Should OW certified divers be taken into a deep wreck? Overhead? Thread split

[Lorenzoid]

What about a "swim through" adventure dive choice for AOW? Surely that would allow enough time to cover the salient points as well as open up a "reality based" Q&A for the instructor and student.

That would be great, but I suspect the majority of locations in which AOW courses are given do not have any swim-throughs. How many divers are going to travel to a location that does have swim-throughs just for the experience in AOW? Learning about swim-throughs seems too important to be optional, as though it's on par with a Fish ID dive.

It just needs to be made part of the OW course. I've learned from this thread that PADI does not officially advise OW students to stay out of overhead environments in general, though they do advise not to enter caves (or to "penetrate wrecks"?). But the line between swim-through and wreck/cave penetration/entry is fuzzy to many divers, and not just new divers. Almost every new diver is going to encounter a swim-through very shortly after completing the OW course. Of the numerous holes I feel were left in my PADI training, I think the lack of dealing with, or even mentioning, swim-throughs is one of the most egregious. It's such a common and controversial topic of discussion here. How can any instructor in good conscience not mention swim-throughs to OW students and give them the tools to decide whether to do a particular swim-through or pass it up? I have read in this thread that some OW instructors do at least mention swim-throughs--and kudos to them--but it's apparently not a required part of the PADI OW curriculum.

 

[AdivingBel]

That would be great, but I suspect the majority of locations in which AOW courses are given do not have any swim-throughs. How many divers are going to travel to a location that does have swim-throughs just for the experience in AOW? Learning about swim-throughs seems too important to be optional, as though it's on par with a Fish ID dive.

I guess I saw it more on par/similar to AOW wreck dive. No matter, I do agree it should be addressed as soon as deemed feasible. It's reality and should be addressed as such in a realistic, responsible manner. It's valuable information and shouldn't be left to "wink wink, nod nod" or a generic "get more training." IMHO.

 

[boulderjohn]

Here's the problem in a word: liability.

If an instructor gives a briefing in an OW class that is not part of the approved curriculum and says that some overheads are OK, there is a risk that a former student will go out, run into a problem, and the instructor will be sued. In the trial, the question of what the instructor said will be an issue. Is what the instructor said consistent with standard diving practice? The pressure will be on the instructor to demonstrate that what was said was reasonable. The instructor will have to show what was said and prove that it was not a rogue and dangerous idea.

That is the prime reason that Understanding Overhead Environments is an approved class. It is not a huge curriculum--an evening presentation will take care of it. Anyone can come up with such a presentation, but, once again, there is a potential liability issue. By getting a course with a specific outline of information approved by PADI, it has a significant impact on potential liability. As long as the instructor follows the approved outline, the instructor has the defense that the content has been reviewed and approved by the world's largest dive training organization.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I understand the reason, John. It's just unfortunate for divers that it has to be that way. Damned lawyers.

I suppose in creating this Understanding Overhead Environments course, PADI considered that some clever lawyer might try to use the fact of the course's creation as evidence that PADI knows they omit something critical from their normal OW course.

 

[boulderjohn]

I understand the reason, John. It's just unfortunate for divers that it has to be that way. Damned lawyers.

I suppose in creating this Understanding Overhead Environments course, PADI considered that some clever lawyer might try to use the fact of the course's creation as evidence that PADI knows they omit something critical from their normal OW course.

Nah. I'm pretty sure they could point to an email trail with the author to show how and why the course was created, just as I could.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

PADI does strictly forbid any overhead environment during training dives. We are not talking about training dives here.

I understand that. My instructor told me it applied to any dives I was doing. Overheads required special training and possibly equipment. I also understand that a DM or guide who is getting paid to guide divers, which means acting in a PROFESSIONAL capacity, can take OW divers through or into overheads and this is ok? Where is the ethical responsibility of respecting recommended limits for certified divers.

What someone does on their own is one thing. You can't fix stupid, arrogant, or suicidal. If a "professional" can ignore training limits while acting as one (outside of a class yes, but still acting or pretending to be a professional) without repercussions isn't that taking a helluva risk?

To go back into the courtroom.

"Mr. Jones, you led OW certified divers into that wreck correct?"
"Yes, but it was not a class."
"What would a class situation have meant?"
"That I could not do that."
"Why?"
"it's not considered safe."
"Really, it's not considered safe in a class where you have close, direct supervision? Yet it is safe outside of the class where the diver is merely FOLLOWING YOU INTO THAT SITUATION?"
"Uh, I didn't say that."
"But you did lead them into a place that in a class would not be considered safe and that in fact you would be forbidden to do? Plaintiff rests, your honor."

 

[Lorenzoid]

Nah. I'm pretty sure they could point to an email trail with the author to show how and why the course was created, just as I could.

Okay. So long as a lawyer couldn't possibly twist anything out of context as suggesting the course was created out of a perception that OW divers were getting hurt going into overheads, I guess you're safe.

 

[boulderjohn]

I understand that. My instructor told me it applied to any dives I was doing. Overheads required special training and possibly equipment. I also understand that a DM or guide who is getting paid to guide divers, which means acting in a PROFESSIONAL capacity, can take OW divers through or into overheads and this is ok? Where is the ethical responsibility of respecting recommended limits for certified divers.

What someone does on their own is one thing. You can't fix stupid, arrogant, or suicidal. If a "professional" can ignore training limits while acting as one (outside of a class yes, but still acting or pretending to be a professional) without repercussions isn't that taking a helluva risk?

To go back into the courtroom.

"Mr. Jones, you led OW certified divers into that wreck correct?"
"Yes, but it was not a class."
"What would a class situation have meant?"
"That I could not do that."
"Why?"
"it's not considered safe."
"Really, it's not considered safe in a class where you have close, direct supervision? Yet it is safe outside of the class where the diver is merely FOLLOWING YOU INTO THAT SITUATION?"
"Uh, I didn't say that."
"But you did lead them into a place that in a class would not be considered safe and that in fact you would be forbidden to do? Plaintiff rests, your honor."

In your court situation, the DM should be prepared better than to respond like that. The DM does not know why it is forbidden in a class situation. They would have to ask the people who made the rules. He could then point out that the people who made the rules against going into overheads during classes do not have any rules about going into them outside of training, and they have specific classes that teach them about going into those places outside of training dives. If it is a PADI instructor, he could point out that the PADI 5 Star program requires dive operations to perform in accordance with standards of practice, and many hundreds if not thousands of such facilities maintain that rating while it is well known that they conduct DM-led dives through swim throughs. Finally, he would point to how many people are leading such dives all around the world every day with very few incidents to show that it is a common practice in the dive industry.

 

[Hawkwood]

Oh John, you are just being reasonable.

 

[Bob DBF]

That is the prime reason that Understanding Overhead Environments is an approved class. It is not a huge curriculum--an evening presentation will take care of it. Anyone can come up with such a presentation, but, once again, there is a potential liability issue. By getting a course with a specific outline of information approved by PADI, it has a significant impact on potential liability. As long as the instructor follows the approved outline, the instructor has the defense that the content has been reviewed and approved by the world's largest dive training organization.

My question would be, is Understanding Overhead Environments just a long definition of overheads, or is it a guide on what to take into account while making your own personal decision, or oes it teach that some overheads are OK to dive as an OW/AOW diver?



Bob
-----------------------------------------
Inquiring minds want to know.