Changed depth limit for PADI Open Water

[Kevrumbo]

Right. So the rest of us made the mistake of answering the OP's question about the rules imposed upon him by his certification level by telling him about the rules imposed upon him by his certification level. I began by summarizing the actual rules and then went on to explain why some dive operators give inaccurate information about those rules. I will try not to make that mistake again.

Fine if you feel you made the rhetorical "mistake" of explaining the politics and legal ramifications behind the imposed rules of the Basic Open Water Certification of 18m/60'.

But obviously planning to have enough breathing gas for an emergency out-of-air contingency is just as relevant if not even more vital for the novice open water diver --don't you agree John?

Therefore the solution is to have the OP (Pittelli) take Advanced Open Water training -and a GUE Fundamentals of Better Diving Course- if going beyond the current Basic Open Water Limit of 18m/60', notwithstanding Pittelli's 25 years of dive experience and expectation of being "grandfathered in" as an exception. . .

(As an Educator yourself John, how objectively simple and to the point was that?)

 

[boulderjohn]

Fine if you feel you made the rhetorical "mistake" of explaining the politics and legal ramifications behind the imposed rules of the Basic Open Water Certification of 18m/60'.

But obviously planning to have enough breathing gas for an emergency out-of-air contingency is just as relevant if not even more vital for the novice open water diver --don't you agree John?

Therefore the solution is to have the OP (Pitelli) take Advanced Open Water training -and/or a GUE Fundamentals of Better Diving Course- if going beyond the current Basic Open Water Limit of 18m/60'.

(How objectively simple and to the point was that John?)

How to plan to have enough gas for the dive is an interesting question, but it is not what the OP asked. If you wanted to add the point that in addition to agency rules and agency recommendations, it might be good to consider gas planning-- fine. But instead in post #12 you chose to criticize everyone else who had stayed on topic and singled me out in particular for that offense.

 

[tursiops]

Kev,

What in the world does that post have to do with the question asked?

Well, a question was asked, and the answer therefore always involves rock bottom.

 

[DJ457]

Wow...this thread went off topic real fast.



OW depth has never changed man, it's always been 60'. Just go out and get your AOW.

 

[tursiops]

Nope. I have no idea what the original rationale for that was, other than the belief that diving to the deeper end of the recreational spectrum involves more risk and thus should call for more training.

I have a vague memory of reading in some "official literature" some time ago that the 60-100-130 depth recommendations were based on air narcosis, and that almost nobody experienced any impairment at 60 ft (minus 3 sigma?), but many (half?) did at 100, and pretty much all (plus 3 sigma?) did at 130. This may be true, but I still prefer depth limitations based on gas usage. If you are diving with a 40 cuft tank, 130 ft is a really bad idea, and not so bad with a 120, narcosis not withstanding. Putting narcosis and gas needs together makes for a potentially complicated and therefore unuseful guideline, so just saying 60-100-130 (OW-AOW-Deep Spec) makes practical sense.

And so long as it is a guideline/recommendation, I don't give a crap! If it were to turn into a rule (by someone....nation, resort, boat, agency, whatever), I'd be pretty unhappy!

 

[boulderjohn]

I have a vague memory of reading in some "official literature" some time ago that the 60-100-130 depth recommendations were based on air narcosis, and that almost nobody experienced any impairment at 60 ft (minus 3 sigma?), but many (half?) did at 100, and pretty much all (plus 3 sigma?) did at 130. This may be true, but I still prefer depth limitations based on gas usage. If you are diving with a 40 cuft tank, 130 ft is a really bad idea, and not so bad with a 120, narcosis not withstanding. Putting narcosis and gas needs together makes for a potentially complicated and therefore unuseful guideline, so just saying 60-100-130 (OW-AOW-Deep Spec) makes practical sense.

And so long as it is a guideline/recommendation, I don't give a crap! If it were to turn into a rule (by someone....nation, resort, boat, agency, whatever), I'd be pretty unhappy!

The Encyclopedia of Recreational Diving said that the primary reason for the 130 foot limit was indeed narcosis, but I don't recall any mention of the other depths.

 

[pittelli]

You guys rock. Qualitatively, quantitatively, historically/anecdotally, and specifically (to Queensland).

Thanks for the insights.

 

[Max Speed]

Nothing to do with narcosis, just a USN guideline because working time beyond that depth is very limited on Scuba so it makes more sense to go to surface supplied gas.

 

[Lorenzoid]

You guys rock. Qualitatively, quantitatively, historically/anecdotally, and specifically (to Queensland).

Thanks for the insights.

You forgot "argumentatively."

 

[chillyinCanada]

Well, hunh. How about that. I've always thought the 60' had to do with CESA.