How does GUE compare to other Tech training agencies.

[Scuba]

We have a lot of discussion on this list about the DIR philosophy and methods espoused by GUE. But in reality GUE is a technical training agency teaching advanced diving techniques. Not a fair comparison to Padi, for instance, which is not a tech. training agency. At least not an apple to apple comparison.

In addition, GUE is a very small organization with a total of 17 US, and 32 world, including US, instructors listed on their website. How large are the other tech training agencies?

So the question arises. How does GUE compare with other tech training organizations, and with tech courses offered by other organizations that are not strictly tech, such as NAUI, in terms of consistent quality of instruction and advanced diving techniques?

This is not about who is better, but about:

If I want to take an advanced tech course from X agency, do I have to be concerned about the quality of the instructor, as is the case with the OW agencies?

If I want to take an advanced tech course from X agency, do I have to be concerned about the course content being deficient in addressing fundamental principals or not teaching the latest techniques?

I realize we should all go with what we believe is the best. But this is really an inquiry into the consistency and quality of the product existing in the advanced tech (cave, wreck, deep) training industry.

I like to keep this thread here and not in the tech section since some here will eventually move on to tech, we hear and see the lack of consistency with the non tech agencies, and really have a lot of unfair comparisons in comparing advanced diving practices with beginner and intermidiate ones.

 

[MechDiver]

You're not asking anything that has not already been beat to death. There is nothing new here to discuss.

 

[WreckWriter]

MechDiver once bubbled...
You're not asking anything that has not already been beat to death. There is nothing new here to discuss.

This is just a fight starter. GUE folks will says their's is better, other agency folks will say GUE is too expensive and takes too long to get to the point where you can really do tech dives.

 

[Scuba]

Iv'e seen it beat to death with comparisons of apples to oranges. Maybe I missed most of the apples to apples comparisons. If you can point to a thread I appreciate it.

 

[Scuba]

WreckWriter,

With all due respect, but is this another of those threads where I am ask to explain, over and over again, the meaning of each word.

This is not about who is better, but about

If I want to take an advanced tech course from X agency, do I have to be concerned about the quality of the instructor, as is the case with the OW agencies?

If I want to take an advanced tech course from X agency, do I have to be concerned about the course content being deficient in addressing fundamental principals or not teaching the latest techniques?
:

 

[MHK]

Scuba once bubbled...
Iv'e seen it beat to death with comparisons of apples to oranges. Maybe I missed most of the apples to apples comparisons. If you can point to a thread I appreciate it.

There's such a wide vareity of intangibles associated with this topic that it likely no consensus of opinion will be collected. I would urge you when judging the opinions of those that offer it may be helpful to seek out if the poster actually took a class from either agency, or is it just hearsay.

I'll offer from my perspective that I did my Nitrox, Advanced nitrox, technical nitrox, advanced deep air, trimix and wreck trimix training all from IANTD, with Wings Stocks and Billy Deans as my instructors and at GUE I've taken the Cave 1 & 2, Tech 1 & 2 and the instructor training from Andrew Georgitis, Jarrod Jablonski and Tamara Kendall so when I offer my perspective it's from my personal experiences..

To that end my thoughts are that the precision expected from the GUE class far exceeded my IANTD training. In other words, when I did a simulated no mask drill in my IANTD class, we did it at 180' so when Billy asked me to do the drill, in order to reduce the risk of panic and bolting to the surface rather then taking my mask off, he used an eye patch that would cover the mask to simulate no vis.. In GUE, they took a different approach, we did the drills in 20' and the difference was it was done requiring nuetral buoyancy, it was done requiring that my mask come off I could demonstrate swimming 500'+ comfortably with no mask, that I wouldn't silt out the bottom and it was videotaped to see the effects the skill had on my balance, trim and buoyancy..

Secondly, what I liked about GUE's approach was that the class is broken into 3 phases 1) fundamental skills, 2) critical skills and 3) expereince skills.. What we did was break the class down at the most elementray level doing skills in 20', obviously if you can do them at 20', which has the greatest buoyancy change, you can do them at depth and moreover you are able to spend more time working on them.. At IANTD when I was doing my skills at 180' there was little time for skills.. During the critical skills phase, the attention to team diving was much more prevelant and the attention to precision was much more critical.. Things like shooting lift bags and running line were covered in much greater detail, and we spent much more time running these drills..

Thirdly, the academics in my view we so much more thorough in my GUE classes, which is surprising because by the time I took my 1st GUE class I had already completed all the IANTD training, had already dove the Doria a few times and assumed that I knew everything I needed to dive at that level.. When I took my 1st GUE class it was apparent to me that I was missing a great deal..

Fourthly, the class explained quit a bit in greater detail the WHY's behind the standarized gear configuration.. Bear in mind that this was in the initial infancy stages of GUE before the proliferation of information on the various scuba forums..

Overall, in my view, the GUE class was a much more complete experience for me..

As a disclaimer in the interest of full disclosure I've gone on to become a GUE instructor so my comments should be taken in the context that I am a GUE instructor..

Later

 

[Scuba]

Thank you for your reply MHK. I agree about the "wide vareity of intangibles associated with this topic" concern.

The issue is this, from reading all the different views and experiences of other expressed here and in other places, I see a pattern establishing the consistent quality of all GUE instructors, along with the similar quality of course material. These same posts also establish the lack of consistent qualities regarding the large rec agencies, hence my question comparing tech to tech.

 

[MHK]

Scuba once bubbled...
Thank you for your reply MHK. I agree about the "wide vareity of intangibles associated with this topic" concern.

The issue is this, from reading all the different views and experiences of other expressed here and in other places, I see a pattern establishing the consistent quality of all GUE instructors, along with the similar quality of course material. These same posts also establish the lack of consistent qualities regarding the large rec agencies, hence my question comparing tech to tech.

One of the more difficult points that we seem to struggle getting across to people is that our desire is to stay a small niche agency. Precisely for the reasons you cite we have little desire to grow into an unmanagable level.. We'll stay small so it's easy to hand pick and cultivate instructors that share of goals and views.. While for certain we'll get a little larger we will never grow to the point of being the biggest, if that happens I'll leave that's not what we are about..

At this small level we can afford to be selective and given that I'm booked until next July getting students isn't an issue. In fact we have several courses that we can't roll out yet because of the small infastructure.. At some point JJ and Andrew will arrive at the right balance of instructors, but our instructor training is much different then what many are accustomed to so we have a large drop out rate..

Later

 

[WreckWriter]

Scuba once bubbled...
WreckWriter,

With all due respect, but is this another of those threads where I am ask to explain, over and over again, the meaning of each word.

And where, either here or in another thread, did I ask you to explain the meaning of ANY word?

Based on your reply to Mr. Kane you've already formed your opinion so why bother asking other than to start arguments? Or was that just more of the brown-nosing that's pervaded many a thread the last week or so?

Tom

 

[Scuba]

WreckWriter from your previous post it was evident you misinterpreted the meaning of my words, sentences, and paragraphs. You are drawing conclusion based on what you see is the implied intent, as opposed to the expressed intent.

Based on your reply to Mr. Kane you've already formed your opinion so why bother asking other than to start arguments? Or was that just more of the brown-nosing that's pervaded many a thread the last week or so?

"The issue is this, from reading all the different views and experiences of other expressed here and in other places, I see a pattern establishing the consistent quality of all GUE instructors, along with the similar quality of course material. These same posts also establish the lack of consistent qualities regarding the large rec agencies, hence my question comparing tech to tech."

Your posts here are off topic and I will no longer reply to them.