when to 100'?

[Kevrumbo]

When to 100'?

When it falls into the limits of your Training and personal limitations. all this other crap is fluff. Note Training is first, get taught the requirements, difficulties, restrictions of going the depth you want, then get there at your pace. Find a buddy that will follow your pace and build your own confidence. Confidence starts with knowledge.

P.S. make sure the buddy you find is confortable beyond your limitations so that you do not endanger your buddy by taking them over their personal limitations.

False confidence and self-assuredness, and failure to realize conditions way beyond one's current level of training. Read this thread (and marvel at the replies of some of the posters!:shakehead ) of what thankfully turned out to be a benign "Trust-Me-Dive". . .

 

[Brewone0to]

The issue really is not whether or not to go deep, but why? Is there something you really want to see at that depth? To prove something? The deeper you go, the darker and riskier it gets, so if you want to see a wreck at 120' or a wall, fine. But in many places, what you can see and do at 100' isn't much different than what you see and do at 60 or 40', and you can see it better in shallower depths. Too many people look at the depth gauge and not at the beauty around them at all levels of the sea.

Well put,While in Roatan last year I spent much time at over 100' depth.
mostly looking at the blue colored vase like sponge there.
But these depths caused me to have to spend a good bit of my underwater time at the 18-20' depth. This wasn't all bad though, because the wrasses and juv angelfish were abundant there. It might be noted though that the majority of the life on these reefs wasn't at either of these depths, but mostly in between (35-60')
So it might be said that I was just looking for something different than most people.
What can I say, I'm a Fla diver and don't get the same thrill as some other divers from seeing lobsters or the tiny jewfish they have down there.
We regularly see these groupers at 3-5 feet in length, so seeing one that is barely 2' long just doesn't effect me much. I guess that I'm a bit jaded on them.

 

[Colliam7]

When did "feel comfortable" become a good reason to do a dive that you are not ready for? ..... Depth will always be there. Take your time getting there. Depth required a lot more focus that I used to appreciate.

You're getting some good advice here. Depth requires focus. Expand your diving envelope slowly and deliberately, and you're more likely to expand it safely. The OP made me curious, so I checked my log on my own depth progression, of 'First dive to ...' dives: >60' on Dive 10, in AOW class; >80' on Dive 21 in a Wreck Diving class; >100' on Dive 52 (off the NC coast, on a U-boat); >130' on Dive 144; >150' on Dive 219 (in Tec class). I confess, I no longer think a lot about a dive to 50' in a quarry. But, I actively spend time mentally preparing for every dive to 100' or more (e.g. Is my gear in order? Am I prepared? What can go wrong? How can I manage it? What are my options? What are my outs?) The same questions are asked for every dive, just more obsessively for dives to depth. Part of my preparation for depth is knowing my buddy's skills and limits as well. I don't like 'Trust me' dives. I won't ask others to do them with me, and I don't want to do them with others.

 

[northen diver]

This statement is totally untrue. Safety is a relative term because it depends on risk. Everything you do has risk. What that risk is and how much you are willing to accept are what the diver needs to figure out. As I have said before, driving to your dive site on the interstate is a hell of a lot more dangerous than diving to 100 feet.

Maybe I just come from a different world... the SCUBA community seems ridiculously paranoid and over-safe to me. The only exception to this seems to be spearfishermen (strangely I fit in a lot better with them.) My other adventure hobby was/is rock climbing. Now you want to talk about dangerous, get out there on some run out trad climb... that's dangerous! Too scary so I don't even do it. I'd rather dive solo in a cavern full of fishing line and booby traps.

I find this kinda funny. There are more diving accidents than there are rock climbing accidents. This includes top roping, sport climbing, trad climbing and Aid climbing, ALL combined. I would rather have a problem 500 feet up on a trad climb instead of deep in some dark underwater cave.

 

[ClayJar]

I find this kinda funny. There are more diving accidents than there are rock climbing accidents. This includes top roping, sport climbing, trad climbing and Aid climbing, ALL combined. I would rather have a problem 500 feet up on a trad climb instead of deep in some dark underwater cave.

You know, there are more slipped-in-the-bathroom accidents than diving accidents and climbing accidents put together! From now on, I'll just occasionally flood my drysuit instead.

(Without a basis from which to compare the numbers, it's really quite entertaining. I wonder if there are more people hospitalized for choking than for DCS... I could use that to justify only drinking smoothies for the rest of the month! )

 

[jon m]

Wow, there soo much clutter on this post I though I wanted to go back to the OP and address it.



If you have the skill level to dive to 65 feet in Hawaii, you're not going to experience terribly different conditions at 80-90 (again in Hawaii, if you went to Alaska it'd be a differnt story altogether). Personally I've observed most divers having more difficulties (especially with buoyancy) on shallow dives than deep dives.
Doing a guided dive you have a experienced rescue diver close at hand, someone who dives daily (here in Hawaii dms and instructors generally work 5-7 days a week). Most dms are competent, despite what you may read in some posts here. Interestingly enough I've seen more than 1 post extolling a particular guide or shop that I consider to be dangerously incompetent...I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder. If you're with a guide I'd say that increasing depth from 65 to 90 is no problem.
When I got certified (it was NAUI, then PADI) there was no 60' recommended limit. My 3rd open water dive was to 110 feet, without problems. I never considered further classes until I decided to become an instructor. I had about 200 dives at that time, with a wide variety of experiences (night, deep, no vis, etc). I got experienced by going on dives, whatever dives were available. You don't need further training to go deeper, you need experience (which can be gotten through training).

That is not to say that you should run out and do a deep dive. You need to be comfortable with all of your dive skills. It also not just you who has to be comfortable. You have a buddy (in this case your wife) who also needs to feel comfortable. Going outside of anyone’s abilities or comfort levels is a bad idea. Basically you shouldn't have any skills you cannot or don't like to do (especially mask clearing, buoyancy control and gas management) you need more experience. Running out of air is a consideration, but really if you think you might run out of air you're not ready for deep diving. There's simply no good reason to run out of air ever. While it is possible to have gear failure, it's extremely unlikely. So you should be able to do OOA skills comfortably. BTW you can always get a bigger tank..

Speaking of comfort I've seen a number of posts negatively commenting on comfort level. They state you could die by inattentiveness due to comfort. I suppose on some level this is true, but this could apply to everything in life. Too comfortable driving? You could die in an car accident. You're not very likely to get injured while diving, however dive injuries tend to be serious. Being comfortable on a dive (to me) means you are confident in your diving skills. While problems may occur, you should be able to deal with them.
I also think that if you obsess about running out of air, you're not ready to be on deep dives. By obsessed I don't mean checking regularly, that's prudent.



This is a good attitude. Diving deep for the sake of going deep is stupid. If there's something you want to see at a certain depth, then there's a reason to go. If you just want to go deep to tell people how deep you've been, you are a silly and childish person.
The depth limit on your card is a good recommendation to start with. Before going deeper I'd say that you should have done at least 10 dives past certification under varying conditions (currents, swell, different clarity, etc). Make sure you're comparing your experience to comprable dives. If you've done lots of dives in a quarry and get in the ocean it's going to be very different and you should take this into consideration. After that slowly increase the depth as you see fit. It's really up to you and you're wife (or other dive buddy).

i can't believe this thread is still alive...
this is the most intelligent response i have seen, thank you, it would be a pleasure to dive with you... i'll be in kona this september!

 

[northen diver]

You know, there are more slipped-in-the-bathroom accidents than diving accidents and climbing accidents put together! From now on, I'll just occasionally flood my drysuit instead.

(Without a basis from which to compare the numbers, it's really quite entertaining. I wonder if there are more people hospitalized for choking than for DCS... I could use that to justify only drinking smoothies for the rest of the month! )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Fingers
This statement is totally untrue. Safety is a relative term because it depends on risk. Everything you do has risk. What that risk is and how much you are willing to accept are what the diver needs to figure out. As I have said before, driving to your dive site on the interstate is a hell of a lot more dangerous than diving to 100 feet.

Maybe I just come from a different world... the SCUBA community seems ridiculously paranoid and over-safe to me. The only exception to this seems to be spearfishermen (strangely I fit in a lot better with them.) My other adventure hobby was/is rock climbing. Now you want to talk about dangerous, get out there on some run out trad climb... that's dangerous! Too scary so I don't even do it. I'd rather dive solo in a cavern full of fishing line and booby traps.


I was refering to crazy fingers comment on that rock climbing is dangerous, so dangerous that he doesnt do it anymore. But yet he states the SCUBA community is ridicolously paranoid. I would prefer to have a problem on a cliffs edge at 500 feet rather than in some long dark cave underwater. Risk is perceived. In everyday usage, "risk" is often used synonymously with the probabilty of a known loss.

btw- the insurance, liability and risk ratings will have the numbers you are looking for on which hobbies and sports are rated.

 

[ClayJar]

I was referring to crazy fingers comment on that rock climbing is dangerous, so dangerous that he doesn't do it anymore. But yet he states the SCUBA community is ridiculously paranoid. I would prefer to have a problem on a cliffs edge at 500 feet rather than in some long dark cave underwater. Risk is perceived. In everyday usage, "risk" is often used synonymously with the probability of a known loss.

It wasn't my intention to set you on the defensive. 'Twas but an intended jest at the fantastically disparate perceptions that can be had. For me, riding a motorcycle (at least around Baton Rouge) would be borderline suicidal, but to most of the riders I know, diving underwater with nothing but a little bottle of air on your back is unfathomable idiocy of the highest degree.

btw- the insurance, liability and risk ratings will have the numbers you are looking for on which hobbies and sports are rated.

Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. Of course, it is possible to consider documented cases of injury or death, but the baseline census numbers from which to build a comparison between various recreational activities simply do not exist. Nobody knows how many active divers there are, for example, and even less known (if such were possible) is the activity of those divers. (I can tell you without reservation that no person or agency outside myself has an accounting of where I have been diving this year, with what gear, and in what conditions. )

In diving, about as close as we can come is an attempt at analysis of those divers and dives ending poorly, but the sample size is so small and the total population so unconstrained that analysis is limited at best. I find it quite fascinating to observe divers' and non-divers' perceptions of the the potential risks of diving.

Anyway, as for climbing... I am far more at home with depths than with heights, although lengths are probably even worse (hence my disinterest in cave diving ).

 

[northen diver]

It wasn't my intention to set you on the defensive. 'Twas but an intended jest at the fantastically disparate perceptions that can be had. For me, riding a motorcycle (at least around Baton Rouge) would be borderline suicidal, but to most of the riders I know, diving underwater with nothing but a little bottle of air on your back is unfathomable idiocy of the highest degree.

Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. Of course, it is possible to consider documented cases of injury or death, but the baseline census numbers from which to build a comparison between various recreational activities simply do not exist. Nobody knows how many active divers there are, for example, and even less known (if such were possible) is the activity of those divers. (I can tell you without reservation that no person or agency outside myself has an accounting of where I have been diving this year, with what gear, and in what conditions. )

In diving, about as close as we can come is an attempt at analysis of those divers and dives ending poorly, but the sample size is so small and the total population so unconstrained that analysis is limited at best. I find it quite fascinating to observe divers' and non-divers' perceptions of the the potential risks of diving.

Anyway, as for climbing... I am far more at home with depths than with heights, although lengths are probably even worse (hence my disinterest in cave diving ).

I agree with what you are saying with stats. Someone can (and has) taken numbers and twisted them to fit thier needs. The insurance companies use actual reported cases without regards to training, circumstances etc. A diver dies of a heart attack while diving and that is now a diving accident. And now diving is a dangerous sport. I am sure that driving with my 17 y/o son is a whole lot more dangerous than climbing or SCUBA diving. Again, its only my perception. Again, my comment was that crazy finger thinks that the diving community is overly paronoid but yet thinks climbing is way to dangerous for him. BOTH are safe hobbies, IF done properly.

 

[GA Under Water]

*Farm