nm, not worth it, this "discussion" is going nowhere.
PADI AOW vs SSI deep diver qualifications
- Thread starter 60plus
- 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
Thought I would let the dust (or should that be silt) settle before diving into this topic again. If I tried to answer all the points it would be a very long post, however I will try to cover the main ones.
My father sailed through the Med on his way to Egypt in WW2 and he told me how he hated his 8 hours a day below decks in case they were torpedoed as being deep in the ship they felt they had no chance of escape. They had 8 hours deep in the lower decks, 8 hours on the upper decks (inside) and 8 hours on deck. Although the wrecks I wished to dive were not sunk in WW2 they were close to the route he would have taken.
The dive operator I chose has a very good reputation and I have known them for several years. I approached them saying I wanted to dive the wrecks and as I was only OW qualified (18m limit) could I dive the upper part of the wrecks whilst doing PADI AOW. They replied saying the SSI deep diver would be better as it qualified me to 40m so I could access the lower parts the wrecks as well. Nitrox course was advised so I could have longer dives with less surface interval.
I was fully aware of the risks of deep wreck diving and was not in anyway pressurised by the instructor. At every stage he checked for my OK signal that I was happy to progress into where he was indicating. I certainly did not feel any pressure not to thumb the dive if I wanted. I guess he was happy with my diving ability or he would not have taken me where he did, how long would he have lasted as an instructor if he was in the habit of loosing trainees inside deep wrecks?
Diving between the seabed and the hull of inclined wrecks. Only moving a few meters to the side, maybe 10 or so would have given me a direct route to the surface.
I was not continually banging my head and crashing into things as some seem to be thinking. I bumped my head (as opposed to just touching it) about 5 times in 6 dives. Only 2 of those were firm enough to cut it (not serious) and that was because of the sharpness off the shellfish. I do not like wearing gloves or a hood, although I did wear gloves on one dive. I would actually prefer to dive in just shorts and a T shirt.
The visibility was poor mainly because of the plankton or algae in the water. Because I tended to be looking for things on the bottom and below the straight ahead line of sight it was easy to miss something slightly above and drift into it. Unless you were going to very slowly, almost stationary and scan every where, above and below with torches, drifting into things occasionally was almost impossible to avoid.
There was a reasonable current at the surface, about half my fastest swimming speed. Down on the wrecks it was much less but it could change suddenly around the stern or next to the funnels on the deck. The current was coming at about 40 to 60 degrees from the bow on the starboard side.
Inside the wrecks we moved carefully. Avoiding the bottom for 2 reasons, possibility of stirring up silt and the 33m PO 1.4 limit on Nitrox 32. Some parts were deeper than 33m, if you went down into the bottom of the wrecks.
There was sometimes flow of water I the wrecks, sometimes back and forth, sometimes steady in one direction. The skill was to watch the movement of particles or weed to judge the current particularly when approaching narrow hatches or doorways.
Inside parts of the wrecks there was no light nor visible exit points, it was absolutely pitch black with the torches off. At times the algae was very dense. When moving through narrow openings brushing the edges released fine silt from the very fine weed and this is when visibility became virtually zero, all you could see was a torch if it was pointed at you. The actual time in these zero visibility situations would total less than 10 minutes in 6 dives. This situation was only for brief periods, mostly you could see 2 or 3 meters or more with the torch. The total time with no visible exit point would be less 50 minutes on six dives.
A previous poster referred to these as “trust me” dives. I cannot argue with that, they were. I trusted my instructor because he had dived these wrecks many times. Had I been with an “instabuddy” I certainly would not have done anything like that amount of penetration.
As I said previously diving these wrecks was something I wanted to do. I was initially very nervous, not so much of the dive but because I did not want to mess up and fail the course. Before a dive I asked another diver (an experienced instructor on a diving holiday) if he still got nervous before a dive. His reply was that if I was not nervous and he was my instructor he would be very worried.
Once off the boat my nerves disappear and inside the wrecks I was too busy concentrating to be nervous. I found it thoroughly interesting working to move accurately in poor visibility and using gentle breathing to align with holes and drift up or down passages.
Basically I am a holiday diver and doubt I will never use anything other than my bcd and a single tank, but seeing the advantage of the instructors compact wing and twin tank set up was far more educational than being told about it in a classroom. Similarly my weight belt (I had 6 kg on my belt and 6 kg in my bcd. As you know a weight belt slackens as you go deeper, tightening it up means there is more spare belt hanging down to catch and accidentally release the buckle. Until I snagged the spare belt between my thigh and hatch edges and partially lifted the buckle I would never have known this.
Some posters have pointed out “violation of standards”. Well it could be, that does not unduly concern me. I felt there was a sufficient safety margin at all times.
A violation of standards exercise you may like to try is as follows, have a good buddy standing by just in case. Extend the 5m safety stop until your gas is well under 5 bar. With no reference (turn so you can’t see anchor line) whilst hovering at 5 m try deploying a large SMB (mouth inflated) using a finger reel. At the same time try to maintain 5m and avoid drifting under the dive boat with the current. During this exercise you buddy gives you a push up or pull down just to upset your depth / buoyancy. Knowing your gas is running out whilst having to concentrate on several other things is a good stress test.
My father sailed through the Med on his way to Egypt in WW2 and he told me how he hated his 8 hours a day below decks in case they were torpedoed as being deep in the ship they felt they had no chance of escape. They had 8 hours deep in the lower decks, 8 hours on the upper decks (inside) and 8 hours on deck. Although the wrecks I wished to dive were not sunk in WW2 they were close to the route he would have taken.
The dive operator I chose has a very good reputation and I have known them for several years. I approached them saying I wanted to dive the wrecks and as I was only OW qualified (18m limit) could I dive the upper part of the wrecks whilst doing PADI AOW. They replied saying the SSI deep diver would be better as it qualified me to 40m so I could access the lower parts the wrecks as well. Nitrox course was advised so I could have longer dives with less surface interval.
I was fully aware of the risks of deep wreck diving and was not in anyway pressurised by the instructor. At every stage he checked for my OK signal that I was happy to progress into where he was indicating. I certainly did not feel any pressure not to thumb the dive if I wanted. I guess he was happy with my diving ability or he would not have taken me where he did, how long would he have lasted as an instructor if he was in the habit of loosing trainees inside deep wrecks?
Diving between the seabed and the hull of inclined wrecks. Only moving a few meters to the side, maybe 10 or so would have given me a direct route to the surface.
I was not continually banging my head and crashing into things as some seem to be thinking. I bumped my head (as opposed to just touching it) about 5 times in 6 dives. Only 2 of those were firm enough to cut it (not serious) and that was because of the sharpness off the shellfish. I do not like wearing gloves or a hood, although I did wear gloves on one dive. I would actually prefer to dive in just shorts and a T shirt.
The visibility was poor mainly because of the plankton or algae in the water. Because I tended to be looking for things on the bottom and below the straight ahead line of sight it was easy to miss something slightly above and drift into it. Unless you were going to very slowly, almost stationary and scan every where, above and below with torches, drifting into things occasionally was almost impossible to avoid.
There was a reasonable current at the surface, about half my fastest swimming speed. Down on the wrecks it was much less but it could change suddenly around the stern or next to the funnels on the deck. The current was coming at about 40 to 60 degrees from the bow on the starboard side.
Inside the wrecks we moved carefully. Avoiding the bottom for 2 reasons, possibility of stirring up silt and the 33m PO 1.4 limit on Nitrox 32. Some parts were deeper than 33m, if you went down into the bottom of the wrecks.
There was sometimes flow of water I the wrecks, sometimes back and forth, sometimes steady in one direction. The skill was to watch the movement of particles or weed to judge the current particularly when approaching narrow hatches or doorways.
Inside parts of the wrecks there was no light nor visible exit points, it was absolutely pitch black with the torches off. At times the algae was very dense. When moving through narrow openings brushing the edges released fine silt from the very fine weed and this is when visibility became virtually zero, all you could see was a torch if it was pointed at you. The actual time in these zero visibility situations would total less than 10 minutes in 6 dives. This situation was only for brief periods, mostly you could see 2 or 3 meters or more with the torch. The total time with no visible exit point would be less 50 minutes on six dives.
A previous poster referred to these as “trust me” dives. I cannot argue with that, they were. I trusted my instructor because he had dived these wrecks many times. Had I been with an “instabuddy” I certainly would not have done anything like that amount of penetration.
As I said previously diving these wrecks was something I wanted to do. I was initially very nervous, not so much of the dive but because I did not want to mess up and fail the course. Before a dive I asked another diver (an experienced instructor on a diving holiday) if he still got nervous before a dive. His reply was that if I was not nervous and he was my instructor he would be very worried.
Once off the boat my nerves disappear and inside the wrecks I was too busy concentrating to be nervous. I found it thoroughly interesting working to move accurately in poor visibility and using gentle breathing to align with holes and drift up or down passages.
Basically I am a holiday diver and doubt I will never use anything other than my bcd and a single tank, but seeing the advantage of the instructors compact wing and twin tank set up was far more educational than being told about it in a classroom. Similarly my weight belt (I had 6 kg on my belt and 6 kg in my bcd. As you know a weight belt slackens as you go deeper, tightening it up means there is more spare belt hanging down to catch and accidentally release the buckle. Until I snagged the spare belt between my thigh and hatch edges and partially lifted the buckle I would never have known this.
Some posters have pointed out “violation of standards”. Well it could be, that does not unduly concern me. I felt there was a sufficient safety margin at all times.
A violation of standards exercise you may like to try is as follows, have a good buddy standing by just in case. Extend the 5m safety stop until your gas is well under 5 bar. With no reference (turn so you can’t see anchor line) whilst hovering at 5 m try deploying a large SMB (mouth inflated) using a finger reel. At the same time try to maintain 5m and avoid drifting under the dive boat with the current. During this exercise you buddy gives you a push up or pull down just to upset your depth / buoyancy. Knowing your gas is running out whilst having to concentrate on several other things is a good stress test.
People can drive drunk regularly for years before they have their first fatal accident. It does not make it a good idea.
It's not like you lose people inside wrecks every time you go in there. The issue is whether or not one is allowed to do it during a dive that is part of a course. In most (not all) cases, it isn't.
LOL - I am laughing because you are still trying to convince everyone this was OK for your instructor!
Bottom line is that your highest level of training was OW. That means you were qualified to dive within the limits of OW with an equally qualified buddy - and those limits also apply to instructors and guides that choose to dive with you. The only exception to this is if you are in a course, the dives you are doing conform to that course, and you have learned about and practiced the skills required for that course prior to open water.
You joined a Deep Diver course. The dives you described conform to what is generally known as 'advanced wreck' course dives.
What if something happened that required advanced wreck skills for survival? You might have found yourself unprepared in a situation that could have ended badly, but with proper training would have been no big deal.
We are all glad you felt sufficiently safe at all times, and enjoyed your dives.
Good luck
It’s a pity you have missed the point raised be most respondents. We were not questioning your abilities, but those of the instructor who placed you in situations you hadn’t been trained to deal with. For example, inside a wreck with zero visibility (even for a few seconds, but that’s on hindsight) without a line to guide you out.
My main concern is that you think what your instructor did was acceptable. If you progress to be an instructor will you place your students into similar situations, because you got away with it.
SapphireMind
Contributor
I just finished the didactic for SSI deep water and have my trip planned to do the dives for it and I'm definitely shocked. I do one on one classes/dives for training because I can learn more effectively that way, but I would have been horrified if my instructor would have proposed a wreck penetration.
We've gone over our rough dive plan for the deep dives, and they are really very basic, just to get me accustomed to being at depth, looking for effects of narcosis, continue buoyancy work etc. The sea floor will not be deeper than 40m, so there isn't a risk for me going too deep while I'm working on skills. My night/limited vis dives are not going to be deep dives, they are going to be in an area I'm more familiar with and have less risks overall.
That is definitely not the standards that SSI is putting out for deep classes.
Also, I had mild hepatic encephalopathy about 6 years ago, and really didn't think I did at the time, but looking back now at some of my thought processes and decisions, totally had it. Hindsight is often the best way to figure out if you were not making good decisions/thinking properly.
We've gone over our rough dive plan for the deep dives, and they are really very basic, just to get me accustomed to being at depth, looking for effects of narcosis, continue buoyancy work etc. The sea floor will not be deeper than 40m, so there isn't a risk for me going too deep while I'm working on skills. My night/limited vis dives are not going to be deep dives, they are going to be in an area I'm more familiar with and have less risks overall.
That is definitely not the standards that SSI is putting out for deep classes.
Also, I had mild hepatic encephalopathy about 6 years ago, and really didn't think I did at the time, but looking back now at some of my thought processes and decisions, totally had it. Hindsight is often the best way to figure out if you were not making good decisions/thinking properly.
- Messages
- 19,760
- Reaction score
- 18,615
- Location
- Philadelphia and Boynton Beach
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
Wow @SapphireMind, What is that comment about hepatic encephalopathy. That is usually not something that is acutely reversible. Are you in good shape to dive?
SapphireMind
Contributor
Fun story - idiosyncratic drug reaction
All better now I'm even allowed to drink and take tylenol If you are interested, I wrote up the experience for another board and you can read it https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CoqK1SJX4OMDiAIMY0QmBpznZmgScCSQJ5K7HNg46jw/edit?usp=sharing I also got to have type 2 diabetes for 3 months, which was not something I ever want to have permanently! Thank goodness livers regenerate
It's only not reversible if you have it because of a cirrhosis type failure, because cirrhosis is essentially scarring of the liver, preventing regeneration. I had the risk that I would develop cirrhosis after this, but I lucked out and have none. My liver enzymes are completely normal.
Moral of the story: herbal medications are less safe than pharmaceuticals
And as long as no one puts green tea or green tea extract in my air tanks, I should be good to go Similar threads
