Recreational Limits, confusing or is it just me?

[dumpsterDiver]

slane, I disagree. The divers we certify for open water COULD execute a (very brief!) dive to 130 feet, and come back up okay, if all went well. But they simply don't have enough time in the water at the end of four dives to know that they could maintain their equanimity (not to mention their buoyancy control) if they had to handle an emergency at 130 feet. And most of them have gas consumption rates that would make a dive to that depth a risky endeavor.

A year later, with 75 to 100 dives under their belts, and the opportunity to deal with a variety of minor issues in the water, they are very different divers.

I have no problem at all telling people that they really ought to stay shallow until they build experience. New skiers stay on green hills; new riders ride quiet, older horses. New divers should dive relatively shallow, benign sites, and gain confidence and competence there before proceeding deeper.

I think 80 or 100 ft is a reasonable depth limit for most new divers (say 40 or 50 dives). I'm not so worried about air consumption or buoyancy control on a 120 ft dive, but the narcosis level and general stress (mental more than anything) makes me very hesitant to take people much past 100 feet unless they have dove the area many times. - and this is for warm clear water. Cold, dark and dirty make things much different.

A quick dive to 130 feet is no big deal for me and if I keep it no-deco, gas supply is not an issue, but the dive is not trivial. Divers DO need to respect depth and the only way to gain this respect is by a slow and measured progression, not some weekend course that takes you to 108 ft while the instructor holds your hand.

I've recently started taking my 15 yr old son on 130 ft drift dives (on nitrox). He has just a junior padi certification. It has taken a long time to get to the point where I am comfortable doing this (and allowing him to carry a speargun on the dive). He recognizes that he feels "different" at 120 ft. I don't really feel narced, but the "stress level" goes up for me at that depth, especially if I am not alone.

Certifications don't mean a whole lot to me. Practice, progressive experience, having scuba gear that provides a reasonable level of redundancy and a good amount of self knowledge are what is important... Unless you want to dive from a commercial charter.. then those cards become essential..

 

[slane]

slane, I disagree. The divers we certify for open water COULD execute a (very brief!) dive to 130 feet, and come back up okay, if all went well. But they simply don't have enough time in the water at the end of four dives to know that they could maintain their equanimity (not to mention their buoyancy control) if they had to handle an emergency at 130 feet. And most of them have gas consumption rates that would make a dive to that depth a risky endeavor.

A year later, with 75 to 100 dives under their belts, and the opportunity to deal with a variety of minor issues in the water, they are very different divers.

I have no problem at all telling people that they really ought to stay shallow until they build experience. New skiers stay on green hills; new riders ride quiet, older horses. New divers should dive relatively shallow, benign sites, and gain confidence and competence there before proceeding deeper.

The point I was trying to make, and I should have clarified better, is that I don't think a diver with an OW cert should be denied a dive beyond 60' simply because they can't produce an AOW or deep card. I didn't mean to suggest a brand new diver should go out the next day and start diving past 120', but I don't like the idea that you MUST have an AOW card before you're ready for 61'. Again, this is just my opinion and it should not be viewed as a knock against additional training.

 

[chrisch]

The UK lies in the continent of Europe and is a member of the EU (for the time being at least ).
You are not breaking the law in the UK if you dive without a certification therefore certification limits are somewhat academic.

I'm not arguing that certification is a bad thing but it is inaccurate to describe certification and its limits apply to the whole of Europe.

Very few European (geographic or political Europe - take your pick) countries have laws relating to depth for recreational scuba diving. Spain does have a law of this type, but I am not 100% familiar with the details. Beyond that I cannot think of anywhere else. (Portugal possibly?) France is often ascribed with such a law but no legal status exists, the French system is driven by insurance not by statute, dive off the beach and you can do as you like with or without any certification. I have a vague memory of some legal aspects in Croatia - at least a licence system exists there - but I don't recall any depth issues.

The depth debate for diving is pretty much driven by internal diver debate, agency standards and insurance, not by national law - globally. There are (I think) some local by-laws too in some places (Florida caves maybe?)

 

[Nemrod]

Being an antisocial sort and anti-rules and anti-government and anti- just about everything and down with the man etc. I have always resisted the idea of certifications in general as I have found them largely meaningless, at least until one hits the technical diving arena because they have no legal status and they are largely held to open standards that are liberally applied at best.

I got somehow arm wrestled into teaching maintenance courses, me and my work buddy, and about two years ago I was asked by a students employer, in the EU, for a "skills list and accounting of course time" or something like that. Previously we had just been handing them a certificate. Hmmm, so I wrote a skills list dividing the course into lab/lecture and what exactly we did and gave it to the students company and that satisfied them. Realizing this was the future we re-wrote all of our courses to follow a script with checkboxes and instructor and student sign offs at each task/knowledge completion to present to their government/employers.

So, now that we are in the digital age, maybe each course should have a skills list and the card can be swiped and the data reviewed as to what was accomplished. One person might have done a 130 foot dive on their AOW but another might have done so in their Basic. There could be a cardholder accessible section of the memory that the diver/cardholder could load their most recent dives or when you dive with a shop/boat they could "stamp" the card. You would carry only one card and that card would have all of your certifications and (alleged) capabilities regardless of what ABC agency they took the course from, all would comply with the standard, industry minimum training and exactly what was covered.

Kind of an industry standard.

But I would probably be against it, .

N

 

[Doc]

Wouldn't it be quite easy to stamp the depth limit on the card to stop any confusion?

No.

At each certification level, your wrist mount computer is upgraded with your new limitations and you are issued cert chevrons that match. If you exceed any particular limitation, your hand will get blown off, much like Arnold's schnozz in Total Recall. Beware the one handed diver.

There are no scuba police.

Why yes indeed, there are. The Insurance Companies are the SCUBA Police, the local insured LDS Charters are duly Deputized. (kind-of an enforced/voluntary conscription)

dive op should follow the guidelines of the agency that certified each diver

Is that spread sheet on the Googles?

In countries where there are legal restrictions on recreational scuba divers then there are depth limits and the level of certification required is defined (usually by a CMAS equivalent).

...are law in Europe... if accompanied by a professional or after further training.

Follow the Franc. It's always about money. Laws are made to protect the purse of those who have the power to make those laws.

I would imagine that having a depth on a certification card would increase the liability of the issuer of the card as some people could interpret it as "I am safe to that depth". The US training agencies like PADI are pretty keen not to go down that route.

And that is precisely why it's not printed there or anywhere. Tell students what they can do when they pay for X Cert. Never tell them what they can not do at another point.

From an operator's perspective....My insurance company gave me these guidelines.

Bottom line.

I haven't read anywhere that anyone said that. One of the really annoying habits of some posters on ScubaBoard is that they take a reasonable statement that someone made and stretch it into something that appears unreasonable.

... Those rules can exist for any number of reasons, ranging from personal preference of the business owner to legal liabilities to what their insurance coverage specifies. In most cases the purpose of them isn't for diver safety ... it's to protect the interests of the business.

Most, as in 99.9%

I feel the need to set the rules to comply with insurance company requirements so that in the event of litigation, my insurance will be in effect....

I think I'm seeing a pattern here.

Now a bit about agency standards and recommendations ...
Standards are what a specific agency has determined to be reasonable limits for diver training. They are enforceable only during training classes for that particular agency, and are meant as limits for the dive instructor to follow while conducting training.

Sometimes, as a litigating attorney will tell you, the distinction between a training dive and an Instructor being in the same ocean on the same day gets blurred. By both parties, on a divergent trajectory post-facto.

Just like the charter operations, agency standards are more for the protection of the agency than the protection of the diver.

Or the (insured) Instructor. Bingo.

Money drives all things. Do not be confused by the way the EU does exactly the same thing. We professionals with US Based Cert Agencies are actually ruled by litigators and insurance providers (the same, yes?).

The Europeans are governed by legislated Socialist Protectionism of the Working Class, in this case it is the Dive Professional who has the appropriate National Certification and must (by law) ascribe to the singular limitations.

The money wheel grinds on.

 

[Wookie]

Being an antisocial sort and anti-rules and anti-government and anti- just about everything and down with the man etc. I have always resisted the idea of certifications in general as I have found them largely meaningless, at least until one hits the technical diving arena because they have no legal status and they are largely held to open standards that are liberally applied at best.

I got somehow arm wrestled into teaching maintenance courses, me and my work buddy, and about two years ago I was asked by a students employer, in the EU, for a "skills list and accounting of course time" or something like that. Previously we had just been handing them a certificate. Hmmm, so I wrote a skills list dividing the course into lab/lecture and what exactly we did and gave it to the students company and that satisfied them. Realizing this was the future we re-wrote all of our courses to follow a script with checkboxes and instructor and student sign offs at each task/knowledge completion to present to their government/employers.

So, now that we are in the digital age, maybe each course should have a skills list and the card can be swiped and the data reviewed as to what was accomplished. One person might have done a 130 foot dive on their AOW but another might have doe so in their Basic. There could be a cardholder accessible section of the memory that the diver/cardholder could load their most recent dives or when you dive with a shop/boat they could "stamp" the card. You would carry only one card and that card would have all of your certifications and capabilities regardless of what ABC agency they took the course from, all would comply with the standard, industry minimum training and exactly what was covered.

Kind of an industry standard.

But I would probably be against it, .

N

Anarchist. Society would crumble.

Actually, a Scuba card would be wonderful, where the operator could swipe it (or have online access to it) to allow us your logbook, certification levels regardless of agency, last dive, dive particulars, etc.

Next, a national ID card with our insurance particulars and eligibility, disability status, veterans status, citizenship status, driving status, and past conviction history and employment eligibility.

 

[Bob DBF]

Quote Originally Posted by giffenk
it is confusing since the official rules are vague: "within training and experience". what kind of training? how much experience?

but this doesn't matter since it really boils down to the dive op rules.

dive op should follow the guidelines of the agency that certified each diver

And that sums up my confusion. Very few answers have any actual examples of Agency limits and recommendations, most discuss the issues without concrete examples.

Wookie has a list of certifications and maximum depth/condition limitations which seem to be the accepted maximum limits of certifications according to the lawyers at his insurance company which have a vested interest in being accurate. And I thank him.

Redshift was helpful, however it was interesting to go to the next higher certification and find there was no depth limitation or recreational limit given, so I must assume they are free to to do a 200' dive on air should they have the urge. This doesn't bother me as the recreational depth when I first trained was 190', not that I could do it on my single 72. In addition it is not easy to figure the equivalent certifications from the descriptions.

Another point was that TS&M mentioned that 80' was the limit for an AOW dive, was that a boat limit or an agency limit, as I thought it was 100'. Or is it different between Agencies?



Bob
--------------------------------------------
There is no problem that can't be solved with a liberal application of sex, tequila, money, duct tape, or high explosives, not necessarily in that order.

 

[TSandM]

The 80' limit was a dive operator limit.

PADI's limit for OW certification is 130 feet. Divers with only an open water cert are recommended to stay above 60; AOW gets you down to 100, and the Deep specialty gets you to 130. Note that those depths are recommendations.

 

[Bopper]

What TSM said ^^^^

 

[drrich2]

PADI's limit for OW certification is 130 feet. Divers with only an open water cert are recommended to stay above 60; AOW gets you down to 100, and the Deep specialty gets you to 130. Note that those depths are recommendations.

My understanding is that the recommendations here differ a bit in application. From PADI's FAQ, scroll down to How Deep Can You Go -

With the necessary training and experience, the limit for recreational scuba diving is 40 metres/130 feet. Beginning scuba divers stay shallower than about 18 metres/60 feet. Although these are the limits, some of the most popular diving is shallower than 12 metres/40 feet, where the water’s warmer and the colors are brighter.

So if I understand correctly:

1.) The 60 foot OW recommendation is to start out, with an option to advance slowly over time down to 130' with mentoring, formal course work or perhaps self-study and advancement.

2.) The 130 foot recommendation is a recommended limit if you don't have relevant tech. diving training, regardless of whether you have 50 dives or 500.

The issue of whether AOW divers ought to independently progress to 130' without further formal training I suspect is like 1.), but browsing PADI's site didn't easily turn up a good link to endorse that.

Richard.