Wreck penetration and queuing

[Jim Lapenta]

I'm not sure I am following what you are saying here. The way I read this, you are saying when divers come out of your OW class, they are certified to 100 ft because you have provided them the skills to be able to do that. (Did you actually take them on a 100 ft dive?) But then you say they shouldn't attempt something like that even in their first 20 dives. If they want to dive to 100 ft sooner than 20 dives, they need to come back to you for more training. Why? What else are you going to train and teach them that would allow them to go to 100 ft sooner than 20 dives? You claim they already have the skills for that. The bottom line is, they either have the skills and knowledge to do the dives to that level or they don't. If they need more training from you to dive to a depth of 100 ft before 20 dives, then you haven't given them the knowledge and skills to do the dives like you claim.

You obviously are not familiar with the YMCA Scuba Program or SEI that came from it when the Y closed the program. YMCA standards and SEI standards have always mandated that OW divers be trained to the maximum sport diving limit of 100 feet. This is why we include things like rescue skills, emergency deco planning using the US Navy Air Deco Tables, and require 16 hours in the classroom and pool. The skills and task loading mandated in the training was and is designed to allow the diver to dive to the recreational sport diving limits as they gain experience by diving independent of professional instruction and guidance once they have their OW diver card.

Early on in organized dive training there were no so called specialties other than the SLAM rescue course. "Specialties" were a money making scheme that one agency set up. In order to be competitive all the others had to follow suit. It was Diver, Instructor, Instructor Trainer, that was it. The SLAM Rescue course was developed with thinking similar to lifeguard training as more divers were entering the water and it was recognized that the local EMS was not always a phone call and ten minutes away. Plus there are some things specific to diving that the average emergency responder just would not be familiar with.

The caveat to come back for more training if they want to get to deeper depths sooner is simple. It takes some time to build up to deep dives on one's own. You may not realize how narced you are if you try to go to 100 feet on dive 6. Or just how fast your gas actually goes. Having an instructor to oversee and give tips, watch reactions, and check judgment is just a safeguard. Some do not want to take the time to go five feet deeper at a time and actually learn how their body reacts and how they respond. They want to accelerate the process. That is where the additional training comes in.

They have the knowledge and the skills necessary to go to 100 feet right out of the OW class. Just as any kid with a drivers license has the knowledge and skills to get on the freeway and if he wants to zip along at 70 mph. As long as nothing goes wrong. If it does however he is liable to be in a world of hurt. So he needs to build up to that 70 mph cruising speed and get some experience responding to changing conditions over time. Or she can take an upper level defensive driving class and get there sooner. I have not seen many of those but here in PA we have free upper level motorcycle courses. You take the beginner course designed for those who have never been on a bike before. great course even if you have! Then you can just ride along and gain experience over a few seasons. Or you can take the advanced course on your own bike and learn stuff that people riding for years have not experienced. I want to take it but just don't have the time right now.

Bottom line is they have the knowledge and skills. What they don't yet have is the experience and judgment that comes from a number of dives. That is where either time or experience gained with an instructor who can accelerate the process comes in. That is what we tell them. You can gain the experience needed to put those skills and knowledge together on your own or with an instructor. I never said they could not go to 100 ft on dive 10. That is their business if they choose to. Whether it is a smart choice is debatable depending on the diver.


As to your question as to what else am I going to train them on? Hmm, use of a stage bottle to add to their available gas supply for emergency - not in the OW class. Wish it was. Shooting a bag from depth in case they lose the anchor or mooring line. Also not in the OW class. Unless the student tells me they plan to go on drift or boat dives. Then I put it in. Use of lights for communication deep since locally it can be like a night dive at high noon. More rescue skills. No mask drills. Stuff they could get over time that is nice to have for deeper dives.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think the main crux of this thread and what devides the sides is the aspect of OW traiing being good to 60 or 130'. The line seams pretty clear that instructors and those who derive financial gain from diving call it 130' and those who do not call it 60'. I believe there is one agency or so that does train to dive the full recreational depth range. Certainly not PADI or any agency that has AOW and DEEP in thier training sales chest. It has been acknoledged for ages that to train to dive the full recreational range would take too long. The anser was to break the training into segments of duration tht most students could commit to.

This is an oft repeated myth. I believed it myself for a while, but it is actually completely off base. Read this History of NAUI, which was written in the mid 1990s. Its principal author Al Tillman, was the Director of the Los Angeles County dive training program. He then founded NAUI and was NAUI Instructor #1. In this history he explains that way back in the 1960s, the Los Angeles program was troubled by the fact that so many people were learning to dive, trying it for a while, and then quitting. In an attempt to change that, they created the Advanced Diver program. Its primary purpose was to introduce divers to a variety of diving experiences in the hope that they would find something that would interest them enough to keep at it. Soon after that, NAUI added its advanced program for the same reason. PADI followed suit after a while. That is why the focus of advanced dive programs is a variety of diving experiences more than perfecting skills. The division between OW and AOW was created by adding the AOW to the existing OW program, and the purpose was to inspire divers to dive more, not to make a buck. Both Los Angeles County and NAUI were non-profits with other sources of income.

In that same history, Tillman says that some veterans of the first days of NAUI believed that the average diver being produced today (i. e., the mid 1990s) in OW classes is better than the average instructor in those first days. So much for the good old days.

---------- Post added July 15th, 2014 at 03:34 PM ----------

Those who take the extreem positions will say no way under any circumstances. That is agenda talking and not common sence. In regards to doing swimthroughs on wrecks that have good vis and no entanglements, or shwiminmg donw the side of a ship with an overhang above sould require no more than a personal evaluation of abilities by each diver as to whether to do or not to do. The guidance on how to make those decisions in the most basic classes should be done, because it is valuable when encountering those GRAY area dive decisions.

John yuor first paragraph demonstrates just what i have been saying. only 2 choices to look at things. there are many choices but bottom line is ther is only right and wrong. Yes right or wrong. The aspect that makes this a mutifaceted issue ins not the right or wrong its how you handle the rights or wrongs. (in your words ...choices) Your position is that there is very right, right, kinda right, kinda wrong (but i can get away with it. wrong and no one is looking,,, and deadly wrong.

...
Other than that we will just have to agree to disagree.

I am thoroughly confused. It seems to me that your two posts argue vigorously for two totally contradictory opinions. In which is it that you believe--absolute right or wrong, or guidance to make individual decision making in the gray areas?

 

[NAM001]

I believe you see a conflict in my posts because of the difference between clear cut no doubt about it circumstances of wrong and the gray areas where you need some guidance to determine wrong from right. For example when i dove the oriskany while cruising down the side of the ship you pass under extended prtions of the above decking. Myself I dont cosider that overhead environment. Its not even a swim through, though some will say there was no clear path to the surface so it was an overhead environment. The guidance i am refering to is to convey that swimming under a gun barrel is not an overhead envronment and as such should no be treated as such. Very much like difrenciating between a cave and cavern. Whether we like it or not hard rules do not always fit the situation. but there is no gray area when going into a cave or some where you need a line to get you out. I am a firm believer that if you are an OW you are limited by the extent of your training to 60 ft. do I see a problem with going to 65 no. If you have teh skills to do 100 then get an AOW card and present your self as such.. There are as you will agree times when one must mitigate the dangers, we all do it or have done it, however we do not have to promote it or shrug it off because we all do it. When you have insta buddies one has no idea what thier skills are. Alll that is available is the card they carry. If you and I met on a boat and you persented an OW card to amake the trip on a 90 ft dive I would not buddy with you because of the credentials you presented. If it was a 70 ft dive I may push my luck and say ok depending on other factors. Those are the gray areas i refer to. I guess my region of gray area is much narrower than most others. Is going to 70 ft exceeding your OW training. Black and white....yes it is. Is it technically wrong to do it.... yes it is.. can you manage a situation if one arises. that is the gray area. For divers like your self gray areas can become pretty wide. for a pair of new OW's its so thin it doesnt exist. when I refer to extreem positions I refer to those that would consider passing under protrusion as an overhead because of an unbending interpretation of a definition. In regards to overheads is a cavern an over head yes a cave yes a bus with a 8x8 hole in hte top every 5-t10 ft. probably not. with BAD vis yes. The problem with hard rules is that most people have no idea why they are there and when they apply based on the dangers involved that caused the rule to be made. We all have to decide our own actions when we dive,, and some moderate guidance to new divers who WILL take chances is necessary to help them make the right decisions to error on the side of safety. The act of taking a bunch of OW's (new or not) to a site that is 90 ft with a wall to 1000 is so far past the gray area is should not be considered But they do and fortunately very few are harmed in the process. Unfortunately the low incident rate fuels its continuance. Not a charter around will say one day in a pool and one day in a lake demonstarating shallow water skills for cert dives. does not make them unsafe do these dives. Because if anything happens they have a waiver and they are just a TAXI. I have a middle ground, It just doesnt have as much acrage as others have. If OW was good to 130' then agencies would not have AOW and DEEP courses to train you to dive n those regions. Logc would dictate that since they do teach those follow up courses that teh OW does not equip a diver for such dives.

This is an oft repeated myth. I believed it myself for a while, but it is actually completely off base. Read this History of NAUI, which was written in the mid 1990s. Its principal author Al Tillman, was the Director of the Los Angeles County dive training program. He then founded NAUI and was NAUI Instructor #1. In this history he explains that way back in the 1960s, the Los Angeles program was troubled by the fact that so many people were learning to dive, trying it for a while, and then quitting. In an attempt to change that, they created the Advanced Diver program. Its primary purpose was to introduce divers to a variety of diving experiences in the hope that they would find something that would interest them enough to keep at it. Soon after that, NAUI added its advanced program for the same reason. PADI followed suit after a while. That is why the focus of advanced dive programs is a variety of diving experiences more than perfecting skills. The division between OW and AOW was created by adding the AOW to the existing OW program, and the purpose was to inspire divers to dive more, not to make a buck. Both Los Angeles County and NAUI were non-profits with other sources of income.

In that same history, Tillman says that some veterans of the first days of NAUI believed that the average diver being produced today (i. e., the mid 1990s) in OW classes is better than the average instructor in those first days. So much for the good old days.

---------- Post added July 15th, 2014 at 03:34 PM ----------




I am thoroughly confused. It seems to me that your two posts argue vigorously for two totally contradictory opinions. In which is it that you believe--absolute right or wrong, or guidance to make individual decision making in the gray areas?

 

[nimoh]

This is an oft repeated myth. I believed it myself for a while, but it is actually completely off base. Read this History of NAUI, which was written in the mid 1990s. Its principal author Al Tillman, was the Director of the Los Angeles County dive training program. He then founded NAUI and was NAUI Instructor #1. In this history he explains that way back in the 1960s, the Los Angeles program was troubled by the fact that so many people were learning to dive, trying it for a while, and then quitting. In an attempt to change that, they created the Advanced Diver program. Its primary purpose was to introduce divers to a variety of diving experiences in the hope that they would find something that would interest them enough to keep at it. Soon after that, NAUI added its advanced program for the same reason. PADI followed suit after a while. That is why the focus of advanced dive programs is a variety of diving experiences more than perfecting skills. The division between OW and AOW was created by adding the AOW to the existing OW program, and the purpose was to inspire divers to dive more, not to make a buck. Both Los Angeles County and NAUI were non-profits with other sources of income.

While I'm not saying this is wrong, as I wasn't around diving back then and have no basis on which to make an assessment.

However, as a founder of an agency I don't think it would be in his best interest to tell people that specialties were motivated by profit. When writing the "History of NAUI", it would be in his best interest to put NAUI in the best light possible.

 

[BDSC]

You obviously are not familiar with the YMCA Scuba Program or SEI that came from it when the Y closed the program.

Not really. I can't even remember what all PADI taught when I took the course back in 91 but thanks for the info.

The caveat to come back for more training if they want to get to deeper depths sooner is simple. It takes some time to build up to deep dives on one's own. You may not realize how narced you are if you try to go to 100 feet on dive 6. Or just how fast your gas actually goes. Having an instructor to oversee and give tips, watch reactions, and check judgment is just a safeguard. Some do not want to take the time to go five feet deeper at a time and actually learn how their body reacts and how they respond. They want to accelerate the process. That is where the additional training comes in.......Bottom line is they have the knowledge and skills. What they don't yet have is the experience and judgment that comes from a number of dives. That is where either time or experience gained with an instructor who can accelerate the process comes in. That is what we tell them. You can gain the experience needed to put those skills and knowledge together on your own or with an instructor.

Got it. The way I initially read it, it seemed as if something was left out that they needed to know in the OW class but you are talking more about providing a diving experience with a more experienced person/buddy/instructor than really teaching something new they didn't already learn in the OW class.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

To a point yes. Other than the new items that are added like I noted that there just is not time for in the ow class. It is much easier for example to learn how to sling a stage with an instructor than trying to do it on your own. Which I had to do. Same with judging degree of narcosis is easier when you have someone tasking you and can give feedback on your response that you might not notice with only a few dives. Also need to remember that some of the aow classes like myself and nw grateful diver teach add more intense tasks overall. We believe that if you are going to do "advanced" dives there are things that make doing that safer and more enjoyable. So it is a refinement of what is in the ow class along with new skills that are not. Things that a diver may or may not pick up over time depending on who they dive with, where they dive, and what the conditions are. The person doing this on their own may not realize that there are other ways of handling things that work better. Not that their way is wrong but it never hurts to know more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[NAM001]

I was cruizing the threads and came across this today

Maximum depth (SDI) Hello SDIers,
I was wondering, what's the maximum recommended/allowed depth for Advanced Adventure Diver? I have an insurance saying it's valid only within certified depth limits. I know OWD is 18m, but what's the maximum depth of AAD? Is it 30? I can't find it anywhere. That might be a problem with the insurance company, right?

Thanks a lot, Best regards,
Aleš

 

[slane]

This has been a very interesting discussion to follow, particularly the topic of overhead environments.

Since most of the people participating in this conversation are well seasoned, very experienced diving professionals, I'm going to weigh in with an opinion just to offer a view point from someone who is not. After all, this is the basic discussion forum.

I originally got OW certified about 20 years ago through PADI. I dove off and on over the next 10 years or so and ended up going through PADI AOW and Nitrox and then I did NAUI rescue and public safety diver. (I work in public safety so I was able to do these courses through the GA fire academy.) Unfortunately life happened and I quit diving for a long time. I'm just now getting back into it after a hiatus of about 10 years. In many ways that puts me on the same level as a brand new diver as far as I'm concerned. (I only relate this because nobody here knows me and to help shed light on my point of view.)

IMO one of the biggest problems with this topic (and the 60' vs. 130' depth limit to a degree) is applying the concept of absolutes. It is my belief that you do the new diver a disservice when you take this approach with them.

If you take a new, average dive trainee out into the ocean for a 60' check off dive, certify that individual as an OW diver, and then tell them that overhead environments are an ABSOLUTE no-no that's all well and good. Well what if the very next dive they go on they encounter this?

Is it an overhead environment? Technically, yes. But the newly minted OW diver is going to look at it (and the other divers swimming under it) and wonder what the big deal is. They're going to head over and swim through it like everyone else is doing and think you as their instructor are crazy for telling them they're not trained/equipped/qualified/ready to swim through the arch. The problem this creates is that you as their instructor and a diving professional have now lost credibility with them, at least to some degree. As this line of reasoning continues, the new diver now starts to wonder what else you were wrong about.

On their next dive out they might encounter this:

Swimming under the arch was a piece of cake so how hard could this be? It has huge openings in all sides, plus one in the roof. So in they go and the next thing they know they've kicked up the silt and now they can't see. Suddenly they realize they're tangled up in God-knows-what and can't get loose and they drown.

Perhaps a better approach would be for the diving industry and training agencies to acknowledge the concept that all overheads are not created equal and adjust their teaching methodology to account for that. I don't pretend to have the perfect solution, but maybe the AOW course could be modified or a specialty course introduced that would teach recreational diving students important criteria to look for and how to identify the features that distinguish a safe swim through from a more advanced wreck penetration. Teach them to identify entanglement hazards, narrow passageways and openings (too narrow to pass through while sharing air), and the hazards of silt-out and loss of visibility. I'm not necessarily saying to teach them how to deal with/mitigate these problems at this level, but if they at least know what hazards to look out for then they will be more likely to avoid them and you (their instructor) will maintain a greater level of credibility with them than the guy who simply says "NO."

Just a thought.

(Images above were found on Google/Facebook.)

 

[Akimbo]

…

Swimming under the arch was a piece of cake so how hard could this be? It has huge openings in all sides, plus one in the roof. So in they go and the next thing they know they've kicked up the silt and now they can't see. Suddenly they realize they're tangled up in God-knows-what and can't get loose and they drown…

Entanglement doesn’t concern me much on this one. Collapse on the other hand does. I would never send my brother in there.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Good thoughts Steve. I can't see the first image you posted, and the second one looks pretty wide-open. What I'd like you to consider is the possibility of what could happen if you suddenly lost your visibility. It looks pretty good in there, but a lot of wrecks (most?) collect silt inside ... or develop "rustcicles" on the roof that can emulsify when your bubbles hit them. I've experienced the latter before, and vis goes to maybe a foot. Would you be able to find your way out? Even the most benign-looking overhead could be hard to find your way out of if you can't see where you're going. That's why it's always a good idea to have a backup plan ... which assumes you're capable of developing and implementing one.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)