As a new (26 Dec 2008) OW Diver with 15 Dives, I appreciate the value of this discussion.
Whilst my response(s) below are off topic, they are in response to some of the content of the discussion.
Regarding the Agency Training and more specifically the alleged "missing" training from/by some agencies, I can say that our Instructor Wilco Both (PADI) taught us most of what is being spoken of above and certainly more than appears to be the norm around the world for OW. It was made very clear from the beginning that most/many calculations made regarding gas(es) and the properties of gas(es) involved proportional and/or inverse proportional rules. This applied to numerous aspects including consumption. These were not explained at a very complicated level and I am sure my 10 and 11 y/o children would be able to grasp the concept with relative ease. They were however explained in such a way that it was pretty obvious that they needed serious consideration and that the results could severely impact on duration and effect relative to depth. I accept that we may have been fortunate, and that other students may not have been exposed to the same quality of Instruction. I also accept that with my Wife and I both being from Safety Critical environments (Air Traffic Control and Medicine) he may have pitched the training at a slightly elevated level (assumption on my behalf). It is unfortunate that there is such an apparent disparity in the level of training within some (various?) agencies. As a result my Wife/Buddy and I plan to proceed to our Rescue Diver level within PADI and then cross train to another agency as a means of "broadening" our exposure to the various techniques and demands made at/by other agencies. I must add that there is much valuable information available to the general public through books, periodicals and the internet, that any person who strives to "know more" is not without a massive amount of information - the only downside to that is that some knowledge without perspective can be a dangerous thing.
Regarding the use of computers, we were fortunate enough to have the financial means to not have too many restrictions in place (within reason) and could afford UWATEC Galileo SOl computers for both my Wife and I. Now I can already hear many of the seasoned divers baulking at us for relying on technology (I understand that) however, we have as far as reasonable possible used the computer as a "confirmation" of our knowledge of the tables and other critical information. We have "agreed" that we will comply with computer warnings (that we preset; max depth, min gas, RBT - 3 min and so forth) and recommendations that it prescribes (safety stops, pdis stops and so on). Our common understanding is that these user warning level settings have been considered, discussed, agreed and set by us whilst sober, on the surface and with sound mind, we can re-evaluate them on the surface if (based on experience) they seem too restrictive. The problem with SCUBA is that it is restrictive by it's nature and accepting that as a basic principal and truth is the first step in understanding the safe limits. So for us, the computer is a tool that we use when all is going well and normal, if there is any failure of our primary equipment or we encounter any other "problem", we accept that the dive is over and we ascend in the safest possible manner considering the nature of the issue we have encountered. The problem is not the computer the problem is (not) knowing it's place in your procedures.
Question:
I have never thought about the unlikely event of being faced with the possibility of an Non-Metric Insta-buddy. My initial thoughts are that that might give rise to enough "concern" that I may call off my dive. Any thoughts on this ?
While I may have life experience, I am a fledgling underwater, all constructive criticism will be considered.
Best Regards
Richard (Riger)
