Training System: PADI vs. TDI

[mathauck0814]

Just a FWIW.

While training can make the diver safer, there's no part about a 130' - 200' penetration dive that can ever be considered "safe."

Now that's just foolish. There is nothing magical that happens at 131 feet that makes something inherently unsafe. Diving is, in general and statistically, extraordinarily safe. Diving to greater depth is just as safe provided you are properly trained and experienced.

If you're generalizing to say that diving is inherently less safe than, say, not diving then I'm with you. Let's not be fearmongering on arbitrary lines.

 

[mike.chuanshi]

Just a FWIW.

While training can make the diver safer, there's no part about a 130' - 200' penetration dive that can ever be considered "safe."

Now that's just foolish. There is nothing magical that happens at 131 feet that makes something inherently unsafe. Diving is, in general and statistically, extraordinarily safe. Diving to greater depth is just as safe provided you are properly trained and experienced.

If you're generalizing to say that diving is inherently less safe than, say, not diving then I'm with you. Let's not be fearmongering on arbitrary lines.

I see the point being made by each of these comments, and respect what both are attempting to communicate. I believe it is fairly well-understood that there are activities that might be safer than diving, that there are safety considerations that need to be taken into account when making any dive, and that there are safety concerns that require more emphasis as one descends deeper. I think the point about being "properly trained and experienced" warrants careful and honest consideration, and both of the above quoted posts are based around this bit of common sense that too often goes ignored. It is my intention to be as safe as possible when making any kind of dive, and I want to ensure that I have a thorough understanding of all the dangers involved, as well as how to handle them. As the conditions of the dive change, so will the appropriate responses to different situations which may arise, hence the need for additional training and continuous practice of what is learned.

 

[jadairiii]

...A weekend could easily get 40 posts....

Since you still are not trying to help the OP, I will. Stay away from an instructor how posts 40 times in a weekend. You need a DIVING instructor, not a typing instructor.

 

[boulderjohn]

Since you still are not trying to help the OP, I will. Stay away from an instructor how posts 40 times in a weekend. You need a DIVING instructor, not a typing instructor.

Of course, anyone with any knowledge of logic can see the relationship. Anyone who participates actively in the Internet cannot possible be a good diver, and how can it possibly be true that someone can know how to type, even at a rudimentary level, and a good diver at the same time? We are all indebted to you for pointing out these inconsistencies. I trust those who know you well are accustomed to this level of thought.

 

[flots am]

Now that's just foolish. There is nothing magical that happens at 131 feet that makes something inherently unsafe. Diving is, in general and statistically, extraordinarily safe. Diving to greater depth is just as safe provided you are properly trained and experienced.

If you're generalizing to say that diving is inherently less safe than, say, not diving then I'm with you. Let's not be fearmongering on arbitrary lines.

Do you not understand the concept of an overhead dive?

In Open Water, no matter how much brown stuff hits the fan, the diver can "go up" and end up on the surface in pretty good shape. Maybe a little bent, but probably just fine.

On a deep cave or wreck dive, it's a double overhead. Not only can the diver not ascend because they're inside something, even if they manage to get out, bolting for the surface with a significant deco obligation generally results in either death, or the desire for death. On one of these dives, a mistake generally means "dead".

This is a huge difference and there's nothing "arbitrary" about it and it's not fear-mongering, it's reality.

There was a guy and his son who held your opinions a few weeks ago. They're dead now.

flots.

 

[Omisson]

Now that's just foolish. There is nothing magical that happens at 131 feet that makes something inherently unsafe. Diving is, in general and statistically, extraordinarily safe. Diving to greater depth is just as safe provided you are properly trained and experienced.

If you're generalizing to say that diving is inherently less safe than, say, not diving then I'm with you. Let's not be fearmongering on arbitrary lines.

Ummm dive much?

First - ANY penetration dive carries far greater risks than open water dives. Second deco dives (generally below 130) not only requires formal training but because of changes in gasses, decompression stops, and increased nitrogen narcosis and oxygen toxicity, inherently creates more risk.

Diving is considered a hazardous activity at law because of its risks, from DCS to drowning, overhead environment diving is considered ultra-hazardous. Doesn't mean it can't be done, just means the stakes go up, the margin of error goes down, and people who do stupid things like treating it as "it's extraordinarily safe" usually wind up a statistic.

 

[mathauck0814]

No one advocated doing anything without training or preparation. There is simply nothing that happens at 131 feet that inherently increases the risk of a dive that was previously performed to 130 feet.

I'd turn the question around on you - dive much below 130 feet? It's simply not as big a deal as the internet divers make it out to be.

 

[boulderjohn]

if you spend more time dispensing "good advice " and not diving i question where the advice is comming from ......eg i question somone giving me combat advice who spent 3 tours cooking . (not slagging cooks , everyone has a job )

It can take 10 seconds to make a quick post. A good decompression dive can take a couple of hours--time to 50-60 short posts. That does not count the time it takes to plan the dive, etc. A highly experienced diver will also spend many, many hours studying dive theory, time that is not reflected in the dive count.

I cannot see how anyone can tell anything at all about the quality of advice being given by determining if they have more posts than dives.

But you seem convinced. Please explain why people should prefer advice given by person B below rather than person A:

Person A: This diver has made more than 2,000 dives, many of them in caves and at great depths with trimix and staged decompression. He has researched the theory of diving extensively. He has made 5,000 posts that have learned him a stellar reputation.

Person B: This diver has done 65 dives, all off the coast of Maui at a maximum depth of 55 feet. He has read nothing beyond his OW book. He has just started reading Internet forums, and he has posted 8 times.

 

[flots am]

No one advocated doing anything without training or preparation. There is simply nothing that happens at 131 feet that inherently increases the risk of a dive that was previously performed to 130 feet.

I'd turn the question around on you - dive much below 130 feet? It's simply not as big a deal as the internet divers make it out to be.

As divers approach then pass the end of the "no deco" zone, everything I said becomes true. The actual specific time/depth number varies a little between divers and dives, however the range the OP was talking about and the conditions (inside caves and wrecks) is absolutely far and beyond the end of the no-deco zone and recreational diving and an out of air ascent will be impossible, fatal or extremely dangerous, in contrast to "easy and pretty safe."

This is a huge distinction and I'm hoping that no Open Water divers think it isn't.

While I'm sure you're a nice guy, people who believe you, and don't fully grasp the gravity of not being able to surface in case of a problem, are taking a huge leap in risk and may not even understand it.

There's nothing magic about 131'. There's "magic" about being anyplace where "up" isn't a safe option

flots.

 

[mathauck0814]

While training can make the diver safer, there's no part about a 130' - 200' penetration dive that can ever be considered "safe."

There's nothing magic about 131'. There's "magic" about being anyplace where "up" isn't a safe option

That "magic" doesn't translate to impending doom or the scenario resulting in an inherently "unsafe" environment for a diver who is well trained and spends time in those circumstances with proper training and regular (~daily/weekly/[maybe]biweekly) frequency.

I maintain that you are statistically more likely to die on your morning commute than you are to die diving to any of the depths in question. The blanket statement made is plain fearmongering.