Am I fit for scuba diving ?

[Dirty-Dog]

Thanks guys ! Somehow, I doubt I ever will be able to swim 200m on the surface (don't know why, may be my buoyancy is not good, but I just can't). But I am very comfortable swimming with a snorkel, mask, and fins, for 300m; I thought that the open water test states that this is enough ?

A friend of mine tried to learn diving, and, according to him, the deeper you are, the more uncomfortable it feels. He managed 30ft, but diving to 60ft ended in an some kind of accident (I'll ask him what exactly happened that discouraged him from scuba diving for life. So I figured out that I'll be happy with 10-15ft, there are plenty of reefs at that depth. Does it make sense ?

I suspect your friends discomfort was psychological in nature. So long as your equalize properly, depth doesn't really have any "feel" to it. Ona truely deep dive, where your bubbles start to sound like bells, you still don't feel the pressure. As for the reefs, I think the best reefs are in the 50-80foot range. The shallow ones get too beat up by storms and such. The deeper ones have more spectacular reef structure, but less fish.

 

[RJP]

Ok, if you are worried about the 200 meter because you might be a sinker, put on a wetsuit that makes you float. The wetsuit would be for keeping you warm in that cold water. I think your doc will be happy to hear you sign up for some activities. Enjoy!

Standards are clear that using a wetsuit for floatation is a no-go - it must be offset by enough weight to sink the suit.

 

[Coconut Divers]

You should dive in a depth that you are comfortable with. In time and with more experience you will feel that you are ready to go deeper.
I think that was the problem of your friend and the dive ins. should have asked him about that.



Leif Meinert
Coconut Divers Cancun

 

[DivemasterDennis]

PADI used to have as a certification called "scuba diver", instead of open water diver. It limits the card holder to 40 feet deep, and requires diving with a certified professional. MI know a few people who wanted to dive but were uncertain of their ability who found that option to suit their needs. However, the last I dealt with that was a few years ago. If that level of certification remains it may be appropriate for the OP.
DivemasterDennis

 

[Johan Broere]

to the point of being neutrally buoyant.[/QUOTE] is better then a real sinker. blub blub blub.

 

[boulderjohn]

PADI used to have as a certification called "scuba diver", instead of open water diver. It limits the card holder to 40 feet deep, and requires diving with a certified professional. MI know a few people who wanted to dive but were uncertain of their ability who found that option to suit their needs. However, the last I dealt with that was a few years ago. If that level of certification remains it may be appropriate for the OP.
DivemasterDennis

It still exists, but I would not recommend it in this case myself.

To throw out an analogy, some graduate schools only have Ph.D programs--no masters programs. They do give masters degrees, though. If you meet someone from such a school with a masters degree, it means they did not make it through the Ph.D program.

The only times I have ever seen a Scuba Diver certification given were in one of the following situations:

1. The instructor and student conferred and agreed that the student should not be diving without the assistance of a professional, at least until the diver achieved more skill and experience. The only time I saw that done was with a student whose autism raised concerns.
2. A student was unable for some reason or other to complete certification at the time and wanted to have some level of certification until such a time that the student was able to finish the course. I issued such a certification myself here in Colorado to a student who was unable to complete the fourth OW dive locally before winter closed off the dive site.

I don't see any reason the OP in this case should not go for full certification.

 

[timakempton]

Not allowed. Must be in bathing suit, or if in a wet suit must wear some lead to the point of being neutrally buoyant.

When I did my PADI open water (20+ years ago) we did our 10 minute and our 200m off the side of the dive boat in wetsuits, masks and snorkels but no fins. We had one guy that could barely swim more than 20 feet without fins but he had no problem on his swim we all just took it in turns swimming with him to keep his confidence up. A few of us actually finished our swims and then swam back out to him to accompany him until he finished. I guess that might not be allowed these days but at the time our instructor said it was fine and as long as he did not stop he was happy to wait all afternoon for him to finish.

 

[MrSam]

I couldn't swim 200m to save my life prior to diving. I knew I would have to do it so I could get my OW. Spent 3 days in the pool doing laps. After 3 days of swimming and a week to rest my legs, I was able to do the 200m swim fairly easily.

If you're concerned about your health in respect to diving, speak with a doctor who specializes in diving-related issues.
If I'm not mistaken, you'll have to have a physical done either way,

 

[TMHeimer]

Just posted this in another thread (http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/q-...atory-those-taking-up-open-water-courses.html). It seems relevant here also..

Here are the exact PADI requirements for swim (watermanship) assessment:



This requirement is further amplified in the PADI Guide to Teaching (manual that directs instructors on how to conduct their training courses)..

Just thought of something. It states that exposure suit can be worn if the student is WEIGHTED for neutral buoyancy. Does that mean if you are negatively buoyant in fresh water (like me, who can only float hands out of the water by drown proofing) that you can wear an exposure suit without weights to get neutrally buoyant? If so, what suit? A shorty? As well, neutrally buoyant means suspended in the water column, neither floating nor sinking. Someone in this situation would still seem to be at a disadvantage compared to someone who can actually float without assistance or movement (my wife can float vertically in a pool with (almost) no hand or foot movement, whereas I sink like a stone unless holding a big breath and drown proofing. I don't feel that this means she is more comfortable in water than me.

 

[boulderjohn]

Just thought of something. It states that exposure suit can be worn if the student is WEIGHTED for neutral buoyancy. Does that mean if you are negatively buoyant in fresh water (like me, who can only float hands out of the water by drown proofing) that you can wear an exposure suit without weights to get neutrally buoyant? If so, what suit? A shorty? As well, neutrally buoyant means suspended in the water column, neither floating nor sinking. Someone in this situation would still seem to be at a disadvantage compared to someone who can actually float without assistance or movement (my wife can float vertically in a pool with (almost) no hand or foot movement, whereas I sink like a stone unless holding a big breath and drown proofing. I don't feel that this means she is more comfortable in water than me.

I'm sure it means that the weighting negates the buoyancy of the wet suit. The amount of weight should equal the buoyancy of the wet suit regardless of the diver's buoyancy. If it made the diver neutral on the surface, it would negate the purpose of the test and mean that everyone can pass regardless of the ability to swim.

The purpose is to see if that individual diver can "maintain" and survive if they are on the surface without any floating assistance. If your wife can do that without effort, then she can pass the test easily. Bully for her. If you have to work for it, then you have to work for it. If a diver falls in the water and cannot make it to safety because he can't swim without the assistance of something buoyant, it won't do him any good to say "It's not fair! My wife floats easily!" as he drowns.