PADI TecRec

[DEEPLOU]

I've invented a new sidebackponymountedindependentredundantmultigasswi tchingdoingitmyway scubasystem that is bound to keep me alive just as soon as I've finished with a few minor modications that will improve things beyond belief. Patent pending.

I knew a guy who made one of those things. I went to his funeral a couple of years ago.

[scuba-punk]

and I though I was cool for making my own spring straps...
:wink:

-Frank

[Otter]

...

3) Why is it a sin to make money at diving or teaching diving? We live in a capitalist society yet we hate the Bill Gates' of the world and apparently the PADIs too. ....

A Wealthy Mgmt Groomer type once told me.....that 'poor' people resent 'rich' people because they are a constant reminder of what they could have been. I am sure there are a number of additional parallels in the SCUBA industry.

[MikeFerrara]

Wow, I'm actually posting.. I promised never but alas I have to put in my two cents worth.

Welcome to the board.


I find it interesting that people post about something they apparently have no experience with or understanding of.
I'll use a few examples:

Well I'm not to happy with PADI or their standards or the performance of many of their instructors but I have plenty of experience with all of the above so maybe I can comment on some of your points.


1) I see a lot of comments on how people should go get certified to do technical by an agency with some experience with technical diving. Does anyone actually know who designed the DSAT program? The people are the ones who are the offspring so to speak of Bill Stone's caving projects. This includes the female record holder for longest cave penetration. How much experience is required before one is to be considered experienced?

If you read through some of this thread ist's the very philosophy and standards that some of us disagree with. Refer back to some of the previouse posts talking about things like training tech students on their knees and the desire to make "tech" more mainstream.

We have and can continue to diecuss the standards directly and there's plenty to talk about.


2) PADI/DSAT acknowledges that helium is a great gas ideally. However, we do not live in an ideal world.

No it's not an ideal world. Most of us are aware of the depths that have been dived on air. Stop by and talk to Hal Watts some time. What 500ft and some change? Interesting to hear about but I'm not going to do it and I'm not going to recomment that my students do either.

I realize that we're talking about 165 and not 500 but I've seen some people at 165 that might as well been at 500 and I can do without it. And yes, I've done it.



3) Why is it a sin to make money at diving or teaching diving?

No sin at all.


There are a lot of crap PADI instructors out there and it annoys the hell out of me. However, dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. The system shouldn't be condemned simply because some of the players don't follow it as it was intended...

Now we're at the very heart of the matter aren't we? Carefully read the PADI (other have the same problem) standards and notice that some of the worst instructors you'll see are actually teaching right to the letter of the standard. BTW, a PADI educational consultant pointed that out to me while I was on the phone expressing my concern about some of the things that I was seeing in training.

Sorry but I think that an instructor who's only been diving for 6 months teaching exactly to the standards is a direct product of the system and it makes me want to through out the bathwater because it's hosing up the baby.


I challenge anyone else to improve the system.

Been trying. It isn't easy that's for sure.


How many have actually read the training standards they so happily like to comment on?

I have read and re-read them over a number of years and the longer I read them and the more I've taught and tried to reconcile them the harder it gets.


GUE is doing a good job of trying to improve the industry but they have the enviable position of not having to train people to actually dive in a competative marketplace. It's a different kind of student who seeks out a GUE course compared to an entry level certification level course. Try to teach a person to dive properly when all they want to pay is $99.

Again you hit at the heart of the matter. The industry has evolved to provide that $99 class and people are getting what they pay for. They get standards that allow a class to be completed in $99 worth of time and instructor.


I most certainly didn't get into diving to make money. Don't you know how to make a million dollars in the diving industry? Start with 2 million isn't it?

Actually I did that too. Well it was a little less but I understand the concept very well.


It amazes me how many people post here about how they think instruction should be better but then are also seeking out deals on their gear or parts kits or servicing.

We could write a book on this aspect and in fact I just might. A diver is supposed to let the shop and the manufacturer force them into paying for all that service to help subsidize instruction. Is that what you're saying?

We should be willing to spend more for equipment and allow the manufacturers and shops to control the cost, service and parts availability all in the interest of subsidizing training because the poor idiot doesn't charge enough?

Good training is worth money and a good instructor should get paid. If they don't value their skills and time why should any one else. The industry needs to stop giving it away in the interest of selling equipment.

The industry had better wake up. If they want to make money teaching they had better charge more for it.


How is instruction supposed to get better when people are simply not willing to pay for the time it takes? Gear sales subsidize training.

I agree (see above) and IMO, it's blatantly wrong. It's great for the manufacturers and even some agencies but it's not working out so well for the shops, instructors or divers.


Buy online and there is even less money to pay for training.

Charge the student, not me! I don't need any more training (at least not from any dive shop that I know of). I will not finance some one elses habit! That's called a donation and there's better causes to donate too.


I teach diving because I fell in love with the sport and wanted to share my passion with others. I invested a lot of time and money to get to the level where I can do that. I work hard to continually improve and to provide the best services I can as an instructor. However, I've never encountered any other profession where people want so much service and are so cheap about what they are willing to pay for it. "I want you to teach me how to use this life support equipment safely and effectively but can I have a discount?"

I know exactly what you're talking about. I teach. I charge. If some one doesn't want to pay what I charge they can go get a $99 class and I'll give them the phone number. Again though, if you won't charge the student what you think your class is worth, don't try to convince me that I should make up the difference some how.


Do people start up discussion threads about their optometry discussing how eye health could be better and cheaper if done ourselves and that really we all should just start servicing our own eyes and skipping visits to the optometrist in exchange for making our own glasses at home and doing our own eye tests annually?

Poor analogy. I have a compressor and I'm the only blender in this part of the state. I don't even know how many tanks and regs I have but it's a bunch. Why exactly should I pay some one else to swap out a few o-rings? because the manufacturer won't sell me parts if I don't own a dive shop? Maybe I'll just buy my regs from a manufacturer who will!


(I know, run on sentance but aren't most rants?) Trust me.. I've had some of the worst diving instruction I can imagine so I don't blame people for their frustration but asking for a discount is not the way to improve things.

Well I've had some pretty lousy instruction. I've even posted here about when my wife and her buddy were abandon in the mud in zero vis by her OW instructor. An instructor who lost a student the following sumer. I've also seen a few diver get hurt who trusted their instructor. I've also found some good instructors. They weren't in a dive shop though. After spending a few years in the business I now know how it all works and I find it offensive that a pro would suggest that divers are getting lousy instruction because I repair my own equipment. You should talk to the agency that wrote the standards and allows it to go on. They own it. I don't! Talk to your peers in the business who don't value their time enough to charge for their efforts. Talk to the agency who knows what kind of classes are being taught and see if you can't get them to raise the bar a bit.


Well.. I would be curious to see what this rant results in. I"m hungry now so I'll leave it at that to go make some dinner and to service my reg. Does anyone know where I can get some APEKS parts kits? I have to get my rig ready for my 150 foot solo deep air night current dive that I'm planning. Don't worry everyone.. I've invented a new sidebackponymountedindependentredundantmultigasswi tchingdoingitmyway scubasystem that is bound to keep me alive just as soon as I've finished with a few minor modications that will improve things beyond belief. Patent pending.

Apply for all the sarcasm you wish. I still won't send you any money to cover you for the class that you just lost money on.

For those reg parts you're needing though...I'd recommend taking a look at the abyss regulators. Abyss will be happy to provide you with repair manuals and parts kits as well as any training you may feel that you need.

Stay away from that scubapro and aqualung stuff though. They put shops in a position where they need to sell huge volumes to keep their dealership. This teps them to give away classes to sell equipment. They also try to deny you the ability to service your own equipment if you choose to in order to further finance those lousy excusses for classes.

Thanks for your thoughts and again, welcome to the board.

Mike

[DeepScuba]

Mighty fine posts Helmet and Mike.

I think you two would agree with way more than you would disagree with.

Your work isn't going in vain Mike. Sooner or later relative newbs like us will come across a fellow like yourself and hopefully redirect their thinking.

It's funny that I've only seen GUE say that basically cheap classes are also cheap on teaching. I don't think I've ever seen that in a Padi brochure or from a Padi LDS.

Hmmm, still a hard sell to a person that has never before been diving. Calling someone "cheap" after they've spent initially, $1000.00 PLUS on gear and training isn't something I can reconcile though.

It is a good point though about GUE's enviable position of not having to teach from ZERO to hero. As mentioned, they start out with a diver that's already determined to become a better diver, and so have already had some of the weeding out done. It's an easier sell by far for them.

How's their OW class coming along?

[MikeFerrara]

Mighty fine posts Helmet and Mike.

I think you two would agree with way more than you would disagree with.

Your work isn't going in vain Mike. Sooner or later relative newbs like us will come across a fellow like yourself and hopefully redirect their thinking.

It's funny that I've only seen GUE say that basically cheap classes are also cheap on teaching. I don't think I've ever seen that in a Padi brochure or from a Padi LDS.

Hmmm, still a hard sell to a person that has never before been diving. Calling someone "cheap" after they've spent initially, $1000.00 PLUS on gear and training isn't something I can reconcile though.

It is a good point though about GUE's enviable position of not having to teach from ZERO to hero. As mentioned, they start out with a diver that's already determined to become a better diver, and so have already had some of the weeding out done. It's an easier sell by far for them.

How's their OW class coming along?

What you say is true. They offer good training to those who are looking for it rather than trying to convince some one.

While it might be extremely expensive to make entry level training what I would really like ot to be, I also beleive that there's a lot of low hanging fruit.

Great improvements can (I think) be made with some fairly painless standards changes. Sure you won't be able to finish a class with 5 hours in the pool for a class of six but it's not going to take 6 months either. It really wouldn't be more than what the good instructors are already doing but rather requireing all instructors to do it. And I really think that the pay back in the skill of the average diver would be huge. Then we would be able to see at our local site even on days that we don't have the place to ourselves.


The other issues in the industry are a little more complex. Even here, though, raising awareness can't hurt.

[cancun mark]

welcome to the fray Helmet, great post, and as Mike pointed out, you have started about twenty new discussion topics and dont be scared, they cant hurt you over the internet.

[roakey]

Does anyone actually know who designed the DSAT program? The people are the ones who are the offspring so to speak of Bill Stone's caving projects.
Before we start using Stone as a shining example, care to share with us his body count?

Here's one for starters:

http://www.usdct.org/Updates-Feb/feb18.htm

How about Stone honesty? Seems he took responsibility for the death (as he should have) then, when the ME determined "natural causes" he quickly backpeddled (you can see this in the link, above). Then, under pressure from a reporter, the issue was reopened and the CIS-LUNAR's log (which Stone failed to mention even existed to the authorities) was dumped, and it was conclusively proven that Kendall died from breathing a hypoxic mixture.

Lemme see, five years and they haven't updated the page to reflect this? Guess they haven't yet found the time...

Stone's three-month operation in Wakulla was very high profile, and as such bending a diver, toxing a diver and killing a diver (a Nobel prize winning one at that!) did more damage to the cave community than anything else that's happened.

Stone's just a hot button for me -- when the W2 project started up I followed it closely, hoping for them to kick the WKPP's posteriors so the WKPP/GI would have to eat some humble pie. Instead, watching a CF happen day after day gave me a lot of respect for the WKPP, GI and the entire system that they pulled together.

Now, if you want to talk agencies going to the right people, look who NAUI went to when they wanted to develop their technical program...

Roak

[MikeFerrara]

Before we start using Stone as a shining example, care to share with us his body count?

Here's one for starters:

http://www.usdct.org/Updates-Feb/feb18.htm

How about Stone honesty? Seems he took responsibility for the death (as he should have) then, when the ME determined "natural causes" he quickly backpeddled (you can see this in the link, above). Then, under pressure from a reporter, the issue was reopened and the CIS-LUNAR's log (which Stone failed to mention even existed to the authorities) was dumped, and it was conclusively proven that Kendall died from breathing a hypoxic mixture.

Lemme see, five years and they haven't updated the page to reflect this? Guess they haven't yet found the time...

Stone's three-month operation in Wakulla was very high profile, and as such bending a diver, toxing a diver and killing a diver (a Nobel prize winning one at that!) did more damage to the cave community than anything else that's happened.

Stone's just a hot button for me -- when the W2 project started up I followed it closely, hoping for them to kick the WKPP's posteriors so the WKPP/GI would have to eat some humble pie. Instead, watching a CF happen day after day gave me a lot of respect for the WKPP, GI and the entire system that they pulled together.

Now, if you want to talk agencies going to the right people, look who NAUI went to when they wanted to develop their technical program...

Roak

From what I've heard about that death, the dive wasn't at all part of the project. The guy took it on himself to go for a dive. How is that Stone's fault?

A WKPP member died on a dive not long ago and the WKPP was very quick to point out that the death had nothing to do with the project and the diver was just out doing his own thing.

As far as bending people, that happens in this kind of diving and I don't think the WKPP has been imune either.

[MHK]

From what I've heard about that death, the dive wasn't at all part of the project. The guy took it on himself to go for a dive. How is that Stone's fault?

A WKPP member died on a dive not long ago and the WKPP was very quick to point out that the death had nothing to do with the project and the diver was just out doing his own thing.

As far as bending people, that happens in this kind of diving and I don't think the WKPP has been imune either.

Mike,

With all due respect you are comparing apples and organges.

WRT, to the Stone project that had 4 months of daily access, complete with chamber on site and spent millions of dollars. For all of their efforts they didn't accomplish in 4 months of daily diving what the set up divers at Wakulla accomplish routinely on a weekend basis, without incident. They certainly didn't come anywhere near what George and JJ did. However, they did manage to bend one diver, tox another diver and kill yet a third diver that was under their direct supervision and control. When you have Wakulla you have the whole project so saying that Dr. Kendall went off on his own is disengenuous at best. No one on the WKPP would ever dream of going "off on our own", which speaks to the leadership and control over the project.

Moreover, the WKPP support diver that died a few months back was NOT diving a WKPP project, he was nowhere near Tallahassee, nor was he anywhere near the team and support of the WKPP. To compare the two is such a huge stretch that I'm having trouble even considering the comparison.. BTW, I agree with your point about bending people at that level, it's just part of the landscape when diving to 300'+ for hours on end..

I'd really rather not take this productive thread into a p*ssing contest about Stone -v- WKPP since this thread has been one of the more productive threads in a long time, but I did just want to set the facts straight respecting the WKPP.

Regards

[Tom R]

Mike,

With all due respect you are comparing apples and organges.

WRT, to the Stone project that had 4 months of daily access, complete with chamber on site and spent millions of dollars. For all of their efforts they didn't accomplish in 4 months of daily diving what the set up divers at Wakulla accomplish routinely on a weekend basis, without incident. They certainly didn't come anywhere near what George and JJ did. However, they did manage to bend one diver, tox another diver and kill yet a third diver that was under their direct supervision and control. When you have Wakulla you have the whole project so saying that Dr. Kendall went off on his own is disengenuous at best. No one on the WKPP would ever dream of going "off on our own", which speaks to the leadership and control over the project.

Moreover, the WKPP support diver that died a few months back was NOT diving a WKPP project, he was nowhere near Tallahassee, nor was he anywhere near the team and support of the WKPP. To compare the two is such a huge stretch that I'm having trouble even considering the comparison.. BTW, I agree with your point about bending people at that level, it's just part of the landscape when diving to 300'+ for hours on end..

I'd really rather not take this productive thread into a p*ssing contest about Stone -v- WKPP since this thread has been one of the more productive threads in a long time, but I did just want to set the facts straight respecting the WKPP.

Regards

Well said

[MikeFerrara]

I guess I still don't see how it's the projects fault. Is it because they didn't have an effective gard posted?

Because, they associated themselves with some one who would do such a thing?

I heard the diver who died was a pretty smart guy wouldn't you think he'd know better and if he didn't that people would blame him?

I really don't know but from everything I've heard the guy just went and did something really stupid and it looks like those that don't like Stone blame him instead of the diver.

And the WKPP diver who dies is no relection on the WKPP because he did it in another county or something?

If the guy did a sneak dive in Wakulla, would we then conclude that the WKPP was at fault?

[roakey]

MHK has a good point, so I'll respond to your questions and leave it at that. Stone had the permit to Wakulla and as such was responsible for the diving that went on there. Kendall dove with Stone's knowledge and permission, as did the NatGeo photographer that toxed. As such both incidents were under Stone's direct control.

If Kendall did a sneak dive then yes, I wouldn't blame it on Stone. If one of Stone's team dove somewhere else, not part of the Wakulla2 project and died, then I wouldn't blame Stone. But these accidents were part of the project and done with Stone and the project's full permission.

Roak

[Helmet]

Mike,

I must thank you for your thoughtful reply and I agree with DeepSCUBA that we seem to have much more to agree on than disagree. I definately agree with your point that gear should not subsidize training (ideally) and in fact the managers where I work have made that a big priority at the LDS but it's not going to happy overnight. I live in an area where there are at least a dozen LDS close by. If one started to charge what a course actually costs they would lose clients, simply as that.
Definately someone like yourself should not be subsidizing the training of other people nor paying to have a few orings swapped out. I service gear now and after two years of the old service tech telling me how I needed training and bench time before touching a reg I now know how simple most are as long as you have the right tools and take your time. I dont think that the average joe is going to find it cost effective to let their warranty lapse and to buy a few hundred dollars of general and specialty tools and a sonic cleaner and parts kits and the repair books from Vance Harlow and Pete Wolfinger and a magnahelic etc etc.. It would take a number of servicings over several years I'm sure to actually break even and that's not even factoring in what your time might be worth. I guess for many the keys is that they feel that it's possible to do a better job than their LDS and for the Mikes of the world I'm sure that is true but for the average joe I do feel some concern. I see some of the questions being asked and I certainly wouldn't want that person servicing MY regs.
As for PADI not doing anything about lousy instruction. I have had experiences where they do. The key is that someone has to let them know about specific events and once enough has been shown to be problematic about an instructor that person will be given the boot. On of my former instructors was given the boot as was his entire dive centre. On of my friend's former intructors was given the boot as a direct result of a letter he wrote to PADI. Griping online about bad instructors is fun and everyone has their story but only if you let PADI in on it formally can they do anything about it. Of course, the bad instructors don't let their students know about the quality assurance programs do they? :)
As for the tech program. I'm not sure that DSAT is trying to MAKE tech more mainstream or if they have recognized a natural growth of technical diving and have a desire to get involved in the training. As for training people on their knees, I can't say that PADI or DSAT advocates one way or another. However, it is done at the recreational levels. I don't recall ever reading that to be a standard. I would not attempt to teach open water students except on their knees. Yes, that is a control. Yes, it's to make the instructor's life easier. Most importantly, it's to make the student safer. Also, it's to break a skill down to allow the student to concentrate on one thing at a time. May would be able to accomplish everything in the hovering trim position and I always talk about this with the students. However, the standard does not require it because we have to start with baby steps. If I saw an open water student practicing skills in the pool or demonstrating them to me while hovering, I certainly would not stop it as long as I felt comfortable that this particular student actually was competent at controlling their buoyancy. As for anything above Open water.. I tend to teach to do things in the hovering trim position. When our LDS taught tecdeep it was the same. Starting and practicing from the knees is always so that the student can master the skill first.. then build on that. Educationally, this is sound. I'm sure, however, that many instructors do not help their students past the knees and end up with people who are habitually dropping their knees from the trim position or never end up achieving it.
One last comment on the 6months and poof you are an instructor thing. Some people will make lousy instructors no matter how long they have been diving or how much training you give them. I'm sure that there are lousy accountants out there who have done way more training and practice than some really good accountants. How much is enough? I became an instructor after about a year and a half and about 130 or so dives. I feel that some of my early instruction was less than at the bar. Still, I do feel that I"m quite a good instructor because I care and take the time to work on any shortcomings. I don't know that more dives in the requirments is going to help. I've seen people with hundreds of dives diving overweighted and in a sloppy trim position. More dives will simply perpetuate their bad habits no? Ever heard of a band that grabs up musicians to fill spots before they are any good so that they can mold that players playing to their own sound? Maybe there is some merit in getting potential instructors under the care of a course director as soon as possible before bad habits are cemented in stone. Just thinking out loud here.

By the way, the end of my last message wasn't intended to be sarcastic... just a way of letting you know that I do it too. I service my own regs at work. I have colleagues who make their own dive lights because they are sick of paying the manufacturers. I wanted to end on a light note after a lengthy rant basically.

Thanks again for the thoughtful response. Hopefully we'll live to see the day that the industry doesn't make us all quite so jaded. I still love the sport.

[MikeFerrara]

Thanks Roak,

I had never heard it said that Kendall was diving with Ston'e knowledge and permission.

I've heard different but who knows?

[MHK]

Thanks Roak,

I had never heard it said that Kendall was diving with Ston'e knowledge and permission.

I've heard different but who knows?

Mike as I noted I'd really prefer we avoid branching this thread off into this direction since it's water under the bridge and counter-productive. Just out of curiousity, have you ever been to Wakulla or seen the pictures on WKPP.org??

The point of course being is that the diving entrance area is VERY small, and unless someone is blind they would see a diver getting into the water, especially if they had a Cis Lunar on their back. No Surface Manager in their right mind on the WKPP would allow a diver into the water solo diving a CCR. Certainly Stone isn't fully to blame and Dr. Kendall is responsible but one of the intangibles that sets the WKPP so far apart from the rest is that not only wouldn't a surface manager allow you into the water at the WKPP without a buddy, no one on the team would even think of doing it.. The tone and the leadership has long been established on Stone's projects and solo diving is part of the culture and make up of the team. Accordingly, if you are going to allow that under your watch then if something goes wrong, remember where the buck stops..

Again, let's move on from this topic it's been beaten to death and at this point no one will change anyone else's mind as they are all made up..

Regards

[MikeFerrara]

MHK,

Thanks for the further explaination and I don't disagree. I wan't trying to argue it's just that I never really heard much detail about what happened.

Helmet,

I hope you hang around. Check out the instructor forum also. We have some good conversations. It's hard for a shop to buck the system because they rely on the very people they need to buck against.

[Helmet]

wow.. quite the turn of events just in the time it took to post my last one there!
I have a thought.. isn't it up to each diver to dive safe and sound and to use the proper equipment and techniques to plan and carry out the plan?

Stone didn't design the DSAT program.. former members of his team had input. Or so I understand.

[MikeFerrara]

Aside from Karl Shreevs I don't think that I ever heard who was in on it. If it's a female and she holds a cave diving record and she worked with Stone my guess would be JH but it's just a guess.

I agree that every one is responsible for their choices. However, when a policy or procedure leads to a problem the persons who put the procedures in place should get a share of the credit.

[roakey]

And now back to out regularly scheduled argument. Sorry about the derail.

Roak

[MikeFerrara]

some one count to three and say "Go"

[MHK]

Aside from Karl Shreevs I don't think that I ever heard who was in on it. If it's a female and she holds a cave diving record and she worked with Stone my guess would be JH but it's just a guess.



I believe you are correct in that they are referring to Jill, but some on the WKPP have questioned how she set that record. I believe she claims that it was a 10,000' penetration, the problem I'm told from the guys that have done the tunnel she refers to is that the tunnel is only 5,000' so there is an abundance of questions as to whether she meant 10,000' [ie; 5,000' in and then 5,000' out]. Several of the woman on the WKPP have done penetrations up to 6,500', which using the above logic would mean a 13,000' "penetration".. I don't believe she has ever clarified her position, atleast not that I've heard, perhaps someone else has more updated information..

Hope that helps.

[Big Blue Planet]

Mike,

I do not post to sites, as you well know. I was sent this thread by a friend and thought on this rare occasion I would post. I have not read the entire thread and never plan to. Just do not have the time.

You do tend to paint things one way. It is to be expected as you are a GUE Instructor. I am not going to get into a DIR discussion with you. I do not pretend to be an expert in it. I do find it fascinating that you seem to take the stance that you are an expert on every other program that exists, when clearly you are a biased source. Just as I am. I do actively maintain ratings in three agencies, however, so I do know more than one.

Tec Deep was developed to have a system of education that would provide the basis to develop the necessary skills to become a technical diver and then progress on to gain access to further reaches. As far as the materials and development went, they represent considerably more effort than anything else available.

As much as I am sure you will disagree, the program does provide a system that will allow a diver to gain the skills necessary to function well as a technical diver. It is a system and like any system it is only as good as the operator using it. At this level, you cannot system the diver out of the equation. Technical diving is and will always be diver dependent. Unlike some that believe the system can solve all the human problems involved in this sport. Tec Deep does not pretend to have those answers across the board, but does attempt to establish solid community standards for those things that are critical and train the diver as the central critical element.

This is clear in the fact that if you were to do the course in a drysuit, the course could be run as DIR if it was desired by the instructor conducting the course. Of course, by it not being a GUE course I would assume it would immediately be deemed strokery. I would submit that Tec Deep is equally as valid as DIR. I am sure you will disagree. Tec Deep focuses on the diver first, configuration second. It is not DIR, rather an educationally valid, scientifically validated and diver first system.

I can attest to the fact that divers that participate in a Tec Deep course do exit the course capable of doing more than manage equipment and survive the dive. Personally, I would never certify a Tec Deep student that was not capable of doing far more. If they are not operationally, psychologically or attitudinally prepared, they do not pass. This is without exception or reservation. They must be effective from day one and be able to accomplish things on the bottom.

Courses are not done with the divers on their knees. Again, this is simply untrue. I do not progress students further in the course if they are not able to be purposeful in every aspect of the dive at all times. Working position is maintained at all times through all activities. It is not any different from any instructor that is training divers to be optimum and effective. Certainly, we both can agree that the state of training prior to and even today outside of Tec Deep on average is poor. I see divers all the time that frankly suck. Yes, even some were GUE. Of course, the numbers are going to reflect relative size. I am sure there very well might be bad Tec Deep Instructors out there. But, on average Tec Deep will be far better than most.

Tec Deep offers a lot more than what else is available. It is an actual text book. You would think that should be a given. However, few others appear or function very well in that role. I would go so far to say that the average Tec Deep graduate is superior to the average technical diver any where else, but again I am biased. When we look at training at this level, you and I both know regardless of agency that it is instructor dependent.

The prerequisites for becoming a Tec Deep instructor exceed any published elsewhere. But, that is meaningless because tech training is so dependent on the instructor. Agency affiliation is only going to point to a pool of instructors that a new client is going to have research extensively prior to beginning training. A great instructor is going to produce a good tech diver under any system. Some systems make that easier than others.

I know you agree about the systems approach, because we have discussed it in the past. So, no matter what the system of instruction, the diver course is only going to be as good as the instructor applying the system. When a system must be global, standards have to be made to apply to the entire world. Standards are not the definitive answer to what is in a course. They are a minimum. For a program to be global, there has to be provisions that allow for local applications.

Any instructor out there that is teaching to the minimum standard is doing a disservice to their clients. We need to do away with the concept that the standard is what is done and nothing else. If an instructor feels there needs to be more to a course then they can simply add it. The quality of training in the technical diving community is and has been bad. The Tec Deep program exceeds any published standard out there.

GUE, is facing the same problem as they grow. It is well known that not all GUE Instructors are of the same caliber. There has been a great deal of internal politics and upset people. The same problems faced by all the agencies. GUE has solid messages in a good deal of what they preach. I would question 20% of it and most of the method of delivery. But, that is the marketing and branding campaign that seem to be settled on by those in the association. I also question the message when in the same voice GUE says buy only one type of gear from us and that message changes as the available of gear changes from theses sources. Is it a system or a marketing campaign designed to drive business unrelated to training to other companies owned by the Board of GUE?

PADI and DSAT are not perfect, but no one is. They do care about what they are doing and what they have produced. I do not agree with everything in the courses, but there is room for me to add or change what I do to make that blend.

Content development was produced by many sources. I cannot speak to all of those involved because I do not know them all. I do know that Jill had input, as well as Paul. Terrence Tysall contributed a great deal. Many others with considerable experience well beyond your own participated in the development of the courses. I too participated in the development process.

PADI does not view the program as an end for everyone or a huge money maker. It is viewed very much in the same light as a racing development program is by the auto manufacturers. It is clear that technical diving drives innovation in the sport. This is seen as of value to be a part of by PADI. I am not an employee of PADI or DSAT. I do work with them regularly independently. PADI has not been absent for the technical diving community. They have sponsored many programs for decades. Many members are very active in the technical diving community. As you are, having been a PADI member yourself. PADI may well have never gone down this path if the traditional technical diving agencies had not begun training recreationally. But beyond that, the PADI membership had been requesting it for a long time. I would not have participated in the development process if I did not feel DSAT would do a superior job. They have.

If you are trying to imply that the Tec Deep program was developed in a DSAT vacuum you are simply mistaken. I will not speak for Jill. I do suggest that if you have questions about any of her claims that you call her on the phone and ask her directly rather than speculating about something you were neither present for nor have any direct knowledge of. I am sure she would be more than happy to discuss any aspect of her diving career with anyone. She is a nice person.

Now, if you want to fault her for problems of the W2 project simply because she was there, then are you not casting stones in a glass house. I do not think anyone would blame you for the fatalities you witness while diving the Doria. I certainly do not. Guilt by association for her is only acceptable if you are willing to take it for the Doria when you were there. I do not think that is reasonable. Besides, making light of any fatality is unprofessional and in bad taste. They are all tragedies and we can point to fault in any incidence. But, that does not allow anyone to learn from any of it.

WKPP has an impressive list of accomplishments, but there have been plenty of incidences that are simply never made public. Those incidences, I am sure, have provided valuable lessons to the project. However, by not making that information public, no one else can use those lessons to prevent them in the future on other projects.

Much of what you suggest is simply unsupported by any data or evidence. Produce the data if you feel the need to make statements about so much of this. The data simply does not exist. It is based on antidotal observations rather than scientific evidence.

To be continued...

[Big Blue Planet]

GUE has a preselected audience. It makes life easier if you are going to uninvite everyone that does not fit a strict profile. The problem is that most of the people on this list would be among the uninvited. WKPP has done very interesting practical decompression work acting as their own test subjects. But, again it is a prescreened audience. If you try to make a system that fits an inclusive audience of the people that are going to do the dives anyway, even if they are not trained, you have to build that system to account for that global audience. GUE developed its system for large cave passage. They have applied that to the other areas they dive. Areas that they once said were strokery become accepted once their project has the need for it. This is just unrealistic when you are designing a system that has to be applied globally.

You have never been short on your own opinion, which is fine, neither am I. I would suggest that rather than speculate about so many of these matters you simply pick up the phone and ask people. It is so much nicer to carry on these types of conversation face to face or voice to voice. The whole reason I stay away from the boards is that there are just so many people on them who would prefer to engage in circular arguments and pick apart a response rather than carry on a truly productive exchange where people actually grow and learn.

You have done a lot of diving and should be proud of what you have done, but remember there was a day where you were brand new asking me where you should train for technical diving during your Divemaster course. Different opinions do not make them wrong.

Valid and highly scientific projects in every possible diving environment have been accomplished using the methodology in the Tec Deep program. NOAA has found the systems valid enough to allow what is being taught to be used for their projects. The program was built from a foundation of working technical diving projects. The Cambrian Foundation finds the methodology acceptable and they have a reciprocity agreement with NOAA. Neither organization endorses the Tec Deep program, but they do not do that for any program.

Let's be clear. There are more than one valid system for conducting technical diving operations available in spite of what is being said. Some have more important things to do with their time, like actually dive.

We will never agree on our stance on where and how deep air should be used. Remove all the BS and air is jut a tool, just like helium. Air is an acceptable tool for diving. Where that line is drawn in the end is up to the operator. What is not said is that for all the noise, most of those who say air is the work of the devil below 130 are the same people that would strap it on and dive beyond 130 if the need arises and there was no helium. Mike, I know you are one of them. It is hypocritical to be so unrealistic.

There are areas of the world where helium is impossible to get or unbelievably expensive. In a perfect world trimix is a better tool, but it is not always there. The limit on Tec Deep is 165 to the maximum depth. Does not mean the instructor has to go there. There are environments where air is a poor tool below 100 feet. There are other environments where the right diver can effectively and safely use air below 165. Is air as effective as trimix at those depths? Hell no. But, be real. 165 in good visibility and warm water is one atmosphere beyond 130. That is simply not that big a deal and I know you know that.

Mike, you are taking a political stance rather than a practical one. You have seen air used effectively at depth. I think we can all agree that air at depth is a second choice tool and that extreme depth is out of the question. Deep air records and for that matter depth records in general are pointless and serve little purpose. It is just people chasing numbers on a depth gauge, trying to be the best hockey players in Brazil. No one really cares and it just does not matter.

So, not trying to pick on you or make it personal. You know me, not my thing, but let's keep it real and not be so over the top.

Effective diving is good no matter whose flag we are waving or what agency's initials we have a number with. Good projects are just fun to learn about and much more fun to enjoy rather than tear apart. You and I have both lost a lot of friends. Let's make those memory's count for something by educating rather than tearing people down. This community is just too small to not be working together to make things better. I know you agree on that.

Grant W. Graves

[theskull]

Bravo!

"Deep air records and for that matter depth records in general are pointless and serve little purpose. It is just people chasing numbers on a depth gauge, trying to be the best hockey players in Brazil. No one really cares and it just does not matter."

Now this short paragraph should be part of every class! OW thru Tec Deep!

theskull

[Otter]

Constructive debate is healthy....lets remember that in our diving community, we all want pretty much the same thing....to enjoy the underwater environment....before its gone.

I agree with theskull and while I have said similar things in my classes I will use Grant's quote....

[MHK]

Hey Grant, nice to see you jumping into the frey. I'm not sure if you will be checking in for follow-up's but hopefully someone will forward it to you. Hey Grant, just for future reference can you make your response a tad bit more cogent, I have ADD ;-). Also, I note that you said you hadn't read all of the posts in this thread, but frankly from my perspective this has been one of the more productive threads we've had in a long time and I see little evidence of flames.

That being said, let me see if I can clarify for you my overall objections which I suspect, as you say, we may just have to agree to disagree.

On a broarder level I see the Deep Air program as catering to an audience that for the longest time PADI has forcefully spoken out against. In other words, it speaks to caving to market demand when at it's core PADI knows that Deep Air is excessively irresponsible and dangerous. I'd love someone from PADI to reconcile Drew Richardsons' very own editorial in PADI's very own training magazine encouraging diver's to speak out against any agency that promotes or offer's deep air training. PADI has never reconciled their differing positions, so for me I'm suspicious of the motivations.

As you state" If you try to make a system that fits an inclusive audience [ emphasis added] of people that are going to do the dives anyway,... you have to build a system to account for that Global audience"

Grant, I have a major problem with that premise. That is sorta like saying college kids are going to drink and drive so perhaps we should offer drunk driver's-ed classes. Enabling a dangerous act is vastly different then standing tall and speaking out against it so many of us see PADI's entrance into the deep air market as a sell out. They previously asked their very own members to speak out against it, but then didn't have the courage of their convictions to stand against it.

As for picking up the phone, Grant you know me well, who do I call?? I've been trying to get PADI on record for years.

As for the students on their knees , can I take it from your comments that you agree at his level of diving that putting students on their knees is an unjustifiable act??

I'm trying to be responsive to as many of your comments as possible, perhaps we can use smaller posts and go line by line next time.

As for Jill, I agree her and Paul are very nice people and I have no problem with them personally, in fact, I thought Paul was particularly helpful when we were all in Akumal. I'm not sure Jill and I saw eye-to-eye about my gear configuration ;-), but let's not go there ;-), nor do I fault her "simply because she was there". Grant that is a bit of hyperbole, Jill was the Dive Safety Officer of the project, and in the short time they were there they accomplished very little, despite a budget of over $1,000,000. In short, they had a few months of direct and daily access and didn't get anywhere near accomplishing what the volunteer WKPP support diver do on a weekly basis, nor did they come anywhere near what George or JJ have done. It's also a matter of factual record that one diver got bent, one diver toxed and a third diver died. I'm just stating facts. To the extent that I fault anyone on that project, it's the laxed attitude towards solo diving that permiates the project. Furthermore, that was way beyond the scope of anything we were discussing, it was a paranthetical in response to someone else's comments. I'd just as well move on from that entire discussion base.

Anyway Grant, I'm grateful that you decided to post and hope you'll stay around for a while, but it's hard for me to pick out pieces of a program that I like versus pieces of the program that I don't like when the larger picture is that I don't think the program should exist in the first place.

Let me have your thoughts..

Thanks again for joining our little cyber community..

[cancun mark]

I'd love someone from PADI to reconcile Drew Richardsons' very own editorial in PADI's very own training magazine encouraging diver's to speak out against any agency that promotes or offer's deep air training.

I've been trying to get PADI on record for years.


I dont think you ever will get get them on the record mike, and you certainly wont get them on the board.

I dont think they see the need to justify themselves, history will do that for them, good or bad.

[MikeFerrara]

Unfortnately even as a PADI instructor I couldn't get them to justify their views. You seem to have two choices. 1, Take it or 2, leave it.

[radagalf]

"Any instructor out there that is teaching to the minimum standard is doing a disservice to their clients. We need to do away with the concept that the standard is what is done and nothing else. If an instructor feels there needs to be more to a course then they can simply add it. The quality of training in the technical diving community is and has been bad. The Tec Deep program exceeds any published standard out there."

Lets look at the above quote...
I totally agree that more should be done than the minimum but...
Maybe if people didn't sue over stupid s^&t there wouldn't be this minimum standard c$@p. I teach above and beyond the minimum standards, and I (like to) think that I produce much better than average divers; however each time I wonder that if for some reason something went wrong (because once you begin to teach you realize there is always that one person who will screw it up no matter how many precautions you take), you are f&^%$ed.
Welcome to an instructor's world.

[Big Blue Planet]

Okay another monster one,

Find myself getting sucked in again. I will address Mike's questions with as much frankness as I can manage without speaking for others.

First, PADI/DSAT, would not have gotten involved in this area unless the membership had asked for it repeatedly. This includes myself many times. Also, they would have left it alone for a lot longer if the tech only agencies had not begun to teach recreationally. With that being said, Jill did not develop the program. She participated on content review and made suggestions. If you want to know the true origins of the program I can address it because I was there at the first meeting. Terrence Tysall and I had a meeting with Drew and Karl to discuss PADI/DSAT getting involved in developing technical diving courses in, I believe, 1998. October to be exact. We were certainly not the first to discuss it with them, but things did begin to move forward after that meeting.

From that meeting, began a process of investigation. Course development continued for launch at DEMA 2000. If memory serves, the development involved a great deal of technical divers from all over the planet. All of these technical divers had extensive experience in expedition diving and exploration. The truth is that a great deal of the foundation of the program is derived from what Terrence had made his personal teaching methodology.

For years, both Terrence and I had taught our own programs with content and diving that more than covered the existing tech course standards. We both felt that the existing course offerings and textbooks that were available at the time were grossly underwelming. I would find it hard to believe if anyone would disagree with the statement that DSAT does know how to produce very good training materials. Built with the right course philosophy and approach, the system is a good one.

Mike you can feel that your agency is superior. It is good to have pride in what you have worked hard to build. I assume that any good instructor will produce a good diver. I will not agree to the feel of the statements you make that yours is the only one way that makes an effective technical diver. It is just not true. In the end, we all swim in the same water. GUE is not the only agency teaching from a system.

The use of a system is important. Learning one way of doing things will always produce better results than a survey course will because the diver leaves knowing at least how to do one way very well. Survey courses that introduce several ways to accomplish survival skills leaves divers wondering which method to use just when that should not be the issue. However, it is very important to arm people with the ability to workup changes when necessary for the needs of a dive.

I view it as rig for wreck and dive cave, but with that you must be multimode and multi-environment capable. The diving is diver dependent. We have to train the diver first and fit the system to the need. We disagree on how this is best accomplished.

Being effective in the water will always out weigh achievements. I would applaud a dive that is done well in shallow water over a bad one done for no particularly good reason at great depth, distance or duration.

Mike quote.

Secondly, I did speak to Karl about my concerns, in fact, Karl and I dove together when he was beta testing the program and I had the opportuntiy to review the program even before it was ever released and I did raise these issues to which I still haven't received a response.

Continued...

Have you really asked Mike? Pick up the phone and ask the man. I have read some of the former posts. Mike I do have to disagree with your statement that you had a view of the course as a reviewer. Never happened. When we dived together it was a Cambrian trip, not a PADI event. You may have looked at copy, I do not know, but you were not consulted for comment formally or informally.

I cannot speak for Drew. He may have made such statements. I am sure these statements were well prior to the move to develop technical diving programs. Everyone is entitled to change their mind. Applying circumstances from that time to the current situation is like looking at what was done twenty years ago then applying modern techniques to pull apart what they did. Context of the time has to be taken into account.

If people are that concerned, pick up the phone and call those you have questions for. I never have any trouble reaching anyone I need to at PADI. I would say that you should remember these are people just like all of us. If you have a normal conversation with them they are very happy to discuss almost anything, but if you go in looking for blood they will shut down like any of us would. No one wants to fight off slings and arrows. But, in a civil conversation, I certainly do not mind addressing real questions posed to me, nor do they.

But, you are right. We will have to agree to disagree. I do not view the use of air to teach or dive in 165 as reckless or endangering anyone. We do disagree on air as a tool. I do not view it as a magical line in the water column where air becomes impossible to use. Does air have issues that need to be addressed if it is the choice as the tool to make deep dives? Yes. Is it the best choice for deep dives all things being equal. Probably not. But, that does not mean it is useless or unacceptable to train in its use beyond 130 feet, 40M. I mean some in this air is evil movement would have us breathing helium now at the surface because air is evil. Come on. On your dives on the tower, you entered the water with one team diving air. I was one of them. I can frankly say that I functioned well and could have dealt with problems that arrised.

Was I impaired from where I was on the surface. Certainly. You well know I will never advocate the use of air at depth. That is a personal choice of the diver and the team and the project. But, I will not sit here and pretend that air is somehow magically evil simply because you cross a depth threshold. You well know that my reasons for diving air beyond the recreational limits is a choice mainly dictated by mission needs for projects in remote areas and with NOAA. I train for effectiveness on the bottom and the ability to produce results with or without the optimum tools. So, I either maintain my capability to use those tools I have to use or stop doing the projects. I choose to do the projects. Others can make their own decisions based on what their needs are. Sometimes, air is just simpler to go do a dive with. Sometimes the detail of the work makes helium based mixtures the better choice. But, it is a choice.

Of course, I am the poster child for strokery. I am not here to sword fight or get into a pissing match. I do my dives and participate in projects that I am passionate about. I try to be better this dive than the last and better tomorrow than today. I use every dive as a learning experience.

I certainly would never say diving beyond 200 feet/60M is acceptable on air. Anything beyond a ppO2 of 1.4 is certainly not the best choice. Certainly, former glory stories of excessive depths discussed in the past are off base with our current understanding. A line at 165 is not arbitrary. It has far more to do with what is already recognized in Europe as the limit with proper training. Plus, there just is nothing wrong with it. You will never agree, but I question whether you would stick to it if faced with the decision not to dive or dive with air if the target was tempting enough. Certainly, air is not the best choice, but sometimes it is all you got and there is nothing wrong with it when temptered with proper predive preparation and analysis.

I do not believe that training with a narcosis load with the proper supervision is wrong, especially when the student is properly trained. I would say, this is in open water with good conditions. If the environment is significantly cold, the visibility is poor, diving in any overhead environment or when highly technical or detailed work must occur the choice of air as a proper tool gets shallower. But, I do believe we live in a world where divers are responsible for their own actions and need to have the ability to rationally choose the best tool for all the conditions facing them. Blindly dictating diving policy for all conditions and all environments with one set of tools is not realistic. Life is just too complicated.

Students on their knee is not an unjustifiable act. It depends on the context. If it is early in the process and skills training is the focus, sometimes it is easier to introduce the skill with the student stable on the bottom. Is it better to have them do this in the pool and treat the openwater as if it is always an on event. Sure. Also, if there is an emergency and the bottom is needed, then fine. If you are in a non or low impact environment and conducting deco, laying on the bottom poses little concerns. I mean how many times have either one of us tucked ourselves in cuts in Little River during deco.

I will say once you enter operational mission oriented dives in a course the students have no need nor should they be contacting the bottom and doing all they can to not even impact the bottom. I will not pass a candidate if they are not able to minimize their impact in the environment. Nor should anyone, DSAT or any other course. We have to bring stundents to an effective level appropriate for the level of training.

to be continued

[Big Blue Planet]

Then, the student must continue to apply the methods and mindset to make it automatic. No course will allow for automaticity. It can build the foundation. The diver has to create a ritual for it to become habitual. This will always be a mileage sport. No course can provide the training to replace practical experience. But, if a diver leaves a tech course without being able to participate as an effective participant in a project they have no business being passed. They should be able to function well in the support role as well.

I will not comment on the circumstances of the W2 project or what was accomplished because I was not there. I have little knowledge of the challenges faced or what the mission of the project was, nor is it important in this discussion. Besides, I think all of those who have explored there deserve credit. It takes commitment of time, passion and money that few understand or can comprehend. They just have no idea.

This sport is just microscopically small. If we want to progress, we have to work together to advance the sport. I certainly would have preferred to see a cooperative effort to explore Wakalla with the full strength and support of the entire industry to blow the doors off that system. Of course, another karst window would probably help even more.

Enough.

G2

[roakey]

Any instructor out there that is teaching to the minimum standard is doing a disservice to their clients.
Actually I'd like to take a look at this quote as well.

Any agency which has minimum standards so low that a PADI Course Director would say this about his OWN agency is doing a disservice to the sport/industry as a whole, never mind the instructors that are "teaching to the minimum" doing a disservice to their clients!

This is the most concise statement from someone "in the know" that not only is PADI's standards way, waaaay to low, but PADI doesn't give a hoot about improving them.

That reply is a keeper, that's for sure!

Roak

[MikeFerrara]

There's not reason that an instructor shouldn't be able to teach per the minimum standards and teach a good class.

The only reason to leave the standards sub-standards is to allow shorter more cost effective classes that are by default condoned by the agency.

Of course this is even more true for entry level training where the classes are sometimes sold for $99.

If the agency wants more taught or wants it taught better they should say so by putting it in writting in their training standards.

[boomx5]

There's no reason that an instructor shouldn't be able to teach per the minimum standards and teach a good class.


What should the minumum standards be? Or, is it simply subjective to the training agency. Or, maybe it should be subjective to the instructor, since some people always say that's what you need to do ( find a good instructor). Or, maybe the minimum standards should be set by the student/consumer who is paying for the class. Should the standards be driven by market demand ( what the consumer demands) or by an agency who only cares about doing things the right way and not just earning more $$?

I know you and I have talked about this a bit Mike. The quality shops have a hard time competing with the cut-rate shops that only offer discounted training. So what happens is they turn out inferior divers; divers trained to the minimum standards because of the "puppy mill" mentality of get them in and out as quick as possible.

[cancun mark]

Any agency which has minimum standards so low that a PADI Course Director would say this about his OWN agency is doing a disservice to the sport/industry as a whole, never mind the instructors that are "teaching to the minimum" doing a disservice to their clients!

This is the most concise statement from someone "in the know" that not only is PADI's standards way, waaaay to low, but PADI doesn't give a hoot about improving them.


Roak

Oh gimme a break,

Being a course director has nothing to do with it, course directors are not married to PADI, are not spokespeople for PADI, and this quote did not apear to me to be agency specific and nor should it be.

PADI/DSAT standards as have been discussed exhaustively in this thread are actually higher than most agencies, specifically with regards to pre-requisites and number of dives, as Grant clearly stated in the sentence after the one you quoted.

[MikeFerrara]

What should the minumum standards be? Or, is it simply subjective to the training agency. Or, maybe it should be subjective to the instructor, since some people always say that's what you need to do ( find a good instructor). Or, maybe the minimum standards should be set by the student/consumer who is paying for the class. Should the standards be driven by market demand ( what the consumer demands) or by an agency who only cares about doing things the right way and not just earning more $$?

I know you and I have talked about this a bit Mike. The quality shops have a hard time competing with the cut-rate shops that only offer discounted training. So what happens is they turn out inferior divers; divers trained to the minimum standards because of the "puppy mill" mentality of get them in and out as quick as possible.

U fortunately the consumer market seems happy enough with things the way they are.

But of course they don't have anything to compare to.

[roakey]

Being a course director has nothing to do with it, course directors are not married to PADI, are not spokespeople for PADI, and this quote did not apear to me to be agency specific and nor should it be.
Wrong, wrong, right, wrong -- Since he did not exclude PADI form the statement, it is included. Simple English.

Roak

[MHK]

Hey Grant we really need to work on the length of your posts ;-). BTW, in case many of you haven't figured out Grant and I know each other for quite a while and I consider him a friend, we just disagree on the issue.

Grant, since you are willing to join us, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind answering a few questions?

Let's assume that we agree to disagree respecting narcosis, as I have repeatedyly stated that narcosis is the smaller of my concern(s), but for some reason I can't get anyone from PADI to speak to the increased C02 retention and accumulation that is caused in part by the density of the gas at depth. If PADI is advancing a theory that air to 165' is safe under "certain" circumstances, and under "controlled" and "properly supervised" dives for purposes of narcosis, what specific, [ or scientific evidence, if you have any] is taught by PADI to reduce C02 accumulation? Bearing in mind that even you ceede the point that air isn't recommended for certain dives, how do you account for the fact that C02 is 130 times more narcotic then N2. So if 79% N2 is only appropriate under "certain and supervised" occasions, what is taught in the PADI class respecting C02???

Secondly Grant, I doubt we'll ever agree that putting a student on their knees at this level of diving is appropriate under any circumstances. If the student needs additional experience or work to learn to handle skills at this level, and can only do so on their knees, then my feeling is that they have no business yet diving at this level, and rather then an agency or instructor enabling an otherwise unqualified diver by putting him on his knees, I'd prefer that they turn the diver away and tell him to get more experience. I disagree with that practice at the OW level, but I see absolutely no place for it whatsoever where you are offering, by your own admission, a more risky gas to depths of 165'. If a diver needs to do a mask R & R, or a deco bottle switch on their knees because of some type of skill defeciency then they aren't ready to be diving to 165'.. I think at the core of my concern is this intangible, and this ideological difference. I don't think tech diving needs to be "all-inclusive" whereas by your very own statements it's clear that PADI does, and it appears that they are willing to make concessions where we believe that concessions shouldn't be made. That is a large part of my problem with PADI entering the tech market. They've made many concessions in the recreational market, and I'd prefer not to argue the merits, or lack thereof at this time, but I don't think anyone will argue that the concessions were made to be "all-inclusive". Many of us feel strongly that we fear that PADI will do the same in the tech market.

Lastly Grant, does anyone at PADI seriously consider Isobaric Counter Diffusion anything other then a fancy term?? I mean, seriously can't PADI get off of this non-starter?? This is a largely ficticuous concept that has no application in doing dives in the 165' range for the run times even remotely applicable to the PADI diver. In other words, isn't it a complete misdirection to distinguish deep air diving from helium based diving in the subject range?? I mean if Isobaric Counter Diffusion is something to worry about in helium based diving in the 165' range then why isn't a concern beginning at the 166' + range covered in the PADI Trimix course???

Grant, if you have the time I'd appreciate you staying in this conversation since, as you suggested, I had already attempted to have these direct conversations with Steve Mortell and he referred me to you and/or Karl. So I'll take you unless Karl cares to jump in as well..

Thanks

PS. No comment on Drew Richardson's editorial asking PADI members to speak out against ANY agency that promotes or teaches deep air??

[Big Blue Planet]

Okay,

Comments are already being taken out of context. I am happy to clarify. Yes, I will keep my responses shorter, Mike. We have known each other for a long time. As, Mike said I too consider him a friend. Just because we share differences, does not mean we cannot get along. We have dived and i hope would continue to dive together in the future.

Now, as for the standards issue. My reference is by NO MEANS saying that the standards are not high enough. What I am saying as a professional an instructor should give more. Will a client be adequite if they take a course to the minimum standard. In the Tec Deep course I would say yes. For other agencies, I cannot. I am not familiar with all agencies so I am not going to bash.

However, at this level that is not good enough, but you cannot dictate that in a standard. Much of what I speak to is not standardable. For the program to be global and apply to all environemts it must be flexible. The standard is there to assure a minimum compliance. I know of none of the top tech instructors that teach for any agency that only teach what is in the standard. For anyone out there who is thinking of teaching at the standard and nothing else, please stop teaching. We need to give more and arm above that.

It is about being functional and effective. It also has to do with the interpritation of the standard. Most do not read them for the philosophy of what is trying to be accomplished. They view them as a laundry list of things to have the students do. Besides in the Tec Deep course it is clear that there is room to demand more than what is simply in the list.

Creating a functioning tech diver involves far more than having them be polished with a set of skills on a list. We literally change who they are and how they think. We do not sell a card or even what the card allows them to do. The client is the product, we are selling what the training allows them to become and that is not limited to just the diving side of them.

The standards are fine. There is no program in the world that is perfectly defined by the list of standards. Standards are important and allow for programs to be defended legally, but it is not the whole of the instructional process. It is just one piece. I think if you actually read the Tec Deep program cover to cover, you would see that it is built on solid theory and making people capable. Is it perfect, probably not. Do I teach exactly as the course is written, no. But, no system is perfect. In spite of what people think. Real world will destroy the best laid plans often.

G2

[Big Blue Planet]

Mike,

CO2 is an issue. It is an issue on all dives regardless of gas mixture. I have seen trimix divers get god smacked at ENDs of 40 because of CO2 build up due to strong current. CO2 is the evil gas. At least we got you to admit that narcosis is not a huge a problem as it was once portrayed to be.

The course text does address the need for good breathing techniques. I did lobby for more detailed training on proper breathing mechanics. I call this breathing parameter. I spend a great deal of time on developing proper and optimized breathing in all my clients, even at the openwater level. I have been trying to get you to come to a freediving practice session for some time. I use the proper ventilations that freedivers use for maximum breathing efficency. I am not going to go over the techniques here. It would make the post too long. LOL But, 70% of the gas exchange in the lungs occur in the lower thrid of the lungs. The only way to insure optimized gas exchange is to use diaphramatically initiated breathing techniques> basically the visualiztion is imagine filling your lungs from the bottom and emptying them from the top.

This not so much about CO2 as it is about gas supply duration as well. The two go together. I do discuss CO2 in my programs because I am aware of the problems it poses to those who do not keep it in check. But, air is hardly an unbreathable mixture at depth. Helium based mixtures do provide less resistence, but the difference is minor. It is more about disciplines breathing parameter. Also, well maintained regs and ones that deliver gas well, but more important provide minimal exhalation resistence, an often highly overlooked feature in regs.

So, we agree CO2 BAD. Deep air to 165, not enough of an issue if CO2 is managed. I am more concerned with a trimix diver at 300 with a crappy breathing parameter than I am an air diver at 165 with a good one. So, we probably disagree on that note. Just not that big a deal if trained properly. If the diver let's it get away from them, any diver on any mix, it can be as bad as running out of gas or worse. So, I do not see CO2 a s an arguement against air to 165. I see it as an arguement against crappy breathing technique any where.

G2

[cancun mark]

increased C02 retention and accumulation that is caused in part by the density of the gas at depth.

Im vague on the latest info on this issue, and you repeatedly bring it up, so help me out, where can I read more about this. Even Pyles deep stop article only touches on the subject? Who IS presently doing research on this issue, and does everyone else agree with you on how big a deal this is.


Roakie,

The quote didnt exclude every other training agency in the world either, and unless you are a PADI Course Director, I think you are speculating about their relationship with PADI.

The reason that Course Director has nothing to do with it is that Course Directors can not teach tec diving unless they also have the additional tec skills, knowlege and credentials. Teaching instructors is a specialty area, as is tec diving, but they are apples and oranges really and therefore mutually exclusive.

The fact that gary is or is not a PADI Course Director is irrelevant to his discussion about the Tec Deep course and its development IMO.

[Big Blue Planet]

On Your Knees Boy,

You have to understand that in the Tec Deep course we are allowed to do pool level work in the ocean. So, put that context to when I say on their knees. Believe me I do not take students into the openwater for functional dives and accept contact with the environment knees or otherwise. Things happen, but that leads to retraining. I have spent upwards of seventeen hours with some students in pool and limited open water getting them to a point where they could function on a working dive. They came in supposedily with existing technical quals.

The Tec Deep course has zero problem with me requiring the students to be in working position for the entire dive. But, the decision is that of the instructor. The goals of the course are to have people be functional and effective. I would hope that at this level that would mean conducting working dives with minimal environmental contact. The Tec Deep course is often the first time people are in double with PADI. So, there is going to be time spent on knees in the pool/limited openwater to help deal with issues and introduce techniques like valve shut down drills. In the openwater, this is common to do for the first attempt son that complex skill, but this is moved to mid blue water once none skill development dives are begun. It is an evolution from simple to complex. Once I have students involved on working dives and for all but the earliest skill dives, they are off the bottom. I am not so concerned with what happens during a course as long as the instructor has the students not contacting the bottom for last half of the dives. But, to say it is unacceptable for the entire duration of the course, we will have to disagree. I will say it is unacceptable for the final dives of the course. If you want a number of dives, I would say the simulated and actual decompression dives. Otherwise, just not a big deal. The students understand where they are going. If they have issue I step back and work with them, I do not send them away.

G2

[Big Blue Planet]

IBC,

No one seriously considers Isobaric Counterdiffusion to be an issue. We went around and around on even including it. It is in there because it is present in the community. No one views it as a real potential for any end users. The odds of it ever being an issue are so remote that it is probably not worth discussing, but it is out there. Beside the average trimix diver will be reach depth or saturation levels where it would even be possible. Even then the risk is still very tiny and theoretical. It could come into play as more use habitats for long decos from very deep dives, but that is easy to compensate for. So, no there is no one that views it as an issue. See , we agree again. Remarkable.

I did not comment directly on Drew's comments because for one I am not him. He is a very good friend and I do not remember the context of the editoral and was not in on the discussion. I have no first hand knowledge of what was happening at the time. He is a very reasonable man and very progressive in his thinking. He comes from cave diving before you or I were even relaizing there was such a thing. I tend not to dwell on the past and things change. Does it even matter with where we are now. Things change and so do thoughts on things. That is all I can say really. Do not have enough info to say anything else.

We do disagree on our core philosophy. GUE believes there is only one way to do a lot of what they do. I do not. I do not believe in comprimises on core issues of survival, but there is a lot of room for many techniques and environments of the world. Plus, the reality is sometimes if you want a program to exist you have to be open to other ideas. GUE is smale enough to dictate things. Imagine trying to build concensus in the world of PADI. I was involved with development because I want a course I would be willing to teach. Am I 100% happy with it, no. But, I know many GUE Instructors that are not 100% happy with their courses either. I do not teach the Tec Deep course as writen, but I do fulfill the standards stated there. It has added good things to my offering and I do not agree with all of it, but those are minor. It did come to a point where either we have a program that is as good as it can be or do not do one. I prefer to to get most of it done well and have very minor issues left rather than not have a good program exist. It is much more difficult when this comes down to partical matters like getting all the players to agree. For what could happened, I feel verys trongly that it is a great beginning. It will evolve as we learn more, but every system does. The program is solid. Bias hat on now.

I can tell you there was a great deal on internal resistance to even having the programs in the first place. It is not viewed in the same light as the rest of what they do. It is clearly stated in the philosophy of the course that tech diving is not for everyone. I think they go out of their way to talk people out of even thinking about tech diving unless they really feel they have a need to.

And yes, Course Directors are independent of PADI and I do have my own opinions. I am clear where I disagree and if I do disagree I pick up the phone and talk to people about it. I may not always get the results I wish to have, but I am hear. I happen to be friends with many at the office and I do contract with them from time to time, but believe me ask anyone that knows me there, I am never short on voicing things when i have a problem with something. They do listen and they are not some ivory tower that dictate things to the world of diving. My two cents, if it is even worth that. LOL

Cheers Mike,

It is fun. Enough for now.

Grant

[cancun mark]

Ok so i did some searching lastnight about CO2 retention in materials I have in my library, here is what I found.

TDI barely touches the subject (less than 2 paragraphs) in trimix, adv nitrox, and stage deco, but has a little bit more in extended range manual. only 2 questions in the knowlege reviews.

IANTD, similarly disapointing (but I dont have all the manuals), BUT there is an excellent article in the IANTD technical diving encyclopaedia by Jolie Bookspan, who also coauthored an article with Rev Lanphier which appears in Immersed and is reprinted in the booklet by Lee Somers (NAUI, IANTD, MIT).

DSAT refers to the topic very obliquely but repeatedly without direct reference to CO2, rather as Exertion, dead air space and breathing resistance instead.

What I learned from searching through the books in my junk room was:

The scientists seem to believe CO2 has a dramatic effect on the central nervous system and the brains capability to function normally. This is usually manifested by unconciousness with little warning.

concensus seems divided if CO2 is highly narcotic in itself, or whether it is an exciter for other inert gas narcosis

There seems to be some disagreement on exactly what defines a CO2 retainer and this creates an argument about aclimatization to higher levels of CO2 tolerance in commercial military, apnea divers, divers with very low air consumption, and their propensity to have problems associated with co2

It seems very clear that the narcotic/anasthetic effect of Nitrous oxide is very different to Nitrogen Narcosis and deserves little further investigation except for dentistry and partygoers.

It seems very clear that adding Helium to the mix drastically reduces the physical density of the breathing gas, therefore laminar flow, bronchial turbulence and pulmonary breathing resistance, therefore enhances CO2 elimination. All seem to agree this is a good thing.

There is possibly a feedback effect, Nitrogen Narcosis decreases CO2 elimination by slowing the breathing response, which increases the levels of CO2 and CO2 enhances the effects of narcosis. Unconsiousness is the inevitable outcome.

There seems to be some distraction that CO2 retention and shallow water blackout are connected when the oposite is true, hipercapnea (CO2 retention) is the oposite of hypocapnia/hypoxia (shallow water blackout).
All seem to agree on deep water blackout.

Above 30 meters depth there seems to be little cause for concern.

What is a grave cause for concern is while investigating the effects of CO2 on divers, the United States spent taxpayers money making navy divers ride bicycles underwater???

Now the PADI underwater basketweaving specialty has been mentioned on this thread, but underwater bicycle riding is a new one on me and I think it needs further investigation.

What have I learned? CO2 is not only important during O2 tox discussions, but also during DCS and Narcosis discussions.

Many seem to think Helium if logistically possible should be introduced betweent eh 30-40 meter mark, however logistics, certification and the mythology of the more exotic helium gas often prevent this, and as we all know many have dived a lot deeper than this without having a problem with CO2.