GUE Tech vs. TDI Tech classes

[Scott L]

Well, they can't win; if they remain etched in stone, then they're too rigid and mired in the past. If they change stuff, then, "Aha! So they WEREN'T doing it right to begin with!"

One of the things I like about DIR diving is that it was a system put together by some smart and extremely accomplished divers, who are still smart enough to be willing to put any part of the system under scrutiny and adapt if something proves suboptimal. It is also MY personal opinion that the core of the system is powerful enough to survive being tweaked at the edges -- in other words, the differences between GUE and UTD are far less important than the commonalities.

Makes pefect sence to me. I simply could not pass up the irony involved...

 

[rjack321]

There is only so much to know about this stuff, and none of it is secret. "DIR" is a system you can learn about without taking classes from GUE or UTD -- with UTD's online classrooms and DVDs, you can learn a LOT.

We already have enough internet trained divers (and apparently some instructors) we don't need to be encouraging them down this route.

While you CAN learn alot - you can also completely misunderstand key concepts or not have the mental or physical skills to match up with the book knowledge. People diving air and bending the poo out of themselves missing sunstantial amounts of deco via the ratio deco method. Or how and when to do power inflator failures. Or misunderstanding how mask off drills are meant to test the mask on buddy, not the maskless - they have the easy job. Or people diving 25/25 at 150ft with O2 for deco. These are just some noteworthy examples I recall hearing about over the last 18 months, here on SB and on places like DMX. They are evidence that instructors and students are reading about what other classes/agencies are doing, trying to adapt it into their own courses/diving, but missing a fundemental concept in translation.

 

[Kevrumbo]

We already have enough internet trained divers (and apparently some instructors) we don't need to be encouraging them down this route.

While you CAN learn alot - you can also completely misunderstand key concepts or not have the mental or physical skills to match up with the book knowledge. People diving air and bending the poo out of themselves missing sunstantial amounts of deco via the ratio deco method. Or how and when to do power inflator failures. Or misunderstanding how mask off drills are meant to test the mask on buddy, not the maskless - they have the easy job. Or people diving 25/25 at 150ft with O2 for deco. These are just some noteworthy examples I recall hearing about over the last 18 months, here on SB and on places like DMX. They are evidence that instructors and students are reading about what other classes/agencies are doing, trying to adapt it into their own courses/diving, but missing a fundemental concept in translation.

You're reaching for a post hoc fallacy Richard: The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.

Unless you want to breakdown your examples explicitly and show direct correlation that these few cases are conclusive evidence . . ."that instructors and students are reading about what other classes/agencies are doing, trying to adapt it into their own courses/diving, but missing a fundemental concept in translation", then perhaps you should open your own thread elsewhere. Otherwise, it's all just your own inflated, self-serving opinion, "yellow journalistic" & useless innuendo, with no bearing or practical contribution to this current thread. . .,

 

[Scott L]

You're reaching for a post hoc fallacy Richard: The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.

Unless you want to breakdown your examples explicitly and show direct correlation that these few cases are conclusive evidence . . ."that instructors and students are reading about what other classes/agencies are doing, trying to adapt it into their own courses/diving, but missing a fundemental concept in translation", then perhaps you should open your own thread elsewhere. Otherwise, it's all just your own inflated, self-serving opinion, "yellow journalistic" & useless innuendo, with no bearing or practical contribution to this current thread. . .,

Thanks! I do not feel so badly for for having ordered the UTD Essentials DVD to view proper finning techniques. I promise to govern myself accordingly.

 

[TSandM]

Richard, they didn't learn to do those things from the useful and correct materials that UTD provides on line. Nowhere do the teaching materials suggest taking 25/25 and O2 deco to 150 feet. And if you do your ratio deco correctly, you won't blow off huge amounts of deco and get bent. If you do things INCORRECTLY, you can get hurt. You can make mistakes even after taking classes, though.

I do not recommend that anyone think they can learn to do staged decompression or overhead diving by reading a book or watching a slideshow. But you can increase your database, and use the new information to reevaluate what you are already doing, and make decisions to see out other training. You aren't going to stop people from doing dives they aren't trained or competent to do by withholding information -- ANYBODY can buy decompression software.

 

[rjack321]

"But you can increase your database, and use the new information to reevaluate what you are already doing, and make decisions to see out other training"

Yeah but that's not what's happening (emphasis added)

 

[lamont]

You're reaching for a post hoc fallacy Richard: The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.

Generally the connection is that the diver in question is taking short cuts and doesn't understand the big picture *and* has washed out of a GUE course or two, and *then* goes and gets a card from a different agency with a "DIR trained" instructor and does X, Y, or Z (e.g. some of the things Richard mentioned).

(And I give it about 10 seconds before someone posts a reply to that statement which anyone who has taken logic 101 in college would understand to be patently obvious... There's at least three fallacious logical inferences that if I meant to say them, I'd just come out and say them, so the fact that I'm intentionally omitting them should be a hint... Sometimes I really wish people on the Interwebs(tm) would just respond to what I write and not what they decide I must be thinking...)

 

[Kevrumbo]

Generally the connection is that the diver in question is taking short cuts and doesn't understand the big picture *and* has washed out of a GUE course or two, and *then* goes and gets a card from a different agency with a "DIR trained" instructor and does X, Y, or Z (e.g. some of the things Richard mentioned).

(And I give it about 10 seconds before someone posts a reply to that statement which anyone who has taken logic 101 in college would understand to be patently obvious... There's at least three fallacious logical inferences that if I meant to say them, I'd just come out and say them, so the fact that I'm intentionally omitting them should be a hint... Sometimes I really wish people on the Interwebs(tm) would just respond to what I write and not what they decide I must be thinking...)

Start a separate thread and show your reasoning behind your inductive assertion above lamont, using "some of the things Richard mentioned" (and be very, very careful what you claim is motive, intent and competence of "the diver in question", or especially that of his/her Instructor). Otherwise such obtuse generalizations such as above have no practical contributions to this current discussion.

Again, the object is to find the instructor employing the best practices for the kind of diving environment and geographic/oceanographic region that you are interested in. Use the Internet to help find that instructor, and afterward, use the Internet to see how everyone else is faring in using those practices, sharing your experiences (both successes and failures) as well. And simply ignore anyone who derides this unique & convenient aid to the learning process by calling it "Internet Diving". . .

 

[Scott L]

Never mind.

 

[rjack321]

Generally the connection is that the diver in question is taking short cuts and doesn't understand the big picture *and* has washed out of a GUE course or two, and *then* goes and gets a card from a different agency with a "DIR trained" instructor and does X, Y, or Z (e.g. some of the things Richard mentioned).

Nah most just immediately short cut to an instructor of convenience who then facilitates the misinterpretations and missing the "big picture". Most probably not be design, more like when you played telephone in kindergarden. Although I have heard rumors of instructors issuing all sorts of crazy cards to allow their students to get something like 21/35 via an agency that otherwise wouldn't bless He until later courses (or only at a lessor percentage like Naui tech's 26/17).

I have to admit it can be exceedingly frustrating to schedule and "make happen" a proper tech course with a respected "DIR" agency and instructor. Lack of access probably does drive some students to alternative instructors/agencys who are increasingly marketing themselves as "equivalent". They could offer a fine education but its increasingly buyer beware - esp. when it comes to exactly what you get and how well intergrated the training is or isn't with the established "DIR" agencies like GUE and now UTD. At the end student's are really at risk of thinking they were taught to a high common standard when in fact they may not have been