[David D]

By the sound of it, these divers got very little instruction for their money. As long as they paid very little money for it, fine. If they paid the standard whack for a nitrox course, they were robbed.

32m on 32% is not really a problem, and has a reasonable margin of error. I have seen instruction in the past where the instructor is effectively the depth gauge. As long as he wasn't distracted by other divers, no problem. The divers themselves bear some responsiblity for any cock-ups by diving without computers.

Complaining to the dive centre would most likely have been a complete waste of time. If they're crap, and it seems they were, name them so others can avoid them.

 

[David D]

But nitrox really is that simple.
If you have the MOD chalked on the tank and you dive a site where the seabed is no deeper it's safer than air.

Agreed. The tuition is minimal. But making it a 'speciality' affords the training agencies an opportunity to extract more cash from divers. And, from memory, there is the opportunity to go much deeper than 32m on Jackson Reef. Did their 'tuition' cover enough to give them an appreciation of what they were doing and why it could be dangerous?

Not being given SPGs or computers is criminal as far as i am concerned, you wouldnt dive without a way of measuring and recording depth, i dont, and wouldnt. Why is OK for students under instruction to do so, i think you would find that PADI would have a very very dim veiw of this little episode.

Definetly not saying it's right, but if it's agreed in advance above water, then the instructor is effectively the depth gauge.

The title of you post gives the wrong impression. The Red Sea has a fairly good safety record IMO.....so I don't think the issue is with safety standards but more about training standards.

From what I read, I wouldn't agree with this. The Red Sea seems to have some very iffy operators. As an example, four divers lost last year on Elphinstone in an episode that really was criminal; open water divers in strong currents with little or no surface support. Lots of poorly trained divers, quite a few Russians it has to be said, diving deep sites seem to be falling off the perch over there. The more expensive operators seem to be more conscious of safety. The cheaper ones seem to cut a lot of corners.

 

[David D]

The tuition may not be a lot, but it should be tought in a proper way. All training should be carried out as per PADI standards, thats the point. You dont seem to understand who gets the money if you think the agencys see it as a way to extract money, your words.

The money is extracted; who gets it isn't the issue. What it's for is.

Its not acceptable to allow divers to dive without some way of measuring depth, that would seem to me a first princaple.

Like I said, I don't agree with it as a practice, but I've seen it before as a teaching method by CMAS instructors in the Carribean.

I'd certainly refuse to enter the water without a method of gauging depth. It's a decision made by individual divers.

It would not suprise me if the Red Sea had a better record than stoney when you consider just how dives per day each venue does.

This is a probably a fair point.