sharkbaitDAN:I don't think your dive was unsafe, just not a very good idea.
The dive was unsafe because the poster left the planning for the entire dive in someone elses hands, and was plainly beyond his level of training and understanding.
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
sharkbaitDAN:I don't think your dive was unsafe, just not a very good idea.
The dive was unsafe because the poster left the planning for the entire dive in someone elses hands, and was plainly beyond his level of training and understanding.
jonnythan:flw is right. The diver should know better than to go to 100 feet and stay underwater til their computer read 30 minutes. Plan your dive, dive your plan. Obviously no planning occurred here, and the diver had no idea whether they were incurring any kind of deco obligation. That's unacceptable for someone who has been taught better (I would assume they have, since it's in the minimum course standards).
pilaar39:There was what I believed was an appropriately certified crew person who said she would guide us on a dive to a wreck at 100 feet. We stayed down for about 30 minutes, but did extra stops on the way up.. 1 minute at 40, 1 minute at 25, and 4 minutes at 15. This instruction was given to all divers on the dive.
Allen42:(btw, who said "we went to 100 feet until the comp said 30 minutes?)
I think it could be argued that the dive was planned and followed. It sounds like a conservative profile with multiple stops planned and made. The planner? The divemaster. Whether the diver was right or wrong to trust the planner is different argument, I think. (Why is vplanner trusted? This can lead to a heavy discussion about basis for trust.)