Originally Posted by Deaf Smith
I'm a PADI Divemaster.... the old Divemaster rateing where you had to take open water, advanced open water, rescue, deep diving, salvage diving, and assist at teaching for a 5 star instructor.
Hey, I'm a NAUI guy myself
(note to the firearms-types here: If you think "sighted" versus "pointed" shooting generates controversy, just listen in on a PADI versus NAUI discussion
When I certified OWI, there was a "controversy" raging about whether or not to still require "buddy breathing" drills -- after all, "everybody" was now packing an octopus, right?
The instructor I had still required multiple hours of buddy breathing practice because "When your buddy needs air, you always know where one regulator is." Later, after reading the afformentioned accident reports, I realized that the octopus often gets dragged through the muck and gunk and may be of questionable operability when needed; so, I started velcroing it in the middle of the "golden triangle" (for you firearm types, that's the CoM location you are taught to aim at). Eventually, I sprung for a SpareAir (tm) to put there as well, figuring it would do me
more good should I
ever be the one needing the assist (and, that I could also just hand it to my buddy and not have s/he trying to breathe off my tank while in panic mode).
So, your comments about training are not lost on me... I am also not above going beyond training when I see obvious deficiencies (it was a year or more after I started the "velcro it in place" routine that I saw a "NAUI News" article advising that practice; by then many of the people with whom I dived regularly had started doing it as well.)
I have the same basic philosopy with firearms. Training is great! Going beyond training when something is "obviously deficient" is only prudent...
My original point, however, is that post-incident analysis of how training affects performance in life and death situation (both in diving and w/firearms) sometimes has "missing data."
In the Texas case you cite, for example, do we know if Labrozzi was insufficiently and/or poorly trained? Do we know if he knew he would probably die, but read the situation as "we're going to die anyway" and I might be able to save my GF? Do we know if he was excellently trained but something "psychological" or some "physiological" (ever have an arthritic joint "lock up" on you?) happened to interfere? My original point was that, in such cases, the data from one important source (in this case, Labrozzi) may be "missing."
One needs to be careful of generalizations based on such data, particularly if such generalizations start with "Never" or "Always."