Dangerous psychology- Diving beyond one's training

[Superlyte27]

Wait... anyone who trained informally was a pioneer? Sweet. When, pray tell, did the pioneering era end and the new 'these c-cards or wrong' era begin?

For a Doctor, I think you would know the definition of the word "pioneer"

[h=3]pi·o·neer/ˌpīəˈni(&#601r/
[/h]

Noun:	A person who is among the first to explore or settle a new country or area.
Verb:	Develop or be the first to use or apply (a new method, area of knowledge, or activity). Sorry, that ship has sailed. Using the techniques and methods that were founded 30 years ago, people are getting to live.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

No,... I did not say that. Stop putting meanings into my words where it is not there. Those in the earlier days that did not have formal training because there was not that type of diving at that time were pioneers. I think you are intellegent enough to guess that the procedures developed over time through the near misses, deaths & injuies. Through that analysis, the procedures we use today are formed. That conclusion is not rocket science,... actually it is common knowledge.

I think you and I have rather different concepts of what "earlier days" means.

In any event, finding an instructor for X course with Y agency in order to do Z type of diving (formal training) is obviously an excellent idea. Equally good or better can be finding a competent, experienced diver with whom to discuss, plan, and execute dives that one is not yet ready to safely execute on one's own (informal training).

The dogmatic rants that concern me are coming from those that claim formal training has some sort of special place in the hierarchy of knowledge/experience acquisition. It does not. There is insufficiently good formal training, just like there is insufficiently good informal training... a diver's initative and due dilligence is required regardless of what route they pursue. Neither approach guarantees safety during or after the training.

 

[Superlyte27]

I have never considered going beyond recreational diving but I don't understand why it is simply not possible to go where no diver has ever gone before without formal training. Is the problem that the knowledge required for more advanced diving has not been recorded anywhere?

The knowledge is recorded in lots of places. But transferring from the book to the water isn't easily done. It might be possible to go where 'SOME' diver has never gone before, but without formal training, it'll just be dumb luck if you make it through some perilous emergency.

---------- Post added November 21st, 2012 at 11:00 PM ----------

I think you and I have rather different concepts of what "earlier days" means.

In any event, finding an instructor for X course with Y agency in order to do Z type of diving (formal training) is obviously an excellent idea. Equally good or better can be finding a competent, experienced diver with whom to discuss, plan, and execute dives that one is not yet ready to safely execute on one's own (informal training).

The problem with that is, how do you know who is a competent, experienced diver with whom to discuss, plan and execute those dives. The fact is, most divers can't even pick a good instructor, let alone pick a good non-instructor. How many times have we seen someone say "instructor blah blah blah was great and wonderful" and we know that guy to be an absolute idiot who couldn't turn out a good student to save his life or his student's.

 

[Kevin Carlisle]

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. I dive with several NY divers with thousands of dives in their belt, they all have advanced training specific to their diving. They we're diving back in the day as you call it. Not getting the training for technical diving is idiotic and irresponsible.

I think you and I have reyather different concepts of what "earlier days" means.

In any event, finding an instructor for X course with Y agency in order to do Z type of diving (formal training) is obviously an excellent idea. Equally good or better can be finding a competent, experienced diver with whom to discuss, plan, and execute dives that one is not yet ready to safely execute on one's own (informal training).

The dogmatic rants that concern me are coming from those that claim formal training has some sort of special place in the hierarchy of knowledge/experience acquisition. It does not. There is insufficiently good formal training, just like there is insufficiently good informal training... a diver's initative and due dilligence is required regardless of what route they pursue. Neither approach guarantees safety during or after the training.

 

[redacted]

There are books & of course the instructor passing down his knowledge & skills to his students, but they need to be hand in hand to compliment each other.

I am not saying that training is a bad idea. Hopefully, it is the fastest way to gain the required knowledge. If available

To do it in the safest manner, I would disagree. If one wanted to develop a type of diving that is not in existance, wouldn't it behoove that diver to get as much training up to that point plus very long study & analysis of the dive before even preparing to attempt the dive? Couple that with a full or near full knowledge of the risks of the dive to be undertaken, which is gathered from training & the analysis portion of the preparation.

It is the rare instructor that does a better job conveying complete, concise knowledge than a well written book. Although, many good instructors are just more interesting to listen to. Having an instructor is a clear advantage if the material is difficult and the instructor is able to quickly recognize when the student is not catching on and can make adjustments. An instructor also is a clear advantage when demonstration is a valuable teaching technique. An instructor was unnecessary for my nitrox training other than to sign the papers. I suspect the same would be true for much of tech training strictly from a knowledge standpoint. I imagine the tech instructor's most important contribution to training is in the area of safety - preventing and correcting unsafe conditions.

 

[tstormdiver]

The thing about formal instruction vs mentorship, is,... if the instructor himself is properly trained & following the standards, guidelines & protocols developed by the above mentioned analysis of problems that have occured, the instructor can & does the training in the most controlled environment possible. If something goes awry, they have been specifically trained to handle those situations to teach the student & keep the student reasonably safe while learning the skills to make them a better prepared diver for the environment. A mentor does not neccesarily or usually have those skills. Basically a well trained instructor can most usually get the student's bacon out of the fire if there is an unexpected problem, or the student causes a potentially dangerous problem. Trying to learn it on one's own IMO is even more foolish as you don't have even the guidance of someone that might have some of the knowledge & might/ maybe be able to get another diver out of their own pickle.

Just in case you forgot,... Many (not all, though) technical diving pioneers developed the procedures & became the first instructors of those procedures. Sure, diving is a living breathing, changing sport, but once again,... why reinvent the wheel when the mistakes have already been made?

 

[Superlyte27]

It is the rare instructor that does a better job conveying complete, concise knowledge than a well written book. Although, many good instructors are just more interesting to listen to. Having an instructor is a clear advantage if the material is difficult and the instructor is able to quickly recognize when the student is not catching on and can make adjustments. An instructor also is a clear advantage when demonstration is a valuable teaching technique. An instructor was unnecessary for my nitrox training other than to sign the papers. I suspect the same would be true for much of tech training strictly from a knowledge standpoint. I imagine the tech instructor's most important contribution to training is in the area of safety - preventing and correcting unsafe conditions.

Spoken like someone who has never taken a higher level tech course. That book can give you the theory, it can't evaluate your water skills. It can't give you tips and tricks on how to avoid problems and dangers. It can't say, "hey goober, don't let go of that fuggin line." A book can't tell you that you don't possess the trim or buoyancy skills necessary to make these types of dives. A book can't tell you that you don't have the proper mindset to be 300' underwater. Hell, a book can't recognize that you look like hammered shiat, or tell you here's how you straighten it out.

 

[tstormdiver]

It is the rare instructor that does a better job conveying complete, concise knowledge than a well written book. Although, many good instructors are just more interesting to listen to. Having an instructor is a clear advantage if the material is difficult and the instructor is able to quickly recognize when the student is not catching on and can make adjustments. An instructor also is a clear advantage when demonstration is a valuable teaching technique. An instructor was unnecessary for my nitrox training other than to sign the papers. I suspect the same would be true for much of tech training strictly from a knowledge standpoint. I imagine the tech instructor's most important contribution to training is in the area of safety - preventing and correcting unsafe conditions.

Knowledge, I can sort of agree with, learning the skills safely... no. Because when things go wrong,... it is rarely only 1 thing. An instructor worth their salt will go through as many conceivable scenarios as is possible (at least it was in my case) & work with the student to make it an automatic response.

 

[redacted]

Knowledge, I can sort of agree with, learning the skills safely... no. Because when things go wrong,... it is rarely only 1 thing. An instructor worth their salt will go through as many conceivable scenarios as is possible (at least it was in my case) & work with the student to make it an automatic response.

Spoken like someone who has never taken a higher level tech course. That book can give you the theory, it can't evaluate your water skills. It can't give you tips and tricks on how to avoid problems and dangers. It can't say, "hey goober, don't let go of that fuggin line." A book can't tell you that you don't possess the trim or buoyancy skills necessary to make these types of dives. A book can't tell you that you don't have the proper mindset to be 300' underwater. Hell, a book can't recognize that you look like hammered shiat, or tell you here's how you straighten it out.

So it is not "instructors" that are required. Rather it is "safety officers" and "evaluators" that are necessary to insure the dives are safe and the required skills and abilities are demonstrated.

 

[Superlyte27]

Really? You're going to split hairs? What's another word for evaluator? Um.... I'll take Instructors for $100 Bob


-edit, and with that simple sentence, I just lost all respect for you. That's the most illogical statement I've read on SB all day.