🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KETIL.92Nov18203826@sandel.ii.uib.no> ketil@ii.uib.no writes:
>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:36:10 GMT, mayne@phi.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne) said:
>
>	William> ... When I took open water
>	William> narcosis was covered in a few sentences and the other
>	William> topics mentioned even less, if at all. On the other
>	William> hand if you stay within PADI limits it is easy to
>	William> argue that such knowledge isn't very important.
>
>Jeez, I can see why the CMAS people are looking down on the PADI
>certificate.  You actually dive to 130 feet without any knowledge of
>N2-narcosis?
>...
>One is advised not to go deeper than 20m on the first CMAS
>certificate (**) and 30m on the second (***)  When you go deeper, you
>lose much bottom time, and besides there's not a lot down there anyway...

I'm not a fan or defender of PADI, but since I may have given the
wrong impression by the above I will try to correct it. PADI, like
CMAS, teaches that you aren't supposed to go deeper than 60 feet
(CMAS 20 m) on the first certificate. I took only the first course
from PADI. (The rest of my training (even my nitrox class) has been
in cave diving.) I would hope that in PADI Advanced Open Water, which
includes what PADI calls deep diving, and/or the "Deep Diver" specialty
course, they cover narcosis more, as well as actually doing "deep" dives
with an instructor.

I disagree that there is not a lot (besides wrecks) below 60 feet.
And I am not talking about cave diving here. In Cozumel I found the
deeper dives really spectacular because of the size of the reefs.
I got to a do a dive to 130 there last August and I would have liked
to go deeper. It was awesome. I enjoyed the shallower, longer dives
too, but for different reasons. What there is to see at what depths
depends upon where you are.

Bill Mayne