Depth when doing open water tests

[beester]

I'm a bit in dubio about depth at which open water tests are taken in my diving organisation.

So I would like to know at which depths open water tests are taken for your organisation. Certification level Rescuediver, Divemaster, Assistant Instructor. Are all open water tests for all certification levels done at same depth? What are the depths those tests are taken?

Some of the scenarios in our course deal with rescue attempts, ascends, out of air simulations and ooa ascends from 130 feet. I would like to get a bit of a perspective on how other organisations arrange this, both now and in the past. At 130 feet the reward (simulation, training) vs risk aspect is getting quite narrow imo.


Cheers,

 

[RonFrank]

It might be interesting to hear what you've been told, and to what organization this applies.

I have not gone past rescue with PADI, but know plenty of folks that have. Depth is not much of a requirement. Diving is. If you are leaning to teach Adv. Nitrox, and Deco, then depth comes into play, how would it not?

For all other non-tech courses, instructors don't violate the rules.. ie, nothing beyond 130 feet, and why go that deep or even close? Heck, most Adv. Nitrox classes don't go much below 130 feet if at all.

 

[Hoomi]

Our OW cert dives were done in a bay that has a maximum depth of about 35 feet (10 - 11 m), and most of the dives were done at depths of about 25 - 30 feet (8 - 9 m). We took our training through PADI, as our only real choices here in Tucson were either PADI or SSI, and from what I've been reading here on Scubaboard, the two organizations are pretty much comparable in styles and requirements.

I think what the instructors were looking for was less about depth, as it was about demonstrating sufficient presence of mind to handle the exercises in the ocean, rather than the controlled environment of the confined water pool.

Granted, PADI also has a reputation (particularly here on SB) of being an organization that you darn near have to try and fail your certification. I'm glad to be certified, but I am not content to just stick with the information PADI gives us in our course. It's hard to imagine PADI instituting a requirement for certifying at closer to the maximum OW certification depth (60 feet / 18 m), as I suspect that would increase the fall-out rate for students not completing the process.

 

[Diver0001]

I'm a bit in dubio about depth at which open water tests are taken in my diving organisation.

So I would like to know at which depths open water tests are taken for your organisation. Certification level Rescuediver, Divemaster, Assistant Instructor. Are all open water tests for all certification levels done at same depth? What are the depths those tests are taken?

Some of the scenarios in our course deal with rescue attempts, ascends, out of air simulations and ooa ascends from 130 feet. I would like to get a bit of a perspective on how other organisations arrange this, both now and in the past. At 130 feet the reward (simulation, training) vs risk aspect is getting quite narrow imo.


Cheers,

The PADI system mandates a minimum depth for evaluating skills of 5 metres. Some skills must be done deeper. The CESA, for example is mandated from 6-9 metres. The deepest "minimum" depth for a course is for the deep specialty, which is 18 metres. The deepest "maximum" depth is 30 metres. In the Netherlands, many instructors do rescue exercises in about 10 metres.

R..

 

[pwl]

ooa ascent exercises from 130ft sounds like a recipe for disaster! i could countenance military special ops or similar doing that degree of "hard core" exercise, but for recreational diving the risk is not justifiable.

the only "deep" depth requirements are really for courses like AOW & "deep" - where the main part of the dive is to simply experience the different environment.

 

[Diver0001]

As far as I know, for their 3* Nelos divers are required to make a CESA from 30 meters -> 10 metres without the regulator in their mouth. Moreover, if I'm not mistaken their CESA is also done without the assistance of any kind of line that the instructor could use to halt the ascent in the event of problems. I think for what they call their 4* they have to do it from 45 meters.

Their CBL (control buoyant lift = lifting an unresponsive diver from the bottom) also has to be done from 30 meters. As far as I know, these are the only two skills that are required to be done from that depth.

R..

 

[beester]

Hi Guys,

Thank you for the answers so far... so basically with PADI depth range for evaluating skills depends on what skill evaluated, most been done between 5-10m and only the deep diver speciality skills are tested between 18-30m.

How about other organisations?

I'm asking since I'm doing some skills that are required for the next certification level (assistent instructor), some of them involve doing skills in depthrange 120-130 feet. And yes I have done the hardest ones already and try to evaluate the benefit.

My personal opinion is going both ways and this is not a judgement regarding deep diving, just practicing skills at depth:

- On one hand I think it is a psychological benefit to know you've practiced skills at depth, you know at one time you were capable to do certain things. To give a practical example. I know a diver couple who were doing a deepish dive (115 feet, within their certification lvl). At depth one of the divers bites through his mouthpiece and breaths in a whole breath of water. 2nd breath is same and then panick sets in. At that moment he pulled the mask of his dive buddy trying to reach for her regulator. She recovers her mask, puts here 2nd regulator in his mouth, and rescues him. Both made it out alive. She told me that for her personally it was a real psychological benefit knowing that she could do this. Of course this is one person... not a statistical fact.

- On the other hand we all know that most incidents are caused by a cascading effect of small problems. Depth is an inherent risk factor because it has the potential to cause problems (narcosis, oxtox for example) or make them heavier. If you then start simulating problems and practicing skills the risk factor may become to high. Specially when you try to evaluate the award part. The benefit of simulations and skill practice is to learn from it, but what can you learn at great depth breathing air except the afterthought 'Hey I can do this?!'

So any additional input specifically from agencies doing this kind of thing is appreciated.

 

[sebach]

In France, for level 3 (cmas 3*), all the exercises are done at 40m. As you'll be qualified then to deep deeper that that, I find that it is the least you can do in training. At least at this depth you might experience some narcosis, and still manage.
I'm more concerned by the fact that we don't do the same deeper, as with this level we can dive up to 60m on air (so the only way to cope with these depths is by experiencing it yourself when certified).

 

[beester]

As far as I know, for their 3* Nelos divers are required to make a CESA from 30 meters -> 10 metres without the regulator in their mouth. Moreover, if I'm not mistaken their CESA is also done without the assistance of any kind of line that the instructor could use to halt the ascent in the event of problems. I think for what they call their 4* they have to do it from 45 meters.

Their CBL (control buoyant lift = lifting an unresponsive diver from the bottom) also has to be done from 30 meters. As far as I know, these are the only two skills that are required to be done from that depth.

Open water training conditions in the Benelux pretty much preclude finding safe training locations at 30m outside of a select number of quarries in Belgium (Voldelee, for example, which are deep enough and calm enough). There are no safe training locations in which to do a 30m CESA in the Netherlands as far as I'm aware. There are some locations in the Netherlands that are deep enough, but they are either too far from shore or subject to heavy tidal currents and poor visibility. There are multiple examples of Nelos instructors trying their CESA's in Dutch tidal waters and having terrible accidents in the process.

The Nelos doesn't even call performance requirements "skills". The word they use translates into English as "trials" (as in being put to the test). As far as I know the Nelos accounts for about 2% of the diving population in the Benelux but they appear to account for a highly disproportionate percentage of the fatal accidents and/or training related accidents.

R..

Diver0001 I would like to correct some points you make. I'm not saying that I might not be on your side regarding doing deep skill tests (trails as you call them)... only that some things you state are not correct regarding NELOS.

There used to be a CESA test from 30 m to 10 m and from 40 m to 10 m in the curriculum however those were phased out a couple of years ago. At this moment no CESA trails are part of the curriculum both for 3 * and 4*( AI ) divers because they were deemed correctly so much too dangerous. Indeed there were some bad accidents as you can imagine.

CBL for 3 * diver involves simulating the rescue of an unresponsive diver from 30 m with use of BCD.

CBL for 4 * diver involves 2 skill tests. 1 lifting an unresponsive diver from 40 m with use of BCD. 1 lifting an unresponsive diver from 40m without the use of BCD (both negative). Next to that you have a test simulating OOA where you need to buddybreath and change to 2nd regulator after 1 min and ascend from 40m and finally a normal ascend from 40 m where you need to deploy SMB and simulate stops. So in total 4 tests at 40m.

Final remark... the reason why I posted this on an international and not a Dutch or Belgian forum is to try to get a feel of how things are done in other organisations, looking beyond the ubicious PADI or CMAS which is the norm in my country.

I also wanted to avoid getting into a 'boxing match' regarding this since most of these discussions when posted locally tend to end up one. Diver0001 your subjective opinion is doing the same here... something I tried to avoid. Dutch divers think us Belgians are deep and dangerous divers... Some Belgians think French divers are deep and dangerous divers... of course this is not true.

BTW could you point to an official statistic which shows that Belgian divers are the root cause of a higher than average accident rate in the Zeeland area? Also where do you get this 2% of benelux divers being NELOS?

Anyway back to discussion?

 

[Diver0001]

You're right. Nobody wants a boxing match. I've gone back and neutralized that last post.

I have a question for you. I can understand that you have concerns about how things are done in your agency. I assume you want this information so you can decide if you want to cross over or not. But how will knowing how other agencies does things help you decide?

R..