OW diver below 60 feet?

[boat sju]

I seriously doubt Zieg believes his wife attacked him or even that she was actually disagreeing with him in her tongue in cheek post. I thought it was an extremely funny post and knowing Zieg, I'd be very surprised if he doesn't agree.

That's funny. I put Ana on my ignore list for badmouthing her husband.

 

[John_B]

Does anyone know if DAN denies coverage on an accident where the diver exceeded the depth for his or her level of certification?

Depends on your "planned depth" and the coverage level.

 

[FLRiverDiver]

Though I browse several of this board's forums a couple of times a week, I rarely have the urge to post or respond. I had a rare bit of free time today and got onto this post and read it from beginning to here.

Reading this thread makes me glad I am from the "old school." Since over 90% of my diving during the past 45 years has been solo, my response is not to the op's questions, but instead a response to the litany of responses.

Many of the posts tell me why the manual that came with a lawn mower I bought this past spring--- in around 20 pages---contained only 3 or 4 that dealt with assembly---the rest with cautions and warnings!!! I really did not need to be told not to pick up the mower and use it as a hedge trimmer. That seems to be the theme of some of the posts.

As a solo diver this is somewhat pointless to say---but several of the posters (unnamed of course) in this thread I, to put it politely, would be hesitant to dive with. Rules, guidelines, suggestions, recommendations, etc. should be considered---but in no case should they override common sense---and that's my rub, too many of the posts show a sad lack of common sense and the inability to put things in proper perspective.

However, there were several posters I would dive with, and those I can name: Ana, Slonda828, Walter and Zieg---your posts show, uncommon, common sense and logic and were a refreshing contrast to those from the "Mower Manual" set.

 

[Rhone Man]

The subject has been done to death already in the this thread, but for the sake of hearing my own voice: there are no Scuba police. You can (and should) dive as deep as you are comfortable diving with your experience and skills. Same holds true for low viz conditions, or diving in currents, etc. etc. Your limits will develop over time, and that may or may not coincide with receiving more advanced certifications.

 

[daniel1948]

Depends on your "planned depth" and the coverage level.

The chart in the link is unclear. The Preferred Plan (which I have, as it's cheap) says there's no limit on "Planned maximum depth covered." That's unclear as to what happens if you exceed your planned depth. Let's say you plan to go to 60 feet but actually go to 65 because there's something to see. You are still within no-stop limits, and your computer or RDP will still tell you how long you can safely remain underwater. But you've exceeded your plan. Now if a shark comes along and takes your foot off and you panic and surface too fast and have to be airlifted to a chamber, will DAN cover it?

Okay, that's kind of a silly scenario.

Maybe when my DAN membership and insurance packet arrives, this will be clarified.

 

[Dtaine]

Though I browse several of this board's forums a couple of times a week, I rarely have the urge to post or respond. I had a rare bit of free time today and got onto this post and read it from beginning to here.

Reading this thread makes me glad I am from the "old school." Since over 90% of my diving during the past 45 years has been solo, my response is not to the op's questions, but instead a response to the litany of responses.

Many of the posts tell me why the manual that came with a lawn mower I bought this past spring--- in around 20 pages---contained only 3 or 4 that dealt with assembly---the rest with cautions and warnings!!! I really did not need to be told not to pick up the mower and use it as a hedge trimmer. That seems to be the theme of some of the posts.

As a solo diver this is somewhat pointless to say---but several of the posters (unnamed of course) in this thread I, to put it politely, would be hesitant to dive with. Rules, guidelines, suggestions, recommendations, etc. should be considered---but in no case should they override common sense---and that's my rub, too many of the posts show a sad lack of common sense and the inability to put things in proper perspective.

However, there were several posters I would dive with, and those I can name: Ana, Slonda828, Walter and Zieg---your posts show, uncommon, common sense and logic and were a refreshing contrast to those from the "Mower Manual" set.

I'll be the first to put it out there that you really would've done yourself better to just not respond at all. By leaving your one list unnamed, but naming the other, you've essentially told everyone other than Ana, Slonda828, Walter, and Zeig that their posts showed no common sense or logic.

What a great way to improve the conversation. There is no need to make these topics personal or start bashing people for urging caution out of concern for safety. You would do yourself and others better by quoting and responding to what you believe is flawed logic and offering a constructive and well-thought out response.

Whether I'm on either or your lists or not doesn't matter, but posts like yours don't help anyone on this board or the numerous divers who are reading but not commenting. If you don't have any substance to add to the conversation just keep your personal beef to yourself and leave it at that.

 

[BDSC]

Whether I'm on either or your lists or not doesn't matter, but posts like yours don't help anyone on this board or the numerous divers who are reading but not commenting. If you don't have any substance to add to the conversation just keep your personal beef to yourself and leave it at that.

OK. I'll comment. How did this post add anything to the conversation? Maybe you should follow your own advice.

 

[Dtaine]

OK. I'll comment. How did this post add anything to the conversation? Maybe you should follow your own advice.

It was solely in response to that specific post - I've contributed to this thread already, unlike you.

I follow the idea that no unfair attack should go without a response. Therefore, since I felt FLRiverDiver's post was unfairly attacking "unnamed" others I responded.

I was hoping it would cause people who might have been debating such meaningless posts to decide against it, based on your response that obviously didn't happen.

It's obvious that the purpose of this thread has reached it's end, perhaps a mod should close it.

If you care to discuss this matter more BDSC then send me a PM, otherwise I'm done.

 

[BDSC]

It was solely in response to that specific post - I've contributed to this thread already, unlike you.

I follow the idea that no unfair attack should go without a response. Therefore, since I felt FLRiverDiver's post was unfairly attacking "unnamed" others I responded.

I was hoping it would cause people who might have been debating such meaningless posts to decide against it, based on your response that obviously didn't happen.

It's obvious that the purpose of this thread has reached it's end, perhaps a mod should close it.

If you care to discuss this matter more BDSC then send me a PM, otherwise I'm done.

No need to send you a PM because like your post, it would add nothing.

 

[John_B]

The chart in the link is unclear. The Preferred Plan (which I have, as it's cheap) says there's no limit on "Planned maximum depth covered." That's unclear as to what happens if you exceed your planned depth. Let's say you plan to go to 60 feet but actually go to 65 because there's something to see. You are still within no-stop limits, and your computer or RDP will still tell you how long you can safely remain underwater. But you've exceeded your plan. Now if a shark comes along and takes your foot off and you panic and surface too fast and have to be airlifted to a chamber, will DAN cover it?

Okay, that's kind of a silly scenario.

Maybe when my DAN membership and insurance packet arrives, this will be clarified.

You are reading *way* too much into this.

The standard plan covers you for dives with a planned depth down to 130'. So the way I read it, they are covering recreational divers to what most people would consider the maximum recreational depth. AFAIK, for the DAN preferred plan it doesn't matter if you planned on a 60' dive but went to 70' or planned on 80' but went to 90'; what they are setting limits on is that you aren't doing dives on the Hydro Atlantic (170') or Lowrance (200'+) and expect to be covered by the cheaper plan. Its simply an actuarial calculation, plain and simple. AIG is probably betting there will be fewer DCS incidents for people who, for instance, stick with recreational depths and probably don't have enough air in an AL80 to wind up with a deco obligation.

If you think about it, the recommended limits are just guidelines anyway. My PADI OW manual from about five years ago even says as much. And as my AOW instructor pointed out, experience counts way more than any card you can get in a weekend.

BTW, the Master and Preferred plans have no depth limit. It worth pointing out that while you can renew the policies, the cheaper DAN insurances can't be upgraded after you have a claim. For the additional hamilton, the better coverage of the Master policy is a no-brainer.