I might take trimix on a 30,2m dive, if it makes sense to do so.
There is not stated that the 56m must be done in a course. In my country it is max 30m, and then you get the 56/57m cert ('brevet international'). Maybe you also don't like this.
Certifying people to do potentially dangerous stuff that they probably don't know how to do, haven't actually tried, and/or are probably unaware of inherent dangers in doing?
Yeah, I don't like that. Unequivocally.
I agree that 56m on air is deep and for some too deep. BUT: there is no proof that there happen more accidents on air than on trimix, no stats are available. And there is no proof that in France and Italy where cmas is quite popular (in France there is a law that you are allowed to dive on air to 56/60m) causes more accidents or incidents. There are no statistics that proof this. Even not in the 'deep' air courses given by technical agencies. Or in the recreational 'deep diver' specialty.
And at the end, you can decide yourself what your maximum depth on air is, it is only you and your own responsability. Even cmas doesn't say you MUST go to 56m on air. And every diver can get bent.
You're right that stats are tricky in this because there are too small numbers to work on, and they don't prove causation.
That said, there is
plenty evidence that it's a bad idea to dive to such great depths on a gas as dense as air.
Getting bent is by no means the only issue among them.
What you state about 'amateurs' in cmas (or other amateur groups) is really denigrating about this agency. I agree that the level of instructors overall (so not only cmas) can be higher, but to state that in cmas 'amateurs' shouldn't know any better is denigrating. There is a lot of knowledge within cmas. The only point is you don't agree with their way of teaching diving.
It isn't denigrating, it simply is what it is.
If it's your profession, you're a professional, if it isn't you're an amateur.
Simple as that.
Is a padi instructor as worse as a cmas instructor if it is an 'amateur' because his hobby is teaching and his work is in the office?
It's not about which agency is better, but they'd in that case both be "amateurs".
From what I see: cmas teaches in clubs not worser or better than in a commercial dive center. The 'amateurs' teaching in cmas mostly do it voluntary. But with a lot of effort and fun and knowledge. Even within cmas there are commercial divecenters and instructors.
...and I'd
personally prefer a professional over an amateur.
If we were talking about another setting than scuba, wouldn't you?
"Welcome to pilot training, let me just wrap this accounts receivables-stuff from my day job, and we can crack at it!" comes to mind.
But the solution is easy: if you don't agree with cmas, go to another agency and if you don't agree all, found your own.
No, that's not the solution.
The solution would be to stop irresponsible practices in the industry.
Besides, this is by
no means isolated to CMAS.
Please tell me where can you read about instruction dives to 56m on air.
Let me remind you about something I wrote in post #1:
Let's also look at this logically. According to our tables you can't even bounce to 56m without incurring a deco obligation. The regulations clearly state that neither the instructor nor the student are allowed to go into deco at any point of the dive. This is the relevant bullet point in the syllabus:
(There should be no diving under conditions preventing a direct ascent to the surface).
The instructor is neither allowed to go into deco, nor to go deeper than 30m during instruction dives. Which is why the exam dive is conducted as a simulated decompression dive. The dive is planned to min 25m/max 39m, and the plan may involve enough bottom time to incur a minor deco obligation. But since no diving under conditions preventing direct access to the surface is allowed, the conducted dive has to be to a shallower max depth and/or a shorter bottom time to stay within NDL. But even though the actual dive is a no-deco dive, we're supposed to ascend as if we had incurred a deco obligation (i.e. according to the simulated dive).
I don't think it's to an agency's merit that a national law prohibits it's practices.
I get what you're saying about being sensible, but at the same time, I think it's problematic to large-scale certification to unreasonable depths (with the gas in question, at least), particularly when the students haven't ever been to that depth during training, and are - in my experience - often unaware of the nature of risks involved.
That said, in fairness, I would stand by that it should be illegal to take students to those depths - some agencies do that, and the agency in question does so in many places.
Well, now you're just trolling, aren't you?
My apologies again if my position on deep air is offensive, or if my position on what constitutes a professional and an amateur seem out of line.
Neither should be the case.