Fundies -- my bottom line

[piikki]

My group -- the novice divers -- didn't attempt to shoot a bag or do a valve drill.

So, as I see it, what happened in Fundies was that I was presented with some information and a set of skills. I was shown how the skills should be done, and shown what the standards are for doing them satisfactorily. I did not "learn" them -- that will take time and practice.

I just have to ask... it surprised me to read that your group (even though I can understand the reasoning) did not do some of the 'basic' tasks at all. I know you (Lynne) have a mentor and access to other DIR divers but if you are not shown all the skills to practice for your re-evaluation during the class - how are you supposed to practice them on your own? And practice them right?

Like I do not know how to shoot a bag, and I have to say I would be very disappointed if I wasn't shown how to do it during the course... even if it ended up in a mess. Did you get to observe it at least? I assume you were taught how your tanks should be placed and what the method for opening/closing your valves is even though you didn't do it under water?


Sorry to pull attention to my own worries Enjoyed your latter day insights

 

[TSandM]

We were shown all the skills on land, and they were demonstrated underwater. We got to watch Rick Inman shoot a bag on the videotape. I did a modified valve drill on land.

I suspect the fact that we did not even attempt some of the skills was a factor in the instructor's uncertainty about giving me a provisional. I am lucky to have resources who can coach me outside of the class setting. Steve White, the instructor, WAS concerned that those resources be able not just to teach me the skills, but to teach them correctly, and we spent some time discussing this. During that discussion, Steve told me he dives with the weekly shop dives and would also be willing to get together with some of us to direct some practice. Thus, having access to the information will not be a problem. BTW, Steve's volunteering to do this really impressed me that what he's interested in is producing divers with solid skills, and not profiting from teaching diving classes. As much as I still really like the instructors from my original shop, one does not dive with them without paying an instructor's fee.

 

[Peter Guy]

As much as I love my wife, I really hate it when she writes what I am purported to think and/or believe.

Just for the record:

1. What she was shown, what she was taught, what she has learned as a result of taking DIR-F will make her a better diver. Her biggest problem as a diver/dive buddy is her focus -- too much -- which means I, as her buddy, have too often been a solo diver for all intents and purposes. Her instructor strongly emphasized situational awareness -- and if she really gets that, she will have become a much better diver/buddy.

2. I am NOT a cave person! I find the geology interesting, but I also find them sterile and generally monochromatic. So, if she does go into Cave Diving she'll probably do it with someone else. (Although I wouldn't mind doing a cave tour in Mexico sometime -- who knows, maybe I'll be transformed.)

What Lynne has interpreted as my opposition to DIR-F (and DIR in general) is my disagreement with the dogma -- especially relating to equipment. Without any desire to get into a discussion about the equipment (and yes, I absolutely understand the why and it is appropriate -- don't get me wrong), I fail to understand the rationale for the dogmatic requirement for all the gear at the "Fundamentals" level.

If, as it appeared, the most important "skills" taught/learned at her DIR-F were equipment agnostic, then why make the task more difficult by adding unnecessary equipment changes? And, in listening to her, it is apparent to me the most important "skills" were bouyancy control and situational (buddy) awareness. The use of the "special" DIR equipment appeared to be pretty incidental to the really important stuff -- AT THIS ENTRY LEVEL OF TRAINING.

In my discussions with her, I've used the novice pilot analogy. IF someone wants to become a jet jockey, they don't start their training on a jet -- they start with the simplest plane to work on the skills appropriate at that level. As the important skills (flying straight and level, making turns without changing altitude, talking to ATC, taxiing and taking off, and of course, the one mandatory maneuver, landing) improve, you add more equipment complexity. Here, as a relatively novice diver, I saw Lynne's basic /important skills, get worse as she learned her new equipment. It just seems to me to have added an unnecessary level of complexity to a learning situation that is complex enough on its own.

 

[PerroneFord]

Peter,

You bring up an EXCELLENT point here. One which my instructor was able to bring home nicely as I asked if I could essentially "audit" Adv. Nitrox. Though I was only able to recieve a basic Nitrox card, I did the FULL Adv. Nitrox course. In the classroom, everything was great. During the pool sessions (5 in all) things got a bit pear shaped, but I struggled through it and learned. And my buoyancy took a leap. However, when we got to the last 2 of the 4 dives, the "equipment overload" was full tilt. As you say, the carrying of the gear had basically stunted my ability to focus on what was basic. So for my last dive, I shed the stage, and just focused on the DIVE. What a lovely experience that was.

I'll be taking DIRF. I know my diving skills will not allow me to pass the course. That's fine. But, what I have done, is to start out with the Hog rig as close to DIR as I could get it. However, I have no primary light yet. I have only one backup light. I did most of my diving to this point in a single tank. Trying to simplify things, and as I got more comfortable, adding them. I see no reason to wear 3 lights in open water as a new diver. I see no reason to dive doubles as a new diver, unless you are just trying to learn, or you have some environmental issues which make it necessary.

My primary reason for taking DIRF is to be introduced to the situational awareness, the buddy skills, and as a formal introduction to the skills requisite to the diving I hope to do in the future. Unlike your wife, I don't have a dive buddy with the kind of experience you have. I have been fortunate to find 2 fairly experienced OW divers with whom I feel comfortable with, and diving with them has made me better. I am also lucky enough to have an instructor who will dive with me anytime our schedules allow.

I feel a bit for Lynne as it appears she is similar to me in that she is task oriented. Unless I am reading her wrong, it appears that she is approaching learning her skills, as a goal unto itself, and not seeing the diving picture as a whole. I have the same problem. I get very task focused. For some time, I was really worried that I couldn't unclip and clip my SPG. I worked on it in the pool.. struggled with it. Last weekend as I was swimming behind a turtle I wanted to check my gas, and it just happened as naturally as you please. Unclip, glance down, head up, re-clip. No muss no fuss. The difference was that I was focused on DIVING, and not the skill.

I hope the two of you can find a happy medium here. Where you can just get together in the water, do a FUN dive, and have her not worry about the skills or buoyancy, or trim, or anything else. Just dive. And smile. Worked great for me.

Great thread.

 

[mart1]

Peter, I think you are right. But fortunately there are other ways/courses to improve your diving.

mart

 

[ppo2_diver]

Maybe it is just me, but the tone from this thread indicates that some people are unhappy about the training they received from the DIR-F course. If I am incorrect, then I apologize. Everyone has their own reasons why they take the fundies course. For some it is to learn the situational/buddy awareness or some view it as an introduction to more advanced diving. I have been told by many people I have contacted who have taken the fundies class that you should put your expectations aside and focus on learning the material. There might be more courses out there that will improve ones diving ability, but there is much more to diving than just basic diving skills (i.e. personal fitness, nutrition, etc). DIR-F goes over all aspects of diving, whereas a class specifically related to buoyancy (for example) does not.

The reason why I want to take the fundies course is because I have gotten comfortable with my skills and I know that there is much room for improvement. I want my fundies instructors to really push me to take me to the next level of improvement. DIR has re-committed me to diving. For the past year since I have been reading about DIR and following it, I have started a regular workout routine and eating better. I do this for my own health benefit, but also to have better diving experiences.

OK, I probabl have gotten off topic and rambled on long enough. Sorry.

DJ

 

[Xanthro]

IMHO if someone is going to take Fundies, then that diver should already be proficient in the gear used in class.

I agree with Peter, it's pretty hard to learn new gear and new skills at the same time.

During the class everyone should be asked to perform every skill that is required to pass, whether the student is going to pass or not. I shot a bag from depth my 9th dive, it's not hard, but since I really didn't get any training on it, I might not be doing it correctly. At least in class someone can watch and then tell you if it is correct or not. An instructor can't evaulate what isn't seen.

 

[JeffG]

If, as it appeared, the most important "skills" taught/learned at her DIR-F were equipment agnostic, then why make the task more difficult by adding unnecessary equipment changes?

Its the side effect of making it a certification class for continuing on with GUE education. In the old days of being a workshop, all that was required was a long hose and non-split fins.

Now that is a certification class with the intent to allow someone to go on with GUE training, it doesn't make sense for them to teach it to people that didn't have a DIR setup.

 

[TSandM]

Boy, I hope nobody's getting the idea that I was unhappy with Fundies! Nothing could be further from the truth. I just remember reading all the reports from people saying, "I learned so much. I had so much FUN." I had a different take on it. I didn't learn a lot, but I got shown what I need to learn and how to go about learning it, and got connected to great resources to help me do that. (I mean, how much can you actually MASTER in four half hour dives?) I got to enjoy three days of very high quality instruction, where material was presented at the level where the faculty thinks you should know it, not where it is palatable or easily absorbed. The experience was such a good one that I would take any further course work I wanted to do from GUE if they offered it. I don't think there is any higher praise you can offer an educational organization.

BTW, I had had the gear for about six weeks before the class, and had put over 20 dives on it. It was certainly true that, when I switched, I looked like somebody caught in a giant spiderweb for a while. But gear complexity or my unfamiliarity with it did not play a role in my relatively poor performance in class.

Xanthro, there's just a limit to time. You start with the basic things and work to the more advanced, and if you have to take time for redo's and for bringing people down off the surface and so on, there just doesn't end up being enough time to do it all. But clearly, if a group can't get through all the required skills, that group isn't going to pass the course, and that's as it should be. And if you fail, you go through the entire course again, and have a second opportunity to see skills demonstrated and to practice them.

 

[MonkSeal]

IF someone wants to become a jet jockey, they don't start their training on a jet -- they start with the simplest plane to work on the skills appropriate at that level. As the important skills (flying straight and level, making turns without changing altitude, talking to ATC, taxiing and taking off, and of course, the one mandatory maneuver, landing) improve, you add more equipment complexity. Here, as a relatively novice diver, I saw Lynne's basic /important skills, get worse as she learned her new equipment. It just seems to me to have added an unnecessary level of complexity to a learning situation that is complex enough on its own.

Your analogy seems Ok. The problem is the starting point. If someone wants to learn how to fly jet he/she won't start with driving tractor but with flying lessons. It's similar here. You have to start with minimal required equipment to be able to achieve minimal set of goals. Good bouyancy can be achieved with different equipment but it's very doubtful if good trim can be easily achieved with stab jacket. Gas can be shared using octopus but it's hard believe that this can result with safe ascent of two divers doing planned decompression however minimal it can be. Using long hose and with proper training this goal can be achieved. You can't do back kick with force fins. It's not easy to make good helicopter turn with plastic fins. But both kicks can be done with Jet fins (or similar). Etc. etc. The point is that there are some tasks that can be (only) done using right tools.