How different are tec courses agency to agency

[scubadada]

I never received a QA survey from PADI or SDI, they had a few opportunities

 

[demed]

Agreed. RSTC is no guarantee of anything. It's a paper tiger. Or housecat really. It does not set standards. It issues guidelines that are ignored by its own members. RSTC membership in marketing courses works because people are ignorant of what it actually is. When you educate divers by showing them standards for several agencies and allow them to compare them with what is issued by the RSTC, and compare those with actual divers they see out in the world, they see the lack of quality guarantee that was implied. I have cards from a number of agencies. I've had people tell me their ymca cards were turned down. That the y is no longer a member of the RSTC was not the issue. The issue was the ignorance and lack of education on dive agency history of the shops/ops/employees involved. My own ow instructor was careful to not let me know there were other agencies. Scubaboard informed me of that. To the great distress of my instructor. That knowledge coupled with his practices cost him thousands of dollars of business from me.

the fox and the grape...

RSTC actually drives ISO codification of diving standards - the ignorance displayed in the quoted statement is monumental

---------- Post added March 4th, 2015 at 11:12 AM ----------

Ah, touche'. You're correct.

the mk25 variant is the same price as SP, however, and the 'halo' (just a g250v) is 20 bucks cheaper than the comparable g260.
https://www.extreme-exposure.com/catalog/164

And you really wanna start comparing cost with a company that offers a 'tactical' version of their regs? Come on dude. THAT'S ridiculous.

g250v has been off catalog for 1.5 years, it should be offered at liquidation price - and you manage to make sarcastic remarks about the same company that makes the blue stuff so i'm not sure what your message is

 

[PfcAJ]

My message is that it doesn't matter. They're good regs no matter what color plastic is on them.

 

[Edward3c]

the fox and the grape...

RSTC actually drives ISO codification of diving standards - the ignorance displayed in the quoted statement is monumental

RSTC don't draft the ISO Standards for recreational diving. The Austrian quality assurance body do, see here.

 

[demed]

RSTC don't draft the ISO Standards for recreational diving. The Austrian quality assurance body do, see here.

Austria, world famous for its beaches and diving resorts, has led for a century the advances in the industry - yeah, right.

do you really think that Austria developed the ISO diving standards and RSTC companies merely ratified them?

 

[Peter Guy]

ISO - RSTC - ABCDEFG -- As Ms. Clinton might have said, "At this point in time, what difference does it make?"

Does anyone know if there are any "recognized standards (national or international)" for the "technical training" of divers?

 

[Edward3c]

Austria, world famous for its beaches and diving resorts, has led for a century the advances in the industry - yeah, right.

do you really think that Austria developed the ISO diving standards and RSTC companies merely ratified them?

In a nutshell. No. RSTC companies PAID to be assessed to the Austrian ISO, as PADI and BSAC did.

Or provide the evidence to the contra.

---------- Post added March 5th, 2015 at 08:49 PM ----------

ISO - RSTC - ABCDEFG -- As Ms. Clinton might have said, "At this point in time, what difference does it make?"

Does anyone know if there are any "recognized standards (national or international)" for the "technical training" of divers?

Until there is a common understanding of 'technical' I doubt it, but there is nothing to stop the 'technical' agencies from acquiring any, or all, of the current standards:

ISO Standard Topic	ISO Reference
Introductory training programmes to scuba diving	ISO 11121
Diver Level 1 - Supervised Diver	ISO 24801-1
Diver Level 2 - Autonomous Diver	ISO 24801-2
Diver Level 3 - Dive Leader	ISO 24801-3
Training programmes on Enriched air nitrox diving	ISO 11107
Instructor Level 1	ISO 24802-1
Instructor Level 2	ISO 24802-2
Recreational scuba diving Service providers	ISO 24803
Snorkelling excursions	ISO 13289
Snorkelling Guide	ISO 13970
Gas Blender	ISO 13293

 

[Jim Lapenta]

One of the things about ISO standards is that they are standards and breaking them comes with consequences. Unlike RSTC guidelines. Breaking them has no consequences unless the agencies decide to do something to their individual members. The RSTC can do nothing.

No shop that I am aware of can claim to run an ISO certified course. If they are I'd like to see the internal audits they do of their personnel and practices along with their quality policy. I'd also like to see the reports of the independent ISO auditor they bring in to do an independent evaluation.

I'm not a trained ISO auditor. I am a trained AS9100 auditor. That takes in all the ISO standards as well as those required by the Defense, Aerospace, and Aviation industries. The programs that shops teach may have materials and guidelines produced to meet an ISO standard but there is no guarantee they are teaching them to those.

IF they were you would not see ow divers that can't plan a dive, set up their gear, or dive without a DM. That you do have those people coming out of ow classes with NO repercussions from the RSTC shows just how much the RSTC means.

That you also have the bull crap where an RSTC member can veto any actions by the entire council in an effort to improve safety and quality of training is another sign of how profit is what really drives the RSTC.

 

[Michael Guerrero]

Hi everyone: I am trying to understand how procedures and protocols of Tech diving vary from agency to agency. Am I correct to understand that TDI trains each tech diver to be self reliant during the dive while DIR agencies over emphasize buddy/team skills because your emergency gas is carried by someone else and buddy separation is not an option? Can anyone please explain these differences?

Thanks -

CS

You are incorrect in thinking TDI trains all divers to be independent and eschew the buddy system. It is also incorrect to think that "DIR" is incompatible with a particular agency's requirements. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Some agencies teach very specific protocols oriented on team diving, with an emphasis on standardization. Others teach principles, but allow for more variation in methods the instructor uses. So yes, if you take a GUE or UTD course, you are going to be taught their method of standardization, protocols, and contingency responses. If you take a different agency's course, you will likely see more variation from instructor to instructor, but that doesn't the mean the methods they teach are less effective.

DIR gets a bad name sometimes because people feel like that "community" is exclusionary. But really it's about trying to be as safe as possible while doing challenging dives. And part of being safe is understanding how your buddy's equipment is setup, what gasses he is breathing, and how you expect him to respond in an emergency.

My experience is that some agencies teach protocols much more heavily than others. But they all teach skills and theory that will get you out of the water safely.

 

[Nasser]

My experience is that some agencies teach protocols much more heavily than others. But they all teach skills and theory that will get you out of the water safely.

I agree.

For example, in my personal experience with TDI and through several discussions with instructors, I have found that this agency looks at setting minimum standards but allows the instructors a lot of leeway in how these materials are taught. Also, when you start to get into the more advanced certs. they make it a point in the course material and textbooks that you - the diver - can exercise your own personal preference with respect to gear configuration and a few other aspects in diving .... and they offer up a fairly comprehensive list of several aspects to consider.

Other agencies may take a stricter and more holistic approach in how standards are taught and applied... in a desire to improve the safety aspects and situational awareness of dive teams and keep things more consistent in the "community" that adopts these standards.

Still other approaches may use a sort of hy-brid of both approaches in which the agency will set the standards and then allow the instructor to present the class using the latter more holistic and standardized approach.

For example, I have known several TDI instructors that teach a "DIR approach" in presenting the course material. Or in another case, I one had an email discussion with PADI where I inquired if it was possible to do the Dive Master program and Assistant Instructor program using a BP&W with long hose config. The response was that they had no problem with this and in fact it would be a good way to expose students to other gear configurations... but that I should also consider and be fluent with the more typical OW jacket style/octopus configuration that one would typically see - for the benefit of the students using them and also for my benefit in demonstrating the required skills etc..

I suppose that this hybrid approach is more like option one in that the instructor has the leeway, but I mention this to point out that it's not uncommon to see a combination of different approaches within the same course if the instructor finds a real benefit to this.

Bottom line, It's a good idea to read up on the standards and training philosophies that each agency has to offer and if you find an approach that appeals to you... find the best instructor you can to teach this approach. You will find amazing and not so great instructors in ALL agencies so you should be diligent and do your research.