Tulum - what training should I get?

[syntaxerrorsix]

Justify it however you like. I really don't care. I've not seen the classification "simple overheads" but.... whatever you say.

 

[LakeCountyDiver]

All you have to do is quote a single standard and the discussion will end.

No it wont!!! This is Scubaboard :deal:... This thread may die but the next one will pick it up.

 

[PfcAJ]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

 

[boulderjohn]

Justify it however you like. I really don't care. I've not seen the classification "simple overheads" but.... whatever you say.

Although the course does not use the term "simple overheads," it goes into great length to differentiate between, for example, a 6-foot long, wide arch that practically any diver would feel safe going through and the more complex ones that bring on added challenges and the potential for harm. It attempts to educate students so that they can make good decisions about their diving.

Not long ago an OW diver argued in a thread that he could enter the Devil's Eye at Ginnie Springs (which is allowed) swim past the Grim Reaper sign, keep left, and exit through the Devil's Ear. He said it was just another swim through. That is the kind of thinking that divers get into when no one educates them on the difference. I am sure that you know that if he were to follow that plan, he would wind up in the catacombs, probably hopelessly lost. The course includes that example in the section on why you don't go into caves without training.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Although the course does not use the term "simple overheads," it goes into great length to differentiate between, for example, a 6-foot long, wide arch that practically any diver would feel safe going through and the more complex ones that bring on added challenges and the potential for harm. It attempts to educate students so that they can make good decisions about their diving.

Not long ago an OW diver argued in a thread that he could enter the Devil's Eye at Ginnie Springs (which is allowed) swim past the Grim Reaper sign, keep left, and exit through the Devil's Ear. He said it was just another swim through. That is the kind of thinking that divers get into when no one educates them on the difference. I am sure that you know that if he were to follow that plan, he would wind up in the catacombs, probably hopelessly lost. The course includes that example in the section on why you don't go into caves without training.

I recall the thread/poster. Definitive lines help keep ideas like this in check. It's not hard to identify and avoid overhead areas and it's not difficult to seek appropriate training. If "simple overhead" is a concept that PADI chooses to put together and teach in the OW curriculum fine and good. The diver completing that course has been given enough training to hopefully make the best possible judgement. I have no issue with this.

 

[karstdvr]

No it wont!!! This is Scubaboard :deal:... This thread may die but the next one will pick it up.

You are learning fast. There will be a "scandal" in the cave diving community,because one shop said something about the other shop's momma etc. It will be forgotten pretty fast because the next "scandal" is around the corner. Just remember, the CDS was formed because the NACD threw out some guy named Sheck Exley over a disagreement,so starts a long saga that keeps on going.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I recall the thread/poster. Definitive lines help keep ideas like this in check.

Actually they don't. "Just say no" is a concept used in a great many things in our life ... and all it really keeps in check are those who would be unlikely to do it anyway. The more curious/adventuresome/rebellious will simply rationalize why it's utter rubbish and go demonstrate their position. We see it over and over and over ... pretty much every day at places like Ginnie and other cave systems where non-cave people are routinely in the water. It's a nice concept in theory, but like a lot of things it doesn't work as well in reality as you think it should.

It's not hard to identify and avoid overhead areas and it's not difficult to seek appropriate training. If "simple overhead" is a concept that PADI chooses to put together and teach in the OW curriculum fine and good. The diver completing that course has been given enough training to hopefully make the best possible judgement. I have no issue with this.

... and that's really the better approach ... give the diver enough training and information to make informed decisions. Most people have a healthy sense of survival ... and Darwin will have his way with the rest at some point in their lives anyway. So give them tools instead of platitudes.

The real world is rarely black and white ... right and wrong ... it's made up of varying degrees of both, and that makes it necessary to use good judgment to stay out of trouble. People who insist on applying the same rules under a broad range of circumstances often are doing more harm than good, because eventually people start questioning the credibility of those rules and will tend to ignore them even when they shouldn't. It's far better to put it into the context of a "rule of thumb", and help people understand why it exists and how to apply it (or not) to the circumstances.

That's how you create a "thinking diver" ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[ucfdiver]

Actually they don't. "Just say no" is a concept used in a great many things in our life ... and all it really keeps in check are those who would be unlikely to do it anyway. The more curious/adventuresome/rebellious will simply rationalize why it's utter rubbish and go demonstrate their position. We see it over and over and over ... pretty much every day at places like Ginnie and other cave systems where non-cave people are routinely in the water. It's a nice concept in theory, but like a lot of things it doesn't work as well in reality as you think it should.

But "Just say no" and other abstinence based teaching methods with black and white lines drawn work so well for keeping kids from trying alcohol, weed and premarital sex, right?

 

[boulderjohn]

But "Just say no" and other abstinence based teaching methods with black and white lines drawn work so well for keeping kids from trying alcohol, weed and premarital sex, right?

A couple of years ago our sheriff said that the biggest reason that there is such a problem with late teens and alcohol is because of the absolute "just say no" approach and the 21 year drinking age. Years ago an 18 year old could enjoy a beer or two in a public establishment overseen by adults and while watching other adults drink responsibly. Now that it is underground, they guzzle to complete intoxication doing ridiculous drinking games with no adult supervision.

About 15 years ago my son, then age 20, was drinking with other college friends on a Saturday evening, just as I did when I was 20. The only difference was that it was legal when I was 20. The police raided the party, and everyone ran for it. My son's best friend was hit by a truck when he ran and killed. Our sheriff cited incidents like this for his opposition to this sort of wrong-headed policy.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

But "Just say no" and other abstinence based teaching methods with black and white lines drawn work so well for keeping kids from trying alcohol, weed and premarital sex, right?

... exactly the point I'm trying to make ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)