Question about bcd remove underwater

[MXGratefulDiver]

I see. So NAUI allows instructors to add to their courses and supports them when they do. But they can't do just anything. They can't do ridiculous things.

So what things are ridiculous? What is the dividing line between practices they will support and practices they won't support?

A few years ago, an SSI instructor working for the University of Alabama had students do doff and dons in a 15 foot pool (remove gear at the bottom, swim to the surface, swim back down, and put the gear back on). She did not accompany them as they did it. The only difference between that and what I described is the distance to the surface. When a student embolized and died, it did not go well for that instructor. Would NAUI have supported the instructor in the lawsuit? How different is that from the scenario I described in my "ridiculous" example?

The important question above is this: would NAUI go to court to defend you in a lawsuit if you did something unsafe in your instruction?

An example of what NAUI won't allow is what happened here several years back. A NAUI instructor thought it would be a neat idea to combine the Advanced Scuba Diver (NAUI's equivalent of AOW) required night and deep dives into a single dive. He took four students plus a DM candidate on a deep wall dive with the dive plan to bounce to 200 feet, touch the bottom, and come right back up. The students were on standard AL80's. The instructor and DM candidate were on steel 100's. Each buddy team also carried a pony bottle (only one per team, though). Two of the students (the smart ones) bailed on descent, went back to the surface and swam in unaccompanied. The other four divers descended all the way to the bottom ... a bit over 200 feet ... and began their ascent. As they ascended through the massive silt cloud they'd stirred up when they hit bottom they realized that there were only three divers present. The DM candidate went back down while the instructor and remaining student continued ascending. He found the missing diver sitting on the bottom, narced out of his mind. Grabbing the guy he began swimming up, but the exertion caused him to go through his air supply faster than anticipated. The problem was that in going back down he "broke" the team ... and neither he nor the guy he was literally hauling back up had a pony bottle. At about 160 feet the DM candidate ran out of air. His final act was to reach over and inflate the student's BCD, shooting him to the surface from 160 feet.

The student spent the night in the hyperbaric chamber. They found the DM candidate's body half-buried in mud at 210 feet about 10 months after the incident. The instructor was permanently banned from NAUI.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[northernone]

An example of what NAUI won't allow is what happened here several years back. A NAUI instructor thought it would be a neat idea to combine the Advanced Scuba Diver (NAUI's equivalent of AOW) required night and deep dives into a single dive. He took four students plus a DM candidate on a deep wall dive with the dive plan to bounce to 200 feet, touch the bottom, and come right back up. The students were on standard AL80's. The instructor and DM candidate were on steel 100's. Each buddy team also carried a pony bottle (only one per team, though). Two of the students (the smart ones) bailed on descent, went back to the surface and swam in unaccompanied. The other four divers descended all the way to the bottom ... a bit over 200 feet ... and began their ascent. As they ascended through the massive silt cloud they'd stirred up when they hit bottom they realized that there were only three divers present. The DM candidate went back down while the instructor and remaining student continued ascending. He found the missing diver sitting on the bottom, narced out of his mind. Grabbing the guy he began swimming up, but the exertion caused him to go through is air supply faster than anticipated. The problem was that in going back down he "broke" the team ... and neither he nor the guy he was literally hauling back up had a pony bottle. At about 160 feet the DM candidate ran out of air. His final act was to reach over and inflate the student's BCD, shooting him to the surface from 160 feet.

The student spent the night in the hyperbaric chamber. They found the DM candidate's both half-buried in mud at 210 feet about 10 months after the incident. The instructor was permanently banned from NAUI.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Ouch. Horrible.

 

[Colliam7]

Again, if a student has done AOW with an instructor, they can get credit for deep dive #1. I teach through a shop, and they pay for a 4 dive class. I'm simply trying to give them the full value for what they pay. If I was teaching independently, I would discount the course, but that isn't my call. I find it disappointing that there cannot even be a conversation with PADI about what skills they would agree would be appropriate.

I think there are several issues at play in the broader discussion in this thread. I cannot speak for other agencies, but I think I am qualified to comment on PADI practices.

If an 'extra' dive is available - i.e. all skills required for certification have already been performed - it is not at all uncommon for PADI to suggest conducting a 'fun dive' on the 4th dive, at least that has been my experience in talking with PADI 'people' over the years. But, it is also not uncommon for them to suggest that skills already performed can be practiced again - the goal is for a student to achieve 'mastery' of a skill, and determination of 'mastery' is an Instructor assessment. So, if a navigation exercise, for example, is required during any of the four dives in the Deep Diver course (and, it is), there is nothing wrong with repeating that exercise on Dive 4, with the goal of the student achieving 'mastery'. That would be true for ANY skills included in the curriculum. What would not be acceptable would be to include a skill NOT included anywhere in the Deep Diver specialty curriculum. And, deployment of a DSMB is not a required skill during any of the 4 dives, so it would not be appropriate to have a student do that during a dive conducted as part of the course. Notably, it would be fine for the Instructor to deploy a bag, then have the student diver use the line for their ascent.

Now, I sense that Kosta's frustration stems in part from a perceived inability to get a definitive answer. I understand the frustration - I, too, prefer 'black and white' answers. At the same time, from my perspective, any agency representative (including PADI) would be ill-advised to suggest adding skills that are NOT part of the defined curriculum. - that is an open door invitation for increasing agency liability without benefit. Perhaps, the behavior that Kosta has encountered reflects the kind of coaching that is often given to witnesses in a courtroom proceeding - 'don't volunteer information'. It may frustrate me, but I grudgingly admit I understand it.

For me, the bottom line is that I believe I can offer a student a meaningful experience, even if we repeat skills already performed. Repeating the 8 minute simulated emergency decompression stop, while breathing from an emergency air supply (for AT LEAST one minute), and holding depth at 15 feet offers a great opportunity to help students master several skills - switching to an emergency supply, maintaining buoyancy control, calculating a resting SAC rate (not a required skill, but easy to do, as depth is a constant, as is time, and monitoring air supply is an expectation on every training dive), etc. The emergency air supply can be the buddy, so a student could get practice swimming, and holding depth, while breathing from a long hose for example. That is consistent with the standards (the 'stop' is at a given depth, not a given position in the horizontal plane.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

If an 'extra' dive is available - i.e. all skills required for certification have already been performed - it is not at all uncommon for PADI to suggest conducting a 'fun dive' on the 4th dive, at least that has been my experience in talking with PADI 'people' over the years.

I do this anyway. Students make great dive buddies. I like to get students to the point where they outgrow me as an instructor and we are just peers having fun diving together.

But, it is also not uncommon for them to suggest that skills already performed can be practiced again - the goal is for a student to achieve 'mastery' of a skill, and determination of 'mastery' is an Instructor assessment.

Here I disagree, as it isn't about a student performing skills, it is about mastery. When I teach dry suit, with few exceptions, students always need more than 2 dives, same with AOW (I chose the 3 specialties, not my students).

In the deep diver specialty, the "skills", there's not much meet to them. Getting students to understand the impact of nitrogen narcosis (I have this toddler's toy where they have to put in different shaped objects through the right slot) is the main thing from the skills required. I wished there was switching to an alternate air source from the deepest dive (40 m) and then seeing if only about one fourth (or use whatever multiplicative factor you feel is appropriate based on the gas consumption under stress) has been consumed. Get students thinking about worst case scenario: primary gas loss combined with buddy separation at the deepest point of the dive, on a boat dive where a DSMB will need to be deployed. But I digress.

So if a student has mastered skills, I don't see a point of doing them again. I'd be annoyed as a student if my instructor told me "well, you've mastered all the skills, now I want you to do them again." Repetition is good, but to obtain mastery, there should be that repetition already to reach that point. I'd think students (I would at least), would want to be introduced to something new/additional. Just teaching to standards is mediocrity in my opinion. I'm just looking at how I can add more, and I'm always open to suggestions. And I've received some good tips of doing that in a discreet manner.

Now, I sense that Kosta's frustration stems in part from a perceived inability to get a definitive answer. I understand the frustration - I, too, prefer 'black and white' answers. At the same time, from my perspective, any agency representative (including PADI) would be ill-advised to suggest adding skills that are NOT part of the defined curriculum. - that is an open door invitation for increasing agency liability without benefit. Perhaps, the behavior that Kosta has encountered reflects the kind of coaching that is often given to witnesses in a courtroom proceeding - 'don't volunteer information'. It may frustrate me, but I grudgingly admit I understand it.

A simple "no, you can't do that." The frustrating part was the training consultant saying "that's a great question!" and saying he'd get back to me after their staff meeting the next day and never doing so (and never responding to voicemails/emails). What am I? A drug lord who kills people for giving me answers I don't like?

For me, the bottom line is that I believe I can offer a student a meaningful experience, even if we repeat skills already performed. Repeating the 8 minute simulated emergency decompression stop, while breathing from an emergency air supply (for AT LEAST one minute), and holding depth at 15 feet offers a great opportunity to help students master several skills - switching to an emergency supply, maintaining buoyancy control, calculating a resting SAC rate (not a required skill, but easy to do, as depth is a constant, as is time, and monitoring air supply is an expectation on every training dive), etc. The emergency air supply can be the buddy, so a student could get practice swimming, and holding depth, while breathing from a long hose for example. That is consistent with the standards (the 'stop' is at a given depth, not a given position in the horizontal plane.

That's all great, but I encourage students to do this stuff regardless after their courses. Safety stops are great opportunities to practicing skills, from mask removal, replacement, and clear, to sharing gas, to .....

If I can't do something additional, such as shooting a bag, no problem, just let me know. I have no respect for people and organizations that don't give straight answers.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Actually, I think a good answer would have been "well, would you like to do the first dive of a different course, like DSMB. If you already included that in that diver's AOW course, then maybe do the second dive. They don't get certification, but this way you stay within the PADI system and give your student the extra value you want."

Too late now as Elivis has left the building, but this could be a conversation that another PADI instructor could have.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I used to routinely offer an extra dive ... in some cases more than one ... to give a student more time to practice a skill before calling the class done. Oddly, I never once had a student object when I told them I thought we should do another dive and work on whatever skill I thought they needed to practice. Most were appreciative of the extra work, and I've yet to meet a new diver who objects to any reason to go do another dive. But I was always upfront with prospective students that the schedule was flexible, and didn't end until I felt they'd met the objectives of the class.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Colliam7]

Here I disagree, as it isn't about a student performing skills, it is about mastery. . . . In the deep diver specialty, the "skills", there's not much meet to them. . . . So if a student has mastered skills, I don't see a point of doing them again.

Let me offer an alternative perspective. In the PADI world, mastery is defined (for Confined Water and Open Water skills) as 'performing the skill so it meets the stated performance requirements in a reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner as would be expected of a diver at that certification level'. So, I think it really is about performing skills, and specifically about the manner in which they are performed. To meet the requirements of mastery, the student performs the skill as specified in the performance requirement, they are comfortable doing so, and they can do it more than once (at a minimum). So let's assume that a student has achieved that level of performance, for all required skills (and you are right, there are not an enormous number), after 3 dives in the Deep Diver specialty course. Is there still room for improvement? I think there is.

As an illustration of one way to look at the possibilities, consider the grading criteria used in the Divemaster program to assess candidate performance on the '24 skills'. If a DM candidate's skills performance is graded as, 'Exercise performed correctly, though too quickly to adequately exhibit or illustrate details of the skill', they get a '3'. But, the exercise is performed correctly. And, it can be fluid. And, the DM candidate can appear to be quite comfortable doing it. And, I would certainly hope it would be repeatable. But, it is supposed to be 'demonstration quality', not just correct and comfortable. How can the DM candidate improve, if they are already performing the skill correctly, comfortably, etc.? To get a '4' the assessment has to be, 'Exercise performed correctly, and slowly enough to adequately exhibit or illustrate details of skill. That is a higher level of performance than simply doing it correctly, fluidly comfortably, and repeatably. And, there is an even higher score ('5') available where, 'Exercise performed correctly, slowly and with exaggerated movement – appeared easy.'

I am certainly not trying to suggest that Deep Diver specialty students, as an example, need to perform skills at the level of a Divemaster candidate. Rather, I am suggesting that just because a skill is performed correctly - i.e. the stated performance objective is achieved - and in a 'reasonably comfortable, repeatable manner', which meets the definition of mastery- they can perform the skill correctly, and comfortably, and can do it again - doesn't mean that there is not still room for improvement.

I really am not trying to argue about it, rather suggest that in having a student diver repeat a skill that they have 'mastered' according to the definition, there is still some opportunity for continued improvement. Mastery does not necessarily require development of muscle memory. But repetition can facilitate that development.

A simple "no, you can't do that." The frustrating part was the training consultant saying "that's a great question!" and saying he'd get back to me after their staff meeting the next day and never doing so (and never responding to voicemails/emails).

And, again, I really do understand your frustration. And, I agree with you. I personally think that the responsiveness of PADI people to inquiries and suggestions seems to have waned over the past 3-4 years. And, when someone says they will get back to me, and don't, it is (very) annoying. An immediate, straight answer would be preferred, but if time for research is needed, fine. However, don't simply blow me off with a 'I'll get back to you' which never happens.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Let me offer an alternative perspective. In the PADI world, mastery is defined (for Confined Water and Open Water skills) as 'performing the skill so it meets the stated performance requirements in a reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner as would be expected of a diver at that certification level'. So, I think it really is about performing skills, and specifically about the manner in which they are performed. To meet the requirements of mastery, the student performs the skill as specified in the performance requirement, they are comfortable doing so, and they can do it more than once (at a minimum). So let's assume that a student has achieved that level of performance, for all required skills (and you are right, there are not an enormous number), after 3 dives in the Deep Diver specialty course. Is there still room for improvement? I think there is.

As an illustration of one way to look at the possibilities, consider the grading criteria used in the Divemaster program to assess candidate performance on the '24 skills'. If a DM candidate's skills performance is graded as, 'Exercise performed correctly, though too quickly to adequately exhibit or illustrate details of the skill', they get a '3'. But, the exercise is performed correctly. And, it can be fluid. And, the DM candidate can appear to be quite comfortable doing it. And, I would certainly hope it would be repeatable. But, it is supposed to be 'demonstration quality', not just correct and comfortable. How can the DM candidate improve, if they are already performing the skill correctly, comfortably, etc.? To get a '4' the assessment has to be, 'Exercise performed correctly, and slowly enough to adequately exhibit or illustrate details of skill. That is a higher level of performance than simply doing it correctly, fluidly comfortably, and repeatably. And, there is an even higher score ('5') available where, 'Exercise performed correctly, slowly and with exaggerated movement – appeared easy.'

I am certainly not trying to suggest that Deep Diver specialty students, as an example, need to perform skills at the level of a Divemaster candidate. Rather, I am suggesting that just because a skill is performed correctly - i.e. the stated performance objective is achieved - and in a 'reasonably comfortable, repeatable manner', which meets the definition of mastery- they can perform the skill correctly, and comfortably, and can do it again - doesn't mean that there is not still room for improvement.

I really am not trying to argue about it, rather suggest that in having a student diver repeat a skill that they have 'mastered' according to the definition, there is still some opportunity for continued improvement. Mastery does not necessarily require development of muscle memory. But repetition can facilitate that development. And, again, I really do understand your frustration. And, I agree with you. I personally think that the responsiveness of PADI people to inquiries and suggestions seems to have waned over the past 3-4 years. And, when someone says they will get back to me, and don't, it is (very) annoying. An immediate, straight answer would be preferred, but if time for research is needed, fine. However, don't simply blow me off with a 'I'll get back to you' which never happens.

Okay, I'm going to drill down into specifics for this course.

Open Water Dives
Performance Requirements
By the end of the open water dives, student divers will be able to:
Deep Diver Open Water Dive One
• Execute a descent using a reference as a tactile or visual guide (line, wall or sloping bottom).
• Compare changes in color at the surface and at depth.
• Compare your own depth gauge to your instructor’s and/or other student diver’s depth gauges.
• Use a depth gauge and timing device (or a dive computer with an ascent rate indicator) to measure an ascent rate not to exceed 18 metres/60 feet per minute.
• Perform a 3-minute safety stop at 5 metres/15 feet before surfacing.
Deep Diver Open Water Dive Two
• Execute a “free” descent using a reference line, wall or sloping bottom as a visual guide only.
• Describe and record the changes that occur to three pressure-sensitive items while at depth.
• Perform a navigation swim with a compass away from, and back to, the anchor of the reference line (one diver navigates away from, the other navigates back to, the reference line for a distance of between 10 and 20 kick cycles, depending on visibility).
• Perform an ascent using a reference line, wall or sloping bottom as a visual guide only.
• Use depth gauge and timing device (or a dive computer with ascent-rate indicator) to measure an ascent rate not to exceed 18 metres/60 feet per minute.
• Perform a 3-minute safety stop at 5 metres/15 feet before surfacing without physically holding on to a reference line for positioning.
Deep Diver Open Water Dive Three
• Execute a descent using a reference as a tactile or visual guide (line, wall or sloping bottom).
• Compare the amount of time needed to complete a task on the surface and at depth.
• Perform an ascent using a reference as a tactile or visual guide (line, wall or sloping bottom).
• Use a depth gauge and timing device (or a dive computer with ascent rate indicator) to measure an ascent rate not to exceed 18 metres/60 feet per minute.
• Perform an 8-minute simulated emergency decompression stop at 5 metres/15 feet before surfacing, while breathing from an emergency air source for at least one minute of the total time.
Deep Diver Open Water Dive Four
• Execute a descent using a reference as a tactile or visual guide (line, wall or sloping bottom).
• Complete an underwater tour of the area.
• Perform an ascent using a reference as a tactile or visual guide (line, wall or sloping bottom).
• Use your depth gauge and timing device (or a dive computer with ascent rate indicator) to measure an ascent rate not to exceed 18 metres/60 feet per minute.
• Perform a 3-minute safety stop at 5 metres/15 feet before surfacing.

Please tell me which of the above you feel that a student needs to repeat?

It is my policy that all skills in any course I teach must satisfy my interpretation of mastery. That means that the number of dives in a course is only the minimum. Dives may be added for when students need to do thing again.

I just want to cover the scenario where a student nails each exercise and gets a little bit of value for a credited dive. Maybe some DSMB work.

 

[Colliam7]

Please tell me which of the above you feel that a student needs to repeat?

I have already mentioned 2 possibilities in previous posts, as examples - the navigation exercise, and the 8 minute simulated emergency decompression stop. Using the 8 minute stop as an example:

If the student 'nailed' the deco stop while hovering in a fixed place, and breathing from a redundant air source, have them breath from a long hose, while swimming, holding depth, and checking time. The value is letting them see how well they can do it. And, this is definitely within the scope of the performance requirement

Have them change back and forth, from their primary air supply to a redundant air supply, several times. Have them change at 2 minute intervals, WITHOUT checking a timing device (you keep notes on their timing), to let them see how well they judge time underwater - many divers don't do that well.

Other possibilities:

• Execute a descent using a reference as a tactile or visual guide (line, wall or sloping bottom).

Have them work on a fixed rate descent. Set a goal (e.g. 45 feet per minute) and have them 'nail' it. Many divers have trouble precisely controlling their descent rate.

Have them descend, while precisely managing their buoyancy, to reach a point 3 feet +/- 1 foot above the bottom, and have them 'nail' that. This is hard for many divers to do properly.

• Use depth gauge and timing device (or a dive computer with ascent-rate indicator) to measure an ascent rate not to exceed 18 metres/60 feet per minute.

Have them perform an ascent at precisely 30 feet per minute (or 40, or 45, or 50 - pick a rate). The performance requirement is pretty open ended - ' not to exceed 60 feet per minute'. Have them do (much) better than that. Many cannot, at least the first time.

• Perform an ascent using a reference as a tactile or visual guide (line, wall or sloping bottom).

Have the diver ascend - without looking at their depth gauge or timing device - along a vertical line at a specified (by you) rate. You measure their rate (intervening only if they ascend faster than 60 feet per minute) and give them feedback on how well they do. They should be able to do the ascent without a timing device - which can fail during a dive, yet they still need to ascend safely.

• Complete an underwater tour of the area.

Repeating this 'skill' / activity opens up all kinds of opportunities.

Explore an entirely new site on that last dive.

Have them do a rough map, of a new or previous site, to gain practice with underwater mapping. (Very) Low risk activity, but value added.

Have them conduct a SAC measurement swim, by swimming at a fixed depth, for a specified time, while noting starting and ending pressures - during the 'tour'. Again, a very low risk endeavor, and none of these activities (holding depth, checking time, checking air supply) would be considered outside the scope of usual and customary actions conducted during a deep dive. But, there is added value in the information that can be obtained. Heck, have them do a slow swim for 5 minutes, and a fast(er) swim for 5 minutes, and get a normal and a working SAC estimation.

If the diver hasn't checked their fixed distance measurements for kick cycles, time, and breaths, run a 100 ft line and have them do that during the 'tour' - the vast majority of divers never repeat that exercise after they do it for the U/W Navigation dive in AOW. Worse still, few bother to record the data in their log book for future use. If they are engaged in a 'tour' of a site, it is certainly within the overall performance requirement to have them swim at some point in a straight line for 100 feet.

The bottom line - there are plenty of 'value added' endeavors that can be built into the dive activities associated with meeting the existing performance requirements across the 4 dives. These can't necessarily be added as specific requirements for certification. But, if you and the diver want to enhance the value of a 4th dive, while staying comfortably within standards, it is easily done.

I just want to cover the scenario where a student nails each exercise and gets a little bit of value for a credited dive. Maybe some DSMB work.

If you really feel the need to do DSMB work - you have mentioned it before - then do so. Don't expect a PADI person to endorse that, because it is technically outside the scope of course activities and performance requirements for the Deep Diver specialty course. But, if you want to add that value, just do it. Yes, there is probably some risk of entanglement. But, if you are exercising the direct supervision you should be according to the standards, the risk is quite low. Have the student shoot a bag, and use the line for their ascent, to meet the requirement:

• Perform an ascent using a reference as a tactile or visual guide (line, wall or sloping bottom)

My approach has always been to operate within the established standards - to support the organization, to give the student the training and experience they should have (and have paid for), and to protect myself from needless liability. I try not to look for constraints that don't exist, and I try not to ask questions to which I really don't want a direct answer.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I have already mentioned 2 possibilities in previous posts, as examples - the navigation exercise, and the 8 minute simulated emergency decompression stop. Using the 8 minute stop as an example:

In my AOW program, the students during the night dive navigate a triangle. The out and back navigation is quite weak in comparison.

If the student 'nailed' the deco stop while hovering in a fixed place, and breathing from a redundant air source, have them breath from a long hose, while swimming, holding depth, and checking time. The value is letting them see how well they can do it. And, this is definitely within the scope of the performance requirement

Have you checked with PADI that is allowed? My understanding is that it is not within the scope of the performance requirement. But if PADI HQ says its okay, then my understanding is incorrect.

Have them change back and forth, from their primary air supply to a redundant air supply, several times. Have them change at 2 minute intervals, WITHOUT checking a timing device (you keep notes on their timing), to let them see how well they judge time underwater - many divers don't do that well.

Other possibilities:

• Execute a descent using a reference as a tactile or visual guide (line, wall or sloping bottom).

Have them work on a fixed rate descent. Set a goal (e.g. 45 feet per minute) and have them 'nail' it. Many divers have trouble precisely controlling their descent rate.

Have them descend, while precisely managing their buoyancy, to reach a point 3 feet +/- 1 foot above the bottom, and have them 'nail' that. This is hard for many divers to do properly.

• Use depth gauge and timing device (or a dive computer with ascent-rate indicator) to measure an ascent rate not to exceed 18 metres/60 feet per minute.

Have them perform an ascent at precisely 30 feet per minute (or 40, or 45, or 50 - pick a rate). The performance requirement is pretty open ended - ' not to exceed 60 feet per minute'. Have them do (much) better than that. Many cannot, at least the first time.

• Perform an ascent using a reference as a tactile or visual guide (line, wall or sloping bottom).

Have the diver ascend - without looking at their depth gauge or timing device - along a vertical line at a specified (by you) rate. You measure their rate (intervening only if they ascend faster than 60 feet per minute) and give them feedback on how well they do. They should be able to do the ascent without a timing device - which can fail during a dive, yet they still need to ascend safely.

All good ideas, but I am skeptical that PADI allows for this. Let's assume "something" happens, my student gets hurt and there is a lawsuit. Is PADI going back me as a defendant or is PADI going to back the plaintiff?

That's what it all comes down to.

Have them conduct a SAC measurement swim, by swimming at a fixed depth, for a specified time, while noting starting and ending pressures - during the 'tour'. Again, a very low risk endeavor, and none of these activities (holding depth, checking time, checking air supply) would be considered outside the scope of usual and customary actions conducted during a deep dive. But, there is added value in the information that can be obtained. Heck, have them do a slow swim for 5 minutes, and a fast(er) swim for 5 minutes, and get a normal and a working SAC estimation.

This is practically straight out of dive 1 of the self-reliant course, which requires 100 dives. So again, I don't think this is allowed.

I don't mean to rain on your parade. I do appreciate the response. But this is the sort of response/discussion that I was hoping to have with PADI.