Are we diving or swimming?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

fran2bo3, it never seems to fail, I always tend to have students that ask, why must I be able to swim to scuba dive. Here is my explanation. In short, every skill the student will learn, even the 300 yard swim (200 depending on the agency), has value for a particular situation in scuba. I use the scenario of a tired diver or worse an unconscious diver being dragged in by his buddy that may be 100 yards off shore (as most of our quarries around here match that description). Dragging the buddy 100 yards, with out him helping, is the equivalent to the diver swimming 300 yards with no aids. Think of it like resistant training, add weight decrease repetitions or distance. Now from an Instructor's stand point, I have taken a personal vow to do everything in my power to protect my students, so the increased swimming skills both distance and time restraints keeps me in optimal performance for my students and my sake. As far as why each agency tends to continue to use the swimming skills as minimum standards (primarily the WRSTC and the RSTC), I believe because it does set a minimum standard for the Industry as a whole. In a situation where a student dies while in training or even after training (in today's world you can sue anybody for anything at anytime), being able to fall back on standards that are pre-set and have been set that way for a while, will possibly give the Instructor more of a defense in court. I for one have spent well over 600 hours in court (estimated of course, most likely more than that) both in criminal (both local and federal trials) and civil cases from small claims (less than $2500.00 in retribution) to large civil cases (millions of dollars being sought by the claimant) and have learned that no matter how well a lawyer presents a case, it all comes down to, did the defendant follow the rules or not. Now granted there are no guarantees, especially in court, however, I would rather be on the side that has already set standards that are time proven, than to be on the side that says, well times have changed so these old standards are no longer applicable. In 2013, while at DEMA, I spoke to one of the Board of Directors about standards for a particular training agency because of the way it was printed in there Instructor Manual. Now I already knew the answer to the question I was asking (mostly due to my training and experience and common sense, though my wife would disagree with the last part), but I was asking because it was an age restriction on a certain class, and it seemed to be out dated. The answer I got, matched what I already knew, however, it did open the floor for discussion on possibly changing that particular standard, which it did get changed. The point of that last part is, instead of asking on Scuba Board (though if you can weed through all the junk, this is still a great place to ask other Instructors, even crazy ones like me, questions), I would start at the head of standards the WRSTC and RSTC. I might would even start with the agency that you teach for, and see what they have to say about it. I teach for multiple agencies and there has yet to be one that I haven't called at some point and time to ask a question. Agencies in general want their Instructors to call them with questions and concerns, it assures them that the Instructor is giving the best quality of training to his students. In 2014, I called 2 of the agencies I teach for, because of a handicap that a student had, particularly on the swimming. And the advise I got was something that I would have never thought of. One student had a recent knee surgery, and another one had a back problem. Now as smart as I sometimes come off to be (according to my wife), I could not figure out a way for them to do the swim without asking the agency for permission to omit that part of the confined water work. After contacting both agencies, I was giving advice on how to proceed. In the end, both students performed the required swim, (1 did 300 yards / and 1 did 200 yards). Hope this does not confuse you, only trying to give you my perspective on the subject, but I would start with the training agency then contact WRSTC and RSTC. Happy Diving.
 
Whoa, a favourite topic. Trimming down my extensive opinions:
1. Swimming is at best a distant cousin to diving.
2. Swimming is a "Life Skill" (a quote of Jim Lapenta). Should know how if you do ANYTHING around or in water approaching "over your head" (or with current).
3. Swimming is a sport (CAN be competitive). Diving is an activity. Proper swimming includes proper form and SWIMMING muscles being in shape. Diving involves (among obvious other things) proper kicking & arm position--NOT something that should require a lot of (precise) training.
4. Swimming has nothing to do with using fins.
5. Haven't yet been told of a possible scenario where a diver (or dive pro) would be doing anything without fins on.
6. Re 5: If you are a long distance from boat/shore and must ditch the scuba unit to be able to make it, you won't ditch your fins and you WILL use your arms in a normal swim stroke, unlike the DM 800 m/f/s test which prohibits this. So you have fins and you are actually swimming, but it doesn't count as regular finless swimming. You are disqualified from the competition!
7. The PADI (and other agencies I would assume) OW swim test (and float) and the DM "stamina tests" were set up decades ago I think, because the powers that be then figured these were good ideas (I don't disagree). They have probably not been altered at all (to maybe be more practical and relevant) because nobody has thought to do so.

Check "Going Pro" forum threads from 5-6 years ago for a whole raft of opinions on this.
 
another take: Divers by definition hang out around water. Divers do not always wear flotation devices (wet suits, etc) when on the pier or boat. Sometimes they fall in. I did.

Reason number one, and why my daughter had to learn to swim when she was very young, and well before she learned SCUBA.


I need not bore anyone with my initial swimming requirement, because I thought they were over the top to begin with. But the changes in the "recent" requirements seem troublesome to me.

From my PADI manuals

1980 Swim test
  • 200 yard swim using two different strokes
  • 40' underwater
  • dive 8' to 10' and retrive 5# object
  • tread water for 5 minutes
  • float,drownproof,or bob with minimum movement for 5 minutes



1999 swim test
  • 200 yard swim
  • 10 minute float
or
  • 300 yard mask fin snorkel swim and float



Bob
-------------------------------------------------
That's my point, people, by and large, are not taught that diving can be deadly, they are taught how safe it is, and they are not equipped with the skills, taught and trained to the level required to be useful in an emergency.
 
All divers should be proficient, and those on whom other divers rely (professionals) should be extremely proficient.

So, what defines "proficient" and "extremely proficient"?

I am sure pretty much everyone agrees you should be proficient, but few seem to agree on what that means. For some people, "proficient" seems to mean at the level of a competition swimmer. There are people who argue regularly that swimming is no longer required by most agencies, since the current standards are so far beneath them that they don't consider being able to perform at that level being able to swim at all.

Some years ago I noticed that one of my students was wearing a University of Arizona swim team shirt in class, and when we got to the pool I saw a UA logo tattooed in his side. Yes, he said, he had been on the UA swim team a few years before. When I suggested that he should be OK with the 200 yard swim, he admitted that at one point he had been ranked 6th in the world at that distance. When we did the swim, he made no effort to show off. He just did a lazy crawl back and forth across the pool. In doing so, he created a wave that went all the way from side to side. He clearly impeded anyone going the other way on that lap, and he clearly helped anyone going his direction. I had never seen anything like it, and I called in others nearby to see it. It was truly amazing.

Is that what people mean by "extremely proficient"? If so, I don't cut it.
 
I shouldn't be teaching.
 
I'd obviously never be able to enter a GUE class based on timed swim test, but I am a very fit 56 year old.

It is timed.. but it's a relatively LONG time for a relatively SHORT swim.

---------- Post added January 29th, 2015 at 03:56 PM ----------

So, what defines "proficient" and "extremely proficient"?


Even as a competitive/distance swimmer, I think the emphasis on timed "swims" is not much use. I'd tie swims to something dive-useful:

Proficient = being able to tow/push/pull another diver say 100yds. If you wanted to make it timed, I'd say in 3-4min.
Extremely proficient = being able to tow/push/pull another diver say 200yds. If you wanted to make it timed, I'd say in 5-7min. Alternately, you could use the same 100yds, with a shorter time.

In both cases I'd say the diver starts in gear, and the "swimmer" can get themselves/diver out of gear or leave gear in place, their choice... as long as they complete the distances in required time.

Maybe work it like the DM skills where you get 1pt for completing, 2 for Xmin, 3 for Ymin... etc.
 
How many instructors here have gotten a student that could absolutely NOT swim, float, or bob? I had a guy a couple years ago that literally couldn't do anything related to swimming...he would freak out and grab the side of the pool or the lane markers. Hell he refused to even stick his face in the water. There is no way a person like this WONT freak out when underwater with no mask, or when they lose a reg...Its an accident waiting to happen.

I tell my students what the standards are, and explain that I don't care if they are Mark Spitz, Mike Phelps or a manatee without a tail, as long as they don't drown during the test. It really is about assessing comfort in the water. I surely don't want to take someone who is deathly afraid of putting their face in the water DIVING...Just the same as I wouldn't take someone who is claustrophobic inside a wreck or a cave....its is a problem waiting to happen. Sometimes you just have to save people from themselves by saying NO....Kind of like telling epileptics they aren't going to be a diver, maybe they are ok for 10 years while diving, but 1 seizure in the water and they will endanger their lives(likely lose it) and their buddy's' life. Not acceptable from a moral or liability standpoint to accommodate this deficiency.
 
5. Haven't yet been told of a possible scenario where a diver (or dive pro) would be doing anything without fins on.
Easy, fall off the boat or dock without fins.


We were once caught in a surprise current on the GBR. They came from the liveaboard to haul us in with a zodiac trailing a line for everyone to grab onto. I wound up at the spot closest to the zodiac. Between the movement/current/prop wash one of my fins came off in the turbulence - easily could have been both. (I was trying out some new spring straps, which weren't tight enough for these conditions - yes, a spring strap failure! :wink: Then I lost hold of the line.

I got picked up in due time, and I still had the rest of my gear - but I'm sure glad I knew how to swim.
 
Easy, fall off the boat or dock without fins.


We were once caught in a surprise current on the GBR. They came from the liveaboard to haul us in with a zodiac trailing a line for everyone to grab onto. I wound up at the spot closest to the zodiac. Between the movement/current/prop wash one of my fins came off in the turbulence - easily could have been both. (I was trying out some new spring straps, which weren't tight enough for these conditions - yes, a spring strap failure! :wink: Then I lost hold of the line.

I got picked up in due time, and I still had the rest of my gear - but I'm sure glad I knew how to swim.

Well yeah, but that falls into one of my other points-- Swimming is a Life Skill. Falling off a boat means you are doing something in or around fairly deep water and should know how to swim anyway. Anyone can fall off a boat--fishermen, sailors, etc. This has nothing to do with any aspect of what you would be doing while diving--such as rescuing someone or yourself. As far as your GBR experience--yes fin straps can break. But you did have everything else on-- BCD, proper weighting/buoyancy, etc. I presume. I guess one could lose both fins while diving and everything else go ka-put at the same time so you have to ditch it all and just swim. If you want to count that as a possible scenario.
---------- Post added January 29th, 2015 at 06:49 PM ----------

Reason number one, and why my daughter had to learn to swim when she was very young, and well before she learned SCUBA.


I need not bore anyone with my initial swimming requirement, because I thought they were over the top to begin with. But the changes in the "recent" requirements seem troublesome to me.

From my PADI manuals

1980 Swim test
  • 200 yard swim using two different strokes
  • 40' underwater
  • dive 8' to 10' and retrive 5# object
  • tread water for 5 minutes
  • float,drownproof,or bob with minimum movement for 5 minutes



1999 swim test
  • 200 yard swim
  • 10 minute float
or
  • 300 yard mask fin snorkel swim and float



Bob
-------------------------------------------------

Thanks Bob. I was unaware of the 1980 requirements. I like the idea of proper strokes. Don't really think those requirements were over the top, though I would be satisfied to see someone do considerably less than 200 yards (even just a lap or 2) with a proper stroke.-- Instead of just gutting it out any old way. So yes, I do share your concern regarding the present requirements it that you can dog paddle your way to the 200 yards--and thus you are "comfortable in water". I also don't like the "choice" of 200 or 300 m/f/s. Should be one test for all with accompanying reasoning--no "choosing" by instructors or voting by students. Besides, the 300 m/f/s for me anyway is WAY easier and has nothing to do with real no-fin swimming--since the test is supposed to be a swim test, not a snorkeling test (not that there's anything wrong with the latter though).
 
Last edited:
Well yeah, but that falls into one of my other points-- Swimming is a Life Skill. Falling off a boat means you are doing something in or around fairly deep water and should know how to swim anyway. Anyone can fall off a boat--fishermen, sailors, etc. This has nothing to do with any aspect of what you would be doing while diving--such as rescuing someone or yourself. . . .

Also, while I would agree swimming is a useful skill for a diver to have in case something goes wrong, discussions on SB often note that there are a number of skills that would be useful for a diver to have in case something goes wrong but which are not widely taught in OW class. To play devil's advocate, I would ask why swimming is a required OW class skill but other skills that similarly would be useful only if something were to go wrong are omitted? Is that because there is no time left to teach those skills in the hurried atmosphere of most OW classes today, but the assumption is that students can teach themselves to swim?
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom