Padi/Dsat gear configuration

[MikeFerrara]

MHK,

You cought me off gard I had to go back and read what I wrote. I stated the standards (instructor materials) were the most complete I have seen. I haven't seen GUE standards but I have IANTD's.

In reference to the text I did say I thought it was the best I've seen (without defining best) and in the next sentence I stated that I thought they should have discussed phisiology. As a text I think it is very functional. It states clearly what students are expected to know and is organized in a fashion that makes relocating the information intuative. The IANTD text "Technical Diver Encyclopedea" has gobs of info but not very well organized so it is very hard to use as a reference.

I do have the GUE materials. I have the tech manual, the cave manual and the fundimentals book. I also have the survey book. I can't get too detailed because I haven't read them in a while. . I looked closest at the cave manual. The general impression I remember from the tech manual was that I was hoping to see more detail on subjects like dive planning and decompression theory and methods. If your interested I'll refresh my memory this afternoon and comment further.

 

[MHK]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...
If your interested I'll refresh my memory this afternoon and comment further.

I could have been mistaken, I thought I read your comments to mean the class material, sorry if I took it out of context.. But as to your offer, I'd love to avail myself of the opportunity. We are always trying to improve the training materials, and most of the changes we make to the classes comes from feedback so I'd love to get you rthoughts..

Later

 

[SPEEDSTER]

First I'd like to say 'hi' to MHK, haven't had a chance to yet. Met you at George's lecture at Scuba Toys about a month or so ago. Can't wait to do another DIR demo day, last one sucked with the red tide and all.

As for PADI's/DSAT's program, check out the pic's on this link.
http://www.padi.com/english/common/courses/tec/tecdeepdiverinstructor.asp
It should give you an idea of their perception of how their instructors should teach the classes. (on their knees, just like a good PADI instructor/DM)

I have had a chance to review the TecRec materials quite a bit, a lds has a few manuals. It looks very nice, coherent, well laid out, but the materials imho are only a very small part of tech classes, the instructor and the content of the classes/books are what matters. PADI has always put out pretty books. In contrast, GUE's stuff isn't pretty, no nice pictures to look at, but I put my faith in where they get their staff from and to what standards they hold them. Not to mention they all have more than: Have a minimum of 100 logged dives with at least 20 enriched air nitrox dives, at least 25 dives deeper than 18 metres/60 feet and at least 15 dives deeper than 30 metres/100 feet. (?!?!)


mike

 

[rusky4u]

thank you all for the high quality input!
i`m really learning here!

best!

 

[MikeFerrara]

Genesis once bubbled...
close to 2 hours in a LDS here talking to them about their "TECH" training, which is the DSAT/PADI Tec/Rec course.

We went through the basic curriculum and gasses used, and I noted there was no mix on the menu, yet the expected depths for the dives ranged to 165'. I asked why not, and whether or not it would be infinitely preferrable to dive Mix below 130', and why would you not use 100% for deco? After all, isn't the point the partial pressure gradient?

Things got real squirrelly about then, and suddenly the progression included getting a DM cert before taking the Rec/Tech series! Uh, I don't want to be a DM

Never mind that they don't really do mix there at all (wink wink nod nod)

Oh.

Anyway, that pretty much killed that path for me. Deep air my tailfeathers. I've never FELT narced, even at 110-120, but I'm sure I was. At 160? I'd probably be narced out of my mind, and to my way of thinking there is no reason at all not to run Mix at that depth.

Being a DM is not a requirement. There is no requirement to use 80% over 100%. I need to go back and look to see what if anything is mentioned but I don't remember anything.

 

[MikeFerrara]

SPEEDSTER once bubbled...
First I'd like to say 'hi' to MHK, haven't had a chance to yet. Met you at George's lecture at Scuba Toys about a month or so ago. Can't wait to do another DIR demo day, last one sucked with the red tide and all.

As for PADI's/DSAT's program, check out the pic's on this link.
http://www.padi.com/english/common/courses/tec/tecdeepdiverinstructor.asp
It should give you an idea of their perception of how their instructors should teach the classes. (on their knees, just like a good PADI instructor/DM)

I have had a chance to review the TecRec materials quite a bit, a lds has a few manuals. It looks very nice, coherent, well laid out, but the materials imho are only a very small part of tech classes, the instructor and the content of the classes/books are what matters. PADI has always put out pretty books. In contrast, GUE's stuff isn't pretty, no nice pictures to look at, but I put my faith in where they get their staff from and to what standards they hold them. Not to mention they all have more than: Have a minimum of 100 logged dives with at least 20 enriched air nitrox dives, at least 25 dives deeper than 18 metres/60 feet and at least 15 dives deeper than 30 metres/100 feet. (?!?!)


mike

I really hate for anyone to get the idea I'm defending the course but as useful as info such as what MHK presented is some others just blow smoke out variouse orifices.

The requirements you list are the prerequisites for an instructor wishing to attend the course. THESE ARE NOT THE REQUIREMENTS TO TEACH THE CLASS. I listed ssome of those on a previouse post but I missed the minimum dive requirement which is like 270 total dives.

As for the class being tought while kneeling the student is actually required to demonstrate skills while holding depth (neutral) This included skills such as gas switches without a mask (working as a team of course). I guess I can't speak to the picture on the link but I know what is in the standards. Actually in that regard the class requires skills that some of the tech agencies don't.

 

[Genesis]

The DM training thing came about as their recommendation in learning the physiology and physics associated with the class.

That REALLY got to me; does the class material (either lecture or written) not include sufficient information from those two standpoints all on its own?

As for the deep air, why? If there is a significant safety margin addition (in the form of less or no narcosis) to be had by using Mix as a backgas (even if normoxic, since at that depth it would be ok), why not use it?

 

[MikeFerrara]

Genesis once bubbled...
The DM training thing came about as their recommendation in learning the physiology and physics associated with the class.

That REALLY got to me; does the class material (either lecture or written) not include sufficient information from those two standpoints all on its own?

The material does not include much discussion on phisiology. Anything I offer as a reason would be speculation. MHK has discussed this in some length in previous posts. Given his interaction with people like Karl Shreeves I would say he is more in the know than I am.

As for the deep air, why? If there is a significant safety margin addition (in the form of less or no narcosis) to be had by using Mix as a backgas (even if normoxic, since at that depth it would be ok), why not use it? [/B]

The use of He is still fairly new. Only a few years ago there was little or no training available. The GUE represent an extreme position on when He should be applied. I am not saying they are wrong but the rest of the world has not been so quick to embrace the use of helium for intermediate depths. IMO, this is due to a number of things such as the availability of helium, the cost as well as past practice and the ongoing application of older (maybe dated) decompression theory. Traditional training methods have been to teach deep diving and then the use of helium. Change is slow. MHK also makes a good point about market share. No agency that I know of disputes the problems involved in deep air. Some however do disagree on at what depth the use of he becomes mandatory.

Decompression models such as VPM, RGBM and even Buhlmann with the addition of gradient factor controled deep stops are also new. I can't tell you how many times I have had divers more experienced than myself question my use of trimix on dives in the 150 range. They ask questions like Why do the extra deco? They believe that the addition of he results in longer deco. The examination of some older tables/software will explain why. Many don't believe that narcosis or CO2 retention is a problem at those depths. Some of these divers have made hundreds of such dives maybe even before anyone was using he and insist they don't need it above 200 ft. These divers will not change over night especially when it means an extra $60 (here in the US where we have lots of helium) per dive.

It is also commonly believed that helium is less forgiving when mistakes are made. Hence the opinion of some that the use of he should be introduced later in training. IANTD for example gives the option of combining the Technical diver course with Normoxic trimix. When combined this eliminates the need for the student to ever go below 130 on air. However, some instructors refuse to teach it this way. Also, if this was mandatory the course couldn't be tought in some areas at all.

We talk about correct deco and the advantage of deep stops. Others point out the huge number of dives that have been made using streight buhlmann and air. We say we feel great after a dive. They say they do too and have done hundreds more (than me). It comes down to if it seems to work they are hesitant to change it.

Some research into the development of "technical diving" will make these points better than I have.

Note In this post I have only tried to point out some of the issues and beliefs that are prevelant. I am sayint that deep diving on air (or anything else for that matter) is a good idea.

 

[SPEEDSTER]

The requirements you list are the prerequisites for an instructor wishing to attend the course. THESE ARE NOT THE REQUIREMENTS TO TEACH THE CLASS.

Nope, take a look at the link again. Those are the requirements to be a 'Tec Deep Instructor'.(!!) Along with being nitrox certified/instructor, deep diver spec. cert'ed, those are the only requirements. That whole page is devoted only to the instructor course, there are other pages for the requirements of the students. If you would like to see those, go to padi.com click on courses, then on technical. There are a bunch of bubbles for each of the classes.

OH, and I don't think you're defending the classes, I think much higher of you than that. I just wanted to point out how lost padi is at even just advertising the tecrec program.

-mike

 

[SPEEDSTER]

I shouldn't have said that those were the 'only' req's, they say there are some 'exit' requirements, but I take that to mean that you must show some sort of competence before they let you start teaching. I could be wrong, maybe those req's encompass what you were saying, but somehow I doubt that they want you to get in 170 dives before they certify you.

-m