Kudos to the Ginnie Staff

[H2Andy]

well.. you know... this argument:

which is safer for a student diver in the overhead environment: singles or doubles?

is never going to be resolved

you can't find enough empirical evidence to prove it one way or the other,
and what is left is opinion. the data needed simply is not collected nor
available.

and good luck trying to get someone else to change their opinions in the
cave community

what i find valuable about the argument is hearing both sides and
developing the arguments on both sides, which is done by having
someone else challenge them

 

[loosebits]

GDI, chickdiver doesn't even post here, why did you drag the TDS stuff over here? Its easy to grandstand if you cleverly edit out the context.

:06:

Yep, I don't think the world needed two 20 page threads on how many tanks an intro diver can have.

 

[H2Andy]

Yep, I don't think the world needed two 20 page threads on how many tanks an intro diver can have.

so you're saying a SINGLE 40-page thread would have been better?


eyebrow

 

[GDI]

GDI, chickdiver doesn't even post here, why did you drag the TDS stuff over here? Its easy to grandstand if you cleverly edit out the context.

:06:

Yes she has posted here before and is welcome to do so again. She has alot of good valuable points from time to time and this is a good topic if debated correctly. As I stated once already I can see both sides of this issue and I have addressed it with the NACD and it is being looked at. I am not taking it personally

 

[grazie42]

One way to avoid all the problems is to take the course with an IANTD instructor. ""Everyone" seems to be nss-cds/nacd certified as well as with any additional agency. For me, if I were planning to "pause" at the intro level, spending an additional X$ to get two certs would be worth it if it meant I could dive doubles while gaining experience...

I´m just cavern certified and don´t live near any caves but I don´t even do "cold" dives (water temp at freezing point) without doubles, certainly never would penetrate wreck, swim under ice or go deep without them.

Arguing that SOME rules may be broken (ie 1/6 on doubles) without taking into account that OTHER rules (1/3 ion single) may also be broken just seems like a HUGE logical fallacy. If you assume that gas rules will be broken, it seems to me that breaking 1/6 would be better than breaking 1/3. Even breaking 1/3 on DOUBLES is safer than on singles.

Why are only gas rules singled out for this treatment? What about all the other rules that could be broken? Like solo-diving. Why aren´t people requiring that you show up to sites with your buddy?

 

[OneBrightGator]

GDI, chickdiver doesn't even post here, why did you drag the TDS stuff over here? Its easy to grandstand if you cleverly edit out the context.

Come on, every one of his recent posts has obviously been thoughtout and revised with lots of quotes from S&Ps, something's going on for sure.

 

[StSomewhere]

Come on, every one of his recent posts has obviously been thoughtout and revised with lots of quotes from S&Ps, something's going on for sure.

Are you kidding me, it's like he's running for office or something. Sheesh.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but the whole nature of crossposting this here from TDS seems fishy to me, like he was grandstanding behind someone's back... So I sent a link to this thread so GDI's campaign speech here on SB won't go unnoticed over there. :14:

John

 

[jdsffa]

I have been cave diving for a little while and I dont see that there is and problem with these rules. If you want to dive Doubles that talk with your instructor and get Diss. Apprentes thats what I did. I was actually un aware of this rule till a couple weeks before i took intro I had been diving Doubles for a while and went to do a cavern dive at ginnie ask was told i could not dive the eye/ear with doubles so you I didnt i went to the Ballroom and practised over there in doubles for intro because that is aloud so I dont see why people would try to change the rule when there is different ways to do thing if you just work with the agencies not aginst them

 

[WaterDawg]

I have addressed it with the NACD and it is being looked at.

I think this is the best thing that could have come of it.

I gotta respect ChickDiver for speaking up on the subject, Im sure her excommunication papers have already been mailed. Im also fairly certain she wont be invited to anymore Christmas parties.

I know that others (instructors) feel the same way, (they've stated so on TDS) and I can blame them for not speaking up, after all its not a smart move (Cave instructor- career wise).

Im glad it will at least be looked at.

Maybe writing the NACD would be a better move than talking about it here.

 

[GDI]

No grandstanding and nothing has been cleverly edited out from the context or otherwise.

The discussion on TDS is a good discussion. I brought the discussion here because many of SB readers do not visit TDS.

Chickdiver has opened a pandoras box on an issue that I feel is deserving of more discussion. My intent which is not hidden is to make cave diving safer.

No matter what the S&P of any agency states there will always be divers who feel it is ok to violate the limitations of their training. There will always be divers who take only the minimal training and feel that they can move on from there. Yet these same divers will get mad and bent out of shape when they come across an enforcing organization or authority that will hold them to their current level of training certificatiion.

How many of you know that Ginnie as a policy will not permit divers of the age of 10 years come onto their property to scuba dive regardless of the parents having signed the waivers. The minimum age that Ginnie permits is 12 years of age with notarized parental consent on their forms. Yet sport diving agencies permit 10 years old to learn to scuba dive. So why should we complain that they up hold a S&P that is published by a agency they recognize such as the NSS-CDS when it involves tech divers? Oh but its Not Ginnie you say?

Now you are beginning to see that Ginnie is not the bad guy here instead it is the big bad agencies.
While many of you are targeting the NACD I can tell you this is not only their policy other agencies have a same or similar policy.

I understand the rational of both sides and it is difficult to argue against a record of safety, that is when divers have followed the training level limitations and made safe dives. This does not mean that things can not be made to be even more safe. If a change is what is required and can be justified then it may be needed.

.