Chasing paper? Or competence?

[Rhone Man]

I think the idea of a la carte diver training (rather than prepackaged modules) has much to commend it, but it would be a pretty niche market.

Not to get all Rumsfeldian on you, but there are a lot of known unknowns for the consumer. They might think that they "only want" to learn about X, but they don't know what they don't know.

Plus modularisation helps drive down costs and keep broad standards. A la carte puts a lot of pressure on instructor quality. And sadly there are plenty of bad instructors out there...

 

[rivers]

I didn't say "covered", I said "trained". (I bothered to underline that, do please check)

\Whilst not wishing to get caught up in semantics, I would point out that lots of things are 'covered' in lots of courses, but they are not necessarily 'trained'.



Let's be clear. You're quoting a website blurb, I qualified to teach Sports Divers.

Is doing a single 'simulated' deco dive experience the same as 'being able to conduct' deco. Hmmmm... As a GUE Fundies qualified diver, who's had exposure to a high standard of training, please tell me how you feel about that.

Did you ever look into what that 'simulated' deco dive was? Here...

I'd draw attention to the parameters highlighted...

What people do, or don't do, is quite irrelevant.

And I'm telling you what happens on the club level in the UK. I never said anywhere I agreed with, but if you complete sports diver, you have a deco ticket. There is currently a 96 page thread on TDF at the moment discussing what, if anything, should change about sports diver. Many people (including BSAC instructors who are currently teaching in the UK) have said to make it a no deco ticket or in order to get the deco ticket ticket, it needs to be a post sports progression (much like depth) and checked off once an acceptable level is achieved. Personally, I think in sports diver, deco should be a separate endorsement. There needs to be a proper lecture about deco for all sports diver (even if a diver has no interest in doing any deco). In order to get signed off for the endorsement, a diver needs to have done quite a bit of diving post sports qualification and their buoyancy and trim needs to be pretty spot on. If they meet the required standard, then the simulated deco dive can be done. if the instructor is satisfied that they can hold the stops, the another 2 dives can be conducted where actual deco is required. Once they are completed, then the endorsement is signed off. Deco for Divers should also be required reading.

Yes, the deco bit in the sports diver course is absolute crap. But once a diver is signed off as a sports diver, they are able to plan and conduct dives involving deco. It's right there on the BSAC website, it's in the sports diver materials. It is well publicised on TDF, the BSAC forums, and at the club level that sports allows you to deco. I've seen it in my club, I've seen it in other clubs. No, it's not the newly qualified sports divers doing deco, but some of the guys who've been diving for a bit and have no real desire to go beyond sports.

 

[lowviz]

...//... For example, suppose a diver knows that he/she wants to do only non-accelerated "lite" deco within recommended recreational scuba depth limits (i.e., no deeper than ~130 fsw) in a non-physical-overhead environment, while absolutely NOT wearing doubles (manifolded doubles, independent doubles, sidemount doubles). ...//...

I've stayed clear of your thread up to now as I wanted to see how your question would play out. I've quoted you slightly out of context as your OP directly concerns contracting for specific or targeted instruction. It is my presumption that you are an experienced diver that is responsibly seeking further knowledge and skills in the context of your range of experience.

When we dive, our plastic certs stay on the surface. We can only gain benefit from the experience and skills that we have assimilated, mastered, and take with us. This is my "holistic" view of diving. I contend that certain EXPERIENCED divers are able to determine what is lacking in their own personal skills base. For example: Nitrox diving

Giving a new diver the ability to randomly pick and choose skills would be pure foolishness. However, an experienced diver with some reasonable sense of self preservation SHOULD be allowed to explore the skill that promises improvements in safety or skills within the context of their diving. Never forget that your choice could be wrong for you. However, a proper course and instructor will SHOW you the "unintended consequences" of your choice. The book says "man up, drink your testosterone, buy the gear, and take full tech". BTDT.

However, the elegance of being truly skilled in your "range" may indeed require certain borrowed skills from forbidden realms, exactly like using nitrox used to be back in the not so distant past. Your post is a very personal thing, you know that there is an easy way around all this "Sturm und Drang", but you obviously had the courage to ask in this forum. My opinion, you asked.

Kudos.

 

[Edward3c]

I didn't say "covered", I said "trained". (I bothered to underline that, do please check)

\Whilst not wishing to get caught up in semantics, I would point out that lots of things are 'covered' in lots of courses, but they are not necessarily 'trained'.



Let's be clear. You're quoting a website blurb, I qualified to teach Sports Divers.

Is doing a single 'simulated' deco dive experience the same as 'being able to conduct' deco. Hmmmm... As a GUE Fundies qualified diver, who's had exposure to a high standard of training, please tell me how you feel about that.

Did you ever look into what that 'simulated' deco dive was? Here...

I'd draw attention to the parameters highlighted...

What people do, or don't do, is quite irrelevant.

Hi,

That's from an old syllabus, the simulated deco dive today requires gas planning, run times and maintaining the required stops for the plan. The days of just holding a stop for a defined period of time are well dead.

kind regards

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I think there's some good info in this thread, but also a lot of assumptions and a bit of misinformation. And I think a lot of the comments that have been made apply to specific agencies, and not to others. So I'm going to speak strictly from the perspective of the agency I teach for (NAUI), and what I've been told I'm allowed to do within the standards of that agency.

I often teach skills workshops that are specifically tailored to the needs and goals of a student. There are some caveats ... they must be consistent with the diver's level of training, they must teach only things that are sanctioned by the agency for divers at that divers certification level, and they must only be things that my level of instructor certification qualifies me to teach.

That leaves quite a lot that's either glossed over in standard classes or left out altogether. Teaching gas management for the recreational diver, for example. Nothing in my agency's AOW-level training teaches someone to calculate how much gas they'll need for a given dive ... but nothing specifically prohibits teaching it at that level either. And nothing about teaching someone how to perform those calculations, or how to use your gas consumption to determine a dive plan, or how to know when it's time to turn your dive, or how to use your gas more effectively, goes beyond the standards of what the agency says you must ... or should ... teach at that level.

Most of my workshop students are recently OW certified. What they want to learn is how to properly weight themselves, how to distribute their weights to achieve proper trim. None of that is functionally, or even commonly taught at the OW level ... even though nothing in the curriculum specifically prohibits teaching it. Many of my students want to learn common kicks ... frog kick, back kick, helicopter kick. Nothing in the standards prohibit teaching those skills at any level of diving ... although it's not specifically part of the curriculum. None of it exceeds standards, and because of the way the standards are written, it isn't difficult to show that you are meeting those standards by teaching it to students who are certified at an OW level or higher.

Navigation ... standards only require you to teach reciprocal heading compass navigation at the OW level. Nothing in the course material, even at the AOW level, specifies a higher level of navigation skill. But nothing prohibits you from teaching divers how to use more complex methods either.

Standards are there to establish baselines for skills comprehension and mastery. They establish limits primarily on depth and decompression ... and in some cases, environment. But, for example, you don't learn limited visibility diving until the AOW level ... so how is it that instructors who train OW divers in murky water such as quarries or silty environments are even allowed to take these divers in the water? How far, and how strictly, does your liability as an instructor extend?

The answer, really, depends not only on the agency ... but also on the situation. It isn't, really, as simple or universal as some people here make it out to be.

That said, if someone came to me and asked me to teach them how to do dives beyond NDL's, I'd flat out refuse ... along with some advice about why they need to take a course specifically designed for that type of diving. Why? Well, because although I know that type of diving quite well, I'm not certified to teach at that level ... the courses my agency allows me to teach do not extend to decompression diving. But as long as the skills I teach are within the limits of what my agency says I'm allowed to teach, I see nothing wrong with an "a la carte" approach to training divers how to improve specific skills. We are, after all, each unique in terms of what we know and where we feel we need to improve.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[danvolker]

Gentle Divers,

I've been following another thread currently running on SB: www.scubaboard.com/forums/advanced-scuba-discussions/473465-more-than-advanced-but-not-really-technical.html. That thread and similar threads invariably leave me mulling over the following question: Ought a diver be able to approach a (knowledgeable) instructor, ask to be taught a certain skill but within certain constraints, negotiate a price, and be taught that skill?

For example, suppose a diver knows that he/she wants to do only non-accelerated "lite" deco within recommended recreational scuba depth limits (i.e., no deeper than ~130 fsw) in a non-physical-overhead environment, while absolutely NOT wearing doubles (manifolded doubles, independent doubles, sidemount doubles).

This diver has absolutely no interest in learning non-silting finning techniques, for example, nor how to safely switch to higher-FO2 deco mix(es), etc., etc., etc.

I think I can speak for many when I say that for divers that HAVE NO INTEREST in LEARNING NON-SILTING finning techniques, or better bouyancy controls---- I have NO INTEREST in helping these divers in any way.
This type of divers SHOULD QUIT Diving, and take up a "sport" they are better suited to, such as watching TV, or going to early-bird specials and harvesting all the Equal or Splenda.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I'll disagree with that sentiment, Dan. Often I find that divers who have no interest in learning non-silting finning techniques, or better buoyancy control, are completely ignorant of the fact that they should ... they were taught to dive vertically or at an angle, constantly kicking to maintain position ... often nothing more than a simple bicycle kick. They continue to do it because they don't know there's a better way ... or that they'd be more comfortable and use their gas up a lot less quickly if they learned better techniques.

These are people I'm most interested in reaching ... because I've yet to meet a diver who has no interest in being more comfortable underwater, or learning how to stretch their bottom times out for more minutes.

The key to reaching these people is in how you approach them. Demeaning people because of how they dive rarely achieves positive results ... it just makes them decide that you, and everyone who dives like you, are a jerk. And they won't listen to a thing you say. Of course, if you have no interest in helping these divers, I guess it really doesn't matter.

For those of us who do, it's all in how you approach them. My experience is that the best results come from diving with them, and letting them see the benefits of how you dive. Let them decide for themselves that they want some of that. I've found that approach to be highly successful ... and mutually beneficial.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Bob DBF]

But you won't know where the holes in what you've put together for yourself are; and you won't really know if the strategies and solutions you've used when your buddies have thrown challenges at you were the right ones, or the best ones, because the only person evaluating them is you.

That is how a lot of us feel about the abbreviated OW class of today. The length time in class, the pool and in the ocean was not just about reviewing the test and more repetition of skills, but also giving the instructor the time to develop divers to have enough knowledge and common sense to make the right decisions on their own. Now, as then, most divers only take one class - OW.

I think the recent deaths at Eagles Nest are a perfect example. These two had obviously figured a lot of things out quite nicely for themselves. They'd been doing some big dives for quite a while, without anyone having actually taught them how to do it. But there was a hole somewhere, and it killed them.

What killed him was the fact that the OW class was so easy that he considered all formal SCUBA training to be a joke and acted accordingly, too bad he had to drag the kid along.

The instructor I trained with increased the difficulty of the pool sessions on the divers that were too cocky, until they understood that diving was not a joke. I was not involved because I had mentors that made him look tame and did not want to go through that again. The point being, diving can be dangerous and should be approached in that manor especially when doing something new.

Taking a part of a curriculum which has been decided to be complete is simply ensuring that there will be those holes.

As in a quick OW class, modular certifications will fill in the holes later if you ever take another class.



Bob
---------------------------------

That's my point, people, by and large, are not taught that diving can be deadly, they are taught how safe it is, and they are not equipped with the skills, taught and trained to the level required to be useful in an emergency.

"the future is uncertain and the end is always near"
Jim Morrison

 

[TecGirl]

Deco lite? Seriously? You could really hurt yourself diving doubles with no ' formal' training and diving rec gear and pushing the limits. Course standards are there for a reason...to prevent unnecessary death and injury. Hope you have plenty of health insurance and life insurance to cover yourself. Just taking proper technical class for an accredited agency ( NAUI courses are great) will cost you way less than you getting some mentor and doing a ' trust me ' technical dive and getting bent and having huge hospital bills. I, as a NAUI Technical Instructor and as a PADI staff instructor don't even take my certified diver tourists past 60 feet on guided dives unless they have advanced open water certifications. Would you teach yourself how to fly a helicopter ? Would you let some guy who didn't quite go to medical school operate on you?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Subcooled]

Is there a reason to get the instruction from a professional? I know amateurs that are more skilled and better motivated than professional instructors (for whom it is just a job). If no money is involved, then surely there cannot be a duty of care, and no insurance difficulties? I do not know. I am just asking.