Free diving depth as part of solo dive certification?
- Thread starter handben
- Start date
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
cdreamer
Contributor
That wasn't part of my course (SDI / TDI). I don't freedive that deep, but if your carrying a pony bottle, which is required, I don't see the point.
dumpsterDiver
Banned
- Messages
- 9,003
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
DaleC
Contributor
Yes, it sounds like the instructor is mixing up two concepts (if the OP's post is accurate). My understanding is that one shouldn't dive without a redundant airsource to twice the freedive depth (in order to allow for a CESA) but once you have an appropriate redundant air source that rule goes out the window. Then you depth recreationally should be guided by experience, NDL limits and/or your reserve backgas & redundant airsource volumes.
OP
handben
Contributor
That is why it seemed strange to me as well. My thoughts are that I will stay within the limits of what I can reasonably expect my bail-out bottle to get me out of (essentially recreational limits). I don't know how deep I can free dive as I've never really wanted to do this. I know I can hit the bottom of the deepend of any pool I've been in; but in the ocean or lake if I wanted to be deeper, I've always donned my scuba gear. I suppose I'll make it to 20 or so feet perhaps deeper. If my certification is good only for 40-60 feet, this is rather useless as most of my diving has been/will be deeper than that. We often rant against divers who are diving beyond their training - which for the most part is valid in my opinion. However I am taking this course to see what I don't know (and to get a piece of plastic should it come in handy in the future with certain operators). But given the limitations of the certification, I suppose when I do solo dive it will be beyond my certification level as I certainly will be deeper than twice what I can free dive. I will have a redundant air supply whenever I solo dive regardless of the depth.
Darnold9999
Contributor
Solo instructors seem to have some strange ideas sometimes. The first instructor I contacted would not do the course unless I carried an AL 40 as my redundant air supply. When I suggested that this was overkill for the diving I planned to do he became quite insistant that this was the minimum redundant bottle that he could certify for. This was for the SSI cert.
Found another instructor.
Found another instructor.
LeadTurn_SD
Contributor
That is really strange.
Why not an Al30, or an AL63, or simply an AL80?
It makes me question the qualifications of the instructor....
I could certainly understand if he said "For dive profile 'X', you need to have at least an Al40 to give adaquate redundancy, and since we will be doing a couple dives that are almost that deep in this class, you'll need the Al40...";
But an Al19 is "enough" as a bailout bottle for most recreational-depth dives...
Oh well... after over 30 years of solo, I'm unlikely to take a class to get a silly card, but do scratch my head when I hear this kind of stuff.
Best wishes.
Every dive I've made since dive 25 has been solo, whether I've dove with a buddy or not. My personal dive philosophy is once I descend, I'm on my own, whether or not I'm leading dives, teaching or just having fun.
Never could understand the prohibition of solo diving considering the nature of the sport, but tow the line as I'm affiliated with an organization that is adverse to this practice when I'm with students.
Having read all the posts, my initial reaction is that this seems to be an arbitrary and unnecessary requirement for solo diving.
The more I thought about it, the more I appreciated the requirement. I look at this as indication of comfort in the water. Sort of like the NAUI ditch and don, PADI DM problem solving skills, UW breath hold swims, etc.
I'd take this as a challenge. It's an opportunity to test your limits on free diving. I Assume it's a recreational course so all you need to do is free dive to 65 feet.
IMHO opinion anyone solo diving to 130 ft should have the water skills to free dive to 65ft.
Mike
Never could understand the prohibition of solo diving considering the nature of the sport, but tow the line as I'm affiliated with an organization that is adverse to this practice when I'm with students.
Having read all the posts, my initial reaction is that this seems to be an arbitrary and unnecessary requirement for solo diving.
The more I thought about it, the more I appreciated the requirement. I look at this as indication of comfort in the water. Sort of like the NAUI ditch and don, PADI DM problem solving skills, UW breath hold swims, etc.
I'd take this as a challenge. It's an opportunity to test your limits on free diving. I Assume it's a recreational course so all you need to do is free dive to 65 feet.
IMHO opinion anyone solo diving to 130 ft should have the water skills to free dive to 65ft.
Mike
Last edited:
This is an old, very old solo diver "ism" for which there is logical reason. The idea being that if you can free dive, breath hold dive 60 feet for example then the two way trip is 120 feet and thus there is the reasonable possibility that you could make a free ascent of 120 feet. I have also seen heard, rather than the 2Xbreath hold dive = your max. solo dive depth, instead, your maximum underwater swim distance, horizontal. This being the case, if you can swim 60 feet underwater, horizontal, there is reasonable belief that one could make a 60 foot ascent if OOA or due to equipment malfunction.
There are two schools of thought on solo diving:
1. The modern concept employees multiple redundancy and systems to eliminate the need for ever having to make a free ascent due to being OOA or equipment malfunction.
2. The older concept employed rugged individualism, self reliance, the SURFACE was the redundancy and getting there was rather important should there be a malfunction or OOA situation (remember, there were no BC, no SPGs, no redundancy of any kind) and therefore divers adhering to this concept would consider the horizontal swim distance or the 2X breath hold dive = solo max depth to be quite reasonable as a limiting solo diving depth.
I adhere to rule number 2. I don't generally employee redundant systems UNLESS I plan solo beyond 100 to 120 feet. I can, even at my advanced state of terminally poor fitness, make a free dive of 60 to 80 feet and easily 50 feet and have done so recently several times, in a pinch I could make an equivalent free ascent. Recently, I made a free dive to 100 feet and remained on bottom for about 30 seconds, that was pushing it for me and then some so I would not consider that a relevant capability for myself, 50 feet is easy however and therefore I consider my solo max. depth to be 100 (2X50') feet without redundant systems.
Redundant systems equal, pony bottles, independent doubles, isolation manifolded doubles, possibly some Y/H valve configurations. An octopus/safe second is not a redundant system.
Just because you have never heard something does not make it irrelevant, most diver training is not geared to solo diving and much of solo diving "isms" is self taught, self invented, usually in isolation of other solo divers.
This is a good conversation for the solo forum and purpose for it, to discuss rational techniques for better, safer, funner, solo diving, rather than the usual gibberish about how dangerous it is or the should I solo dive blather.
I don't have the book in front of me now, paper back, "Solo Diver" and it definitely has the 2X BHD = MSD statement in it, for what it is worth.
N <---life long solo diver
Similar threads
