PADI's dive depth standards - Vague?

[Steve R]

Why have one? Theres no clear defined line between recreational and technical.

You arent perfectly safe at 129ft on a single tank but suddenly need a twinset and deco training to get to 131ft.

Its a daft limit devised by someone in an office who doesn't actually dive.

Just stick a depth limit on qualifications and be done with it.
Thats how it works here with most UK based agencies. Theres no cutoff depth where it ceases to become recreational. You just dive to your certification and if you want deeper, work towards another one.

It's merely a suggestion for sport divers, and as you say unenforceable by law, which is why I wondered why you took exception to it.

Getting back to Padi standards as per the OP, what I find rediculous is that they even allow for the possibility for the first week old diver to be sitting at 100ft when their dive count numbers less than a dozen, with an instructor that may as well, be doing this dive beyond 60ft as their second in their life, and has really never had to show how to properly execute or plan a dive like this. It ain't rocket science, but this is true just the same.

Now that my friend is a "lunatic group", and certainly "devised by someone in an office who doesn't actually dive".

Given that your average sport diver does less than 20 dives a year and is more than likely down there in a single 80 or 100, I find it crazy that anyone thinks it's wise or safe to go anywhere near 100ft with someone like that.

I mean, it works most of the time simply because the gear doesn't break down too often, and it's a standard no-hassel dive, but boy oh boy,the odds of a successful outcome once the first thing goes wrong isn't too pretty. Seen that happen more than once or a hundred times.

 

[letterboy]

This sounds like a job for the SCUBA police.

Seriously. What's the big deal. My first OW dive (post cert) was to almost 70 FSW. I will say I was PADI certified, and I was with my instructor. And the big deal is?

You could have died!!!!!

OMG Why would you do this??

Very dangerous if you ask me. . . You probably even dive with split fins. . .

 

[DawgDiver]

Same criticisms pointed at PADI can also be noted for SSI.

PADI has "pseudo-diver" course, so does SSI.

Well I'm not defending SSI here either... I didn't know they had a similar course. In my mind, thats stupid too.

There's no reasoning behind the time constraints, most OW courses can be taken in one weekend now. So there's really no reason for a "half-way" certified status.

 

[HowardE]

So there's really no reason for a "half-way" certified status.

Isn't there? Think about it... seriously.

 

[shellim123]

What if you are altitude diving?

 

[khacken]

Yeah, I'm not paying for a dive trip to paradise and have some insurance idiot waste my money.

Stan

Oh, and I forgot, they will not let you dive the day of your arrival. If you ask, they will treat you like you are unsafe and should of course know that you should never dive the day of your arrival. The second day, you must make your orientation dive in the shallows. That is at 10am. So that means you miss the morning boats dives. So, diving in the Maldives means you fly for two days from the US, then wait a day and a half to do real diving.

 

[Karibelle]

Nope...It is the "suggested" maximum depth. The premise is based on a diver at 132 feet is under a ppO2 of 1.4 ata O2. At this depth it isn't "impossible" to suffer an ox tox hit. It isn't likely but based on Dalton's Law you are breathing the equivalent of 100% O2 at the surface. Is it likely you will suffer an ox tox hit at 132'...no...but again, it isn't impossible and that's why PADI "suggests" 130. Above 132' you can't suffer an ox tox hit on air. Many divers have pushed it to 1.6...218'...and beyond and not suffered an oxygen toxicity hit...but theses guys are not recreational divers either.

It's my understanding that the "recreational depth limit" of 130' is determined by the probability of nitrogen narcosis, not oxygen toxicity. ??

kari

 

[Teamcasa]

Originally Posted by howarde
Seriously. What's the big deal. My first OW dive (post cert) was to almost 70 FSW. I will say I was PADI certified, and I was with my instructor. And the big deal is?

You could have died!!!!!

OMG Why would you do this??

Very dangerous if you ask me. . . You probably even dive with split fins. . .

I really hope are kidding!

Dave

 

[JeffG]

I really hope are kidding!

Dave

Split fins will get you every time.

 

[rawls]

Its a daft limit devised by someone in an office who doesn't actually dive.

I don't believe that it was one person..."someone" who came up with these suggestions. Research has been going on for over 100 years now. "Why have them at all"...Again they are sugested limits.

There's no reasoning behind the time constraints, most OW courses can be taken in one weekend now. So there's really no reason for a "half-way" certified status.

PADI developed this course with people who did not dive frequently. For example, people who go on vacations once a year. Some of these people simply want to dive while on these vacations but have no interest in pursuing it further. These people have no problems diving with a divemaster as is required. It was also PADI's hope that these divers would ultimately pursue an open water cert.

It's my understanding that the "recreational depth limit" of 130' is determined by the probability of nitrogen narcosis, not oxygen toxicity. ??

Karribelle...99 ft is the point that it is "possible" based on the percentage of N2 in the body...46.4 psiN2...How it was derived that nitrogen narcosis "could" occur at 99 feet, I have no idea. At 132 feet you are breathing the eqivalent of almost 100% O2 at the surface and that again "could" cause an ox tox hit diving air. You cannot get oxygen toxicity using air at less than 132, so they backed it up a couple of feet and used that as the suggested limit. jbd, thankfully. corrected my math in that I had worked 14 hrs yesterday and stated 132 is 1.4 ata ppO2 which was incorrect. It is 1.0 ata ppO2. But it still remains that at 132 ft there is a "possibility" that you could suffer an tox hit.
As far as nitrogen narcosis' it is extremely rare that one would get narc'd at 99 ft but it is "possible" at that depth.

I again thank you jbd for your clarrification in that my mistake could have caused newer divers to make the same mistake using my incorrect info. If I'm incorrect...please continue to help out