Does gear follow training, or does training follow gear?

[Eric Sedletzky]

I think maybe I wasn't clear in my OP about what I'm asking.

Let's go back to when there were no BC as an example.
At some point the BC was invented. Was the BC invented because some manufacturer thought it was a great idea then the agencies adaptd it? Or did the agencies go to some manufacturer and say "Something needs to be done, we are losing hundreds of divers to the depths because they have no way of becoming neutral at depth (a dramatization) please help us.
Or, are both cert agencies and manufacturers working closely together to develop gear and training at the same time, as in gear innovations set training policy and training policy is communicated to drive specific gear needs.

Case in point: Halcyon - GUE.

But what about how jacket BC's were developed and now considered a piece of critical surface floatation "safety" gear.
Computers I see as a manufacturer innovation then agencies had to adapt them into the curriculum because so many people use them.
Then there's the octo

 

[shoredivr]

A question for those of you who know.
Did training follow the development of gear, or did training influence the formation of gear?

Question is about history of diving in general and equipment manufacturing, not one's personal path in training and gear acquisition.
Gear was invented out of necessity, then training arose for it from everything I've read.

 

[tbone1004]

Halcyon really hasn't innovated anything in their line. Regs are direct copies of Scubapro, wings are somewhat custom shaped to them, but the wing concept was around decades before Halcyon came to be, same with the plates. Only thing really pioneered by them is the cinch system which isn't required in any sort of training manual and I'm not sure if it's mentioned in any, maybe some of the GUE books but no others.

My last post discussed basic evolution of the BCD, but even that isn't necessary for most open water diving. If you're in a 3mm wetsuit or less and weighted properly for single tank recreational diving, you don't need a BCD, your lungs can safely compensate for the slight suit change. It also precedes all of the current agencies

None of the other agencies really work with gear manufacturers and like I said, there really isn't a lot of true innovations that were game changers.

 

[lv2dive]

Oh dear someone better ping Dan V he would not agree with that last post! <g>

 

[drbill]

Back in the 1960s when I was trained there was so little gear (no BCD, octo, SPG, computer, etc) so I guess I just slowly added it afterward... didn't even use a BCD until 1989 when the Cousteau team I was diving with required it. Darned thing didn't work (it kept autoinflating when I tried to descend) so I just unhooked the hose and dove without it. Now I wouldn't dive without one.

 

[NAM001]

I would say normally training follows gear. I say this because one trains for the limitations imposed by thier equipment. There are very few consequences using a 50 cuft tank. With Larger tanks, greater than NDL dives are achievable. DECO training now comes into play. Equipment allows one to expand the realm of diving. Failure of these new equipment's necessitate the need for training applicable for those inherant shortcomings untill a new equipment exists to reduce the need of training. Dive computers are an example of this. Training is the catalist for creation of new equipments/technologies. Those equipments and skills/technonogies demand training changes in thier use and itsinteraction with existing equipments. Example cave diving, obvious training need. limited access because of diver bulk changes with the invent of side mount. That invent changes training requirements. So from that aspect it becomes a chicken and egg problem. At an OW level you train for the established equipment used. The more advanced you get the more you develope equipment to reduce the need for some training aspects. So larger and multiple tanks = longer and deeper dives = deco training = trimix / nitrox = gas training = dive computers.

---------- Post added September 6th, 2014 at 01:56 PM ----------

Eric i think you have a point. Here is how i picture it happening. 50's/60/s. small tanks primative wet suits. shallow depth diving fixed weighting for shallow depths. Rereational divers enter picture. Courses were 80 hours and more. Limitations of air supply and suit squeeze , kept divers 40 ft and ahallower. Incomes the j valve to provide backup for recreational divers running out of air. Training changes for this. The horse collar minimized the need for extensive training on gas management and ooa recovery. Incomes 70 and 80 cuft tanks with SPG's to reduce the chances of OOA and training needed. deeper and longer dives are achievable including overhead environments. cave training comes to be. deco training comes to be. Deco training is radically reduced by computers. Colder water diving enters picture with wet suits. buoyancy issues develope from thick suit issues and depth. Buoyancy/depth control issues reduced with afordable dry suits and BCD's totally replaced the horse collar. Long training period caused split in diving certification pipeline. Changes not possible without he BCD birth. Economy changes put the world at everyones front door. Salt water diving is the norm. 100 ft diving becomes the norm. Every new environment provided by new equipments reveals inadaquate training for those areas. Specialty courses are born. Gas limits became traiing limits. Voo Doo gasses start becoming commonplace and generate thier own training needs. Voo doo gas opened the door to even deeper/ longer diving. Overhead diving is a popular thing. Multi tank diving hits the sceene with its associated training. Rebreathers hit the street and negate much of the training provided by OC diving. CC diving creates its own training needs. dynamic CC computers change that training. Indepth traing to teach recovery for equipment failure created redundancy stratigies and new/improved equipments. It goes on and on. Its chicken and egg. In regards to BCD's i think it was an individule creating equipment to circumvent current equipment shortcoings. Manufactureres just snapped it up to make a buck. Once so many were on hte street, agencies then made the training for them.

I think maybe I wasn't clear in my OP about what I'm asking.

Let's go back to when there were no BC as an example.
At some point the BC was invented. Was the BC invented because some manufacturer thought it was a great idea then the agencies adaptd it? Or did the agencies go to some manufacturer and say "Something needs to be done, we are losing hundreds of divers to the depths because they have no way of becoming neutral at depth (a dramatization) please help us.
Or, are both cert agencies and manufacturers working closely together to develop gear and training at the same time, as in gear innovations set training policy and training policy is communicated to drive specific gear needs.

Case in point: Halcyon - GUE.

But what about how jacket BC's were developed and now considered a piece of critical surface floatation "safety" gear.
Computers I see as a manufacturer innovation then agencies had to adapt them into the curriculum because so many people use them.
Then there's the octo

 

[Father]

I think it probably varies from place to place.
From what I've been told, you can find dive masters in the Philippines that are amazing divers and dive really basic equipment. They don't need to buy the latest and greatest, coolest most tricked out kit to do what the do.
You can go to another place and find just the opposite... people with the top of the line gear that can't dive worth a sh*t.
As I understand it, as you get more specialized there's certain equipment you shouldn't go down without and there are certain philosophies that lend to safer diving through consistency.
To a degree, I feel like in a consumer driven world, the people making the equipment have a pretty strong influence in how policy changes as the gear evolves. However, there are so many different companies making what they think is the best. If you look at all the different equipment out there you'll probably find commonalities in all of it, which is probably more how policy is influences. One company comes up with a revolutionary idea. Other companies emulate/adopt that idea and it eventually becomes so mainstream that it is accepted as the norm.
Just my thoughts... which are subject to changes as I learn more.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

When I began diving I had a used back pack, small wing, regulator made from various manufacturers and steel tank(72). While working at a dive shop I began using a "tech" BC, shiny new reg and aluminum tanks. 25 years and several certifications later I am using a backplate (Freedom Plate), small wing, reg from various manufacturers and steel tanks. The more things change the more they remain the same.

 

[Bob DBF]

I think maybe I wasn't clear in my OP about what I'm asking.

Let's go back to when there were no BC as an example.
At some point the BC was invented. Was the BC invented because some manufacturer thought it was a great idea then the agencies adaptd it? Or did the agencies go to some manufacturer and say "Something needs to be done, we are losing hundreds of divers to the depths because they have no way of becoming neutral at depth (a dramatization) please help us.
Or, are both cert agencies and manufacturers working closely together to develop gear and training at the same time, as in gear innovations set training policy and training policy is communicated to drive specific gear needs.

Case in point: Halcyon - GUE.

But what about how jacket BC's were developed and now considered a piece of critical surface floatation "safety" gear.
Computers I see as a manufacturer innovation then agencies had to adapt them into the curriculum because so many people use them.
Then there's the octo

The Mae West was used used when I started diving to provide surface flotation. It used CO2 cartridge(s) to fill, or could be orally inflated through a modified tire tube valve. My guess is some enterprising diver used it as a BC but it was such a PITA, a better mouthpiece was devised and eventually hooked up to a reg.

Regulators only needed one LP outlet until SPG's, BC's, safe seconds, and other accessories were available and in use.

The training materials, from over the years, I've seen do not show any training on gear that was not in use at the time. The "safe second" was available, but not in popular use when Buddy Breathing was still taught in a 1980 OW class, however students were told of it's advantages in an emergency.

It would seem that the innovations are made, equipment is made and becomes popular, then the basic OW training is given and reflects the gear being in mainstream use. Of course specialized training on the gear will probably be given by the manufacturers or inventors, if necessary.



Bob
------------------------------------------------
There is no problem that can't be solved with a liberal application of sex, tequila, money, duct tape, or high explosives, not necessarily in that order.