Depth Limits for SSI OW Cert?

[DevonDiver]

Glad to see the OP asking this; with a view to checking those recommendations and considering further appropriate training for the potential dive site. It's certainly better than the alternative approach taken some divers...

Always makes me chuckle when some people graduate from scuba courses, knowing full well what their recommended limitations are.... and then immediately seek consent to break those recommendations.

The agency spells it out. The instructor spells it out. So why not seek the approval of random, anonymous internet folks to over-ride what has just been taught??

 

[Thalassamania]

By way of acknowledging bias, I come from a diving community that is, one hand, far more restrictive concerning depth, we start with a restriction of 30 feet; but we also provide a clear and well defined path to deeper diving, all the way down to 190 feet.

I think that many people have questions about the various limits and recommendations of the recreational diving agencies because they see them for what they are, recommendations more designed the agency's well being than for the diver's well being.

 

[DevonDiver]

I think that many people have questions about the various limits and recommendations of the recreational diving agencies because they see them for what they are, recommendations more designed the agency's well being than for the diver's well being.

The only benefit for the agency/industry is that those courses are charged for, rather than free or inclusive. Having a progressive system of training, designed to allow a progressive development of diving seems entirely logical.

How does that actually detract the safety benefit to the student?

It boils down to the requirement for X training and Y experience, needed to safely complete Zdive.

 

[SC_Hoaty]

It boils down to the requirement for X training and Y experience, needed to safely complete Zdive.

Or is it a recommendation, not a requirement, from the agencies' points of view? The only way the "requirement" is enforced is by the various charter operations, who each have slightly different practices. No charter (shore dive, for example), no "requirement" being enforced.

How does that actually detract the safety benefit to the student?

By failing to inform them of what they do NOT know about exceeding the "recommendation." As an example, that gas consumption increases with depth.

 

[boulderjohn]

By failing to inform them of what they do NOT know about exceeding the "recommendation." As an example, that gas consumption increases with depth.

There are agencies that don't teach this? I'm surprised.

I only know what PADI teaches in this regard. Students are required to calculate the degree to which gas consumption increases with depth on the final exam, so it has to be taught during the course.

Which agencies do not teach this?

 

[SC_Hoaty]

Fair question, Boulderjohn - and maybe a poor example on my part. I was not PADI trained, so I'm not sure what knowledge necessary for safe diving below 60 feet is omitted from their OW course, and only provided during AOW. Perhaps you can provide a better example?

 

[Thalassamania]

The only benefit for the agency/industry is that those courses are charged for, rather than free or inclusive. Having a progressive system of training, designed to allow a progressive development of diving seems entirely logical.

How does that actually detract the safety benefit to the student?

It boils down to the requirement for X training and Y experience, needed to safely complete Zdive.

You're missing the point, I guess that comes from working in a less litigious experiment.

As far as a progressive development of diving with respect to depth and conditions, I could not agree more, but I don't really see that from any of the agencies except as what I would consider "lip service."

 

[boulderjohn]

Fair question, Boulderjohn - and maybe a poor example on my part. I was not PADI trained, so I'm not sure what knowledge necessary for safe diving below 60 feet is omitted from their OW course, and only provided during AOW. Perhaps you can provide a better example?

Sorry--can't think of anything, really.

I think the real bone of contention is that we don't do enough with gas planning in general. At the OW level, students are taught to check with their gauges frequently to make sure they don't run out of air. I wish there were more in the regular course, so I include more in my course--specifically, some guidelines as to when to begin an ascent in terms of remaining air. And, even, though they are supposed to be limited to 60 feet, I include ascents from deeper depths.

 

[SC_Hoaty]

Sorry--can't think of anything, really.

I think the real bone of contention is that we don't do enough with gas planning in general. At the OW level, students are taught to check with their gauges frequently to make sure they don't run out of air. I wish there were more in the regular course, so I include more in my course--specifically, some guidelines as to when to begin an ascent in terms of remaining air. And, even, though they are supposed to be limited to 60 feet, I include ascents from deeper depths.

Sounds like it must be only about money then!

Can you rationalize why PADI doesn't require additional diving experience beyond OW certification dives before admitting a student to the AOW course? DevonDiver was advocating for combined experience and training before increasing depth.

 

[Thalassamania]

Here are the issues as I see it:

1) Gas management is gas management. The concept is the same regardless of depth and all divers should have a good working knowledge of how to plan gas usage for a dive. One ATA or Seven ATA, it's all the same in terms of planning. There just less actual room for error as you get deeper, but I don't see that there should be any permissible error in gas planning regardless of depth.

2) There is a clear interactive term between conditions and depth. 130 feet in warm, clear, tropical waters is rather different than 100 feet in the North Atlantic or North Pacific.

3) While there is a clear body of knowledge that all divers should master, experience is a whole 'nother story. Some divers are virtually narc-proof others are in trouble at 60 feet. There seems to be almost universal agreement that slowly increasing depth with each dive is a good approach, but there is no policy anywhere (except through AAUS) that actually addresses how to conduct such dives, the qualifications of proper buddies, etc.