The "Official" SB Scuba Course?

[Kingpatzer]

Is this an either or? Swimming skills increase watermanship ability and aid in diver confidence. This is especially true when a diver is confronted with a rescue situation.

My own thoughts are that it is not either or, but that for the average recreational diver having highly developed swimming skills is not necessary. Being aware of their own limitations is necessary and they should not be choosing dives where exceeding their limits is likely.

Someone might not be able to swim unaided 400 yards or stay afloat for long. A disabled diver might well fit this description. Fine, don't go on dives that put you in a position to swim 400 yards without some buoyancy aid. But if you're going to be diving in salt water with a 3m and will be positively buoyant in that suit, then go on all the boat dives you want.

To me diving within one's limitations is critical. Setting arbitrary bars to entry isn't. I get being comfortable in the water. But I don't get how being able to swim 600 yards shows adequate comfort while only being able to swim 595 doesn't.

 

[kjack_1]

<snipped>
[*]understands the physiology, biomechanics, and physics at work while scuba diving
[*]understands the workings of the haldane decompression model and it's implications for dive planning
[/LIST]

out of time. Can we build on this?

R..

Demonstrates vs. Understands? Or am I picking nits on it?

K

 

[leapfrog]

In my world there would be entry bars. It's not only about the safety of the unfit it's about the safety of the people who are instabuddied with them or have to go rescue them. If you can't swim you shouldn't be diving. Helping people improve their swimming technique makes them better divers, helps them understand breath control and gives them more overall confidence in the water. The grossly unfit should be bowling, not diving.

 

[leapfrog]

Demonstrates vs. Understands?

I'm with understand rather than demonstrate in the context given.

Or am I picking nits on it?

Guess so...

 

[Kingpatzer]

In my world there would be entry bars. It's not only about the safety of the unfit it's about the safety of the people who are instabuddied with them or have to go rescue them. If you can't swim you shouldn't be diving.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with that entirely. I am saying that being able to swim without any aide and swimming with a wet suit on are two different things. I am also suggesting that some onus must be placed on the diver to dive within their own limitations.

Helping people improve their swimming technique makes them better divers, helps them understand breath control and gives them more overall confidence in the water.

No one is yet talking about offering swim coaching. Rather, it has been all about a pass-fail test to bar entry to diving. There's a heck of a difference between helping people do something and testing if they can meet some arbitrary bar.

The grossly unfit should be bowling, not diving.

Isn't the point of a medical clearance to put the responsibility of determining fitness onto a medical professional who (theoretically) has the appropriate expertise to make such a determination, rather than placing it on a dive instructor who does not necessarily have the ability to do so.

A 60 year old 300# man who can barely swim may be able to go 600 yards and, while being very out of breath, could complete it due primarily to being positively buoyant. While a 180# guy built of nothing but muscle might be hard pressed to swim at all due to being naturally very negative.

Or, our hypothetical 300# fellow may be in far superior diving shape than our young 180# guy with great muscle tone but who has a PFO and arrhythmia. even if the 300#'er can't swim very far at all, and the 180#'er does it in record time.

Divers typically are in the water with flotation - a BCD and a wet or dry suit. Swimming with flotation is decidedly different than swimming with out. One of my diving mentors is a guy who is in fantastic shape. He is pretty much all muscle. He is naturally negatively buoyant. He sinks like a rock and has a very hard time swimming even short distances because of that. But he is an excellent diver, and in a wet suit he can out swim me all day long -- even though I swim a mile or more every day and he does not.

 

[DCBC]

My own thoughts are that it is not either or, but that for the average recreational diver having highly developed swimming skills is not necessary. Being aware of their own limitations is necessary and they should not be choosing dives where exceeding their limits is likely.

Someone might not be able to swim unaided 400 yards or stay afloat for long. A disabled diver might well fit this description. Fine, don't go on dives that put you in a position to swim 400 yards without some buoyancy aid. But if you're going to be diving in salt water with a 3m and will be positively buoyant in that suit, then go on all the boat dives you want.

To me diving within one's limitations is critical. Setting arbitrary bars to entry isn't. I get being comfortable in the water. But I don't get how being able to swim 600 yards shows adequate comfort while only being able to swim 595 doesn't.

Again it's about diver safety. Is a non-swimmer more likely to panic when things go wrong than a Navy diver who has to swim 5 miles in 4-6 foot swells? Yes, but requiring a recreational diver to be able to achieve this isn't reasonable. 16 lengths of a 25M pool isn't IMHO too much to ask IF the purpose of the course is to insure that the diver is self-sufficient and competent enough not only in his abilities, but also to aid a fully suited and possibly unconscious diver in an emergency situation.

If my *ss is needing assistance, I would prefer the Navy diver to be there, but at a minimum, someone who has good watermanship abilities, which does not equate to them bobbing around with their BC unable to assist.

As for going on dives within my ability, I've gone on thousands. It still hasn't stopped me from needing rescue when I've experienced a problem that wasn't foreseen in the cards. I don't think divers should be trained for the best, but for the worst (that if you dive long enough will happen to many of us). I just haven't been too good at predicting when, as it seems to happen when you're not expecting it. Perhaps on the first dive after certification where all the new diver has is themselves and their buddy.....

 

[JeffG]

I think GUE has already designed this course and probably still haven't certified anyone (for the ~$800-$1000 per course)

 

[DCBC]

I think GUE has already designed this course and probably still haven't certified anyone (for the ~$800-$1000 per course)

So you're saying it's about the money? If so, just keep the PADI course; it obviously works.... Not!

 

[JeffG]

So you're saying it's about the money? If so, just keep the PADI course; it obviously works.... Not!

It does work. Sorry, but the truth is a stubborn thing.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think GUE has already designed this course and probably still haven't certified anyone (for the ~$800-$1000 per course)

As someone who was most recently in the commercial curriculum design world, I think that this has to be an important consideration.

If you design a course that takes too long and costs too much for the market, it will never fly. If someone is considering getting certified in anticipation of a one time trip to Cozumel and (maybe) future similar vacations, they are not gong to be excited about a course (I am exaggerating) that takes the time and expense to prepare them for full cave exploration.