Perhaps nothing in YOUR comes close to providing that level of training, that focus or that mindset, but you have no business speaking for everyone else.
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.
"Safe when broken" is a "safety stop" not a decompression stop. I don't know the exact difference between "light" deco and deco,
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.
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
It sounds like a lot of makeup work that the student should have mastered previously, but didn't, so you had to provide it. Good thing you could and were willing to, but you really should be complaining about this student's previous teacher(s) rather than bragging on what a hard program you present.
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.
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.
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?
The major problem that most students I have trained have with longish stops is dealing with boredom not with skill performance.
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).
Once again I must point out that safety means "without risk."
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.
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.
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'?
There is no decompression diving that is without increased risk so the very idea of being able to 'safely carry out decompression dives' is claptrap. What one must do is learn to minimize risk whilst carrying out a decompression schedule. That is a very different mind set.
I agree. That is what I attempted to communicate before. I obviously communicated it badly, my apologies.
Any properly trained open water diver should have the ability to; carry enough gas, control your buoyancy and follow what your computer tells you to do.
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?
Training is not needed to do decompression dives, I did hundreds before I was mentored by someone who had done far fewer, but who had some good tricks. I guess it would be safe to say that I still have yet to be so "trained."
To lower my blood pressure I began reading posts more literally, unless it is written "formal training" I assume that the poster means any training methods that will bring you to the desired end under discussion.
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.
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.
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.
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.