. They will likely not remember how to breath, how to swim and will consume too much air and blow the dive for everyone. I refuse to dive with strangers on dive boats, I have never once had a dive buddy physically verify my secondary and some of them get weird when I ask them to verify their primary and secondary with me. The 'I know' eye rolls when i show them where my weight release is, where things are on my BC. Honestly thats what pushed me in to technical diving, everyone takes it serious. If we do our math wrong and the drop tanks aren't sufficient or if the trimix was off we were all dead. When we did cave dives, knowing each exit, knowing the routes we were going to navigate. Rehearsing the transitions between lines. Even with the best planning, things go wrong. Read up on the Diepolder II and III caves - scary stuff
What instructors and dive-masters actually do (or should / are trained to do) for those dives is hold onto the first stage regulator at the top of the tank for the entire duration of the dive and never pass 12 meters. The diver never even needs to worry about buoyancy. We use to call them Lipton (tea) dives, because it was just dipping tourists into the water ;) They are absolutely 100% safe when done according to the requirements.
I called them "disco" dives. Dive down a bit, show them some lights and some fish turn around a few times and back up. A play on the discovery label.
But yeah, the grumpy "master" divers will be yelling at you from shore about the whole thing!
Def want 100% contact from start to finish, and if you keep dive to 8-10 meters or less (hard bottom) helps. Just throw some statues / structures down there to look at.
Things to watch for. Folks who can't equalize - just come up or do a super shallow route if you can. And def need to make sure folks can breathe comfortably underwater (shallow water / cow pen). Also doesn't need to be long, it's about the experience. Some idiots take advantage of the depth to extend time which is silly.
Another labor was resort dive, but wasn't sure what differences / similarities were between all these experiences.
Absolutely, I am a somewhat experienced diver looking at certifications, but it's all too easy to forget things even if you have more than a vague recollection. Whenever I haven't dived for a couple years, I always ask an instructor to check on me while I prepare for the first dive, because I just don't trust myself.
A dive or two later I am okay with helping newly certified divers both on shore and on the boat, but on the first dive after some time you should never overestimate your memory.
> it's all too easy to forget things even if you have more than a vague recollection. Whenever I haven't dived for a couple years, I always ask an instructor to check on me while I prepare for the first dive, because I just don't trust myself.
If you mean something to go through physically (e.g. on paper) no, at least not for non-technical dives. There is a standard list of things to do, which I agree with the parent comment you should remember more than vaguely before diving.
This should be mandatory for a lot of sports, honestly. Assisted climbing (lead, top-roping) comes to mind. Kinda crazy that in many gyms you can get on a wall with no verification that your belay knows what they're doing.
What evidence? Evidence that lots of diving places take safety shortcuts?
I myself got my first certifications with two amazing divers, they taught me very well and I had a lot of fun. However they also allowed people to take dives that they weren't certified for, because it was a small diving center they could only do two dives a day and they had to satisfy a wide range of divers.
They did that with people that they had taught and knew well, and never had issues (certainly not a 60m compressed air dive as in the article!) but it did indeed make diving somewhat less safe.
Well, presumably if OP statement were true, recreational diving would involve large numbers of casualties. Casualties in recreational diving are somewhat rare, however, at 2 per million dives.
Tourist dives are even safer since they do not perform advanced dives. Overall, the evidence does not support the view "If you really have only a vague recollection of basic safety checks you shouldn't be diving - seriously."
Most tourists diving have only that and they're not dying in droves.
Of course, because things very rarely go south, especially to the point of someone dying. But still, spending half an hour reviewing some basic course material is not a huge thing to ask.
Exactly. Yes, cave diving is extremely dangerous. Deep diving also is dangerous. But there are dives, amazingly beautiful dives, that, while not devoid of risk, are very safe. Simple, shallow dives in the Caribbean, for example, where the benefit of the tank over snorkeling is just that you can stay down longer.
Diving is wonderful. Get certified (but you don't have to be for some dives).
I also sail. Also wonderful. Can be dangerous if you push the edge, but more likely embarrassing if you stay within your limits.
I don’t know the stats but from what I read a lot of accidents are not tourists but more serious divers who go below 20-30 meters. I haven’t heard about people getting injured while on regular tourist dives.
Same with motorcycle riding or paragliding: it gets dangerous once you are beyond the beginner stage.
I really don’t know what could go wrong on the typical tourist dive if the dive master keeps an eye on people and you don’t panic.
That tracks with what I've heard, anecdotally. Accidents happen when people plan their own dives, go alone, push too far out of their comfort zone, or dive in conditions they aren't prepared for. These things are risk and consequence multipliers.
