Thoughts about Intro To Tech Standards Changes

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

ANZ wrote, in support of Trace:
I don't believe that allowing "recreational instructor/technical divers" to teach an Intro to Tech class is a step in the right direction.
I admit to being dense some times, but I don't see how this is any different from my understanding of the GUE progression.

My Fundies instructor was a recreational instructor (I think PADI) who took Fundies (again, I believe when it was a workshop) and then took/passed Tech 1 (and Tech 2 and on). He then did the GUE ITC for teaching Fundies which requires, as I understand, interning several classes amongst other things. But he could not teach any GUE "Technical" classes - only Fundies.

So, here he was, a recreational instructor who became a Technical diver and then did an ITC to teach Fundies. How is that different from what SDI/TDI is doing? Or would an SDI instructor get "certified" to teach Intro merely by passing the "Tech 1" course?

I'm trying to figure out how this is different from the new PADI/DSAT program where a PADI MSDT who takes/passes the "intro" and "basic" tech classes (Tec 40 and Tec 45) then becomes qualified to do the Tec 40 ITC. OR does this new SDI/TDI program bypass the requirement of the Intro-to-Tech ITC?
 
So, here he was, a recreational instructor who became a Technical diver and then did an ITC to teach Fundies. How is that different from what SDI/TDI is doing? Or would an SDI instructor get "certified" to teach Intro merely by passing the "Tech 1" course?

That's the way I read it, Peter.

It's kinda different with the GUE progression - you don't have to be a recreational instructor to become a GUE instructor (though if you look at who has become a GUE instructor in the last year a significant proportion of them are instructors with other agencies).

If we equate Fundies and Intro-to-Tech, to teach Fundies a GUE instructor must be a technical diver *and* complete an ITC (which involves multiple intern courses - normally between 5 and 10) and then complete an examination where they teach an entire course under the watchful eye of at least one instructor examiner.

If they want to teach Tech 1, they then have to do another ITC for that course.... :shocked2:

Whereas to teach Intro to Tech, it now appears that any SDI instructor can teach it provided they are tech qualified, with no additional training on how to teach it.

I'm trying to figure out how this is different from the new PADI/DSAT program where a PADI MSDT who takes/passes the "intro" and "basic" tech classes (Tec 40 and Tec 45) then becomes qualified to do the Tec 40 ITC. OR does this new SDI/TDI program bypass the requirement of the Intro-to-Tech ITC?

That's pretty much it - the DSAT courses require you to either complete the ITC or be an existing tech instructor (though you can still self-certify provided you have assisted with at least two Tec40 classes). It appears that here there is no need for an ITC for teaching the .

Though I must admit again, I've not seen the standards - it will take some time for various changes to filter through from TDI HQ to our RO.
 
Just watching the update video.... an SDI instructor can teach the Intro to Tech course if they either hold AN&DP; OR if they attend a an Intro to Tech ITC.
 
I haven't asked Brian, but I see this as an attempt to lure the SDI Instructor to the dark side. The demand for "tech" is burgeoning, and they may want additional instructors for it.

As for the efficacy of the move: I have no firm opinion about it yet.

The guys at TDI/SDI are infamous for thinking outside of the box. Well, that's not entirely accurate. Sometimes they simply destroy the box and come up with something that flies in the face of tradition. I see this as a healthy alternative to stick in the mud agencies.
 
I think it's unusual that someone from SDI/TDI hasn't chimed in yet. I know they monitor this board heavily and usually participate in the conversation very quickly.

I wonder if this is a change not fully supported by all representatives of SDI/TDI?

No mystery, Long Weekend and several of us took the time to go diving. I was cave diving with a couple of mates of long standing and my son... who I have also known a long time.:rofl3:

Let me try a brief explanation. The changes to standards and broadening who is qualified to teach Intro-to-Tech(TM) are a result of HQ listening to our members and, as Pete suggested, us thinking outside the box. The final details were hammered out at an internal executive meeting and as far as I could tell, everyone on the team supports the move.

A little clarification first. Any active SDI instructor may enroll in an Intro-to-Tech Instructor Program with a qualified IT. If they pass, they are cleared to teach the program. This is in keeping with standard SDI and TDI standards. In fact, it's great from a personal perspective because (speaking as an IT) it gives us more control over a candidate's progress from 100% sport to sport and tech instruction.

The second progression is for an active SDI instructor who is a technical diver (with appropriate experience) may apply for an administrative upgrade to teach Intro-to-tech. As with ALL leadership upgrades, applications are "vetted" by HQ staff. It is not a given that applicants will be granted the upgrade.
 
ANZ wrote, in support of Trace: I admit to being dense some times, but I don't see how this is any different from my understanding of the GUE progression.

Peter,

GUE first required all GUE-F instructors to be Tech 1 & Cave 1 certified, plus pass the ITC. Look at the quality program that created.

Cave 1 was dropped because GUE discovered that some cave guys were having trouble with the blue water work of Tech 1 and it was decided that Tech 1 was enough, but you had to attend the ITC as well. Attending the ITC puts you in the clutches of several instructor trainers. If you score enough signatures in the ITC, you don't have to intern. If you do not get enough IT signatures, you have to intern.

The difference between GUE and TDI is that every instructor in GUE must teach everything the same way, while TDI allows instructors the freedom to teach beyond standards and teach skills based upon preference and experience. This sacrifices standardization, but allows individual instructors to educate according to realistic diving experience and not just the memo. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.

I was aware of the ITC option for SDI instructors. I think that is a fine idea.

My major point of contention was the limited experience an SDI instuctor may have by just having advanced nitrox & deco and possibly with just one instructor.

Lastly, in comparing DSAT to GUE, as we know, DSAT isn't GUE :D
 
As a PADI certified diver who just received his "Intro to Tech" card from our TDI "cave-man" I can state with absolute certainty that:

1. I am a much better diver than I was prior to taking the course.
2. I am a much safer diver with much modification done to both my rig and my way of thinking about what I do before, during and after a dive.
3. I was surprised that I got the email saying that I had passed because I still feel that I have a long way to go. Obviously my instructor felt differently.
4. I would recommend "Intro to Tech" to any diver after he or she has 60 or so dives under their belt regardless whether of not they plan to go on to further technical training or if they just want to remain a recreational diver.
5. Finally, I do not think that I would have gotten as much out of the course if it were taught by anyone other than a TDI instructor. Every other SCUBA course I've taken was taken with the attitude of "Yeah that's pretty good, let's move on." My TDI instructor's attitude was to look at us solemnly and explain exactly what we did incorrectly and how it might adversely affect us in a cave or other technical dive situation.
 
I am fairly new to diving so my opinion may not matter much but what the hell...

First, all of my training was done through PADI (Rescue as of now). This was almost entirely because of where I was diving. I got OW certed in Guam. I think almost everything there is PADI. If someone else is teaching there, I didn't know about it. On top of it, I knew jack squat about diving before my OW cert (not that I knew much more after). Asking me to pick an agency is like asking me to pick a rubber compound to make tires out of.

My next experience with PADI was in Thailand. Once again, the shops I went into were PADI. PADI was all I knew so I had no reason to switch. On top of it, I wasn't into driving all over Thailand looking for a different organization to dive with for a few days.

Lastly, my Rescue course was PADI because that dive shop condenses the training into shorter times. In other words, instead of having a class a week for two weeks, they do it over a weekend. I am in the Air Force and I am gone 2-3 weeks out of the month so I can't sign up for a class that is spread out over 2-3 weeks because I will not be here. This will become more of a problem as I try to advance my training beyond where I am now.

My LDS just switched to SSI. The biggest advantage I can see right now is the lower costs to take a class. My LDS charges you for the class, period. The only additional cost is if you need rental gear. The class cost includes books, videos, etc. I, personally, am sick of the PADI way where I sign up for a $400 course, only to be told I need $50 worth of books and worthless videos that can only be purchased at the dive shop. Then I need the PIC card for another $40, again only sold at the dive shop. The extra costs have made it to where I do not plan on taking another PADI class, ever, if I can help it.

On the topic of SDI/TDI taking over PADI's #1 position...While in Thailand, I was drinking a beer with the owner of the dive shop I was diving with. He said that PADI was losing ground quickly in that area of Thailand. The shops were tired of the costs (aka wanting to be a "five star training facility"). Obviously, I am new but I too see the day that PADI loses its position. It won't be overnight. As someone else posted, if people were to compare the costs, almost anything would appeal more than PADI. This is especially true if people compare the total costs of training beyond their OW cert, as $100-$200 per course adds up quickly.

I am not intending this to be a PADI bash. I had some good instructors. I just think the costs have gotten out of hand, especially for what you get. I am all for my instructors getting paid well, especially the ones that go above and beyond.

My interest and goal is to get into tech diving. I am far from there right now and I am not in any hurry. That being said, as a one-day-potential-student, I would rather a person teaching me have more training and experience beyond the level I will have after completing the course. If I am taking any class, I want my instructor to have taken and taught classes well beyond what I am taking. If I am taking Intro to Tech, I want my instructor to have taken and taught something higher than that class.

If I were looking for instructors, and I knew to ask, I would want to know which instructors were qualified to teach beyond the current class I was signing up for. Obviously someone qualified to teach well beyond my level would appeal to me as I would expect them to be a better instructor. More importantly, if I were to have a good relationship and positive experience with the instructor, I would want to have the option of going to that person for additional training.

The problem as I see it is availability. The higher training level you seek, the fewer people there are teaching it (probably true of most sports/hobbies). Around our immediate area, there were two TDI facilities that I was aware of. The only TDI instructor from one facility didn't renew his ability to teach TDI courses because there was little to no demand. From what I've heard, he hadn't taught a TDI class in 9 months.

So as I progress in training, I go to the remaining TDI training facility in my area. I go in and sign up for an intro to tech class, I would want to know that my instructor is a tech diver, not a recreational instructor that took the class he/she is about the teach me.

As I mentioned, I am new. My opinion may be worth little. I am glad the original author posted so much information. Whenever I finally get to the point of taking intro to tech, I will know to ask more questions about who is teaching the course. Thanks for the thought provoking information.
 
The biggest advantage I can see right now is the lower costs to take a class.

My interest and goal is to get into tech diving.

Boy, are you in for an interesting - and expensive - wake up call!

:eyebrow:
 
I am beginning to realize that! Hopefully the perceived value I receive from TDI courses will be greater than that of PADI classes. We'll see!

Boy, are you in for an interesting - and expensive - wake up call!

:eyebrow:
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom