Is it time to sink the CESA?

[Thalassamania]

No, it is a question that challenges the assumption that students need to practice a real CESA, vertically, in open water.

OK, it is my position that students need to practice a real CESA, vertically, in open water.

From my understanding, the PPB course (to which you are refering) is not about creating "adequate buoyancy skills". Those are taught/developed on entry-level. The PPB course is about developing more advanced buoyancy control.

That's a lot of happy horse pucky, adequate buoyancy skills were dropped along with the course hours and then "added" back in a separately priced course.

Nobody...and I mean nobody... gets 'perfect' buoyancy on an entry-level course, regardles of agency. There is always room for improvement. That courses exists to provide a specific avenue for people to take, when they wish to learn the skills, drills and techniques that will enable them to initiate a process of self-improvement with their core buoyancy, weighting and trim.

That's also a lot of happy horse pucky, many instructors know how to turn out students with very good (nobody's perfect) buoyancy. Just ask BoulderJohn.

Of course, not all PADI instuctors are capable or motivated to run a 'decent' PPB course....

You gotta hand it to them, charging extra for what should be standard equipment and then soften not even delivering then. Ranks with the other scams of all time.

 

[mongodives]

just for all you SCUBA guru's out there, practicing CESA with full lungs isn't really preparing a student for anything, if they have OOA situation they probably won't know it until they need to inhale. So shouldn't CESA be preformed after the students exhale?

 

[DevonDiver]

What really do the students needto learn from practising CESA....

1. At the surface, they can breath

2. They should ascend at a safe speed.

3. They should exhale slowly on ascent.

4. They should establish postive buoyancy immediately on surfacing.

I think a lot of dive instructors over-complicate this skill. It's pretty damn easy. Basically, a normal ascent, but with exhalation throughout. That is all.....

There can be endless debate about whether it should be practised with full lungs, empty lungs blah blah..... but there is no way to prepare the student for every possible contigency or scenario. Just concentrate on getting them to ascent without breath hold, because in a real emergency, that is all they need to be able to do...and of course, get buoyant on the surface.

I think that the real, tangible, benefit of practising CESA is that it illustrates, to the student, how dangerous it is to run out of air. When students struggle with 6-9m CESAs, I always get them to think about how it would be to perform that from 18m or 30m or 40m..... I then can compare it with conducting an AAS....

At the least, it teaches them to respect the need to check their air regularly and maintain good buddy procedures. That 'respect' is far more beneficial to their long-term safety than the actual practise of finning slowly upwards saying "aaahhh".

 

[AndyNZ]

OK, it is my position that students need to practice a real CESA, vertically, in open water.

Out of curiousity, Thal, from what depth do you get your students to do a CESA in open water?

I have objections to the CESA that have already been mentioned - multiple ascents, ears etc. But like you say, this is just part of the job. To cut the CESA on the basis of it's hard work for the instructors is a blind alley - if we were having a multitude of instructor DCS cases as a result of teaching CESAs, may be. But we don't.

My real objection to the CESA is that it encourages students to think that the resolution of their problem lies upwards - this isn't always the case, and becomes an issue in later diving and/or courses.

 

[Thalassamania]

What really do the students needto learn from practising CESA....

1. At the surface, they can breath

2. They should ascend at a safe speed.

3. They should exhale slowly on ascent.

4. They should establish postive buoyancy immediately on surfacing.

I think a lot of dive instructors over-complicate this skill. It's pretty damn easy. Basically, a normal ascent, but with exhalation throughout. That is all.....

There can be endless debate about whether it should be practised with full lungs, empty lungs blah blah..... but there is no way to prepare the student for every possible contigency or scenario. Just concentrate on getting them to ascent without breath hold, because in a real emergency, that is all they need to be able to do...and of course, get buoyant on the surface.

I think that the real, tangible, benefit of practising CESA is that it illustrates, to the student, how dangerous it is to run out of air. When students struggle with 6-9m CESAs, I always get them to think about how it would be to perform that from 18m or 30m or 40m..... I then can compare it with conducting an AAS....

If a student is struggling with a 9m CESA (that's only 30 seconds on ascent) I really have to wonder about their readiness to dive, I would never consider certifying such a student. Would you certify a student who could not do something that was, in your words, "It's pretty damn easy."?

At the least, it teaches them to respect the need to check their air regularly and maintain good buddy procedures. That 'respect' is far more beneficial to their long-term safety than the actual practise of finning slowly upwards saying "aaahhh".

I guess I see things very differently, from my point of view a 9m CESA is such an easy and simple undertaking that I simply can not understand what there is in it that would engender the "respect" that you are trying to drum up. You list four items (only two of which actually pertain to the ascent phase, and those two (while we may disagree about the rate of asent) simply are cause for fear and trembling in a competent diver. Our whole approach is built around the idea that a CESA is such a simple undertaking and is so easy to accomplish that it need not be started instantaneously nor accomplished in a hurried manner. Calm, slow and easy is the ticket.

Out of curiousity, Thal, from what depth do you get your students to do a CESA in open water?

In the class they do first 20 and then 30 feet. Keep in mind that by the time we get to open water they've done 50 or more flared buoyant ascents in the pool from 13 feet.

I have objections to the CESA that have already been mentioned - multiple ascents, ears etc. But like you say, this is just part of the job. To cut the CESA on the basis of it's hard work for the instructors is a blind alley - if we were having a multitude of instructor DCS cases as a result of teaching CESAs, may be. But we don't.

Bubble pumping is not much of a concern if the exercise is done first thing. I don't understand the ear thing, you give your ears way more workout out free-diving for a half hour.

My real objection to the CESA is that it encourages students to think that the resolution of their problem lies upwards - this isn't always the case, and becomes an issue in later diving and/or courses.

I could not agree more, but remember I'm working with students who have all learned (and internalized the fact) that they can hold their breath for 2 minutes. We defiantly go to the solve the problem first, bail last, approach ... but we do teach them how to bail in case they have to.

 

[gcbryan]

I consider that my PADI OW training was nothing special...more or less enough training to keep us from killing ourselves until we got more experience.

However, the one impression from that class that stuck with me was the CESA. It was the one skill that everyone thought would be the tough or unpleasant one and it turned out to me the easiest...nothing to worry about.

The only reason it makes an impression is because you do it vertically and experience the expansion of air in the lungs indirectly by not feeling air starved on the surface even though you were exhaling all the way up.

You can read about it in the book, we all did, but you don't really have confidence that it will work that way until you do it.

I feel sorry for instructors who have to go up and down all day with this skill and many others but I think it would be a very bad mistake to eliminate this from OW.

Just change the rules, if they don't currently allow, having an instructor at the beginning of the CESA and a DM closer to the surface and just cycle the students between the two.

The CESA experience was really the only meaningful thing about my OW course other than the basics learned in the pool.

Ditch the silly fin pivots, snorkel usage, buddha position neutral buoyancy drill, sitting on the bottom, silting kicks, and all the other "skills "introduced in OW but to get rid of CESA would be a big mistake.

These's already another thread about the great online "classroom" options so that only 4 hours are needed with an instructor in person so that you can not learn about tables and can learn to turn on a computer. Now we want to add no CESA?

Let's just eliminate instructors entirely and have it be an online course and have the OW part self-directed as well.
Now no instructor will have any ear problems.

 

[AndyNZ]

I feel sorry for instructors who have to go up and down all day with this skill and many others but I think it would be a very bad mistake to eliminate this from OW.

Just change the rules, if they don't currently allow, having an instructor at the beginning of the CESA and a DM closer to the surface and just cycle the students between the two.

There are a number of obvious "student problems" associated with the CESA - one of those is not exhaling continuously, so what you're suggesting either allows a student to hold their breathe or to breathe on the ascent from the tank on their bank. From an instructional point of view, the only thing you can assess is that the student reached the surface. It kinda defeats the purpose if the student breathes, and downright dangerous if they hold their breath.

 

[gcbryan]

There are a number of obvious "student problems" associated with the CESA - one of those is not exhaling continuously, so what you're suggesting either allows a student to hold their breathe or to breathe on the ascent from the tank on their bank. From an instructional point of view, the only thing you can assess is that the student reached the surface. It kinda defeats the purpose if the student breathes, and downright dangerous if they hold their breath.

It's downright dangerous if the student holds their breath even with the instructor right there. If they cheat then they are a cheater.

It's fine with me if an instructor is there. Some instructors on here seem not to want to be there and therefore support eliminating the skill. Better to have a few "cheaters" than to "cheat" everyone else out of being able to experience that skill. Use multiple DM's then. There are creative solutions I'm sure that are better than not teaching the skill.

 

[DevonDiver]

If a student is struggling with a 9m CESA (that's only 30 seconds on ascent) I really have to wonder about their readiness to dive, I would never consider certifying such a student. Would you certify a student who could not do something that was, in your words, "It's pretty damn easy."?

I don't think I (or anyone else) has ever mentioned anything about students "struggling with a 9m CESA".

What I meant in my earlier post was that conducting a 9m CESA allows the student to gain an appreciation of the potential difficulties they may face, if they had to perform the ascent from significantly deeper depths.

It is 'easy' to do from a skills/actions/complexity basis.... but psychologically it seems a tough feat (when first introduced)..and the idea of performing it from 40m is a scary proposition (which is a good thing).

I guess I see things very differently, from my point of view a 9m CESA is such an easy and simple undertaking that I simply can not understand what there is in it that would engender the "respect" that you are trying to drum up. You list four items (only two of which actually pertain to the ascent phase, and those two (while we may disagree about the rate of asent) simply are cause for fear and trembling in a competent diver. Our whole approach is built around the idea that a CESA is such a simple undertaking and is so easy to accomplish that it need not be started instantaneously nor accomplished in a hurried manner. Calm, slow and easy is the ticket.

Firstly, the CESA is just part of the overall scenario. The scenario is that you are underwater, without air, and need to ascend to the surface and remain safely there. I teach students to plan their actions on the surface, whilst ascending with CESA. I feel that an ingrained response procedure upon reaching the surface is an absolutely critical attribute of the scenario response. For the ascent, the only real critical attribute is to maintain an open airway...

Bubble pumping is not much of a concern if the exercise is done first thing. I don't understand the ear thing, you give your ears way more workout out free-diving for a half hour.

Agreed. Good course planning should mean DCS is not an issue. The ear issue...well that is my personal opinion... and it is driven from the fact that I have had ear issues from doing it.

Just change the rules, if they don't currently allow, having an instructor at the beginning of the CESA and a DM closer to the surface and just cycle the students between the two.

The instructor has to be with the student, to ensure that they don't hold their breath, or ascend too fast during the drill. It is one particular skill that requires especially close instructor control on the student.

 

[AndyNZ]

It's downright dangerous if the student holds their breath even with the instructor right there. If they cheat then they are a cheater.

Not particularly - an instructor will stop an ascent if a student diver holds their breath, reducing the chance of lung over expansion injury.

A cheater may well be a cheater, but how do you know if they cheated? The scenario you present - an instructor at the bottom, a Dm at the top..... well there's simply no way to determine whether the student has met the performance requirement for the skill.

Are you suggesting that they should "pass" on the basis of no evaluation? Why have the skill at all if you're not going to evaluate it?