OP
What's next after "Master" Diver?
- Thread starter Dehydrated_Atom
- Start date
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
I'm glad you feel like you're getting some helpful advice now
There's a pretty big difference between a diver who has OW, AOW, Nitrox, Rescue and a bunch of specialities with "over 100 [logged?] dives" (your OP) and one with up to "250 dives" (your updated estimate). One has done a significant proportion of his dives as part of a course, the other, less so
A lot of people on SB will respond to the OP without reading the whole thread to see if the basic premise has changed, which is probably why you got so many answers similar to mine
There's a pretty big difference between a diver who has OW, AOW, Nitrox, Rescue and a bunch of specialities with "over 100 [logged?] dives" (your OP) and one with up to "250 dives" (your updated estimate). One has done a significant proportion of his dives as part of a course, the other, less so
A lot of people on SB will respond to the OP without reading the whole thread to see if the basic premise has changed, which is probably why you got so many answers similar to mine
OP
Dehydrated_Atom
Contributor
Indeed, I tried to convey that my last logged dive was #113 a couple years ago in a previous post. I still got a lot responses advising to do more diving. I think it's likely due to exactly what your saying, people responding to the OP. Which is understandable. So I mucked up the waters a bit. Started to get a bit squirrelly and now we're back on track with great advice.
My OW, AOW, Nitrox and Rescue totaled 11 dives. I'm not sure that's a significant proportion of "over 100 dives".
Blackwood
Contributor
do you carry a SMB?
Shoot a bag. Let the spool fall - you can always pull it up from the surface. Now, go hand over hand up the line (note I'm not suggesting to pull yourself up). If you feel the line slipping through your hands, adjust your buoyancy.
I find that makes controlling ascent rates pretty simple.
I've been following your thread since your first posting, and I have read every post so far. I'm glad to see that you have the courage to push back against the crowd of nay-sayers that seem to assume that every diver is new and inexperienced (always much less experienced than they are). Even some of the divers offering recommendations have half as many dives as you do. Many vocal members of Scubaboard seem to have a distinctive "anti-PADI," and more generally an "anti-training" bias (unless it's with GUE, which has a large following here), with the assumption that all instructors and agencies are just out to "get your money." Or that people that want more training are just "card collectors."
So, I'm with you, I don't exactly get it. It seems that a diver could actually realize that his improvement has stalled out, and want to get feedback and additional training. Some of my recreational dive buddies have well over 1,000 dives, and still dive with poor technique, particularly because they have never been trained properly. They are content to "just dive;" however, that is not helping them to improve.
In my case, I followed the path up through PADI DM, and through that experience realized that teaching was not for me. About that time I took a GUE Fundimentals (of tech diving) course, and realized how deficient my diving was in technique. I can assure all of the "just dive" advocates here that if I had stopped after DM and "just dove," I would have done nothing more than further ingrain poor diving technique. So after that course, I began to have some more concrete idea of "good" technique, and decided that tech diving was the way to "improve."
I ended up following the NAUI technical diving track, primarily because my local dive shop had NAUI instructors and students. Whether with NAUI or GUE or some other agency, I would highly suggest you look into tech diving. Your first step would be to take an "intro to tech" or "fundimentals" class, and then you could decide if it's for you.
The only thing that worried me about your postings was your comment about "adrenaline junkie." I can understand that diving may have its moments of "adrenaline rush," and your opportunities to obtain those "adrenaline rushes" may be greater in tech diving. However, tech diving is not friendly to risk-seeking behavior. A tech diver's goal is to avoid those particular adrenaline-producing situations by careful planning and skillful execution. In other words, if you are looking for classes to challenge you and make you a better diver, then look into tech diving. If you are just looking for a rush, then I wouldn't suggest looking for it in diving.
So, I'm with you, I don't exactly get it. It seems that a diver could actually realize that his improvement has stalled out, and want to get feedback and additional training. Some of my recreational dive buddies have well over 1,000 dives, and still dive with poor technique, particularly because they have never been trained properly. They are content to "just dive;" however, that is not helping them to improve.
In my case, I followed the path up through PADI DM, and through that experience realized that teaching was not for me. About that time I took a GUE Fundimentals (of tech diving) course, and realized how deficient my diving was in technique. I can assure all of the "just dive" advocates here that if I had stopped after DM and "just dove," I would have done nothing more than further ingrain poor diving technique. So after that course, I began to have some more concrete idea of "good" technique, and decided that tech diving was the way to "improve."
I ended up following the NAUI technical diving track, primarily because my local dive shop had NAUI instructors and students. Whether with NAUI or GUE or some other agency, I would highly suggest you look into tech diving. Your first step would be to take an "intro to tech" or "fundimentals" class, and then you could decide if it's for you.
The only thing that worried me about your postings was your comment about "adrenaline junkie." I can understand that diving may have its moments of "adrenaline rush," and your opportunities to obtain those "adrenaline rushes" may be greater in tech diving. However, tech diving is not friendly to risk-seeking behavior. A tech diver's goal is to avoid those particular adrenaline-producing situations by careful planning and skillful execution. In other words, if you are looking for classes to challenge you and make you a better diver, then look into tech diving. If you are just looking for a rush, then I wouldn't suggest looking for it in diving.
OP
Dehydrated_Atom
Contributor
Through SSI you have to have a certain number of dives before doing AOW, and Rescue. I can't recall the exact amount, 24 maybe? Which, much like "Master" diver, I thought it was funny that I was "Advanced" after so few dives.
OP
Dehydrated_Atom
Contributor
The rest of your post was a good read, but I'm quoting the part that really highlights my concern.
I'm definitely going to do a GUE fundamentals course (as per a few posts thus far), but you really nailed the reason. I don't know what I don't know. Taking a fundamentals course may be a great starting point for me in realizing mistakes I make that I'm not even aware of.
DaleC
Contributor
You also have to recognise that by taking fundies you will only "know" what they "know". GUE/UTD is not an all encompassing phylosophy that exposes it's students to a wide variety of diving strategies. It is a very specific regime that was developed for a specific type of diving. At it's core are such concepts as strong teamwork and standardization. Good things indeed! but you may find yourself at a disadvantage if that's all you know and wind up diving where those conditions do not occur.
Not a knock against GUE/UTD - I think they are great - just keeping it real.
I see some of this as a tug of war between form versus function. Do we train to attain form or to facilitate function.
In sports, many atheletes who want to improve their function engage in some form of training. The training facilitates the function and the appearance of strength and agility come about as a side benefit of the training. The real focus is improvement of the task they want to perform.
Other atheletes have no function and seek training simply to improve their form ie: body building. They have the appearance of strength and agility but no real purpose for it's expression. It's just about looking good. In old DIR terms this would be considered ego stroking. Part of the reaction some divers have to the behavior is the recognition of this. Believe it or not, taking DIR training just to look better in the water or to improve ones image by association with others can be a form of strokery.
Not saying that's you. just illustrating a pitfall, or bad traing habit, that way occur.
Not a knock against GUE/UTD - I think they are great - just keeping it real.
I see some of this as a tug of war between form versus function. Do we train to attain form or to facilitate function.
In sports, many atheletes who want to improve their function engage in some form of training. The training facilitates the function and the appearance of strength and agility come about as a side benefit of the training. The real focus is improvement of the task they want to perform.
Other atheletes have no function and seek training simply to improve their form ie: body building. They have the appearance of strength and agility but no real purpose for it's expression. It's just about looking good. In old DIR terms this would be considered ego stroking. Part of the reaction some divers have to the behavior is the recognition of this. Believe it or not, taking DIR training just to look better in the water or to improve ones image by association with others can be a form of strokery.
Not saying that's you. just illustrating a pitfall, or bad traing habit, that way occur.
Similar threads
