- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,789
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
Article: Technical versus Recreational Scuba Diving: Why is there a need for Limitations?
- Thread starter DevonDiver
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
For example CMAS is teaching decompression diving from 1* diver level on. For CMAS 2 and 3* divers decompression dives are normal recreational dives. For example in France, where tight links exist between the government and the local CMAS federation FFESSM, the maximum depth limit for 3* divers is set to 60m by law.
While CMAS is for sure not the biggest agency, so far to the "generally considered" limits of recreational diving!
I brought this up on another thread and didn't get very far with it. I've never done CMAS training but I have a friend who has and anything I would present on the topic is second hand at best; so I'll leave it to y'all to hash out.
OP
DevonDiver
N/A
My experience with BSAC - which pretty much duplicates CMAS (my BSAC instructor card says I am recognised as a CMAS instructor) - is that decompression is something that is very slowly and progressively introduced. Divers are subject to instructor review before each incremental depth progression. Peer review occurs within club training environments. Each 'level', in reality, is broken into a number of sub-levels - each of which require training and authorisation by an instructor.
Some 'light' deco is introduced at Sports Diver (2*) level... but only after an extended progression and 'certification' at progressively deeper depths. When a diver moves up to Advanced Diver (3*) level, they go through the same process again - progressively increasing their depth 'certification' in levels, as approved by their instructor.
In line with this progressive development, further training and experience is being gained within the club/school environment. In most, if not all, cases, appropriate equipment (doubles/redundancy) is introduced and the necessary skills acquired. It's a much more demanding and involved process. Also, a great many more limitations are actually imposed on the individual diver - but these are club/instructor specific and not agency unilateral.
In CMAS/BSAC, the club instructor dives with someone... and says "you are not ready for this yet". It doesn't matter what the certification says, or the prerequisites are. Big limitation. Subjective.
In PADI/SSI, the instructor provides training based on possession of formal pre-requisites (small limitation/objective). He provides certification based on achievement of stated agency standards for that course (small limitation/objective). That student is then qualified and unrestricted to dive to the full extent of their certification.
Just because CMAS written standards say that X, Y or Z diving can happen at a given level - doesn't mean that it does. There's actually some big limitations imposed on their divers.
That has no tangible equivalent in the training syllabus of any of the main training agencies. Put simply, it is irrelevant from a global perspective.
There are individual PADI dive centres that produce more certifications per year than the entire CMAS organisation. Let's get real about the 'context' we view these minor, antiquated agencies with...
Does CMAS even have a technical diving division? The existence of an alternative, or preferable, option is what drives the 'rest' of the diving industry into drawing a distinct line. If you don't have another option - then you're forced to reject change and improvement - and stick with what you've always historically done.
I didn't say how they teach it, but fact is they do it and they start on the entry level with theory and from 2* level on they start with practice. So you just confirmed what I said.
Your arrogance towards everything which doesn't fit in your picture of the world is remarkable, but it's not the first time I remark that here on SB.
I don't really like the CMAS system myself, but if you like it or not, they are one of the oldest agencies at all, they are worldwide recognized and renowend and they are so "unimportant" that in some countries it is impossible to work as a diving instructor without a CMAS instructor licence (the only reason why I hold one)!
Your arrogance towards everything which doesn't fit in your picture of the world is remarkable, but it's not the first time I remark that here on SB.
I don't really like the CMAS system myself, but if you like it or not, they are one of the oldest agencies at all, they are worldwide recognized and renowend and they are so "unimportant" that in some countries it is impossible to work as a diving instructor without a CMAS instructor licence (the only reason why I hold one)!
OP
DevonDiver
N/A
Yes, and I also said it was anachronistic and globally irrelevant.
Furthermore, it's just a statement of practice - it doesn't do anything to counter my article's supposition that boundaries between rec and tec are needed.
Did you actually read the article yet?
Oldest is irrelevant.
There's a whole bunch of 'worldwide recognised' diving agencies. I bet you couldn't name more than 20 of them... In terms of 'accreditation' (rather than 'recognition') CMAS recognises itself. It isn't subject to any external accreditation.. RSTC etc. It isn't 'recognised' by WRSTC.
Qualifications may be regarded as 'equivalent'. That's all. Except for the fact that the 2* and 3* are not accepted globally as equivalent training for decompression/technical diving. CMAS fail in the respect - according to 'global recognition'. Please keep arguing that point.... LOL
Outside of continental Europe, most divers probably never even heard of CMAS,.. seriously.
Renown for what? That's a very subjective status. Renown for not having a technical diving division? Renown for not accepting any industry/community consensus? Renown for not modernising over the last 20-30 years?
Which countries? Turkey?
So "important" that you probably couldn't find work in any country outside of continental Europe with only a CMAS instructor license. Balance?
Andy,
Compliments on a well-written article. Your point was clear in that recreational training needs to address the added capabilities that many computers provide. Thanks for addressing this.
Best,
DDM
Compliments on a well-written article. Your point was clear in that recreational training needs to address the added capabilities that many computers provide. Thanks for addressing this.
Best,
DDM
So it's you who decides what is globally relevant or irrelevant? Interesting to know. Stay in your little world and have fun with your discussion - which is globally irrelevant. ;-)
OP
DevonDiver
N/A
According to the CMAS website (club finder) there is a grand total of 55 CMAS clubs outside of Europe. Some of those are university clubs. Yep... 55 whole dive clubs!
In the Asia region... wow.... 11 clubs.. including 2 in India, 1 in Iran and 1 in Lebanon.
In Oceania & Australia.... 4 clubs! 3 of those are in French Polynesia.
On the other end of the 'relevance' spectrum... in 2007 PADI listed 1009 member dive centres in 42 Asian countries alone. Those are paid-up IRRA members... not just dive shops affiliated to teach PADI courses..that number would be far higher.
So, for Asia... CMAS could be seen (generously) as 1.09% of the size of PADI. Better not even consider the volume of certifications from those clubs...
Are we really going to argue about 'global relevance'? 55 international dive schools?
Looking at it another way... Koh Tao, a small island in Thailand, produces 60,000 PADI certifications annually. SSI can't be much further behind...certainly well into 4 figures. How many divers does CMAS train globally per year?
Looking at it another way... in 20 years of diving, in more than 25 countries on 5 continents, I've met a grand total of 3 CMAS divers. Sadly, one of those (a 2* Diver) ran out of air on a 25m tropical reef dive...and had to borrow my octopus for the ascent.
But point conceded... CMAS probably got PADI beat in Iran...
CMAS may allow divers to do deco at 2* level.. but the global relevance of that, in perspective of my article, is irrelevant. CMAS diving just isn't big enough statistically to seriously sway any definition of 'the dive community'.
Last edited:
Nice calculations, fits perfect in your picture of the world. There is only one thing I don't understand, in numerous threads here on SB you are firing against PADI, but now they are the standard for all others???
Furthermore I can't verify your numbers because I don't find a "club finder" on the CMAS website. I only can find a "dive centers finder". But if that's the source of your numbers, they are no surprise. You mentioned it yourself before:
The CMAS system is mostly based on clubs, so it's no wonder that you can't find more CMAS Dive Centers. But at least CMAS is represented by 129 federations in 88 countries. CMAS - World Underwater Federation
They don't need a technical diving division, because they promote recreational diving and it's not their problem that they define recreational diving different than you do. Furthermore at least so "unrenowned" technical diving agencies as IANTD and TDI are members of CMAS. And, by the way, just for the records, DAN Europe is a CMAS member as well. CMAS - World Underwater Federation
Similar threads
