Open Water Certifications – Cold vs Warm

[GrimSleeper]

My original post was intended to point out my personal opinion that it is both easier and safer to make the transition from cold to warm than the reverse. My comment suggesting separate certifications was probably a bit overboard.

Apologies if my initial response to you about making extra money came over as an attack - it was intended to be light-hearted.

Actually, I think DevonDiver nailed it. It comes down to the frequency with which you dive. I might do almost all my diving in 86F water, but I do a lot of it. Some of it's in low viz (or no viz if I'm sifting armpit-deep silt looking for artefacts inside a wreck), some of it involves going round a point and the current going from zero to howling instantly, most of it involves the close proximity of sometimes really quite big sharks. On the occasions I've dived in colder water (it doesn't happen often, but there are things that just refuse to come and visit my nice tropical bathtub), it took a dive to adjust to eight feet of neoprene, four tons of lead, and having to use what felt like somebody else's hands for everything, but after that it's just diving. Would the same be true for someone who does 10 tropical dives a year, rather than 300-400? Almost certainly not.

On the other hand, I've seen cold-water divers who appear to be used to spending their entire dive completely focussed on surviving the experience and the equipment, and they can become dangerously distracted by the clarity of the water, the density of the fish life, the size of some of the sharks, to the point where they're crashing around the reef, have no idea of their depth, gas pressure, deco status, or anything else. I've seen divers peering helplessly up at me as a down-current whips them over the edge of a drop-off and towards the abyss, making no effort to adjust their buoyancy or even swim up against it. And this has been happening while Open Water students are gliding effortlessly by, completely at home in the environment. But as a destination operation, rather than a local op, it can be hard to gauge whether they're divers who don't do much diving back home in cold water either, or do the same simple dive at home over and over again and mistake repetition for experience, or just aren't very good divers.

Going back to your original premise, given divers of equal experience and consistency of diving, I'd maybe agree that brand-new divers would need more mentoring to move from warm to cold than vice-versa, simply because there are extra equipment considerations and because cold water's just really, really unpleasant :blinking:, but as experience grows it really doesn't matter where you trained as long as you were properly trained.

 

[DevonDiver]

We don't do dive guides here ... so the expectation coming out of OW is that you'll be doing unsupervised dives that you plan and execute on your own. Even if you aren't initially trained any differently than the tropical diver, the demands imposed by not having a dive guide to do your planning and lead your dive for you tend to accelerate certain aspects of the learning curve.

I agree with your premise - that training for the expectation of 'unsupervised' post-course diving is likely to motivate an instructor to teach a more effective diver. Sadly, according to the description of the Open Water course 'product', that's what all instructors are meant to do... it doesn't happen though.

That said, I don't believe that this is attributable simply to cold water vs. warm water. We're talking about local/regional diving habits and trends - the breakdown of those is more complex than a simple cold/warm divide.

The 'low quality training' that you describe (training provided in the expectation of professional dive support) is not a 'warm-water' thing; but it can be a 'tourist destination' thing.... or a "dive center that primarily deals with high-volume tourists thing".

Local training (resident population), even in warm-water locales, tends to be more robust. Local divers, as opposed to tourists, tend to engage in more unsupervised diving - just as it is done in the USA.

I disagree that pointing out these differences has anything to do with snobbery.

I disagree with that also. However, labeling "better" or "worse" can easily become such. Those labels tend to appeal to less-enlightened divers as some form of personal vindication... and snobbery arises.

I think it's legitimate to say, however, that a tropical diver will have a more difficult time transitioning to a drysuit, heavy gloves, and 15 foot visibility than a cold water diver will have transitioning to a 3/2 wetsuit, no gloves, and 75 foot visibility ... all else being equal.

I agree. That's why I pointed out the relative difference in motor skills/dexterity demanded by different factors of exposure protection. What I denied, however, was that those motorskills were suitable as a sole or primary determination of total diving 'skill'.

In reality, we're talking primarily about equipment familiarity - an issue mostly determined by diving frequency. A 'good' diver, with ample experience, can transition from 3mm to 7mm easily enough. A 'bad' diver, with little experience, will struggle in any gear they are given.

As a hypothetical: Given two divers who are trained at the same time in wetsuits - one in cold-water (7mm suit) that dives very infrequently and, consequently has limited experience... and one in warm-water (3mm suit) that dives very frequently and has significantly more experience - which diver is likely to transition most efficiently and swiftly into drysuit use?

I'd suggest that the biggest determining factor would be the relative frequency of the diving - the skill and experience which that frequency allows to be obtained and retained.

It's also legitimate to point out that diving in a more harsh environment puts constraints on you that pretty much force you to improve your skills if you want to keep doing it.

I agree also. Did you ever dive a silty wreck in ripping currents, covered with stone-fish, during typhoon season in the tropics?

Water temperature is one factor of 'harshness'. There are many other factors. Those factors aren't exclusive to cold/temperate water environments. In many cases, they are equally...or more... prevalent in tropical conditions.

Not that you'd necessarily encounter them on your diving holiday.... but that's my point.... who goes on a diving holiday somewhere during typhoon season? What cattle-boat holiday-diver companies take customers to silty wrecks? Or ripping current sites? Only locally-based, frequent, divers do that... (or the really determined visitor).

Categorizing the recognition of those differences as "snobbery" is a disservice to people who expect to be diving in those different locales

I agree 100%.... and, of course, am not accusing you of doing that.

That said, there are plenty of 'stereotypes' attributed to warm-water diving that are not accurate. They tend to stem from those who visit warm-water locations only temporarily... as such, encountering a very narrow vision of what warm-water diving is about. In most cases, that narrow vision encompasses nothing more than the practices of mass-market scuba tourism... with all of the traits associated with that.

In that sense, it is correct (IMHO) to state that "Well motivated, locally-based, diving training is better than the training provided by the mass-market scuba tourism industry".

That statement is universal, regardless of location or water temperature.

People who only dive on vacation are 'infrequent' divers. Those people also tend to learn on vacation. A system creates itself where the quality of training evolves to meet the expectation/demand. Or does the training determine the diver attitude? A chicken or egg situation. What came first.... the infrequent diver, or the mass-market training that caters for the infrequent diver?

Either way... I'd suggest that this isn't a 'cold vs warm' issue, but rather... still... an issue based upon diver frequency, expectation and motivation.

Not all diving in the tropics is 'mass-market tourism'. Indeed, much isn't. Unless you live and dive frequently with the local dive community (i.e. you are not a mass-market tourist) then you may never encounter that or become involved in it.

Obviously, the N.E. USA coast or Great Lakes don't have a 'mass market scuba tourism'.... for which it should be eternally grateful

 

[TSandM]

it took a dive to adjust to eight feet of neoprene, four tons of lead, and having to use what felt like somebody else's hands for everything

I love it! Puget Sound diving in one sentence . . .

 

[Quero]

I think that it depends largely on the Instructor and the training program. In warm water, divers are often trained to minimum Standards. In cold water the training course can be a whole different beast (as a PADI Instructor cannot change the PADI training program regardless of the diving environment, they are the exception [see "When is a Skill Mastered"]). For the training program to adequately address the requirements of the cold water environment (which often includes low visibility, tidal flow, currents, waves and surf) what is required for certification can change as well. In other words, the diver is often expected to possess a higher degree of in-water ability and fitness to deal with the conditions.

This is a patently fallacious statement. PADI instructors are expected to adjust their training programs to take into account local environmental factors. To say that they are not permitted to do so is quite simply untrue, and I know that I have told you this myself, quoting relevant sections of PADI standards as proof.

I guess what I'm saying is that if someone gets certified in Canadian waters (for example), I have an understanding of what they usually go through to become certified. Having lived in Indonesia and other 'warm water' countries, I've observed that Student Divers generally have a much different training experience than in cold water countries.

PADI certification cards actually contain this information with a notation about where the training took place. Given that fact, there would seem to be no reason to add any sort of endorsement for cold water since any PADI diver who has trained in Canada will have exactly that information printed on the card.

Running a mile (no matter how many times you do it) is not the same as running a Marathon. The majority of people that can run a mile, can't run a Marathon. One Hundred Percent of Marathon runners can run a mile.

You are seriously comparing a new cold-water-trained open water diver to a marathoner and a warm-water-trained one to a jogger? Give me a break! That's just as bad as the ridiculous comparison of these same cold water newbies to drivers of one-ton crew cabs with five speed transmissions while warm-water newbies are equated to those who can only drive a little Hyundai automatic. Sheesh!

 

[elmer fudd]

I strongly suspect that local warm water divers do a lot more diving than local cold water divers. I personally try to get out diving every week, but unfortunately I often only make it out every other or every third week. If we had 86 degree water here instead of 46 degree water though, I'd probably be out swimming in it nearly every day and get out diving at least once a week.

Diving in cold water is way more of a PITA and that's something that limits most peoples number of dives.

 

[DCBC]

This is a patently fallacious statement. PADI instructors are expected to adjust their training programs to take into account local environmental factors. To say that they are not permitted to do so is quite simply untrue, and I know that I have told you this myself, quoting relevant sections of PADI standards as proof.

Are you suggesting that you can change what is required for certification? Can you change the required in-water ability requirement, or add a test in tide charts, or any written test for that matter and make this a requirement for certification? To quote DevonDiver: "How is adding a training element not a deviation from the PADI Standards (as outlined in the Membership Agreement wording "I also will not deviate from the applicable standards when representing myself as a PADI Member")?

PADI has specific and unmovable Standards, which a PADI Instructor cannot deviate from (embellish, add, subtract or modify in anyway without a PADI exemption being obtained in-writing). Instructors from other Agencies have much more latitude. Why? Because one International Standard cannot be expected to provide the appropriate training necessary to prepare a Diver to dive in all local conditions. If the Standards were developed to address the worst conditions instead of the most ideal ones this would be another matter, but they're not.

...You are seriously comparing a new cold-water-trained open water diver to a marathoner and a warm-water-trained one to a jogger?

I've related this to the training standard (warm or cold water). "Regardless of warm or cold water, the higher the training standard, the higher the likelihood that the Students will be more competent than those requiring a lower standard." I stand by this statement. Moreover "My courses have been the same wherever I've taught, but the warm-water Diver has had a much easier road to hoe."

The PADI course is the same internationally. That's why I said that with the exception of PADI, what is required for certification will vary from Instructor-to-Instructor. Primarily this is to reflect the local diving conditions in-which the Student will be certified to dive. Generally speaking, I believe that a diver who is trained to dive in cold water, current, waves, surf and low visibility is trained more comprehensively than one who takes training in warm ideal conditions. Any Diver certification is contingent on the diving conditions present or better than that in-which the Diver was trained.

A diver trained to dive the western shore of Bonaire requires less comprehensive training than a Diver trained to dive the North Atlantic (for example). Assuming that both Divers are current in their skill, the North Atlantic Diver can dive in Bonaire, but the Bonaire Diver would likely perish in the North Atlantic without further training. So which is the best prepared diver? Who is the Marathon runner and who runs a mile?

Diving numerous times in ideal conditions to a shallow depth adds little to a Diver's diving ability. Being subjected to variations of current, waves, surf and low visibility does. Most diver certification bodies recognize this. The World Underwater Federation (CMAS), for example, requires that a Diver logs dives in various conditions before enrolling in advanced certification programs. These conditions are not usually found in "ideal vacation like conditions"...

 

[Simon-]

Once again, a general question turns into an agency bashing thread.

Well done.........

 

[DCBC]

Once again, a general question turns into an agency bashing thread.

Well done......... Dicks

Quoting the written Policy of an Agency is not "Agency Bashing." It never ceases to amaze me that some people can't seem to comprehend such a simple concept.

 

[Simon-]

It is amazing that people can't read an OP. Was there an agency mentioned?

Still, never let a thread get in the way of having a pop at PADI

 

[Quero]

Sigh. We've been through this over and over and over. Don't you recall? Selective memory?

Are you suggesting that you can change what is required for certification? Can you change the required in-water ability requirement, or add a test in tide charts, or any written test for that matter and make this a requirement for certification? To quote DevonDiver: "How is adding a training element not a deviation from the PADI Standards (as outlined in the Membership Agreement wording "I also will not deviate from the applicable standards when representing myself as a PADI Member")?

PADI has specific and unmovable Standards, which a PADI Instructor cannot deviate from (embellish, add, subtract or modify in anyway without a PADI exemption being obtained in-writing). Instructors from other Agencies have much more latitude. Why? Because one International Standard cannot be expected to provide the appropriate training necessary to prepare a Diver to dive in all local conditions. If the Standards were developed to address the worst conditions instead of the most ideal ones this would be another matter, but they're not.

The point is that standards specifically state that instructors must account for local conditions in their courses. Embellishing and adding information (for e.g. tide tables when local conditions warrant) is entirely within the scope of the standards. I have quoted the relevant, published standards to you in the past. You clearly are incapable of seeing beyond your fossilized bias.

The PADI course is the same internationally. That's why I said that with the exception of PADI, what is required for certification will vary from Instructor-to-Instructor. Primarily this is to reflect the local diving conditions in-which the Student will be certified to dive.

Again, this is false. The analogy that is given to PADI instructors is that the standards are the skeleton and that we instructors flesh it out to develop the course. In an earlier thread, boulderjohn quoted text written by Drew Richardson himself making it clear that every course will be unique because each set of teaching circumstances is unique. Variables include the instructor and what s/he believes is critical information, the student and his/her learning style, the local environment, the class schedule, and so on.

Each time you try to inject these falsehoods into threads in Basic Scuba I wonder why any of us even go to the trouble to set the record straight. And then I remember that there may be new readers here who are unfamiliar with your long history of tirades against PADI and who might be poisoned by your venom unless somebody else offers an alternative viewpoint.

---------- Post added June 13th, 2013 at 07:23 PM ----------

Quoting the written Policy of an Agency is not "Agency Bashing." It never ceases to amaze me that some people can't seem to comprehend such a simple concept.

Deliberately spreading falsehoods in relation to an agency with the intent of disparaging it certainly is agency bashing. And that's exactly what you've done.