Which Is Better

[Liquid]

This thing, I sure can do.

The limitation at SSI is 39 meters, which is about 120 ft I belive, with an emphasis on the 30 meters (about 100ft) that should be passes only by VERY experienced divers.

I will also add here something regarding the Israely law of recreational diving, the max depth for various levels :

O/W- 20 M (in SSI the standard is 18 meters).
AO/W / SD- 30 M (in SSI the standard is 39 meters).
Master Diver/ Dive Master-42 meters (in SSI it's 39 meters).
Instructors-Here maximum depth is set at what "healthy logic" indicates. The reason there is no exact limitation is that an instructor who's student droped during a course below the max depth will be able to retrieve the student without losing any kind of liability.

That's about it.

 

[miked]

Lost Yooper,
or anyone else-please excuse my acronym ignorance, but what does "END" (from your post " I've long since lost respect.....or allow the use of an END below 130' ") represent?

2 other things :
1.) Obviously, I don't know the techno-correct way to include a quote.

2.) A suggestion for the Board powers that be - how about a place on the Board with a list of the many various acronyms and abbreviations used in diving. I know that many are common knowledge, but many are experience/ regional/ training dependent. (If there already is such a place- please direct me.)

Thanks,
MikeD

 

[Ladydiver]

Miked,

You can find a list of acronyms at Learn Scuba.

If anyone knows of any acronyms that should be included by are not already there, let me know and I will include them.

 

[miked]

Lady Diver,
Thank you , not just for the specific and speedy reply to my "acronym" question, but for all your efforts to develop and maintain the high quality of this board.
Thanks again,
Miked

 

[neil]

Originally posted by Lost Yooper
:grrr:

Upon going through the various training organizations, I noticed that both PADI and NAUI endorse DEEP AIR diving. PADI has a course that will take students to 165' and NAUI to 180'. I've long since lost respect for agencies that endorse, advocate, teach, or otherwise allow the use of an END below 130'. This is GREED talking folks -- plain and simple. They are putting money before their student's safety and that AIN'T RIGHT!!

PADI and NAUI, you're out. SSI and YMCA get the nod unless they follow suit and offer deep air.

Mike

Mike,
Ooh, you make me SOOOO MAD!!!!!
Ruling out NAUI and PADI just because they offer extended range air courses is patently unfair, IMO. (I bet you're a one-issue voter in presidential elections too ) For you to make that statement that it's unsafe you have to show me it's unsafe: show statistics, papers, body counts. Not opinions, not suppositions, real hard facts from reputable sources. I've read a lot of stuff concerning deep air on other forums, but few if any of those guys are anything but opinionated. That's not to say that they don't know SOMETHING and have all kinds of experience, but where are the real experts in the field on this subject. You've expressed some admiration for Bruce Wienke. Where is he on this subject? Bill Hamilton, Karl Huggins, Joel Silverstein. (NOT George Irvine, for G'd's sake!) I'm asking because I myself do not know. But I do know the difference between an opinion and proven fact.

I sincerely doubt that NAUI had GREED in mind when they embarked on their tech program, and their programs are just adaptations of already existing courses from other agencies. PADI, on the other hand....

Mike, you are a stand-up guy and a gentleman, but when you dismiss an entire agency for one pet peeve, you're making a mistake, IMO. Nobody has to take these courses, and they do not DEFINE the agency in any way.

Neil

 

[rstone]

sighhh.. cant we all just get along haha anyways i couldnt resist saying something.

First off id like to say I agree that the instructor can make all the difference in the world to the quality of education they receive regardless of agency.

Originally posted by ScubaBaby
You cant say any one organisation is better unless you have experienced every single one of them

Your right and since my experience is with PADI as a IDC Staff Instructor Ill limit my comments to PADI and my knowledge of what i know of other agencies.

Originally posted by jimholcomb
Agency DOES matter!! Agencies which advertise "you too can become an instructor in 2 short months" produce instructors in 2 short months!!

jim you really dont know much about becoming a instructor do you? No agency allows you to go from O/W to Instructor in 2 months.. sorry to burst your bubble. PADI's entry requirements at min is 6 months and you must have 100 dives to exit as well as pass all exams and the Instructor Examination at the IE by PADI officials.

Although 6 months is short in the scheme of things the quality of education you receive as a instructor is JUST AS IMPORTANT as when you do your first Open Water Class. After all you get what you pay for. Do i think 6 months and 100 dives is enough to teach a class? With supervision from a experienced instructor.. yes i do.

Originally posted by jimholcomb
PADI's enforcement record - when they have had known and proven standards violations is dismal as heck at best.

While PADI may not be perfect as you seem to think they should be, I give them credit for trying. In order to compare there QA dept it would be interesting to see how the other agencies compare, since i doubt they do much better.. ill leave it at that.

Originally posted by Lost Yooper
One of my biggest beefs with PADI is the 60FPM ascent rate they STILL advocate. SSI advocates 30FPM. On that basis alone, I would recommend SSI.

Listen PADI states as a max 60fpm but once that had changed to 30fpm as a recommendation they changed there information to reflect this change to 30fpm as a recommendation with no more then 60fpm max. As for advocating SSI based on that alone is pretty sad, and YES i do tell my students that should ascend at 30fpm.

Originally posted by Lost Yooper
Upon going through the various training organizations, I noticed that both PADI and NAUI endorse DEEP AIR diving. PADI has a course that will take students to 165' and NAUI to 180'. I've long since lost respect for agencies that endorse, advocate, teach, or otherwise allow the use of an END below 130'..

Although i agree that the tech agencies have more experience with DEEP DIVING I see no harm in getting into technical diving. There are those who are recreational divers who now want to get into technical diving and wish to stay with the agency they trust. Have you even looked at the training materials?? dont answer that i already know the answer. I suggest before your criticize PADI or NAUI or anyone else for that fact you do your homework first. The PADI program is descent and safe and the material is good, and although i havent gone thru the program yet, Ill make sure the person who i do go thru it with has a technical background experience beyond PADI since you need to have a good Foundation First and PADIs is to new to allow instructors to have that.

Originally posted by Neil
The IDC is way too easy IMO.

I wouldnt necessary use the word easy, but i would say it takes give them enough real world experience. Its to marketing driven. They need to spend less time in the classroom and more time in the water.

Originally posted by Walter
PADI requires SCUBA to be introduced in the first pool session. You can move skills around in any order you with as long as you keep then in the required session..

That is partially correct. If a skill is required in dive one i can move it to dive 2,3,4,5 however if its required in dive 5 i can not move it to dive 1 since the skills are introduced to BUILD ON one another so you teach them parts of a skill before combining them together.

Also i would like to say i liked your break down of differences among agencies, although they are based on written standards information they dont take into account what is actually happening and how they are taught by real instructors, meaning for example that PADI says 40 hours for O/W where in reality it make take 35 or it may take 45. After all thats just a guideline.

Originally posted by Walter
I have discussed this with the QA department at PADI and while I do not remember the exact numbers I believe it is 1/3. At any rate it is less than 50% which is far from "nearly every student."

While this may be correct of instructors who are sessoned instructors, that is not entirely correct of new instructors. The ratio is much higher for new instructors to make sure they understand and are following the standards taught to them.

Originally posted by Walter
Not really. It's a marketing organization, instructors have no say in its direction.

Although your partially correct ill give you that. The people who have the most influence at PADI are the Course Directors. When course directors speak, they listen.

Originally posted by Buff
THEY -the poor divers-should not be instructors. But the dive organizations who certify do not screen applicants like the US navy does for fighter pilots. You come in to the shop, plunk down your money, show them your "dive log"(which is so easy to fabricate that it gives a false sense of security to the whole system) and sign up-oh, and plunk down some more money-I looked into it and it's about $1800.00 here in Mpls.

Buff last time i checked i wasnt going to be sent into combat.. we are training RECREATIONAL instructors not combat fighters. If you believe that instructors are not screened then your dead wrong. From divemaster on they are tested under sometimes stressfull situations to see how they respond, and yes people do drop out because they just cant handle it. Im not going to go into the testing procedures, but they are timed and tested over and over and yes they are tested on there rescue ability to. Does that make them a Coast Guard Rescue Diver? NO! but then again that was never the aim.

Originally posted by jmsdiver
I've seen way too many poor divers just fresh out of class. I don't expect divers to be perfect, but some of the basics are lost and I firmly believe that they are lost because they are either eliminated from the course or the course moves too fast for it to sink in.

OR the student didnt take the class seriouslly.. never prepared ahead of time for class, goofed off in class, never studied, etc. I agree there are alot of bad instructors, but to blame the instructor for everything is just plain wrong.

The real reason most students dont get 80 hours of instruction, 40 hours in the pool, 8 open water dives is MONEY. Its that simple, and although instructors cringe when this subject comes up and dont like to talk about the dirty little secrets no one knows about or cares to know about is becuase they hate to admit they get screwed on teaching classes to OW students most the time. Its all nice and fine to say you teach because your LOVE diving and I DO, but that doesnt pay the bills for those who have chosen to do this as a career FT.

People complain about the time instructors spend with them because they got rushed threw that OW class they paid $180 for. The real economics of it is getting padi 1.25 a hr per student doesnt pay the bills. A instructor could get more at mcdonalds then teaching a class of students. So in other words you get what you pay for. We are not unionized or looked after. We pay are own insurance and if we screw up they throw us to the wolves. This is the reality of teaching. Untill instructors get paid what they are worth, you will always get a lower then expected education. There are expections to this, but like anything thats always the case.


Anyways ive said enough for now... Happy diving..

 

[Lost Yooper]

Neil,

If anyone doubts the danger of deep air diving then they haven't been paying attention over the years. People die every year as the result of the brain washing that deep air agencies instill in their students. The narcosis level past 130' is dangerous and cannot be "dealt with" when ole Murphy shows up as they would lead you to believe.

Here's a fact for ya: narcosis impairs the ability of most people to do even relatively simple mental calculations. This impairment increases under various stress factors (exertions, cold, dehydration, etc) and has been documented both in real life dive situations and in chambers. Here's another fact for ya: the introduction of helium to a mix significantly reduces this impairment. The studies are out there.

I don't know what Weinke's position on the subject is (I admire him for his deco philosophy and development of RGBM), and I hoped he would have introduced NAUI students to the RGBM models. I've read that both Hamilton and Silverstien are opposed to deep air as well as Eric Maiken (as I recall). You can discount Irvine's and Jablonski's views, but they too are highly knowledgable leaders in the industry. Regardless, it doesn't take genious to figure out that deep air kills and hurts a lot people every year -- but you would have to be paying attention, I guess.


Rstone,

The entire ascent thing is peanuts compared to their deep air policy. I don't have a problem with recreational agencies getting into tech stuff as long as they go about it in a common sense manner. There is absolutely NO good reason to advocate deep air.
These agencies could be doing a great service to the diving community by introducing helium based mixes for any dives past 130'. Rather than do that, they choose to caiter to the divers who can't afford helium dives and convince them that deep air is "safe enough". This is the greed I'm talking about. Rather than reshape the diving community and make deep air a taboo, they stuff their pockets with money from unsuspecting students who take their deep air courses.

I will dismiss any organization that supports such foolishness. Greed is the ONLY explanation for this nonsense because it's certainly NOT safety oriented.

Good day.

Mike

PS. By making statements that I have just made, I hope to be a part of a movement that makes the ever dangerous deep air philosophy taboo, and thereby make the diving community safer. I am well aware that I have quite possibly insulted some who are a part of these organizations, but it is my hope that a message gets through and, perhaps someday, reaches the top of these organizations.

 

[neil]

Mike,
I do not for one minute doubt the dangers of deep air diving. My point is that in order for YOU, Mike the Lost Yooper, to be a credible advocate for whatever type of diving you want to advance, you have to come up with facts, not opinions. Printed, researched, maybe even scientific studies that prove your case. And whether you like it or not, by people with real credentials.
Yeah, narcosis is real and helium is better, but those are well documented, as you say.

"it doesn't take a genious to figure out that deep air kills and hurts a lot people every year -- but you would have to be paying attention, I guess."

Paying attention to what? Usenet groups? Gimme the facts, man! This is your chance. I've yet to read a credible report on the dangers of deep air. (Haven't looked that hard, really, I'm too busy giving you grief). And the statistics on scuba deaths don't seem to demonstrate that deep air divers are dying in droves.

"I don't know what Weinke's position on the subject is (I admire him for his deco philosophy and development of RGBM), and I hoped he would have introduced NAUI students to the RGBM models."
A philosophy is a belief system; deco theory is science, not religion. It can be proven or disproven. All NAUI instructors can teach the RGBM tables now.

This sport, this industry if you will, is rife with opinions. And you know what they say about opinions. I'm not so much insulted by you dismissing an agency for teaching deep air diving as I am frustrated that you do so without presenting something that we can all see. Your ideas may be valid, but to convince me you gotta come up with the goods. Peace.

Neil

 

[Lost Yooper]

Ok, Neil, I've spent a grand total of 20mins looking for some stats and articles for ya.

According to this article: "DAN statistics In the most recent report on Australian Diving Deaths (1972-1993), nitrogen narcosis was recorded as a contributing factor in 14 of the 178 scuba deaths (8%). Their dive depths ranged from 35-65m for the 7 cave/sink-hole divers and 36-54m for the 6 wreck divers who died. (One unknown, body never recovered but last seen descending over a reef which bottomed out at 400m+). These are the tragic fatalities; subtle narcosis could have been a contributing factor in an unknown number of accidents of others who have survived."

http://www.divenewzealand.com/56raptures.html Rapture of the deep

It appears as though DAN is keeping track of narcosis related deaths. You can do your own homework if you want more information.

Here's a couple more articles that address the dangers of narcosis:

http://www.scuba-doc.com/narked.html DAN Article

http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/articles/article.asp?articleid=29 DAN Article

So Neil, the facts are indeed out there for anyone wishing to look. I suspect DAN has more up-to-date stats if you care to look them up or contact DAN. I have no problem extrapolating the 8%figure given in the article and calling it LOW. You can take the information given in these articles, combine it with your own experiences, and think back to all the deep air deaths you have read about and come to a reasonable conclusion that deep air is dangerous.

So, if you come to, what is IMO, the obvious conclusion that deep air is inherently dangerous, then by simple reasoning you can conclude that PADI and NAUI (TDI an ANDI as well) are not looking out for the safety of their students. If they're aren't looking out for the safety of their students, then the only factor left is MONEY.

Assuming you come to this conclusion, how could anyone respect an agency that cares more about money than their students lives and well being regardless of what level of training in the agency? If they don't take the easy and obvious precautions to protect you in their "tech" program, then shouldn't you be suspect of the rest of their programs and especially of their motives?

That's how I see it.

Mike

PS. I believe that 8% number will certainly increase (if it hasn't already) as the result of the "tech" programs offered by these agencies. They are going to expose a huge group of recreational divers to a false sense of security, and all the while stuff their pockets full of cash. These deaths are so easily avoidable and these agencies are in the perfect position to change the norm right from the get go. They choose not to and instead go the other way, and I can't respect that.

 

[rstone]

Originally posted by Lost Yooper
PS. I believe that 8% number will certainly increase (if it hasn't already) as the result of the "tech" programs offered by these agencies.

Ok lets assume for a moment that diving deep has a 8% fatality rate. Now if lets say.. the fatality rate for all recreational diving above 100' was 8% would you also consider that scuba is dangerious as well and therefore should not be done? and thereby any agency that promotes diving is in it only for the money?