Have limits changed, or have I mis-remembered?

[TMHeimer]

They WON'T have new cards sent to them at 15. They can order new cards when they turn 15 but this is PADI we are talking about; the will have to pay for the new cards. I was quoted $52 CDN for a new card for my daughter.

Well, isn't that what it costs to make a plastic card...….
As far as limits, of course like everything else, standards change. As well, the 60' limit is apparently for a new diver and it is just a recommendation. You can extend your depth by either gradually doing so, or by going deeper with a pro, or even with just an experienced diver. None of this is spelled out.
You also have to think about the 30' vs. 60' per minute ascent rate. These apparently were figured out without any hard data on what is safe, since they still are unable to monitor tissue nitrogen in the body. So, even PADI began to recommend the 30' rate if possible, to be conservative.
EFR/CPR-- no more rescue breaths, just chest compressions (unless you are a medical Pro--paramedic, etc.). Makes it easier for the layman to remember rather than whether it's 15 to 2 or 30 to 2.
Things just change and you wonder why.

 

[tursiops]

As far as limits, of course like everything else, standards change. As well, the 60' limit is apparently for a new diver and it is just a recommendation. You can extend your depth by either gradually doing so, or by going deeper with a pro, or even with just an experienced diver. None of this is spelled out.

It is spelled out pretty clearly, but you do have to read the material. 60 ft is the recommendation for new divers, and the mandatory limit for an OW class. Deeper than that (to change the recommendation) needs experience and/or training. Thus AOW provides a 100 ft recommendation, Deep Specialty allows diving to full certification depth, i.e. 130 ft.

You also have to think about the 30' vs. 60' per minute ascent rate. These apparently were figured out without any hard data on what is safe, since they still are unable to monitor tissue nitrogen in the body. So, even PADI began to recommend the 30' rate if possible, to be conservative.

PADI does not recommend 30 ft/min. It says to not exceed 60 ft/min, or to follow what your computer says, whichever is slower. All modern computers are slower...typically 30 ft/min.

EFR/CPR-- no more rescue breaths, just chest compressions (unless you are a medical Pro--paramedic, etc.). Makes it easier for the layman to remember rather than whether it's 15 to 2 or 30 to 2.
Things just change and you wonder why.

Nope. You are still taught rescue breaths, which are NOT optional for drowning. You should probably re-certify for your CPR....it's due every two years.

 

[TMHeimer]

It is spelled out pretty clearly, but you do have to read the material. 60 ft is the recommendation for new divers, and the mandatory limit for an OW class. Deeper than that (to change the recommendation) needs experience and/or training. Thus AOW provides a 100 ft recommendation, Deep Specialty allows diving to full certification depth, i.e. 130 ft.


PADI does not recommend 30 ft/min. It says to not exceed 60 ft/min, or to follow what your computer says, whichever is slower. All modern computers are slower...typically 30 ft/min.


Nope. You are still taught rescue breaths, which are NOT optional for drowning. You should probably re-certify for your CPR....it's due every two years.

Depth recommendation-- I'm probably splitting hairs. I know it says needs experience and/or training. If you don't get the needed training, I don't think exactly what amount of experience you need is spelled out.
Ascent rate--Yes, you are right of course. I read into this as implying that PADI leans more toward all (or most of) the other agencies recommendation of 30'. Again, if you don't use a computer, I don't think the possible "slower" is spelled out. Perhaps the advent of most folks using computers nowadays is the reason for this wording. I assume most computers will beep if you exceed 30' per minute, but I am no expert.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not at all saying PADI is at fault for not spelling out these picky details. These are things that you should do logically--such as not " well, I dived to 70' last week, now I have experience so I'll next go to 100". I'm just saying they are not spelled out.
Rescue Breaths-- This has been discussed on SB maybe a year or so ago, not sure exactly. Maybe the standards for EFR or other CPR courses have changed yet again and I am wrong. A detailed description that non- medical pros were to do only chest compressions and no rescue breaths was presented by someone. Again, I or this person's data could be wrong. No requirement for me to take CPR a 5th time as I am not an active DM anymore. I believe that the 2 year requirement when I was was a shop requirement. It may have been and still may be PADI's standard that active instructors & DMs must CPR recertify every 2 years--there was no need for me to know this because I had to anyway due to shop policy. I don't know the legalities of performing CPR holding an expired card.
I will not take CPR again--I review my manual a bit every day and to be honest, can't be bothered to know what the latest changes may be. This has changed several times since 2009.
Regarding to still being taught rescue breaths regarding drowning are you possibly referring to in the PADI Rescue Course? In the 2 times I took CPR with St.John Ambulance (Canada) there was never any reference to drowning and water. This course is much more thorough than EFR. My 2 times taking EFR were before they removed (?) recsue breaths for non medical people.

 

[tursiops]

My 2 times taking EFR were before they removed (?) recsue breaths for non medical people.

It has never been removed. Hands-only is allowed, but not preferred, and not desirable for drowning, i.e. scuba.
This is what EFR says, as of March 2018::
ILCOR CONSENSUS MARCH 2018
Emergency First Response and PADI courses keep pace with current research and treatment recommendations in emergency care. The most recent news indicates that no changes to CPR procedures are necessary in EFR courses.

• After reevaluation of science and research, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation’s (ILCOR) most recent Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendations do not include any changes to bystander CPR. ILCOR reaffirmed three areas of bystander treatment as published in the journal, Resuscitation 121 (2017) 201-214: We continue to recommend that bystanders perform chest compressions for all patients in cardiac arrest. We suggest that bystanders who are trained, able, and willing to give rescue breaths and chest compressions do so for all adult patients in cardiac arrest.
• We suggest a compression/ventilation (CV) ratio of 30:2 compared with any other CV ratio in patients with cardiac arrest.
• We suggest that bystanders provide CPR with ventilation for infants and children less than 18 years of age with cardiac arrest. We continue to recommend that if bystanders cannot provide rescue breaths as part of CPR for infants and children under 18 years of age with cardiac arrest, they should at least provide chest compressions.

And this is what DAN says:
Extensive research, completed since the 2005 guidelines were released, indicates the survival rates for full CPR are no better, and no worse, than compressions-only CPR. These studies discuss only the situation where a collapse was witnessed and only pertains to adults in non-choking and non-drowning scenarios.

The idea is that if the perceived barrier of delivering rescue breaths as part of CPR is removed, bystanders will be more likely to administer care to a collapsed adult: “Although bystander CPR can more than double survival from cardiac arrest, the reported prevalence of bystander CPR remains low in most cities, about 27% to 33%. Reducing barriers to bystander action can be expected to substantially improve cardiac arrest survival rates.”

While this change is important with regards to lay rescuers providing emergency care in the event of a collapse on the street, it will not affect the care of an unconscious diver. Loss of consciousness with cardiac arrest in water must always be assumed to include elements of drowning. For this reason, full CPR is still recommended. Therefore, DAN Education does not plan to change any DAN courses to feature Hands-OnlyTM CPR. For the most part, the proposed changes do not translate to the diving environment.

 

[TerryC]

My kids, ages 10 and 13 years, both received their PADI OW certifications this past summer. While reviewing their class material with them, I saw that the dive limit for OW was listed as 60 feet (40' for my 10 year old). I have been certified since 1989, and my memory the OW limit was that it was 130 feet. Has 60 feet always been the limit (in which case, I was an outlaw!), or did things change sometime in the past 30 years?

Just wondering...

-Andy

Yes, you can say standards have changed.
Also I feel the type of diver we are training has changed.
Looking back most new divers had a real interest in diving, they would take their course and continue to dive regularly, build up experience and subsequently dive to deeper depths.
Nowadays we train a lot of "vacation divers". These are the ones who will only dive once or twice a year and never get the chance to build up the sort of experience which they need when the muck hits the blades on a deep dive.
I see nothing wrong in this, but depth limits are a great idea for this type of diver.
The other consideration is Insurance. A lot of policies (travel policies rather than specialist dive insurance) will cover you for diving BUT only to the depth to which you are trained.

These are the current "recommendations"

Depth-graphic-orig

• TerryC
• Jan 7, 2019

Recommended depths for certification level.

I recently posted on my blog "Open Water 60ft, Advanced Open Water 100ft, Maximum recreational depth 130ft, why do we have depth limits for different certification levels?"

Hope your kids are enjoying their diving.

 

[AdivingBel]

The other consideration is Insurance. A lot of policies (travel policies rather than specialist dive insurance) will cover you for diving BUT only to the depth to which you are trained.

Recognizing SB has a worldwide audience and laws/customs differ...I'm in the US. The "generic" travel insurance I sometimes use (separate from dive insurance/DAN) provides benefits for recreational diving to 130 ft./40m with open water certification.

 

[NAM001]

All that nice talk and still my wife has to sign a form stating when she completed her class as a prereq to ordering her card,,,that she understood that her OW limit was 60 ft untill she had further training or experience to go deeper. I always have to ask the question that if 60 ft is a recommendation and not a limit then why would anyone take AOW and DEEP when there is nothing to gain from it. I have to wonder if there is the same logic as most take to say that you can not dive caves with out a cave cert or is that a recommendation also. They say do not dive beyond your training and experience but yet you can prove training but you can not prove experience. I have never found any other reasoning to the rule / recommendation to be other than a CYA tactic. Its OK for a new OW to goto 100 ft but too bad he died doing an emergency blow to the surface,,,,, but we recommended he not go to >60 ft, so the agency is covered. by their own policy they dont train below 40 ft for OW so that also means they they are not recommended to go below 40 ft. In the beginning there was one course. one max depth. now they brokke the course into stages. but do not stage the depths????

 

[AdivingBel]

I always have to ask the question that if 60 ft is a recommendation and not a limit then why would anyone take AOW and DEEP when there is nothing to gain from it.

Dive OPs can set any rules they want from their boats. I have AOW because some of the Keys OPs wanted an AOW for "advanced" dives that I wanted to do. They would also allow OW divers to hire a guide, bring a log book & make their case, or go out with them on a "non-advanced" dive so they could assess their skills. All reasonable requests, IMHO. The AOW is an easy/documented method of assuring you've been below 60 ft. at least once. If I was a jaded dive traveler, I could think it was just CYA. I prefer to believe my dive op of choice cares that their customer, has an enjoyable, safe experience. I opted for AOW because I don't like "hassle" when I dive travel. In my experience, it's rarely asked for but why pi$$ in the wind. Plus I had a good AOW instructor and it was a beneficial, enjoyable experience. YMMV.

 

[TMHeimer]

It has never been removed. Hands-only is allowed, but not preferred, and not desirable for drowning, i.e. scuba.
This is what EFR says, as of March 2018::
ILCOR CONSENSUS MARCH 2018
Emergency First Response and PADI courses keep pace with current research and treatment recommendations in emergency care. The most recent news indicates that no changes to CPR procedures are necessary in EFR courses.

• After reevaluation of science and research, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation’s (ILCOR) most recent Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendations do not include any changes to bystander CPR. ILCOR reaffirmed three areas of bystander treatment as published in the journal, Resuscitation 121 (2017) 201-214: We continue to recommend that bystanders perform chest compressions for all patients in cardiac arrest. We suggest that bystanders who are trained, able, and willing to give rescue breaths and chest compressions do so for all adult patients in cardiac arrest.
• We suggest a compression/ventilation (CV) ratio of 30:2 compared with any other CV ratio in patients with cardiac arrest.
• We suggest that bystanders provide CPR with ventilation for infants and children less than 18 years of age with cardiac arrest. We continue to recommend that if bystanders cannot provide rescue breaths as part of CPR for infants and children under 18 years of age with cardiac arrest, they should at least provide chest compressions.

And this is what DAN says:
Extensive research, completed since the 2005 guidelines were released, indicates the survival rates for full CPR are no better, and no worse, than compressions-only CPR. These studies discuss only the situation where a collapse was witnessed and only pertains to adults in non-choking and non-drowning scenarios.

The idea is that if the perceived barrier of delivering rescue breaths as part of CPR is removed, bystanders will be more likely to administer care to a collapsed adult: “Although bystander CPR can more than double survival from cardiac arrest, the reported prevalence of bystander CPR remains low in most cities, about 27% to 33%. Reducing barriers to bystander action can be expected to substantially improve cardiac arrest survival rates.”

While this change is important with regards to lay rescuers providing emergency care in the event of a collapse on the street, it will not affect the care of an unconscious diver. Loss of consciousness with cardiac arrest in water must always be assumed to include elements of drowning. For this reason, full CPR is still recommended. Therefore, DAN Education does not plan to change any DAN courses to feature Hands-OnlyTM CPR. For the most part, the proposed changes do not translate to the diving environment.

Thanks. ILCOR bears out what you said. Interesting that it says to at least do chest compressions on children under 18 if bystanders cannot provide rescue breaths to them. I know you're supposed to go real easy on infants with the breaths, but wonder why a bystander would not be able to do that? Anyway, you are correct.
The DAN statement seems to say the "barrier" of delivering rescue breaths has been removed (I guess it has been proposed..). They are not including drowning (as you noted) or choking situations.
As you said, full CPR with breaths for possible drowning. And DAN says for the most part the CHANGES don't involve diving.
I was obviously wrong in flatly saying that rescue breaths have been removed from CPR courses. I read it on a thread on SB where I guess someone else quoted or misquoted some place. I since talked with a couple of folks at the shop who were under the same impression that I was.
I vaguely remember my last CPR course of 2014, in which we were told that you now perform compressions before the 2 rescue breaths. I guess it was easy for me to believe the breaths had been eliminated completely when I read that incorrect info.

They do change that stuff though. 15 to 2 for adults, 30 to 2 for kids to now 30 to 2 for either, etc. I brought this up in EFR in 2009 and the instructor (owner) said "maybe the best way is 22.5 to 2".

 

[tursiops]

Thanks. ILCOR bears out what you said. Interesting that it says to at least do chest compressions on children under 18 if bystanders cannot provide rescue breaths to them. I know you're supposed to go real easy on infants with the breaths, but wonder why a bystander would not be able to do that? Anyway, you are correct.
The DAN statement seems to say the "barrier" of delivering rescue breaths has been removed (I guess it has been proposed..). They are not including drowning (as you noted) or choking situations.
As you said, full CPR with breaths for possible drowning. And DAN says for the most part the CHANGES don't involve diving.
I was obviously wrong in flatly saying that rescue breaths have been removed from CPR courses. I read it on a thread on SB where I guess someone else quoted or misquoted some place. I since talked with a couple of folks at the shop who were under the same impression that I was.
I vaguely remember my last CPR course of 2014, in which we were told that you now perform compressions before the 2 rescue breaths. I guess it was easy for me to believe the breaths had been eliminated completely when I read that incorrect info.

They do change that stuff though. 15 to 2 for adults, 30 to 2 for kids to now 30 to 2 for either, etc. I brought this up in EFR in 2009 and the instructor (owner) said "maybe the best way is 22.5 to 2".

And it is the changes that should motivate folks to re certify every two years, not just the loss of skills during that time. If you are going to try and save someone's life, using modern best practices is kinda nice.