Was this a terrible idea, or merely a bad idea?

[Kevrumbo]

Well . . .assuming an average depth of 30 meters for 10 minutes (Minimum Deco Limit or NDL is conservatively 20 minutes); and a Surface Consumption Rate of 22 liters/min on an AL80/11liters per bar cylinder, with a full fill of 200bar: 10 minutes bottom time at a depth of 4ATA (30 meters) consumes 80 bar of air with 120bar remaining as indicated by SPG. 100 bar remaining (half tank) is a good Rock Bottom/Minimum Gas Reserve for two novice divers in an air-sharing emergency contingency from 30 meters to make it to the surface with a Safety Stop or 1 minute Minimum Deco Stops starting at 15 meters.

 

[Lorenzoid]

. . .
On the other hand, you probably got to Roatan by commercial flight. A 'trust me' flight. You got in a giant metal tube, let a stranger take you up thousands of feet & blast you through the sky in a device you likely lacked the knowledge to operate and probably without a parachute in case things really went south.

My point is, most of us periodically knowingly consent to a variety of 'trust me' experience, where we place ourselves to some extent in the hands of those we believe are able to provide an acceptable degree of risk control for a desired service. When, why, what and under what circumstances one chooses to do so is a personal decision.

Richard.

To me, this can be interpreted as an argument in mitigation of trust-me dives, and in that sense seems like a red herring. Professionals in whom people are expected to place trust that the professionals will help and not hurt them are typically vetted by a government authority. Pilots, doctors, lawyers, etc. Generally, I am all for minimizing government's reach, but maybe licensing such professionals is one area where there is no better option. The fact that a dive instructor has satisfied his training agency's criteria for membership may not be sufficient for a diver to place trust in the instructor. I know what you mean, of course: it's a matter of degree. The bar to become an instructor is low relative to the bar to become a licensed pilot, doctor, etc., presumably because the risk of harm under the instructor's care is lower.

 

[billt4sf]

To me, this can be interpreted as an argument in mitigation of trust-me dives, and in that sense seems like a red herring. Professionals in whom people are expected to place trust that the professionals will help and not hurt them are typically vetted by a government authority. Pilots, doctors, lawyers, etc. Generally, I am all for minimizing government's reach, but maybe licensing such professionals is one area where there is no better option. The fact that a dive instructor has satisfied his training agency's criteria for membership may not be sufficient for a diver to place trust in the instructor. I know what you mean, of course: it's a matter of degree. The bar to become an instructor is low relative to the bar to become a licensed pilot, doctor, etc., presumably because the risk of harm under the instructor's care is lower.

I can think of several areas where I'd like to see government involvement, but there just isn't a large enough popularity in the sport, I guess it's just a quesiton of lack of popularity numbers.

- Bill

 

[The Chairman]

They made sure we understood the symptoms of narcosis

What's the symptom for being stupid? Narcosis is the process of becoming stupid and stupid people are too stupid to know that they are stupid. It's a classic catch 22.

 

[Ongrade]

Below is a direct quote from the PADI Instructor Manual:

"In preparation for the dive and before beginning open water dive skills, assess the diver’s skills and comfort level inwater and generally assess dive knowledge. If the diver exhibits lack of dive readiness, remediate before training progresses.

Recent dive experience with the diver is acceptable as a screen if you are confident in the diver’s current knowledge level, inwater skills and comfort.

If you do not have recent dive experience with the diver, in preparation for the dive, generally assess diver knowledge, and, before going to depth in open water, evaluate the diver inwater for prerequisite skills needed to complete the Deep Dive."

What John said earlier is correct. The OPs training is from SSI, not PADI. If this was a PADI Instructor, he would have been in violation of standards and could be expelled.

While a dive to that wreck may be generally known as an easy dive as other have posted, I don't think any of us would want our family member who has just completed the Open Water course to:

- dive to 110 feet, and

- be under the care of a Pro who may not know the student's diving skill (not pertaining to this case specifically).

Except all of you who keep saying the instructor violated standards by making this dive the first dive didn't thoroughly read the OP. They did their open water with this shop, therefore as stated above in the PADI manual, the instructor had a working knowledge of their abilities.

 

[perry64]

What's the symptom for being stupid? Narcosis is the process of becoming stupid and stupid people are too stupid to know that they are stupid. It's a classic catch 22.

Even been proven by scientific studies - the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Steve_C]

What's the symptom for being stupid? Narcosis is the process of becoming stupid and stupid people are too stupid to know that they are stupid. It's a classic catch 22.

Cute

But not completely accurate. You are not really stupic, but more dulled. Among the affects of Narcosis is slowed thinking. At 100 ft I am aware that it takes a bit more focus on my part. Just like you can know you are tired and it takes more effort to stay on task. In my own case I am aware that my mind can drift and is slower so I make a point of remembering to do things like checking air etc and keeping the dive simple.

 

[gopbroek]

I've been on that wreck, and it's the easiest 110ft dive you could hope to do. I surely wouldn't sweat it, but I'm sure the Scuba Police will bash you for it.

FWIW, we'll be back on that wreck in about a year as ScubaBoard will be invading Anthony's Key next year. Come join us and you'll get to be mentored by a bunch of great divers.

I believe in the bottom corner of the hold I logged 116', any deeper and I would have needed a shovel. On my right about 8' over I saw you happy as a clam. A very easy novice wreck dive with good visability and minimal currents.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I'm going to take a bit of a different approach (I hope). Rather than answer the question posed in the title, I'm going to assert that it's unanswerable based on the information provided. We're all different. We all have different attitudes (as evidenced by the responses so far), aptitudes, and skill levels coming out of OW.

There was, however, a lot of missing information ... including your ability to guesstimate whether or not you were even carrying an adequate air supply to complete the dive as planned. Had anything gone wrong, all bets would be off as to how well you would have coped with the situation.

The potential problem with a dive like this is often less about what's lacking in your training, experience, or skill set than it is about what's going on inside your head. For a great many new divers the initial instinct is to head for the surface ... to resolve whatever difficulty arises once you get there. This is a lot less problematic on a shallower dive than it would be at 100+ feet. Regardless of how ideal the conditions were you still have to deal with pressure changes and what it would do to your body if you encountered something that resulted in a quick trip to the surface. Much of the reason why educators want their students to take it easy on depth increases is due to the fact that we all have a need to "rewire" our brains to respond in ways that are appropriate to the depth ... and a 100+ foot dive requires a bit more thought and circumspection than one that only takes us half that deep ... both out of concerns for pressure differentials and due to the amount of time it would take you to reach the surface in an emergency.

To sum up the concern in simple terms ... how well would you handle something unexpected like getting your mask kicked off, regulator freeflow, or accidentally inhaling a bit of water that momentarily interrupted your breathing pattern? None of those are particularly difficult problems for someone who's experienced them, or practiced how to respond to them ... they're no big whoop, really. But it's an unknown ... something that makes you believe the problem's bigger than it really is ... that can bite you.

That's all just to give you something to think about ... I'm not gonna tell you it was a right or wrong decision to go, only you can answer that question. My answer would be that as long as nothing went wrong, you're fine. If something did go wrong ... or simply unexpected ... ask yourself how would you have dealt with it? And keep in mind that there's a big difference between thinking about the problem from the safety of your keyboard and dealing with it on a spur of the moment 100+ feet below the surface. Chew on it for a while, and make your own decisions ... diving's all about personal responsibility, and in the end we all need to reach our own conclusions about what level of risk management's right for us.

Some years back I posted an article on my website for folks with similar questions of "should I stay or should I go" ... perhaps you'll find something in there that will help you find the answers you're looking for ... NWGratefulDiver.com

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[The Chairman]

You are not really stupic, but more dulled.

However you want to call it: your problem solving skills are reduced significantly.