100' vs 130'??

[boulderjohn]

Can't say I have either, but they are named regularly in suits.

Really? Suits in which certified divers have a problem and sue the training agency? I can't think of a case in which a training agency was sued for failing to train a certified diver who later had a mishap. Given the fact that training standards are universal, the people who get sued are the individual professionals who do not follow the standards, and that is pretty much always during instruction.

One famous case is "drifting Dan Carlock," who included PADI in his lawsuit, but that was not because they trained HIM. They were sued because they had trained the two DMs who called the roll after a dive and did not realize he was not there. PADI was sued on the theory that the two DMs (who were not working professionally but rather as members of the dive club) were acting as agents of PADI. Being an agent means you are under the control of the organization, and since then, all PADI waivers require people to sign that the professionals involved are not agents of that organization.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

if I remember correct. 130 was the sand. they had the dive planned for single tank al 80 dive no decompression.

That's a stupid plan in water that cold. I'd be sure to never book with that operation for anything.

 

[Josh the diver]

That's a stupid plan in water that cold. I'd be sure to never book with that operation for anything.

looking more it to what I think the wreck was. the wreck starts at 90ft down to 130ft

 

[Jim Lapenta]

looking more it to what I think the wreck was. the wreck starts at 90ft down to 130ft

It's still a stupid plan using al80 to that depth in that cold of water. Run the numbers on gas usage and rock bottom calculations for using an al80. I don't take students to 90-100 feet with any less than 105 cu ft of back gas (LP95 filled to 3000 PSI or so or larger cylinder) and they still are required to carry a slung 30 or 40 as well. They need to be carrying enough gas to get them and a buddy to the surface in a safe ascent with a safety stop. The risk of a reg free flow in 40 degree water is too great as well as the other risks of cold water diving in dark, low vis, situations.

 

[Bob DBF]

However, in 2020, I got re-certified with my two sons (21 & 23) with PADI, no judgment please , and was puzzled to learn of the restrictions and was wondering if I originally had them and simply forgot about it.

It was in the book, and probably discussed by the instructor, but back then it was given as a reccomendation, rather than as a rule as it is now. The difference is that when one understands why one needs to be careful, and how to do it, there need not be a rule, just common sense.

I call it training by catchphrase, which is in use a lot nowadays in more endeavors than scuba, one is given a rule instead of understanding why a procedure may be necessary and the ability to determine if it is.

 

[loosenit2]

Ok, probably a newbie question. I've got my open water certification and plan on getting my advanced open water this coming February. Looking at AOW training, the certification gets you access to 100' depths vs my current 60' OW limitation. Yet, most sources say that recreational divers are limited to 130'. So, why would AOW not certify me for 130' instead of 100'? Is this just to maintain a safety buffer or is there some other knowledge to be had diving between 100' and 130' or is this just another way for the agencies to sell another specialty course?

Just curious

you have unwittingly stumbled. Into a fierce debate that pops up on scubaboard from time to time and that yet another thread will not resolve.

a more productive use of your time would probably be doing some research on gas planning. Determine what your SAC is, learning to use that to calculate RMV and gas consumption for a dive, learning a methodology to calculate your min gas or reserves and then learning about some gas use strategies. Those practical skills will help you safely plan dives whereas debating whether you can dive to a depth based on agency recommendations will keep you spinning in useless circles for days.

 

[tursiops]

you have unwittingly stumbled. Into a fierce debate that pops up on scubaboard from time to time and that yet another thread will not resolve.

a more productive use of your time would probably be doing some research on gas planning. Determine what your SAC is, learning to use that to calculate RMV and gas consumption for a dive, learning a methodology to calculate your min gas or reserves and then learning about some gas use strategies. Those practical skills will help you safely plan dives whereas debating whether you can dive to a depth based on agency recommendations will keep you spinning in useless circles for days.

This is only a debate because people seem to refuse to recognize the difference between a training depth and a certification depth.

 

[Wibble]

This is only a debate because people seem to refuse to recognize the difference between a training depth and a certification depth.

And the actual depth and conditions YOU are skilled and experienced enough to perform

Progress slowly and steadily. There be dragons; you need to have the skills to recognise them before you meet them.

 

[rick00001967]

In the PADI sequence, AOW is a prereq to RESCUE class, which all divers really ought to take.

good point. that may very well be true. but the diver still could take a similar rescue type course with another agency like ssi for example without taking the padi aow course.

i personally see very little value in the padi aow course for most divers. just like i see no real advantage to taking the comparable ssi adv adventurer course. just my opinion.

 

[Jcp2]

For certain operations you’ll need to show AOW to be able to dive the deeper dives.