 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / April 2007Why OW certification?
After your pool sessions it seems that you MUST finish your training in a "natural" body of water. No man-made lakes, quarries, reservoirs or anything like that. Why? Sheldon > After your pool sessions it seems that you MUST finish your training in a > "natural" body of water. No man-made lakes, quarries, reservoirs or > anything like that. Why? I know lots of folks who did their checkdives in flooded quarries both here in Canada and in the States, me included. Have the requirements changed? JF > > After your pool sessions it seems that you MUST finish your training in a > > "natural" body of water. No man-made lakes, quarries, reservoirs or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > JF Not as far as I can tell, from PADI's perspective, anyway. An "OW training dive" can be conducted as long as you're deeper than 15 feet, and either stay for more than 20 minutes or breathe 1400 psi. Nothing about "natural." kari > Not as far as I can tell, from PADI's perspective, anyway. An "OW > training dive" can be conducted as long as you're deeper than 15 feet, > and either stay for more than 20 minutes or breathe 1400 psi. Nothing > about "natural." Really, 15 feet you say? You can certainly learn a lot about diving to a max depth of 60 feet from dives to 15 feet. Damn. When I got my NAUI card in 1969, we had to go below 30 feet. My wife (PADI) had to do one dive deeper than 30 feet and one deeper than 60 feet. Doug, still think PADI hasn't dumbed training down? Lee > > Not as far as I can tell, from PADI's perspective, anyway. An "OW > > training dive" can be conducted as long as you're deeper than 15 feet, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Lee I see I did make a transcription error above - 1400 litres, not psi. Here are a few points from the PADI instructor manual (2006 version): "Open water is any body of water considerably larger than a swimming pool that exposes student divers to an environment similar to that experienced by recreational divers." "The minimum depth for open water skill evaluations is 5 metres/15 feet." "For training purposes, an open water dive is a dive during which a student diver spends the majority of time at a depth of at least 5 metres/15 feet and: a. breathes at least 1400 litres or 50 cubic feet of compressed gas. OR b. remains submerged for at least 20 minutes." >> > Not as far as I can tell, from PADI's perspective, anyway. An "OW >> > training dive" can be conducted as long as you're deeper than 15 feet, >> > and either stay for more than 20 minutes or breathe 1400 psi. Nothing >> > about "natural." > I see I did make a transcription error above - 1400 litres, not psi. Interesting. I've never heard anyone use liters at 1 ata to represent volume of gas used. It works, of course, but is unusual terminology. Most divers using the metric system rate their tanks by interal volume and pressure in BAR. We, of course, use the volume that the gas that is at the rated pressure would occupy if allowed to expand to 1 ATA and PSI. > "Open water is any body of water considerably larger than a swimming > pool that exposes student divers to an environment similar to that > experienced by recreational divers." That is about what I expect from any of the agencies. It makes reasonable sense. > "The minimum depth for open water skill evaluations is 5 metres/15 feet." That's pretty much a joke. Safety stops are done at 15 feet. That's a depth at which it's frequently accepted that, as long as you don't hold your breath, you just can't get into trouble. Where do tranees that do their entire dive at 15 feet do their safety stop? Lee > Interesting. I've never heard anyone use liters at 1 ata to represent > volume of gas used. By doing it that way, they give an absolute volume... If they said that you needed to go through 1500 psi or 100 bar, then someone could use a very small tank (e.g. Spare Air size) and complete the dive in a very short time... >> Interesting. I've never heard anyone use liters at 1 ata to represent >> volume of gas used. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > use a very small tank (e.g. Spare Air size) and complete the dive in a > very short time... Which is why I think a simple depth and time is appropriate. You and I have both known air hogs for whom 50 cubic feet of gas, or even 80, at 60 feet won't last 20 minutes. Lee >> Interesting. I've never heard anyone use liters at 1 ata to represent >> volume of gas used. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >use a very small tank (e.g. Spare Air size) and complete the dive in a >very short time... My manual says 20 feet and 20 minutes. No air consumption. It also recommends a dive to at least 50 (but not more than 60) to "experience" deep diving. This is on dive three. For most of my classes, that means Sunday morning. I believe that the Olympic diving pool in Montreal qualifies as an "open water" dive. Isn't it 10 metres deep?  Signaturedillon The pen may be mightier than the sword, but I've never seen a .sig beat a Sig. >> I see I did make a transcription error above - 1400 litres, not psi. > >Interesting. I've never heard anyone use liters at 1 ata to represent >volume of gas used. It works, of course, but is unusual terminology. It's used in the medical/EMS community to measure the flow rate of pure oxygen and such medicinal gases (ie. a Nasal Canula delivers 2 liters per minute; a simple mask at 6-8 liters per minute; a non-rebreather mask at 15 liters per minute etc.). The flow rate is set on the tank valve itself. ____________________________________________ Regards, Arnold Visit my Travel Photo Website: http://www.mag3.biz/travel_photos/home_page.html Absolutely 100% SPAM free!!!! HONEST!!! :-) > Really, 15 feet you say? You can certainly learn a lot about diving to a > max depth of 60 feet from dives to 15 feet. At this rate, the only requirement will soon be that you only need to get your head wet... > > Not as far as I can tell, from PADI's perspective, anyway. An "OW > > training dive" can be conducted as long as you're deeper than 15 feet, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Damn. When I got my NAUI card in 1969, we had to go below 30 feet. My wife > (PADI) had to do one dive deeper than 30 feet and one deeper than 60 feet. I think you mentioned in a previous thread that the depth "limits" for recreational diving had also been revised, for example, as a PADI OW you are now "qualified" to go to 60' whereas before, there were no breakdowns - you were just qualified to go to 130'. Do you think these two changes had anything to do with each other? What I mean is, maybe someone thought that training dives deeper than 60' would be needed were one to be qualified to go to 130', but if we are only qualifying divers to go to 60', then perhaps a training dive of 15' would suffice? > Doug, still think PADI hasn't dumbed training down? > > Lee > I think you mentioned in a previous thread that the depth "limits" for > recreational diving had also been revised, for example, as a PADI OW [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > qualifying divers to go to 60', then perhaps a training dive of 15' > would suffice? I can't say for sure, but I don't think they were related. Your post was the first I heard of an open water checkout dive at only 15 feet. I think the 60 foot limit has been around for quite a while. It makes no sense to me to use a 15 foot dive to certify people to dive to 60 feet, or 130. What I find particularly perplexing is that, somewhere along the line, we were all taught to to do safety stop at 15 feet. That was not part of my original or even second training (1962 and 1969). I don't know quite when the idea of a safety stop was first introduced, but it seemed like a good enough idea that even those of us that had been diving for years adopted the practice. Interestingly some of the most recent computers treat it almost as a mandatory decompression stop. At any rate I always thought that controlling your ascent rate and remembering to stop at about 15 feet for a few minutes was an important part of dive training. I'm not sure how you get the same effect if the whole dive can be at 15 feet. Lee > > I think you mentioned in a previous thread that the depth "limits" for > > recreational diving had also been revised, for example, as a PADI OW [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Lee Well, to confuddle things a bit further, here's what the manual says about safety stops: Be a S.A.F.E. Diver-Making Safety Stops A. When must you make a safety stop? 1. After a dive to 30 metres/100 feet or deeper. 2. Your pressure group at the end of a dive is within three pressure groups of the no decompression limit (using the RDP). 3. When you dive up to any limit on the RDP or your dive computer. Emphasis Note: Make a safety stop after every dive. [Explain PADI's S.A.F.E. Diver campaign-be a S.A.F.E. Diver- Slowly Ascend From Every dive, and make a safety stop after every dive.] You think it makes little sense. It's even more difficult when you're trying to figure out what to teach, and the guide says one thing, then immediately contradicts itself. THEN puts the question on a test. We put (or maybe I should say *I* put) students in the somewhat awkward situation of if they answer according to what they've read, they get the question correct. If they answer according to what I've told them in class, they may get the question incorrect. I do think that safety stops are one of the skills that I like to practice with "former students" once they're finished their training, if it's feasible. On a slight tangent, I expect that standards will change someday, sooner rather than later, away from the safety stop at 15' to deep stops in some form or another. If not "away from safety stop" then at least to add a deep stop. > Well, to confuddle things a bit further, here's what the manual says > about safety stops: > Be a S.A.F.E. Diver-Making Safety Stops > A. When must you make a safety stop? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Slowly Ascend From Every dive, and make a safety stop after > every dive.] Odd, very odd. I've done more than one dive to depths of less than 100 feet that required a deco stop. Assuming I don't have a deco obligation by the time I cross the 15 foot depth. I'm pretty sure to do a stop on almost every dive. It's normally not a big deal and can't hurt. I don't ever recall knowing my pressure group at the end of a dive until I was out of the water and looking at tables unless, of course, I closely follow a pre planned profile, something I almost never do. I'm way beyond a simple safety stop by the time I've limited out on my tables or computer, any of my computers. The "Emphasis Note" kind of negates 1 through 3, doesn't it. > You think it makes little sense. It's even more difficult when you're > trying to figure out what to teach, and the guide says one thing, then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the question correct. If they answer according to what I've told them > in class, they may get the question incorrect. Nothing like a little abiguity on a potentially life critical topic. > I do think that safety stops are one of the skills that I like to > practice with "former students" once they're finished their training, > if it's feasible. I think that's too late. Personally, I'd teach students to do a safety stop as part of every dive deeper than about 40 feet, explain that it really is a safety stop, something done in an abundance of caution, but also emphasizing that the deeper and longer their dive, the better an idea it is . . . whether or not PADI likes that answer or not. YMMV. > On a slight tangent, I expect that standards will change someday, > sooner rather than later, away from the safety stop at 15' to deep > stops in some form or another. If not "away from safety stop" then at > least to add a deep stop. Not really practical when you're only certifying them to 60 feet. Depending on what you mean by deep stops (at least one member of this forum means something much more specific than I do), they might not even be all that practical when certifying to 130 feet. I tend to do deep stops (about 2 minutes every 10 or 20 feet, depending on my mood) any time I'm at 100 feet or more. Lee >> Not as far as I can tell, from PADI's perspective, anyway. An "OW >> training dive" can be conducted as long as you're deeper than 15 feet, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Doug, still think PADI hasn't dumbed training down? I never said or implied that, or anything close to it. Every OW course on the planet falls -far- short of what I would require for "basic scuba training". :-) >>>Not as far as I can tell, from PADI's perspective, anyway. An "OW >>>training dive" can be conducted as long as you're deeper than 15 feet, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Every OW course on the planet falls -far- short of what I would require > for "basic scuba training". :-) Oh oh. Here we go again. >>>>Not as far as I can tell, from PADI's perspective, anyway. An "OW >>>>training dive" can be conducted as long as you're deeper than 15 feet, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> Every OW course on the planet falls -far- short of what I would require >> for "basic scuba training". :-) > Oh oh. Here we go again. Not at all. We'll now agree that PADI's Open Water training is inadequate. Now, "Here we go again." 8^) Lee > >>>>Not as far as I can tell, from PADI's perspective, anyway. An "OW >>>>>training dive" can be conducted as long as you're deeper than 15 feet, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Now, "Here we go again." 8^) PADI's OW class is absolutely adequate, to a point of mathematical certainty. :-) It's empirically evident. That has nothing to do with whether it's been dumbed down. Or how many skills have been removed that are -absolutely- -unnecessary- to the average entry-level sport diver (like tables, for instance, or SAC rate). <ducking> Many "sky is falling/if you sail to the edge of the earth, you'll fall off" claims have been made about PADI and diver safety, some of them 6-8 years ago here, with ZERO frutation. And incidences of dive injury and death, already -preposterously- minute, continue to statistically fall as they have for over 30 years, except to the black PADI helicopter crowd, who have -never-..., -ever-..., offered a ->scrap<- of evidence to support their -accusations-. -Now-... Here we go again... :-) >Not as far as I can tell, from PADI's perspective, anyway. An "OW >training dive" can be conducted as long as you're deeper than 15 feet, >and either stay for more than 20 minutes or breathe 1400 psi. Nothing >about "natural." Testing to 15 feet and certifying to 60 is not adequate by any standards I consider valid, regardless of who lives or dies. > Every OW course on the planet falls -far- short of what I would require > for "basic scuba training". :-) By your own words, it's not up to what you would require which still might, or might not be adequate. You find out what you didn't learn only when you need to have learned it. > PADI's OW class is absolutely adequate, to a point of mathematical > certainty. :-) It's empirically evident. Mathematical certainty and empirical appearance are not compatable terms. Empirical evidence suggests the opposite to me. I'll wait on your mathematical proof. > That has nothing to do with whether it's been dumbed down. It does when it's done to the point where it no longer covers the type of diving it certifies people as being competent for. It does when the minimum standards for a modern entry level course are not even as complete as they were 40 something years ago, when a technical dive was any one that required getting wet more than once in a day and everyone knew that you could not go deep enough, long enough to require decompression. Would you certify someone as competent to drive a tractor trailer on a 70 mph northern highway in the winter if you'd only seen them drive an automatic VW in the Wallmart parking lot? Neither would I. > Or how many skills have been removed that are -absolutely- -unnecessary- > to the average entry-level sport diver (like tables, for > instance, or SAC rate). <ducking> Tables are not absoutely unnecessary unless replaced by a suitable replacement. Whether a computer is or is not a suitable replacement depends on the computer. The concepts involved are fundamental to the sport and no training is adequate that does not cover them. SAC is a tougher call. If you've studied tables or a suitable computer, I'll give you that one. Passing someone that has had weeks of problems clearing a mask who manages to do it once, and once only, without drowning, however, is not adequate either, even if nobody drowned. > Many "sky is falling/if you sail to the edge of the earth, you'll fall > off" claims have been made about PADI and diver safety, some > of them 6-8 years ago here, with ZERO frutation. If you mean they didn't change PADI's standards a whit, I'm afraid you're correct. Some of it did, however, change some of the standards maintained by some other agencies, GUE, for example. That's not nothing in my book, even if I don't like the arrogance of their organization either. > And incidences of dive injury and death, already -preposterously- minute > . . . Three out of four on one boat this weekend. It was close for number 4. That's 75%, going on 100% of that sample. Not knowing, or at least not using their SAC to ensure sufficient gas for the dive was an apparent contributing factor. Your turn. > >Not as far as I can tell, from PADI's perspective, anyway. An "OW >>training dive" can be conducted as long as you're deeper than 15 feet, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Testing to 15 feet and certifying to 60 is not adequate by any standards I > consider valid, regardless of who lives or dies. And that's a fine opinion, but utterly and totally irrelevant to the discussion. You've already made it clear how much you don't like it, but that's not what we're trying to establish. >> Every OW course on the planet falls -far- short of what I would require >> for "basic scuba training". :-) > > By your own words, it's not up to what you would require which still > might, or might not be adequate. You find out what you didn't learn only > when you need to have learned it. Did a lot of ice dive training in your S. Florida OW class, Lee? In a drysuit? No open water student graduates ready for Wakulla, or the Empress Of Ireland. The three divers that died, that you refer to here, were engaged in a dive that had -utterly- nothing to do with OW training, and, -your- more extensive training back when didn't certify you for overhead penetration, either. And no matter how much you teach in OW, that will still apply. OW covers certain basic ground, and, if you want to advance, you either get more instruction, or, evolve to the point of self-instruction. >> PADI's OW class is absolutely adequate, to a point of mathematical >> certainty. :-) It's empirically evident. > > Mathematical certainty and empirical appearance are not compatible terms. They are in this case. > Empirical evidence suggests the opposite to me. Only under unusual bias, as your 3/4 example below indicates. > I'll wait on your mathematical proof. Posted many times, and, intrinsically simple. More divers, less deaths. -Period-. >> That has nothing to do with whether it's been dumbed down. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that required getting wet more than once in a day and everyone knew that > you could not go deep enough, long enough to require decompression. Diving is simpler and easier now, with more technological assistance and infrastructure. People don't do heavy deco dives that you prepared for back when, by default. For some divers, it's -utterly-, -totally- useless, time wasting information. No need to waste time on, or pay for, that experience. One sub-argument is, how long should OW be, and, how much should it cost? > Would you certify someone as competent to drive a tractor trailer on a 70 > mph northern highway in the winter if you'd only seen them drive an > automatic VW in the Wallmart parking lot? Neither would I. No, but, that's why the Class D or whatever automobile silence exists. There are -several- levels of training to achieve a Class A CDL. What -you- propose is that every teenager in America pay $4000 for CDL training to get a license to drive dad's mini-van to the prom. >> Or how many skills have been removed that are -absolutely- -unnecessary- >> to the average entry-level sport diver (like tables, for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > depends on the computer. The concepts involved are fundamental to the > sport and no training is adequate that does not cover them. Again, a purely anecdotal opinion. I haven't used a table in hundreds of dives (nearly 1000). At least one agency doesn't teach them, and, since their students aren't dying in -droves-, it's obviously -adequate- to teach OW without tables. > SAC is a tougher call. Useless information for a Keys drift dive. SAC has no relevance to "Be back with 500". Even most overhead diving turns on 3rds, with no relevance to SAC. Only specific, -advanced- technical dives have anything to do with SAC, and, it should be part of the advance technical training. > If you've studied tables or a suitable computer, I'll give you that one. > Passing someone that has had weeks of problems clearing a mask who manages > to do it once, and once only, without drowning, however, is not adequate > either, even if nobody drowned. More anecdote. If he doesn't die, it's adequate. >> Many "sky is falling/if you sail to the edge of the earth, you'll fall >> off" claims have been made about PADI and diver safety, some >> of them 6-8 years ago here, with ZERO frutation. > > If you mean they didn't change PADI's standards a whit, I'm afraid you're > correct. We're not arguing dumbing down. But people caterwalled about 10 year olds being certed, and the 1/2 OW course, and the resort course, ect. None of these have proven to be overly injurious, some, -years- after implementation. Remember "Pile O' Bodies"? No pile. > Some of it did, however, change some of the standards maintained by some > other agencies, GUE, for example. That's not nothing in my book, even if > I don't like the arrogance of their organization either. GUE doesn't even teach OW. I'm all for them, but, they're a drop in a barrel, not a bucket. >> And incidences of dive injury and death, already -preposterously- minute >> . . . > > Three out of four on one boat this weekend. Out tens of thousands of dives the same day. We were on a 30 year average of 88 deaths a year as of '01, but it was down in the high fifties last year. 1/3 were tech divers. There's simply no indication that OW training isn't "adequate". > It was close for number 4. That's 75%, going on 100% of that sample. And still not related to OW training. One of the divers was an OW instructor, IIRC, and the two inside had a dozen certs (IANTD only, i.e., not counting any others) between them. ===== Note: Certification Levels: Open Water Instructor EANx Instructor Snorkeling Instructor Certification Levels: Open Water Instructor EANx Instructor Advanced EANx Instructor Technical Instructor Trimix Instructor Normoxic Trimix Instructor Snorkeling Instructor Advanced Recreational Trimix Instructor ===== > Not knowing, or at least not using their SAC to ensure sufficient gas for > the dive was an apparent contributing factor. How? Were they supposed to figure out how much air it would take for the silt to clear, and their reel line to repair itself? > Your turn. Not yet. The only thing you've established so far is that you don't like the status quo. SignaturePopeye "Best thing for him, really, his therapy was going nowhere." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com >> >Not as far as I can tell, from PADI's perspective, anyway. An "OW >>>training dive" can be conducted as long as you're deeper than 15 feet, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And that's a fine opinion, but utterly and totally irrelevant to the > discussion. No more so than your opinion to the contrary. When it comes down to it, all opinions are judgement calls. Just as you've made it clear that you would not accept it, but still call it adequate. > Did a lot of ice dive training in your S. Florida OW class, Lee? > In a drysuit? Nope. Like a substantial majority of the divers in this world, I don't dive in ice or a drysuit. On the other hand, a substantial majority of the divers in this world, I dare say approaching 100%, dive below 15 feet. > The three divers that died, that you refer to here, were engaged in a > dive that had -utterly- nothing to do with OW training . . . No diving these days has nothing to do with open water training. They all start there and progress. > and, -your- more extensive training back when didn't certify you for > overhead penetration, either. Yes, as a matter of fact, it did. There were no separate certifications at that time. You were either certified or you weren't. You got all the training available to recreational divers short of instructor and you got a card that certified you were competent to dive as you judged best. In my case, that did, in fact, include diving in caves, at night, in wrecks and deep. > OW covers certain basic ground, and, if you want to advance, you either > get more instruction, or, evolve to the point of self- > instruction. The certification card warrants that its holder is competent to dive unassisted to at least 60 feet. If the person that holds it is not qualified to do so, the training was not adequate. Your statement that training is empirically evident, and some of your comments, mean that you've never seen a diver that can not assemble their equipment properly, never seen one that does not know how to use the tables and gauges or computer they're using to help control their dive and never seen a diver with dangerously poor buoyancy, navigation or other fundamental diving skills. I accept your claims that you've never seen any of these with several grains of salt. I see them all the time. So do lots of others. >> Mathematical certainty and empirical appearance are not compatible terms. > > They are in this case. Your saying so does not make it so. >> Empirical evidence suggests the opposite to me. > Only under unusual bias, as your 3/4 example below indicates. Pot calling kettle. >> I'll wait on your mathematical proof. > Posted many times, and, intrinsically simple. > More divers, less deaths. > -Period-. Where's the math? Where's the certainty? Where's the data? Where does it say that the only result of inadequate training is death? How many divers took the training, got the card and, because they are still so unconfortable in the water, never dive again? How many crash the reef and their fellow divers, never actually killing anyone. How many are not able to put their equipment together without help? How do you figure that all of these are not clear indications of inadequate training? Where are they in your mathematical certainty or your empirical evidence? >> It does when it's done to the point where it no longer covers the type of >> diving it certifies people as being competent for. It does when the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> knew that you could not go deep enough, long enough to require >> decompression. > Diving is simpler and easier now, with more technological assistance and > infrastructure. Divine is not simpler or easier now. It is, in fact, more complex and more difficult. It started with a tank, harness and regulator and maybe a water resistant watch. Most divers never did more than one dive a day. These days, the norm is a tank, BC, first stage and two second stages plus some combination of gauges and computers. The normal dive trip these days involves more than one dive per day and most often includes at least the opportunity for decompression issues on the second dive. In no way is that simpler. If I don't get to count accidents by dives that involve aspects beyond 15 feet with characteristics other than shallow, no deco, no complication dives, you don't get to count technologicical assistance or infrastructure, particularly since those are exactly the characteristics I maintain are most lacking in the training we're talking about. > People don't do heavy deco dives that you prepared for back when, by > default. What does "by default" mean? Does it have to be heavy deco to be important? > For some divers, it's -utterly-, -totally- useless, time wasting > information. > No need to waste time on, or pay for, that experience. I clearly disagree with the first. The second is the heart of my point. You pay for it whether you get it or not. The cost of each course has gone up steadily as the courses have been split and reduced, each providing less information than the previous, less expensive course. As a result, people are given less adequate information and experience in a single course that costs more than they used to get in more complete courses that cost less. It's like the reduced size candy bars that cost the same. It's smoke and mirrors designed to hide the increased cost of the same benefits. > One sub-argument is, how long should OW be, and, how much should it cost? Those are related issues, but not a sub argument. First, this "self regulated" industry has to determine what open water diving means. Then they have to designate reasonable minimum standards for that. They did that once. It included actually mastering skills rather than demonstrating the ability to do them once. It included diving, under supervision, to depth reasonably comparable to what the certification is for. I'm not sure what the standards were for buoyancy control, but I am sure that many of the graduates these days didn't get it. From there, the courses were dumbed down, split, reduced and loads of divers were certified who, at best, could perform the essential skills once and often not very well even then. One single, very large, very profitable agency has let that decline, forcing other agencies to follow or fail. You know which agency that is. The industry that was supposed to self reglate has, instead, surrendered almost completely to the allmighty dollar. >> Would you certify someone as competent to drive a tractor trailer on a 70 >> mph northern highway in the winter if you'd only seen them drive an >> automatic VW in the Wallmart parking lot? Neither would I. > No, but, that's why the Class D or whatever automobile license exists. Interestingly, in Florida, Chauffer's licenses, which was what was required to drive a truck, could be had based on nothing more than a slightly different written test. I had one. Florida decided that was not adequate and added the requirement for actual testing the ability to drive the kind of equipment in real life conditions, that the certification was for. They increased the standard to where it probably should have been in the first place. PADI did the opposite. > There are -several- levels of training to achieve a Class A CDL. There are now. CDLs have, in fact, done the opposite of what dive training has done. The process was inadequate and has been improved. With diving, the process was more adequate and has been dumbed down. > What -you- propose is that every teenager in America pay $4000 for CDL > training to get a license to drive dad's mini-van to the > prom. I didn't propose anything of the sort. I simply compared the two licensing processes. In one case, standards have been maintained and enhanced. When I learned, there was no driver's ed and almost no formal training. Today there is. When I started, a simple written test was the difference between a regular DL and a CDL. Now the difference is much greater. Overall, the training and experience for either is greater than it once was. The dive industry has gone completely the other way. >> Tables are not absolutely unnecessary unless replaced by a suitable >> replacement. Whether a computer is or is not a suitable replacement >> depends on the computer. The concepts involved are fundamental to the >> sport and no training is adequate that does not cover them. > Again, a purely anecdotal opinion. No, it's based on empirical evidence. You remember the term, right? > I haven't used a table in hundreds of dives (nearly 1000). I don't believe it for a second. Neither does anyone else that knows anything about you. You mean you haven't actually worked a dive out on one, right? I guarantee that you have a damned good idea of what the tables do or don't allow before you do every dive. That's really not the point, though. If you could run into decompression issues on a multi dive day, diving to no more than 60 feet, then the information is not meaningless or useless. It's fundamental to the process. > At least one agency doesn't teach them, and, since their students aren't > dying in -droves-, it's obviously -adequate- to teach OW without tables. They're teaching something that achieves the same purpose or they're not adequate either and we've already addressed the fact that you don't have to die for your training to prove inadequate. > SAC has no relevance to "Be back with 500". External rules are not the standard. Diving unassisted is. That's what the certification is for. > Even most overhead diving turns on 3rds, with no relevance to SAC. Not even close. If your dive is complex enough to be based on 3rds, its complex enough to require gas planning and you can't plan gas without at least presuming a max SAC. >> If you've studied tables or a suitable computer, I'll give you that one. >> Passing someone that has had weeks of problems clearing a mask who >> manages to do it once, and once only, without drowning, however, is not >> adequate either, even if nobody drowned. > More anecdote. Not at all. Specific information, witnessed and discussed by someone in this very forum. It's as empirical as anything you've presented in defense of your postion. > If he doesn't die, it's adequate. Not a standard anyone, in any certification process I have any experience with would agree with and not something anyone, in their right mind, would pay for. Makes a money back guarantee pretty useless, don't you think? > But people caterwalled about 10 year olds being certed, and the 1/2 OW > course, and the resort course, ect. > > None of these have proven to be overly injurious, some, -years- after > implementation. What does "overly injurious" mean? Is there some level of injury that's fine and some that's not? Apparently, death is the only standard you recognize. That's not what most of us mean by "adequate." > Remember "Pile O' Bodies"? > No pile. I remember you saying it quite a few times. I don't recall anyone else particularly interested in death as a standard for adequate. >> Some of it did, however, change some of the standards maintained by some >> other agencies, GUE, for example. That's not nothing in my book, even if >> I don't like the arrogance of their organization either. > GUE doesn't even teach OW. Sure they do. Have almost from the beginning. >> Three out of four on one boat this weekend. > Out tens of thousands of dives the same day. No, three out of four on one boat, on one day. You can hide any problem with numbers. Dead is still dead. > We were on a 30 year average of 88 deaths a year as of '01, but it was > down in the high fifties last year. > 1/3 were tech divers. Anecdotal. Incomplete data. Does not address any of the things, short of death, that have gone wrong. > There's simply no indication that OW training isn't "adequate". Sure there is. You simply refuse to acknowledge it. >> Not knowing, or at least not using their SAC to ensure sufficient gas for >> the dive was an apparent contributing factor. > > How? They ran out of gas. > Were they supposed to figure out how much air it would take for the silt > to clear, and their reel line to repair itself? What silt? > The only thing you've established so far is that you don't like the > status quo. Not at all. What I've established is: 1. The status quo used to be a higher standard, one that, at the time, was considered by the industry, to be the minimum. 2. That diving, even at the entry level, has become more complex and more equipment intensive, and 3. That PADI has reduced their requirements for certification to a level that does not include even a single dive to the maximum depth they are certifying for or require anything more than a single successful demonstration of any of even the reduced minimum skills they acknowledge. 4. That you choose to ignore anything less than death as an indication of a problem and that you choose not to see, or at least not to acknowledge, the kind of incompetence that everyone else notices almost every day. Lee > >> >Not as far as I can tell, from PADI's perspective, anyway. An "OW > [quoted text clipped - 199 lines] > > read more ยป FWIW, PADI standards do require mastery of skills, not just the ability to demonstrate once that you can do the skill... > The certification card warrants that its holder is competent to dive > unassisted to at least 60 feet. If the person that holds it is not > qualified to do so, the training was not adequate. The training org's legal counsel would probably argue successfully, that the card was proof that the person had completed the training and had shown reasonable proficiency at the specific time of testing, but that any future assumptions of that competency were the responsibility of the holder. > Your statement that training is empirically evident, and some of your > comments, mean that you've never seen a diver that can not assemble their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with several grains of salt. I see them all the time. So do lots of > others. Divers like you, Doug, and ESG (and Star* in case she's reading) are nature's way of protecting those poor fools from themselves. You've all given good advice and assistance, and I'm pretty sure you've all had the sense (or nerve) to suggest to some wannabe divers that they simply shouldn't. I know most of us learn by example after we become certified divers. Guys like you are the examples, the way the newbies actually become something resembling proficient. You and Doug don't necessarily have to agree on how divers should be trained as long as you have a solid grasp on how they should dive and pass that knowledge on. Even less accomplished divers like me are always on the lookout for problems when we see strangers gearing up and point out the problems or give advice if we think it's needed. The other diver learns from that, hopefully. > > For some divers, it's -utterly-, -totally- useless, time wasting > > information. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It's like the reduced size candy bars that cost the same. It's smoke and > mirrors designed to hide the increased cost of the same benefits. Go back to the truck license analogy. Why teach a new driver how to drive an 18 wheeler when there's no trucks in their future. Teach that new driver that he's not qualified to drive a truck instead and don't clutter up his learning experience with stuff he won't use in the future. Spend the available time on the simplest form of driving and teach that well. One could even argue that it's dangerous to teach a new diver how to dive an overhead environment, for instance. That sends them out thinking they actually can when in fact they haven't even found out if they can keep themselves alive in 60' of open water. Learn to walk before you run. > > One sub-argument is, how long should OW be, and, how much should it cost? It should cost enough that the remuneration to the instructor is enough to attract good people. The dive instructor is the first line of protection for each of us building our personal diving life support system. I don't want a cut rate reg and I don't want a discount instructor. > >> Tables are not absolutely unnecessary unless replaced by a suitable > >> replacement. Whether a computer is or is not a suitable replacement > >> depends on the computer. The concepts involved are fundamental to the > >> sport and no training is adequate that does not cover them. > > Again, a purely anecdotal opinion. I don't disagree that tables are a good thing to teach, but isn't the reality that we all go straight out and buy a computer and seldom refer to the tables again? So why not teach the proper use of a computer instead? If the student goes on to do some technical diving he's going to have to get a deeper understanding of tables before he gets very far, even if it's only through using software dive planners and multigas computers. JF >> > One sub-argument is, how long should OW be, and, how much should it >> > cost? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > system. I don't want a cut rate reg and I don't want a discount > instructor. You may attract a lot of wealthy people, but money does not equate to an eager student who really wants to learn, or an adequate instructor. Are instructors who charge more really better? > >> > One sub-argument is, how long should OW be, and, how much should it > >> > cost? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > eager student who really wants to learn, or an adequate instructor. Are > instructors who charge more really better? Do you shop around for a cut rate surgeon? I'm not suggesting that dive instructors are up there with surgeons in terms of what they should be paid but do you really want someone teaching you how to stay safe underwater who doesn't value their own time? I know some good people who've either opted out or refused to ever get into the dive teaching gig because of the risk/reward ratio. JF >> >> > One sub-argument is, how long should OW be, and, how much should it >> >> > cost? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > JF I'd look at the surgeon's track record and ask around. It's not that hard to find a good one. We have a plastic surgeon here who charges an arm and a leg (no pun intended) but if I was going to get some work done I'd go where my friends have gone who've had good success, and in most cases the doc they went to was cheaper. Price often has a lot to do with the geographical area you work in, not whether you are any good or not. It sometimes has to do with overhead, too. It's all about asking around and reputation. The best person "may" charge more, but it's not a good guarantee of quality. Blue Nile has an excellent reputation for selling diamonds at heavy discounts on the net. But, it sounds like you would go to Tiffany's because they charge more. > > and, -your- more extensive training back when didn't certify you for > > overhead penetration, either. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > case, that did, in fact, include diving in caves, at night, in wrecks and > deep. My OW included instruction on preparing for multistage Deco on air with doubles to 180fsw, as the local conditions included sites such as "Texas Tower". <http://www.njscuba.net/sites/site_texas_tower.html> > Your statement that training is empirically evident, and some of your > comments, mean that you've never seen a diver that can not assemble their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with several grains of salt. I see them all the time. So do lots of > others. This diver has amazing trim, doesn't he? <http://www.huntzinger.com/dive/headless.jpg> > > More divers, less deaths. > > -Period-. > > Where's the math? Where's the certainty? Where's the data? Where does it > say that the only result of inadequate training is death? I'll just settle for data that demonstrates the claim of "more divers", since the simple facts are that while there will always be more certifications, this says nothing about how many actual divers there are getting in the water (to incur that risk). FWIW, I have seen some rumblings that are suggesting that the number of dives done per year have gone down as of late, supposedly in no small part due to the aging of the Baby Boomer population bubble moving on from Scuba diving to other sports and recreational activities. As such, this would suggest "fewer divers, less deaths", which doesn't alone suggest any lowering of the fatility *rate*. From: <http://www.scubadivinginstructor.com/art5.htm> "We all have been noticing wherever we are in the world a certain decline in our diving businesses and the diving industry as a whole. The reasons of this decline are multiple and the objective of this article is not to solve the problems, ..." > ... I simply compared the two licensing > processes. In one case, standards have been maintained and enhanced. When [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > training and experience for either is greater than it once was. The dive > industry has gone completely the other way. YMMV to what degree they were able to do so, based on Legal sheltering from liability afforded by their extensive waiver processes that they put in place. > > I haven't used a table in hundreds of dives (nearly 1000). > > I don't believe it for a second. Neither does anyone else that knows > anything about you. You mean you haven't actually worked a dive out on one, > right? He's merely using a loophole of semantics, as the literal interpretation calls for the chunk of plastic in table form, instead of the intent: any sort of decision aid to ascertain one's nitrogen on/offloading, be it either a table, a dive computer ... or even an old rule of thumb such as "can't get bent on a St72". Personally, it is as unbelievable as someone who claims to dive without ever clearing their ears. > > At least one agency doesn't teach them, and, since their students aren't > > dying in -droves-, it's obviously -adequate- to teach OW without tables. > > They're teaching something that achieves the same purpose or they're not > adequate either and we've already addressed the fact that you don't have to > die for your training to prove inadequate. Again a sematics of trying to equate a functional *capability*, for the *commodity* of a physical table; Reef Fish would be proud. > > If he doesn't die, it's adequate. > > Not a standard anyone, in any certification process I have any experience > with would agree with and not something anyone, in their right mind, would > pay for. I guess that Doug will be turning in his DAN insurance card, since he is effectively claiming that no one even ever gets bent anymore. Of course, DAN's 2006 report that lists n=640 non-fatal exceptions can be disregarded. > > We were on a 30 year average of 88 deaths a year as of '01, but it was > > down in the high fifties last year. > > 1/3 were tech divers. > > Anecdotal. Incomplete data. Does not address any of the things, short of > death, that have gone wrong. A single year also fails to demonstrate (a) if it is an actual trend, and (b) what the source of that trend is. Personally, I'd put my money on the cause being from fewer dives actually performed, since that means fewer instances in which the risk metric would be applied. -hh > I'll just settle for data that demonstrates the claim of "more > divers", since the simple facts are that while there will always be > more certifications, this says nothing about how many actual divers > there are getting in the water (to incur that risk). I would agree. I've heard of a lot of people who get their certification on vacation, have a good time but never dive again. >> I'll just settle for data that demonstrates the claim of "more >> divers", since the simple facts are that while there will always be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I would agree. I've heard of a lot of people who get their certification > on vacation, have a good time but never dive again. The number of deaths has remained static for 30 years, going on 40. I haven't had the chance to get numbers from '02 to '05, and respond to Lee, but, they'll bear me out. hh states 600something cases of the bends, that's down from, IIRC, 5000 in '00 0r '01. What all y'alls implying is that there's no more divers or dives now than thirty-forty years ago, and that's -patently a b s u r d-. "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> -hh wrote: > >> I'll just settle for data that demonstrates the claim of "more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I would agree. I've heard of a lot of people who get their certification > > on vacation, have a good time but never dive again. There's been large percentages of "drop outs" for years and years. This is partly why the statistics for "Active Divers" are discussed, rather than mere numbers of Agency Certifications that have been issued. > The number of deaths has remained static for 30 years, going on 40. That's odd, for it seems like just yesterday, we heard you claim: "And incidences of dive injury and death...continue to statistically fall as they have for over 30 years" and to exclude the above from being a slip of the tongue, there was also: "We were on a 30 year average of 88 deaths a year as of '01, but it was down in the high fifties last year." So which claim are you using today - that they're steady or that they're clearly declining? > I haven't had the chance to get numbers from '02 to '05, and respond to > Lee, but, they'll bear me out. (DAN 2001 Report) 1999: 109 reported fatalities; 78 cases studied (DAN 2002 Report) 2000: 91 reported fatalities; 88 cases analysed (DAN 2003 Report) 2001: ??? reported fatalities; 77 cases analysed (DAN 2004 Report) 2002: ??? reported fatalities; 89 cases analysed (DAN 2005 Report) 2003: 153 reported fatalities, 89 cases analysed (DAN 2006 Report) 2004: 160 reported fatalities; with 88 cases analysed (DAN 2007 Report) 2005: not yet published (DAN 2008 Report) 2006: not yet published Note that DAN eliminates from their analysis all commercial, snorkel, freedive, and Non-USA / Non-Canadian citizen deaths. Also, from the 2006 report, DAN's claimed alltime high: 147 (1976) DAN's claimed alltime low: 66 (1988) > hh states 600something cases of the bends, that's down > from, IIRC, 5000 in '00 0r '01. That '600ish' wasn't the total number of injuries, but was merely a sample that was studied in detail. In many of the DAN reports, the injury statistics are expressed as percentages, which masks the population's total incident rates. In any event, my point was merely that people are getting injured consistently, which is not "highly isolated anomoly that can be utterly ignored", which makes even a ~600 sample size more than large enough to make the point. > What all y'alls implying is that there's no more divers or dives now than > thirty-forty years ago, and that's -patently a b s u r d-. Versus 30-40 years ago? Gosh, someone just moved the bar. The claim was: "Posted many times, and, intrinsically simple. More divers, less deaths. -Period-." With no "vs. 30+ years ago" trapdoor specified, this is very easily interpreted as intending to mean more divers actively diving today than ever before. Note that we can't apply a *cumulative* metric, because there's already been "N" diver deaths and the next one will be "N+1", which could only mean "more diver deaths than ever before". The only way that there could end up being "less deaths" as claimed cumulatively would be for a previously dead diver to miraculously spring back to life. -hh > "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> > That's odd, for it seems like just yesterday, we heard you claim: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So which claim are you using today - that they're steady or that > they're clearly declining? How rabid. Wow, hugh, you sound just like... Me. Take a fuckin pill. Don't make me go get Mr Big (NG). As to your question- Both statements, -ob-vious-ly-, are correct. And it's -easy- to see how. We know that I couldn't possibly be wrong. :-) On Mar 23, 5:32 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> > > That's odd, for it seems like just yesterday, we heard you claim: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > We know that I couldn't possibly be wrong. :-) "The number of deaths has remained static for 30 years, going on 40." -hh > On Mar 23, 5:32 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > "The number of deaths has remained static for 30 years, going on 40." -Exactly- right!. :-) > "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > > -hh Think about this: Organizations like PADI and NAUI have made it possible for many people to learn how to dive, where many years ago people just threw on a tank and jumped in, using whatever knowledge they got from watching Sea Hunt. Many of my friends have gone diving with other friends who are certified, but they've received no training whatsoever. So, most of today's divers may not be experts, but they have SOME degree of training which makes it safer for them and everybody around them. I would guess many divers get involved for the same reasons I am. To look at the pretty coral and fishies. They have no intention of cave diving or exploring wrecks. I may take it much farther than I originally thought I would, but I would bet that just the knowledge I received from the Net, you guys and reading all the books I got, I could probably look at coral and fishies today with no actual training, but I won't do it. > Think about this: Organizations like PADI and NAUI have made it possible > for many people to learn how to dive, where many years ago people just threw > on a tank and jumped in, using whatever knowledge they got from watching Sea > Hunt. Sure. > So, most of today's divers may not be experts, but they have SOME degree of > training which makes it safer for them and everybody around them. Which means that this improvement in safety would have shown up in the data a relatively short time after it was adopted // became mainstream. Thi varied regionally, but for the most part occurred roughly 25-30 years ago. As such, it can't be used to credit any recent changes in the data, but we should be able to go back through the data to see the decline - - assuming all other factors are equal. It *might* be what was responsible for DAN's statement that deaths peaked in 1976... ...or maybe not. The problem is that all of the other contributing factors haven't been constant. At very roughly the same time that this basic minimum training improved safety, we also had some pretty significant technology changes in our dive gear that also improved safety - - but we also had a lot more people taking up scuba, so there were more people diving and thus more instances where the risk statistic got applied, so more people died. The challenge is in how to split apart those contributing factors to examine each one's (positive or negative) contribution. The math analogy is: "only 1 equasion to try to solve for 3 unknowns", which is indeterminate (not capable of being solved) without more data of the right type. -hh >> Think about this: Organizations like PADI and NAUI have made it possible >> for many people to learn how to dive, where many years ago people just [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > -hh Correct! Here's how I see the problem: You have no stats on how many people actually dive on any given day, or to what depth. The only stats you have are how many people are "certified" divers. Many of the people I know who are certified dive about once every two years on vacation. Their refresher course is probably on the boat right before the dive, but how much danger are they really in if they only dive 35' to look at a reef? I'm not sure they have all the data in on those divers who died exploring that wreck, but that particular type of diving requires special training (which no law says you have to have) and is quite dangerous relative to recreational diving in open water at shallow depths. It's like trying to come up with a figure on whether going out of your house in the morning is more dangerous than staying in. There is no way you can get the figures at any point in time. I do know that if you don't dive you will never encounter a diving accident of any kind. On Mar 20, 11:37 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <snip> > One sub-argument is, how long should OW be, and, how much should it cost? If this sub-argument ever comes up, I'd also like to hear what you think should be included in that OW course that is not currently taught. <snip> kari > On Mar 20, 11:37 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > think should be included in that OW course that is not currently > taught. Don't ask me, I think it's just fine for what you get. On Mar 21, 8:51 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Mar 20, 11:37 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Don't ask me, I think it's just fine for what you get. What is your opinion on the "how long should OW be" question? > On Mar 21, 8:51 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What is your opinion on the "how long should OW be" question? If I had an agency, my OW class would be 25-50 dives, incorporate OW thru Rescue w/First Aid, Deep, Night, Gear Tech, and Nitrox. It would also require you to purchase a BCD of whatever type. It would cost well over $1500, take the average entry level diver 6 months of weekends to complete, and no one could afford the time or money. Especially to "drive dad's mini-van to the prom". On Mar 21, 4:32 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Mar 21, 8:51 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > It would also require you to purchase a BCD of whatever type. Sounds like a good program. I would probably include Navigation as well. > It would cost well over $1500, take the average entry level diver 6 months > of weekends to complete, and no one could afford the time or money. Why not? Don't you think that there are people who have spent that much on diving education? As for not being able to afford it, there aren't very many homeless divers... most people who enter this sport (where I come from, at least) are not poor. And what if you spread it not over six months, but over say a year? Would that make it more affordable? > Especially to "drive dad's mini-van to the prom". This, I don't get. (but you don't need to 'splain me this. I'll just live with my ignorance this time.) Now, what do you think about the original question I asked: What is your opinion on the "how long should OW be" question? I mean the OW course that includes the current items... > "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" wrote: > > If I had an agency, my OW class would be 25-50 dives, incorporate OW thru [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sounds like a good program. I would probably include Navigation as > well. May as well throw in "Master Diver", since that much training will satisfy PADI's Paper Tiger definition. > > It would cost well over $1500, take the average entry level diver 6 months > > of weekends to complete, and no one could afford the time or money. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not over six months, but over say a year? Would that make it more > affordable? Its not that it isn't affordable, but the only real difference is that within the current structure, these costs simply sneak up on you, and you might take 2-3 years to reach the same point. Afterall, looking at comparable classes, I'd say that there's already at least $1200 worth of Cards in just that which has been casually thrown out. And if a score of required dives are included in the price, its actually a bargain. > > Especially to "drive dad's mini-van to the prom". > > This, I don't get. (but you don't need to 'splain me this. I'll just > live with my ignorance this time.) The basic arguement is that a level of operation where the perceived risk is trivial is being claimed to not merit a high degree of training and/or readiness. Of course, because Doug was in the Corps, his overseas stations were probably to Pacific Rim countries where cultural expectations for driving safety performance are notoriously quite low. Had he been in the Army and stationed in Germany, he would have learned that servicemembers who wanted to be allowed to drive off post on the local German roads would need to meet Germany's national driver training standards - - the last I heard, the semi-abbreviated version takes a couple of months and costs $3000-$4000 per person...this is essentially what a teenager in Germany is required to do in order to take his date even to just the Prom in Dad's Mercedes A-Class microvan. -hh > > "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" wrote: > > > If I had an agency, my OW class would be 25-50 dives, incorporate OW thru [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > And if a score of required dives are included in the price, its > actually a bargain. That is what I thought. You raise a good point though, about Master Scuba Diver. If we're going to give that card as well, we'll need to add another $50 at least. > > > Especially to "drive dad's mini-van to the prom". > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > risk is trivial is being claimed to not merit a high degree of > training and/or readiness. Ah. I get it. Thank you - you saved Doug and I a lot of trouble, toing and froing... :-) kari > Of course, because Doug was in the Corps, his overseas stations were > probably to Pacific Rim countries where cultural expectations for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > take his date even to just the Prom in Dad's Mercedes A-Class > microvan. > -hh >>Of course, because Doug was in the Corps, his overseas stations were >>probably to Pacific Rim countries where cultural expectations for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>take his date even to just the Prom in Dad's Mercedes A-Class >>microvan. How times do change. When I was in Germany, we drove whatever we wanted wherever we wanted. The advantage of being occupying forces. But why do the Dems not protest? The war is over for a half century and we still have forces there? Jeeeezus - bring the troops home! Let the herms fight their own civil wars! > >>Of course, because Doug was in the Corps, his overseas stations were > >>probably to Pacific Rim countries where cultural expectations for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > How times do change. When I was in Germany, we drove whatever we wanted > wherever we wanted. The advantage of being occupying forces. Tourism isn't hurt because there's a 185 day grace period, plus some US States have reciprical agreements (of various flavors). Things are going to change some more with the EU; there's some talk of abolishing the 'no speed limit' portions of the Autobahn, plus Carbon economy talk. In the meantime, the fee to take the driving test is 500 Euros...roughly $675. Add to that the cost for your sponsoring driving school, which typically runs another $2K in driving lessons if they like you, double that if they don't. And roughly 1/3rd of all candidates flunk the written test and get to pay more. -hh >> "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" wrote: >> > If I had an agency, my OW class would be 25-50 dives, incorporate OW [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > May as well throw in "Master Diver", since that much training will > satisfy PADI's Paper Tiger definition. By the time I was through with them, those that were still alive would accurately rate the distinction. :-) > -hh > On Mar 21, 4:32 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> >>news:1174483488.589284.311700@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Sounds like a good program. I would probably include Navigation as > well. Absolutely. My previous descriptions included it, and something else I'm forgetting. I'm the best compass/nav teacher I know, wet or dry. >> It would cost well over $1500, take the average entry level diver 6 >> months >> of weekends to complete, and no one could afford the time or money. > > Why not? Don't you think that there are people who have spent that > much on diving education? Sure, a small fraction of divers. Why on earth require it of everybody? My buddies that got me into diving, and have been diving longer than me, just don't need it. I'm over 1000 dives in 9 years, one of them isn't over 50 dives in 20. > As for not being able to afford it, there > aren't very many homeless divers... most people who enter this sport > (where I come from, at least) are not poor. That's not my choice to make, or yours. I, myself, did all that, and more, in about four months. > And what if you spread it > not over six months, but over say a year? Would that make it more > affordable? Sure, but, still not necessary. Some people don't want to know how to rebuild regulators. Some people only dive 3-4 times a year, on a warm, hi-viz shallow reef. Dan Bracuk, RS veteran, only has an OW card, no nitrox, IIRC, after -at least- a decade of diving all over the world. He has a decent argument, for himself, why the rest is simply unnecessary. >> Especially to "drive dad's mini-van to the prom". > > This, I don't get. (but you don't need to 'splain me this. I'll just > live with my ignorance this time.) Getting tractor-trailer training to drive the family mini-van. And it's the answer to the above question. Some people just don't want or need all that training, and, it would be as much as barring them from the sport to require it. > Now, what do you think about the original question I asked: What is > your opinion on the "how long should OW be" question? I mean the OW > course that includes the current items... Mine was 3 days long, and it was just fine. Hundreds of thousands have graduated the three day class, and did just fine. "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> sputtered: > I'm over 1000 dives in 9 years, Your occasional trips into the bathtub aren't considered dives, Fatboy. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On Mar 22, 1:47 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Mar 21, 4:32 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > >> >>news:1174483488.589284.311700@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Why on earth require it of everybody? We don't. That's why it's split up into different courses. :-) > My buddies that got me into diving, and have been diving longer than me, > just don't need it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's not my choice to make, or yours. I didn't say it was my choice to make. You just sound argumentative here; are you trying to argue? . > I, myself, did all that, and more, in about four months. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Some people don't want to know how to rebuild regulators. WHAT? Surely you jest. This was one of the most interesting courses I've taken. And I regularly take one apart in OW class, just for fun. > Some people only dive 3-4 times a year, on a warm, hi-viz shallow reef. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > And it's the answer to the above question. Okay, that makes sense. > Some people just don't want or need all that training, and, it would be as > much as barring them from the sport to require it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hundreds of thousands have graduated the three day class, and did just > fine. Thank you. kari > On Mar 22, 1:47 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> > On Mar 21, 4:32 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> >> >>news:1174483488.589284.311700@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > We don't. That's why it's split up into different courses. :-) Hey, -you- asked -me-! Is this another one of those win-win-win things? :-) But if you wanted -my- card, you'd do it -my- way. I have to be ready to dive in a dozen different environments. Sometimes, more than one in the same day (especially to keep up with these frikkin guys). I do pretty well, and, I do pretty well at being a duty expert. This comes from the cross training, and the cross training environments. We haven't even gotten into Popeye's Magic Bag yet. :-)** >> My buddies that got me into diving, and have been diving longer than >> me, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I didn't say it was my choice to make. You just sound argumentative > here; are you trying to argue? . Why, has there been any doubt previously? :-) I must be slipping. No argument, I'm just answering -your- statements. >> I, myself, did all that, and more, in about four months. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I've taken. And I regularly take one apart in OW class, just for > fun. For me, it was something that significantly contributed to my in-water comfort. It's not voo-doo going on behind your head, but a simple, trustworthy mechanical process. >> Some people only dive 3-4 times a year, on a warm, hi-viz shallow reef. >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Thank you. > kari You're welcome. =============== ** http://www.finalprotectivefire.com/pix/Gear%20Flicks/Box%20Contents%201.JPG http://www.finalprotectivefire.com/pix/Gear%20Flicks/Into%20Boxes%202.JPG http://www.finalprotectivefire.com/pix/Gear%20Flicks/Boxes%20Bag%20Contents%203.JPG http://www.finalprotectivefire.com/pix/Gear%20Flicks/IntoFull%20Bag%204.JPG http://www.finalprotectivefire.com/pix/Gear%20Flicks/Popeye%27s%20Magic%20Bag.JPG Main Bag: (this list is a bit dated) 1) Quattros, 2 pair. 2) Tank cam strap, spare (2) 3) Delrin Spool, 50m 4) Wrist compass 5) Retractor/compass 6) Vyper 7) Dacor Nitrox 8) 3) 3-C lights 9) 1) 8-D light 10) 9 asst tables 11) Wetnotes 12) 2 bundles zip strips, 2 lengths 13) 15' web harness 14) Spare lift bag, 50# 15) 20' shock cord, 2 sizes 16) Tank pressure checker 17) 3 pairs gloves, light, medium, heavy 18) Reg plug ratchet wrench 19) 2) 2AAA lights 20) SeaDrops, 8 oz, nfs (6 bottles) 21) Dive alert 22) Collapsible dive flag 23) 2) LPI hoses, spare 24) 3 reg hose/ 2 spg hoses 25) River Stick 26) 2 hoods 27) First aid kit 28) 2 masks in boxes w/ defog 29) OMS seatbelt cutter 30) 2 powder coated carabineers 31) Half mill skin 32) 3 mill shortie 33) Spare sport reg set Dry Box 1 1) 30 hits Triptone 2) Sinex Utrafine, the best 3) SeaDrops 4) Viton O-rings, 40 ct 5) Silicone tub 6) Wetnote pencil Dry Box 2 1) O2 analyzer 2) LPI pressure gauge 3) 1) 1AAA light 4) Seasickess wristwatch Tool Bag 1) Tech lube 2) Spare fin strap w/ buckle 3) Spare fin strap w/o 4) White paint marker 5) LP blowgun 6) Spray food grade silicone 7) 8" bulldog spanner 8) Tank knob tool 9) Spare mouthpiece 10) Spare SPG Parts Bag 1) Crotch strap 2) Sun lotion 3) Insect repellent 4) Mask scrub/cleaner 5) Hose adapter fittings 6) Z knife 7) Spare dive watch 8) Cyalume sticks 9) 2 Snorkel keepers 10) 15 regulator plugs DIR Kit 1) 22 pcs SS hardware 2) 3 D-rings 3) 5' shock cord 4) 3 serrated keepers 5) Spare buckle 6) Spare SS boltsnap 7) 4" bulldog spanner 8) 6" bulldog spanner I keep my BP/W on the tank, with shears, spool, liftbag. On Mar 22, 6:59 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Mar 22, 1:47 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Hey, -you- asked -me-! :-) > Is this another one of those win-win-win things? :-) Sure, we can look at it that way, if you like. I'm interested in the opinion - mostly because we have some students here that we'll likely be doing further training with this summer (did OW last year) and I'm curious if their perspective of what they think should come next is the same as mine, yours, etc. I realize it's not part of OW training, per se, but there are some people who are going to choose to participate in further training, and I'm just curious. It seems that you and I are not that far off on what we think should be next (what would be included in the uber-OW course). > But if you wanted -my- card, you'd do it -my- way. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I do pretty well, and, I do pretty well at being a duty expert. A "duty expert"? > This comes from the cross training, and the cross training environments. > > We haven't even gotten into Popeye's Magic Bag yet. :-)** What can I say, besides, "Nice Bag!" :-) What is a "river stick" and what is triptone? You have a nice setup, and I like how well prepared you are. Also, you are an excellent packer to get all that stuff in one bag. > >> My buddies that got me into diving, and have been diving longer than > >> me, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > It's not voo-doo going on behind your head, but a simple, trustworthy > mechanical process. I agree wholeheartedly. That's part of why I like to take one apart in OW. It also helps to show why gear should be maintained, and kept clean. > >> Some people only dive 3-4 times a year, on a warm, hi-viz shallow reef. > [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] > > I keep my BP/W on the tank, with shears, spool, liftbag. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message