Should OW certified divers be taken into a deep wreck? Overhead? Thread split

[Wookie]

In the previous thread to which I alluded earlier, no one was able to find anything like that in the PADI materials. That is interesting.

It is also quite vague, because it does not identify with any specificity what training is needed. What training is needed to qualify a diver to swim under an anchor chain? There is a hotel in Cozumel that has an arch on the coral wall where people snorkel. The who area is about 12 feet deep., and the arch is at a depth of about 5 feet. Untrained snorkelers frequently swim through that arch. How much training would a scuba diver need to qualify for that?

This seems odd. I know PADI OW is 18m (60ft) and BSAC Ocean Diver is 20m (66ft). Does the USA mandate 39m (130ft) depth limits for all OW courses taught in the country, over-riding original depth limitations?

Both the article in the older OW manuals and the 60 foot depth limit are examples of PADI being vague. In the article, A deceptively easy way to die, The author says basically don't go into an overhead without further training or experience. The Open Water Manual also tells you not to exceed your training depth limits until you have additional training or experience. Training depth limits for OW dives 4&5 are 60 feet, which many divers take to be some sort of imposed depth limit on the world as never dive below 60 feet as an OW diver.

This question was specifically raised to my insurance company, because my training agency (not PADI) would not mount a defense if I got sued, the depth limit (hard limit for holding an OW certification card) is 130 feet. So we have a disconnect. I know of divers with no other cards than Nitrox and OW who never needed another card to do the dives they wanted. They have thousands of dives, they dive doubles or single with bailout/pony, they dive in the lake and in the ocean and in the Texas mudholes. They can't prove their training, but I can see that they have the experience.

How do they get this experience? Well, they may have training, they may have had a mentor take them through how to do things, they may have been led on dives by a divemaster with appropriate dive briefings, or they may be smarter than the average bear, a bit lucky, and have been able to stay on the correct side of Darwin on their own.

I don't think it's a stretch to come to understand that some things can be learned without taking a course. I have many hundreds of drysuit dives and no formal training (and I've never shot to the surface feet first in an uncontrolled ascent, not once), I have scootered through any number of batteries, and I have repaired many hundreds of regulators. I don't have a PADI card for any one of them, although I do have manufacturers certificates for the regulators.

But all this talk about depth is a moot point. At this time, the only thing we know about the victim is that he was a part of a loose team, with a guide (no mention of the guides qualifications) and another diver (who does not describe himself as a buddy) who is OW certified, and not extremely experienced, and another diver. The victim may have been a super whammydyne chest thumping he-man tech diver. We know nothing about the composition of the rest of the team except for the witness who came here to tell us.

 

[Pinecube]

In the previous thread to which I alluded earlier, no one was able to find anything like that in the PADI materials. That is interesting.

I also found it in my PADI OW manual. However it was about half a page in the "Dive Environments and Conditions" section under the heading "Overhead Environments". Without posting the entire couple of paragraphs on it, they stress that even if it looks safe, there may be hazards you are not aware of until it's too late. The wording they use is "If you can't swim directly up to the surface, you're in a special situation". They don't say exactly what training you need, but I notice that they seem to have a specialty certification for every type of overhead they mention in that section "wreak, cavern, ice, etc...".

The Open Water Manual also tells you not to exceed your training depth limits until you have additional training or experience. Training depth limits for OW dives 4&5 are 60 feet, which many divers take to be some sort of imposed depth limit on the world as never dive below 60 feet as an OW diver.

In my manual it says "As a new PADI Open Water Diver, you're qualified to a maximum of 18 meters/60 feet." and on my exam, although I don't remember the exact wording, I'm certain that there was a question that reinforced the fact that we were only certified to 18m/60'.



I was certified less than a year ago, so maybe I just have a newer book? (Rev 08/13, Version 3) At least they seem to be making some of these issues clearer.

 

[Wookie]

In my manual it says "As a new PADI Open Water Diver, you're qualified to a maximum of 18 meters/60 feet." and on my exam, although I don't remember the exact wording, I'm certain that there was a question that reinforced the fact that we were only certified to 18m/60'.

In this paragraph you use qualified and certified interchangeably. The words do not mean the same thing. I would accept your quote as truth. An Open Water diver straight out of class is qualified to 60 feet. They are, however, certified to 130.

I don't want to beat this to death, because Bowl of Petunias is doing her best to keep this on topic, so if you don't believe me, try the PADI website here where it says "

With the necessary training and experience, the limit for recreational scuba diving is 40 metres/130 feet. Beginning scuba divers stay shallower than about 18 metres/60 feet. Although these are the limits, some of the most popular diving is shallower than 12 metres/40 feet, where the water’s warmer and the colors are brighter

."

 

[Akimbo]

Good point.

In this paragraph you use qualified and certified interchangeably. The words do not mean the same thing. I would accept your quote as truth. An Open Water diver straight out of class is qualified to 60 feet. They are, however, certified to 130…

Some certified OW divers are qualified to dive to 130' and even far deeper. Unfortunately there are others that shouldn’t be allowed to dive outside of a shallow swimming pool, which I think qualifies as being unqualified. Yet they are still certified to 13-20x that depth in open sea.

 

[MMM]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

This thread was split off from a discussion in the Accidents and Incidents forum. The discussion MAY be somewhat disjointed for that reason. While an interesting and useful discussion, it is not analyzing the reason behind the diver who went missing but rather, is talking about someone else on the dive other than the victim and training programs. For that reason it has been split off and moved to a more appropriate forum. The original thread about the accident may be found here:http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ac.../498589-diver-missing-vandenberg-florida.html Marg, SB Senior Moderator

---

 

[Basking Ridge Diver]

Put this another way - On the Tables themselves it may seem self evident to me - But there is no mention of advanced certification needed to use these tables. OW Certification is all that is needed to read and use these tables.

PADI Tables - "The Recreational Dive Planner is designed specifically for planning recreational (no decompression) dives on air only. Do not attempt to use it for planning decompression dives."
NAUI Tables - "Warning - Even Strict Compliance with these tables will not guarantee avoidance of decompression sickness. Conservative usage is strongly recommended."

Someone can of course say that it is only implied that these are for advanced divers (130 foot) but that would set these Agencies up for a lawsuit if these tables are not meant for OW Certifications and they sell them to anyone that buys them on the internet or at the shops and it is not explicitly stated these are for advanced divers and there is no check like Nitrox for certifications...

 

[Lorenzoid]

Back to the "swim-through" versus "penetration" issue, part of the difficulty is defining these terms and having all members of a buddy team agree on the definitions and follow through accordingly on the dive. A long time ago I was buddied up with some insta-buddy, and the dive briefing admonished us not to penetrate the wreck. Fine--I'm one of those divers who could have sworn my OW instructor taught me to stay out of wrecks, period. On the dive, I see my buddy getting ahead of me and entering the wreck. I was surprised, since I had thought we agreed not to do that. I opted to go around/over the wheelhouse (or whatever it was) and attempt to meet him on the other side. Back on the surface, his reply to my questioning was, "That was a swim-through, not a penetration." I have no objection to doing swim-throughs if I know enough detail about them in advance, make a decision in advance based on that information, and my buddy and I are in agreement with the decision and information on which it's based. But it seems to me there are situations in which divers don't know enough beforehand about what to expect and are not on the same wavelength as their buddy. Based on experiences like this, I don't feel comfortable doing swim-throughs with a DM-led group. I can just envision reaching the entrance with the group, and based on what I see, determining that it's more like a penetration than a swim-through to me, and staying behind while the group enters. Or it may not be me who stays behind but rather someone else in the group. In either case, I don't want to be part of that kind of group. These days, I dive only with a trusted buddy (my wife), and we know what to ask the DM about potential swim-throughs and to tell him that we may want to opt to go around/over once we see the supposed swim-through. In any event, we stick together like glue.

 

[AdivingBel]

These days, I dive only with a trusted buddy (my wife), and we know what to ask the DM about potential swim-throughs and to tell him that we may want to opt to go around/over once we see the supposed swim-through. In any event, we stick together like glue.

My wife and I enjoy swim-throughs and we handle them exactly the same way. When the DM does the dive brief pre-dive and swim-throughs come up, if the DM doesn't offer alternate path info, we ask. If either of us don't like the looks of the situation when we get there, we opt together for the alternate path. It's worked for us.

 

[Lorenzoid]

My wife and I enjoy swim-throughs and we handle them exactly the same way. When the DM does the dive brief pre-dive and swim-throughs come up, if the DM doesn't offer alternate path info, we ask. If either of us don't like the looks of the situation when we get there, we opt together for the alternate path. It's worked for us.

This whole discussion has been timely, as we're leaving for Cozumel in a few days. We've finally figured out to say to the DM if the DM doesn't bring up the topic:

- Are there any swim-throughs on this dive?
- We avoid swim-throughs where we can't see the exit from the entrance or where it's too narrow for two people side by side.
- If we arrive at a swim-through and don't feel comfortable, will we be able to go over or around it?

The second item seems superfluous, since it's my very definition of a swim-through. But it's not everyone's definition. My definition excludes us from quite a few in Cozumel, and that's just fine with us. We really don't get a kick out of swim throughs, as we're much more interested in the marine life. Now, a wide-open wheelhouse at a modest 60' with a goliath grouper in it--that's more like it.

 

[Storker]

We really don't get a kick out of swim throughs, as we're much more interested in the marine life.

This is something that's had me puzzled since my dive vacation in Italy a couple years ago. Apparently, some people - guides? - consider swim-throughs to be da sh!ite. Our guide seemed to believe that we would get some kind of kick out of swimming through a small, kind of narrow, stone arch. Meh. I've later talked to other divers who see the same thing: tourists seem to be taken through swim-throughs as some kind of thing that their clients would get something out of.

Being quite aware that I don't know what I don't know, I've decided that I. don't. enter. overheads. Period. Be they hard or virtual, stone, ice or steel. I guess the Blood Grotto fatalities in Palinuro had something to do with that decision. That time in Italy, our guide seemed kind of miffed when we declined a cave (or was it cavern? Don't know, don't care) dive where the entrance was at ~40m, there was no line, and there was less than one light per diver. I guess she was miffed was because they had to allocate another guide to us, to take us on a true open water dive while the other customers entered the cave (cavern?).

I really don't need swim-throughs. The mere thought of having solid rock over my head instead of open water makes my hair stand up, even inside my 10mm winter hood. OTOH, give me a deep wall to swim alongside, or some really cool and/or colorful critters to watch, and I'm happy I guess it's the old saying of diff'rent folks, diff'rent strokes. So I'll continue to be the difficult customer and refuse any kind of overhead environment when I'm diving. Not my problem, I'm the customer :cool2: