Something's not right...

[Wijbrandus]

Well, maybe if Jezebel or Delilah were leading it...but that's a whole other motivational line.

I wouldn't be following then either. My wife would slice my hoses first. :11:

 

[cdiver2]

I wouldn't be following then either. My wife would slice my hoses first. :11:

But don't take it to hard I,m in the same boat, besides I don't want to lose her just got her broke in and trained . And if she sees this I,m dead

 

[scubadoguk]

But don't take it to hard I,m in the same boat, besides I don't want to lose her just got her broke in and trained . And if she sees this I,m dead

As a ex pat I resemble that remark, I wear the trousers she lets me

 

[dweeb]

Some interesting replies here, thanks guys.

You can teach theory till you are blue in the face and four dives doesn't make a diver. Diving is all about gaining experience. You learn something on every dive and divers have to get out there to experience diving to become a diver.

What i was trying to get at was that newly qualified divers shouldn't be diving at depth until they have the experience to do so. Doing four "led" dives on an open water course doesn't mean that you can dive to 25m (80ft) and know how to deal with any and all of the problems that you face down there.

Depends.... I've seen 1 weekend wonders on their OW cert dives who are still figuring out how to assemble their equipment, and I've seen other people, with instructors who don't buy the "less is more" training mantra, for whom the last two OW cert dives were just a formality.

There are individuals who could read a textbook, spend an afternoon in the pool going over stuff, and be ready to go, and others who could spend years taking courses and still never be truly qualified to dive anywhere but their bathtub.
The real issue is why the presence of someone holding credentials, which most divers know nothing about the process of obtaining, would make the latter group suddenly think they can do what the former group can.

 

[cdiver2]

As a ex pat I resemble that remark, I wear the trousers she lets me

I have a different model but it works just the same as yours.
Sorry for the hijack carry on

 

[diverbrian]

Read carefully, JBD has dove with me on a trip where Lake Huron was about as bad as any ocean that I have been on. By the way, there wasn't much natural light that day and the currents were ripping as well.

You weren't certified to 60'. If you were OW certified, the maximum recommended depth you dive is 60' per some agencies. Thats recommended, nothing absolute about it. Most agencies i'm aware of also recommend you dive only in conditions you are familiar with and/or were trained in.

I can't tell you the number of caribbean certified divers i've seen come to our cold, low vis waters and freak at 15 feet on their first dive here.

Its common sense people. Don't dive to depths or in conditions you are not comfortable with. Get some training and/or experience to get comfortable with the desired depths and/or conditions you want to dive in.

Oh, and for the Andy and the others... Wiser words have never been spoken!

Oh & don't feed the dweeb.

 

[dweeb]

now, here's the problem.... if you define "open water" as simply a dive that takes place in an ocean or a lake, then you are defining cave diving and wreck diving as "open water" dives.

And correctly so. Those categories of dives are specialized subsets of open water dives.

clearly, an open water certificate (which
allows you to dive in ocean or lakes) does not qualify you
to dive in wrecks (in the ocean or lakes) or caves (in lakes or springs).

I have a motorcycle. It legally defined by the state as a motor vehicle.

My brother has a motor vehicle operators' license from the state.

My brother may not legally operate my motorcycle on public roads.

I have a motor vehicle operators' license from the state.
It does not permit me to drive an 18 wheeler, even though the 18 wheeler is legally a motor vehicle

Get it?

thus, i must conclude that "open water" does not encompass all the diving that could possibly be done in oceans and lakes, and some further limitations need be made to the definition.

Your mistake is this - "open water" encompasses all non-confined-water environments. However, an "open water DIVER CERTIFICATION" does not qualify one for ALL open water environments. It's name implies that the ability to dive unsupervised in open water, AS OPPOSED to CONFINED WATER, is what distinguishes it from lower certs. The name of each certification denotes the INCREMENTAL difference from the certs below it. A wreck penetration at midnight is a night dive, but a night diving card, by itself, does not qualify one to penetrate wrecks at night. A cave dive to a depth of 200fsw is a deep dive, but a deep or deco card does not qualify one to cave dive just because the cave is deep.
By your reasoning, a drysuit cert would qualify me to dive anytime, anywhere, as long as I dove dry, because, as long as I'm wearing my Viking, there's no way you can say it's not a drysuit dive. Clearly, the fact that a dive can be accurately (albeit not exhaustively) described as a drysuit dive does NOT imply that any holder of a drysuit certification is qualified for the dive. Similarly, the fact that a dive can be accurately (albeit not exhaustively) described as an open water dive does not imply that any holder of an open water certification is qualified for the dive.
Note further, that, by almost ALL agency standards, someone holding ONLY an OW cert. is not qualified for a NON-OVERHEAD, NO-DECOMPRESSION dive to 110 fsw. The fact that most agencies and sane divers see additional training/experience beyond the mere awarding of an OW card doesn't remove this dive from the open water category, **EVEN UNDER YOUR INCORRECT DEFINITION**

Let's have some fun here. How many examples can people come up with, of dives which have constant unencumbered access to the surface, for which an OW cert CLEARLY does not imply qualification. I'll start the list off:

-night dives
-dives beyond 100fsw, but within NDL's (on some tables you can bounce to 150 or more without a deco obligation.)

 

[dweeb]

Could you give a link to where these standards are please? I have just downloaded the Open Water standards from the RSTC and I can find no mention of overhead. There is a mention of compulsory deco - it's specifically not allowed.
Actually - posting something like this seems fairly dangerous to me. Are you actually trying to tell OW divers that it's OK to go into caves and wrecks? Someone could easily get in big trouble if they believe this.
People - PLEASE don't go into overhead situations without proper training - it can be very dangerous.

Let me clarify. RSTC standards prohibit anyone lacking an OW cert from entering an overhead environment. On the issue of what OW cert holders may do, they are, to my knowledge, silent.

When I learned to dive, PADI did not even prohibit this. Students doing their OW cert. dives could enter overheads, mostly because the standards were silent on the issue.
Conceivably, since they allow a "discover" dive for almost any other advanced specialty during OW training dives (e.g. nitrox) it's not unthinkable that they could allow a "discover overheads" - remember, passing under a suspended 4'x 8' sheet of plywood, open on all sides, 10 feet below the surface constitutes a currently prohibited for trainees overhead.

 

[H2Andy]

I have a motorcycle. It legally defined by the state as a motor vehicle.

My brother has a motor vehicle operators' license from the state.

My brother may not legally operate my motorcycle on public roads.

I have a motor vehicle operators' license from the state.
It does not permit me to drive an 18 wheeler, even though the 18 wheeler is legally a motor vehicle

ok, you're confusing me now... is the motorcycle
equiped with some sort of underwater propulsion? then,
it would be a DPV, right? i don't think you need licenses
for those.

as for an 18-wheeler, you could make them amphibious,
but i don't think the Coast Guard regulates their operation.

so, if you had a Coast Guard captains liscence, you COULD
operate a motorcycle underwater, but i've never heard
of anyone driving a DPV having to be licensened, have you?

also, don't forget that in some states it is legal to drive
a motorcycle with just a regular driver's license, but not
an 18-wheeler (this is whether you're above or below the
water), and sometimes vice-versa, though not always so.

 

[dweeb]

ok, you're confusing me now... is the motorcycle
equiped with some sort of underwater propulsion? then,
it would be a DPV, right? i don't think you need licenses
for those.

as for an 18-wheeler, you could make them amphibious,
but i don't think the Coast Guard regulates their operation.

so, if you had a Coast Guard captains liscence, you COULD
operate a motorcycle underwater, but i've never heard
of anyone driving a DPV having to be licensened, have you?

also, don't forget that in some states it is legal to drive
a motorcycle with just a regular driver's license, but not
an 18-wheeler (this is whether you're above or below the
water), and sometimes vice-versa, though not always so.

Is analogy truly lost on you?

Yet another data point in the case that law schools badly need to start requiring coursework in logic.