I base my overall perceptions on the people I see as customers. The breakdown of those customers' training sources probably reflects the overall market spread. The majority are PADI. SSI comes second. CMAS/NAUI/YMCA/BSAC very occasionally. A few GUE/UTD divers.
I haven't dived with anyone trianed under your system Thal - but that's something I would be genuinely interested to do.
It is less a system and more an outlook.
I share that opinion. If my dive planning tells me that during the dive there will be a situation where I cannot access the surface within a timescale that I can survive without respiration, then I have to plan and prepare for every reasonable contingency to ensure my survival.
Those contingencies include, but are not limited to; staying longer than I planned at depth, going deeper than I planned, regulator failure, BCD failure, gauge/computer failure and other equipment failures. In addition, my contingency planning has to assume that more than one of these issues can occur simultaneously.
Planning and preparing for those contingencies involves a level of 'technicality' beyond the formal training provided in mainstream recreational diving syllabus.
Having a good Plan B and maybe C is hardly rocket science.
Ok... I don't want to get 'hung up' with vocabulary. But.. I don't think it's unfair to apply a 'name' to a level of diving activity that demands a high level of technicality;
precision and the use of specific techniques. Such distinctions are readily available throughout life:
Drawing:
- A picture or diagram made with a pencil, pen, or crayon rather than paint, esp. one drawn in monochrome.
- The art or skill or making such pictures or diagrams.
Technical Drawing:
1. The practice or skill of delineating objects in a precise way using certain techniques of draftsmanship, as employed in architecture or engineering
There we differ, I say that a high level of technicality;
precision and the use of specific techniques is not where one needs to go, rather it is more a state of mind, a zen, a oneness with the problem that permits a diver to gently and calmly move with it to the other side rather than try to overcome it with technique and precision.
Firstly, most 'recreational' scuba divers are taught upon the premise that direct ascent to the surface will always be an option available to them. That premise impacts upon the scope and nature of the contingency planning and emergency drills that they are taught. I don't understand why that student should have been taught specific and precise techniques for diving in situations where the surface isn't an immediate option.
What the student needs to learn is how to be absolutely calm in the face of problems, how to comfortably maintain their calm whilst unable to inhale for some longish period of time and the ability to think at the same time. None of the problems faced are that complex, the difficulty is with the human wiring, panic and excitement ... control those and you've plenty or time to correct the issue.
Secondly, I am neither complaining about the student's former teacher, nor "bragging" about the program I present. My intentions were to demonstrate how cheap, convenient and, well...easy... my 'technical' training course was. Within a matter of 3 days, the student will receive the information and skills they need to safely complete 'light' deco dives. I was trying to dispel any accusations that doing a 'tech' course for light deco was a waste of money, or a rip-off. For the sake of $135 a day, over 3 days, the student is saved having to read dozens of books and spend hours online in research...and conduct (and pay for) dozens of dives to progressively develop and experiment with skills. They get an in-depth performance critique and feedback. They get my undivided attention and all the diving logistics are prepared for them - because it's a paid service, not a 'favour'. They'll also get a plastic card and their name and certification listed on a verifiable online database.
I guess what it really comes down to is that to my way of thinking what you are teaching is not what I think that people need to be good divers or to be good technical divers, but that's what makes horse races, no?
Assuming that I'll work a minimum of a 10 hour day, 8am to 6pm (it truth, I'll be doing evening theory sessions also)... that works out at $13.50 an hour, including dives and manuals. Some people pay more than that just to have their lawn mowed, or dog groomed. How much do people pay for driving lessons nowadays? $60-$90 an hour?
When I charge, I net about $40 per hour.
Me too. That's why I have mentioned 'mindset'.. and the development of focus and self-discipline... plus the education of risks/consequences.
Again, in most mainstream 'recreational' diving courses there is little or no emphasis on those factors. The mindset is different.
(please note: I am not being 'absolute' about this...'most' and 'mainstream' are caveats I shall try to include henceforth).
I fear that we mean drastically different things by "mindset." For you it is power words, FOCUS, SELF-DISCIPLINE, for me it is consciousness words, calm, maintain, slow, think.
And yet, nothing is without risk. The word 'reasonable' should be included.
How about this: Appropriate training should maintain a uniform level of risk, regardless of activity.
Risk will never be uniform. What one needs to do is minimize the risk of the activity, that's the best that can be done.
A technical diver should be 'as safe' as a recreational diver. As exposure to potential danger increases, skill, knowledge and preparation should be expanded to mitigate those dangers. Training is available to provide specific and precise techniques to mitigate foreseeable and reasonable risks. The diver should conduct their activities in such a way as to ensure a reasonable level of safety.
A technical diver can never lower the risk to that of a recreational diver ... at least as I see it, since the risk of recreational diving per se, that is specifically no-ceiling diving shallow enough to be able to make a comfortable and confident free ascent from, is approaching zero as a limit.
With regards training, it's useful to consider the difference between 'negligence' and 'reasonable prudence'. In a court of law, would someone be determined 'negligent' or 'reasonably prudent' in the way they sought to prepare for and conduct a dive? Would it 'reasonably prudent' to undertake further formal training prior to engaging in an activity with elevated and novel risks, that are beyond the scope of previous training?
Would doing decompression, without any contingency planning, redundancy or other risk-specific preparations be considered 'negligent'?
That is a matter of perspective. I would undoubtedly see much of your diving as imprudent what with all your reliance on power, focus, discipline and equipment, and I do not doubt that you would see mine as well ... a bit too "green" for your taste. But we'd agree, I'm sure that there needs to be planned and practiced backups.
I agree. That is what I attempted to communicate before. I obviously communicated it badly, my apologies.
Glad we cleared that up.
Yes, they should. Does that alone constitute 'reasonable prudence' to minimize risk whilst carrying out a decompression schedule?
What if their gas supply failed? What if a regulator failed? What if their BCD failed? What if their computer failed? What if they are forced to over-stay on the bottom? What if they are forced to go deeper? What if several of these issues occurred simultaneously...?
Is a properly trained open water diver expected to deal with those... whilst remaining on a precise stop depth and/or maintaining a pre-determined ascent?
Yes. I don't see the big deal. Eventually there is a list of simultaneous failures that is long enough to kill us all, but fortunately the probabilities of simultaneous failures are multiplicative and not additive.
Bob has a good point. In the future, I will certainly endeavour to indicate "formal training" where I literally mean it.
I've always championed the need for specific training for decompression diving. I believe that training should be appropriate to activity and risk.
My development as a diver has consisted of both training and 'formal training'. Probably more of the former, than the later. The limits of my training certainly far exceeds the limits of my 'formal training'.
I think that 'formal training' is an efficient, timely and cost-effective method of receiving training. I do not think it is the only method of training.
Again I am glad we agree.
Formal training (certification) is also the most effective manner of ensuring that your training is recognised. Training recognition can be a very important factor when you might rely on external/private resources or services to conduct your dives.
Again, we see this from different ends. In my experience the folks who have a sheaf of training recognition documents are often far less skilled and far more risk than are those with no documents whatever who can do a good checkout with me (see:
Checkout dive at the Univ. of Puerto Rico).
Formal training also tends to reduce risks as the student is developing - if for no other reason than the instructor is conscious of legal repercussions of providing a duty of care to that student. A diving mentor or internet advisor is not necessarily under that obligation.
Sorry, I have to call that self-serving BS.
Formal training also tends to include some form of review, assessment or appraisal of the divers proficiency relative to the diving undertaken. I feel that this is invaluable. Again, that's not necessarily the case outside of formal training courses.
Ibid.
