UTD Essentials of Recreational Diving - What graduates say

Would you consider taking this course?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 28.4%
  • No

    Votes: 39 58.2%
  • I need more information

    Votes: 9 13.4%

  • Total voters
    67

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!

:snap:

Ah, now I recognise this as a modified rule of 120/140. It kind of slides between air (120) and 32 (140). Are these used with depth averaging?

For those who don't know, a quick way to check your dive plan against reality is to use the rule of 120/140. Subtract the depth from 120 for air and 140 for NitrOx and you have a gross approximation of what your NDL should be. For a dive to a depth of 60 ft

120-60 = 60 min on air
140-60 = 80 min on NitrOx

These were never meant to replace tables or a PDC and they don't rely on depth averaging. I also recommend a full five-minute safety stop in any event.

Around the GUE divers I knew (myself included) we always used a 130 (not 140) rule for 32% (with conservative depth averaging). I probably have 800 recreational dives using that method without issue.
 
I probably have 800 recreational dives using that method without issue.
Again, I don't use this except as a reality check and I don't do depth averaging. Except for the squarest of profiles, mine would be more conservative. I definitely don't have your aversion to PDCs.
 


A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

thread open again.

I have split the side-bars about rebreathers and ratio deco into this thread

Any further discussion about those topics in the thread at hand will be summarily deleted as off topic. If you want to discuss those topics, please join the new thread linked above.

The current thread has been rolled back to the point at which it was still relevant to the original topic. In the process a large number of off topic posts have been deleted.

Carry on

 
Last edited:
I am always intrigued by poll results, and the possible influence of respondent demographics on the results. Since the responses to the question, 'Would you consider taking this course?' were predominantly 'negative', does that reflect a relatively advanced level of experience among respondents (i.e. taking such a course at this point would not advance their skill level), or agency perceptions, or the approach used in the course to teaching, etc.? Certainly, the video comments of participants gave a positive impression. But, the video did not appear to encourage a substantial proportion of respondents to say they would be interested. In several cases, a reason cited was a comparison with GUE Fundies, and the possible relative advantage of taking that course instead. Are there other specific concerns, about the course, or the teaching approach, etc., among the 'No' respondents that they would like to share, or repeat? I am just curious.
 
Last edited:
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom