Master Diver Certification

[theduckguru]

40 years ago we lacked the infrastructure, training material and empirical evidence we so readily have today.[QUOTE/]

You also lacked dive computers and people had to learn tables. Those tables had deco stops. There were no octos so you had to learn buddy breathing, and all the tanks were steel. In a lot of ways, the training was more comprehensive than it is today.

 

[fnfalman]

The USCG does have jurisdictioin around the world. They can board any US ship, ANY where in the world. They actually have USCG on the US Navy ship just for boardings. They board foriegn vessels outside of territortial waters and they board even within territortial waters of certian nations too.

And then you spew that you can safely say that a place like the Indian Ocean is a flip em the bird zone and tell em to piss off? There are quiet a few Coasties in the Middle East and trust me that this just doesnt happen, especially in the Middle East.

The US Coast Guard does have jurisdiction on US flagged vessels. However, if I were own or captain a vessel outside of US water and flying a non-US flag, I'd be miffed and be crying to the World Court.

Yet at the same time, I'd heave to because the guys with the biggest guns win.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

EDIT: It misquoted... I was responding to your post about the FL shops that require AOW for dives deeper than 60 feet or for advanced dives.

Please list them as I'd like to avoid those shops.

When looking for shops last year, every shop I called in the Keys and east coast of FL said they would accept experience shown in the last x months (where x was variant depending upon shop). Some said they may also require a "checkout dive" with a DM prior to doing "advanced" rec dives without AOW. Of the 8 or 10 shops I spoke with, though, NONE said they would refuse a dive to someone qualified to do the dive, with or without the AOW card.

Yeah, lots of folks feel they are above being held to standards. Quite an entitled group us divers.

 

[Mr. Willoughby]

The USCG does have jurisdictioin around the world. They can board any US ship, ANY where in the world. They actually have USCG on the US Navy ship just for boardings. They board foriegn vessels outside of territortial waters and they board even within territortial waters of certian nations too.

And then you spew that you can safely say that a place like the Indian Ocean is a flip em the bird zone and tell em to piss off? There are quiet a few Coasties in the Middle East and trust me that this just doesnt happen, especially in the Middle East.

By what law are they allowed to board which ever vessel they choose?
What makes the US COAST Guard immune to the laws of sovereign nations far removed from the US coast? (Vessels in distress notwithstanding.)

(PS, not trying to start an argument here, just looking for facts as to why an organisation designated to protect a specific country's coastline has jurisdiction thousands of nautical miles away from said coast...)

Edited spelling.

 

[BDSC]

By what law are they allowed to board which ever vessel they choose?
What makes the US COAST Guard immune to the laws of sovereign nations far removed from the US coast? (Vessels in distress notwithstanding.)

(PS, not trying to start an argument here, just looking for facts as to why an organisation designated to protect a specific country's coastline has jurisdiction thousands of nautical miles away from said coast...)

Edited spelling.

I found this:

THE U.S. COAST GUARD​

The U.S. Coast Guard is authorized to enforce, or assist in the enforcement of, all U.S. Federal laws applicable on, over, and under the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. These include laws which provide for the U.S. Coast Guard to exclusively act, and those which the Coast Guard enforces primarily for some other Federal agency. Generally, the Coast Guard must determine on a case-by-case basis whether it has jurisdiction. Besides determining whether it has the domestic authority to assert jurisdiction, it often must also determine whether an assertion of jurisdiction is consistent with international law. In many cases involving a foreign vessel, the Coast Guard decides whether it has jurisdiction over the vessel and its personnel based on three elements: the activities of the vessel and personnel, the location of the vessel, and the nationality of the vessel.
Two notes are warranted here. The first relates to the phrase "waters subject to United States jurisdiction." This phrase encompasses more than United States territorial waters; it also extends to those waters where the United States, pursuant to an agreement with a foreign government, has been authorized to take law enforcement action involving United States or foreign vessels. Such waters could, and in actual practice do, include foreign territorial waters.
The second point is that the Coast Guard may go aboard any United States vessel at any time, anywhere to conduct a documentation and safety inspection. A search of a U.S. vessel beyond this type of inspection is subject to limitations under the United States Constitution. If a search extends beyond this narrowly defined scope, a court may be asked to evaluate the legality of the search by balancing the individual’s right to privacy in the specific circumstances of the search against society’s interest in detecting criminal conduct.

 

[Peter Guy]

theduckguru wrote

You also lacked dive computers and people had to learn tables. Those tables had deco stops. There were no octos so you had to learn buddy breathing, and all the tanks were steel. In a lot of ways, the training was more comprehensive than it is today.

While I do get tired of writing this over and over again, it "ain't necessarily so" that "the training was more comprehensive" in days of yore. As my dear grandfather was fond of saying, "The good old days? Hell, there weren't any good old days."

No, the training 40 years ago was not "more comprehensive" despite what many people write -- it was just different. And Christie, I really hate it when people say today's class standards are "dumbed down" compared to what they used to be. At least for this one individual, I don't see what has been "dumbed down." Yes, standards and training is different today than it was "x" years ago -- and guess what, it will be different "y" years from now and I'll be willing to bet "some people" will be complaining about the "dumbed down" training that used to be back in 2013.

There is a lot that could be taught that any level -- the trick to good teaching is to make sure what is needed IS taught. It may well be just as bad to overteach as to underteach -- especially in something like scuba which is, afterall a "feel" activity, not an intellectual one. I am convinced (although I also know some long time instructors who disagree with me) that the current PADI Open Water standards, if followed, will create a very good beginning diver.

Last comment to duck -- my dad was using an octopus setup on his first stage by 1971 -- me, since I was using a double hose, didn't. Yes, we learned and practiced buddy breathing but thank goodness we don't any more since we now have little things like SPGs which should make running out of air a thing of the past. And, of course, breathing from a donated regulator is a much safer method of getting air than 2 breaths on, 2 breaths off.

And why did this even come up on a thread about someone taking his 14 year old child on a deco dive when neither had any business doing such a dive?

 

[AfterDark]

How'd that work for you on the charter you last mentioned? Not too good.

Sucks I had to get an international drivers license to drive in other countries even though I've been driving for a few decades here just fine.

Actually the last charter was fine. I tried to book one out of MA a couple of years ago but that AOW was a deal breaker. I
had a boat for many years and I was good with my cert and dived from boat a lot. Just got myself another so I'm go to go again! Compare diving to driving huh? Be careful, a drivers license is a legal mandate, is that what you want for diving? Probably, on second thought. Probably like to see someone dragged away in handcuffs for diving 70' with a 60' cert. What a joke.

 

[fjpatrum]

Yeah, lots of folks feel they are above being held to standards. Quite an entitled group us divers.

I'm not sure what "standards" to which you feel anyone is asking not to be held. You've quoted at least one person whose original certification was to 130 feet (if my research is correct) as being not willing to meet standards or "too cheap to get a class" or some other nonsense. The "standard" you keep referring to is a "Recommendation" in my OW book, and every other OW course material I've read (NAUI, and PADI) or heard about (all others).

The "standard" is, and always has been, don't dive beyond your training and capability. There is no requirement that said training only come through formal class.

There is no "entitlement" issue going on here. Merely a request (reasonable one from my perspective) that we, the divers, decide what we are capable of diving if we provide reasonable proof that we have sufficient experience to do so.

 

[AfterDark]

40 years ago we lacked the infrastructure, training material and empirical evidence we so readily have today.[QUOTE/]

You also lacked dive computers and people had to learn tables. Those tables had deco stops. There were no octos so you had to learn buddy breathing, and all the tanks were steel. In a lot of ways, the training was more comprehensive than it is today.

We lacked BCDs w/ auto inflators also. l remember orally inflating a short grey UTD vest @150FSW because I was sick of crawling on the bottom, then venting it on the way up. Think that does take a little practice to do while you're narc'd try it sometime, I'll provide the UTD vest. Octo lets see my 1st octo was...2010 that's right because the people I started diving with had never been trained to buddy breath, all they know is the octo, limited these new divers are.

 

[dadediver]

I found this:

THE U.S. COAST GUARD​

The U.S. Coast Guard is authorized to enforce, or assist in the enforcement of, all U.S. Federal laws applicable on, over, and under the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. These include laws which provide for the U.S. Coast Guard to exclusively act, and those which the Coast Guard enforces primarily for some other Federal agency. Generally, the Coast Guard must determine on a case-by-case basis whether it has jurisdiction. Besides determining whether it has the domestic authority to assert jurisdiction, it often must also determine whether an assertion of jurisdiction is consistent with international law. In many cases involving a foreign vessel, the Coast Guard decides whether it has jurisdiction over the vessel and its personnel based on three elements: the activities of the vessel and personnel, the location of the vessel, and the nationality of the vessel.
Two notes are warranted here. The first relates to the phrase "waters subject to United States jurisdiction." This phrase encompasses more than United States territorial waters; it also extends to those waters where the United States, pursuant to an agreement with a foreign government, has been authorized to take law enforcement action involving United States or foreign vessels. Such waters could, and in actual practice do, include foreign territorial waters.
The second point is that the Coast Guard may go aboard any United States vessel at any time, anywhere to conduct a documentation and safety inspection. A search of a U.S. vessel beyond this type of inspection is subject to limitations under the United States Constitution. If a search extends beyond this narrowly defined scope, a court may be asked to evaluate the legality of the search by balancing the individual’s right to privacy in the specific circumstances of the search against society’s interest in detecting criminal conduct.

Exactly. Probable cause and/or mutual agreement with foreign countires that do not have the resources to do drug interdiction.