''Intro to Tech'' course

[crpntr133]

Great explanation Duane... thanks for that!

To add a little more meat to ppo2 diver's posting, here's a little blurb from the original press-release that went out to our members and that's posted on International Training :: Home ::

“Intro to Tech performs an important supplementary function within TDI current course offerings”, stated Steve Lewis, director of product development. Lewis continued to say “Firstly it provides recreational divers an opportunity to assess and improve their basic diving skills in a structured and controlled manner, but does not require them to “go technical.” Secondly, it provides those divers who do wish to pursue more advanced diver training with a skill-set that will help them make the transition more smoothly. It may indeed be considered a warm-up for enrolment in some TDI programs.”

Well that's how the press-release explains it. In fact, several of our instructors and instructor-trainers had been running an introductory course along these lines for several years prior to our "official" launch of this program. The idea behind these ad hoc programs was to give divers a leg-up on the skills and planning methods used to manage the additional risks associated with more complex dives. This increased their chances of success in Advanced Nitrox / Decompression Procedures courses.

With the passage of time and the growing interest in technical diving among sport divers, we wanted to provide a program that was more appealing to a broader audience and that helped build some of the basic skills that are useful to ALL divers... not just techies.

Hope this helps.

From what I am hearing from several of my DB that have gone deco this isn't a bad idea either. I know several have said it would have been a lot easier if they would have taken such a class. I think when I get ready to do my deco I will be asking them for help in getting ready.

 

[Dirkadiver]

I would assume you are right(doubles being considered singular) As far as an spg on each tank when using doubles. I personally use a transmitter on my primary for my computer and a spg on the secondary. If you have to shut down one side the dive is over! Monitoring the remaining gas is not a concern as what you have is what you have to get out. Hopefully your not depending on the entire volume of air in both the cylinders. Just my 2 psi.

Butch

I personally only dive one spg. I know of some instructors that want you to dive two. Maybe peace of mind, not that it's going to be much help.

 

[ianr33]

Is passing this course going to be a prerequisite for advanced nitrox? If not I dont see that it qualifies you for anything.

May well be a great experience course but thats about it.

 

[Steve SDI/TDI HQ]

Due to Required equipment standards 2A & 2B, a candidate in case he/ she dives on doubles, has to carry 4 second stages & 2 SPGs.....?

Maybe i misunderstood something.....

You did (misunderstand something that is). A set of manifolded doubles is considered a discreet gas supply system and therefore requires two first stages, two second and one spg... standard doubles configuration no surprises there.

Is passing this course going to be a prerequisite for advanced nitrox? If not I dont see that it qualifies you for anything.

May well be a great experience course but thats about it.

No, as already posted, this course is not a prerequisite for advanced nitrox. The standards for it and decompression procedures have remained unchanged. That said, some people would find this a good option before undertaking an advanced nitrox or deco.

Citing personal experience as an instructor, students regularly 'fail' deco or advanced nitrox because their skills -- including situational awareness, application of gas management techniques and their ability to work within a team for example -- are not acceptable. This requires them to reschedule make-up sessions. And those sessions can be a PITA for everyone involved. Sometimes failing a student causes them grief, which is a shame but unfortunately is the only course of action. My belief based on a little experience is that the time invested in an Intro to Tech class for someone who plans to move on into the technical stream, might save some of that grief. However, the course itself is primarily intended to provide a good learning platform to improve a diver's general skill set... nothing else.

Is this curriculum and scope comparable to GUE-F?

The basic skills required of any diver to stay safe and plan enjoyable, comfortable dives are pretty universal. So there has to be common ground by definition. However, comparisons are always best made by the consumer not by the folks who write the standards and promote courses to the diving community so I guess we will have to wait until someone has taken both courses to read a true comparison.

Take care folks... and dive safe.

 

[Normoxic Diver]

standard doubles configuration no surprises there.

Thanks Steve...that's ok now!

 

[outlaws]

Correct me if I am wrong...but the main reason the Fundamentals class was written was that the instructors were having to teach the basics(meaning buoyancy, frog kick, etc.)instead of what is in the class for the advanced courses. Most divers starting down the tech road don't have any of the skills needed to progress. Without straying from the original class the instructor now can teach a student that can focus on the skill set for that particular class. The isolation manifold was designed for safety(to help reserve half of your gas). Independent doubles take a little more skill in balancing the pressure of both tanks and gas management in general. So I would think this would be a more advanced skill. Just my observations

 

[Steve SDI/TDI HQ]

Thanks Steve...that's ok now!

You're welcome, mate. Love the quote in your signature... Rob was a great character with a marvelous sense of place... he is missed.

 

[Otter]

The comparison question about GUE-F was driven by the desire to equivalent training without the 'drama'.

 

[Steve R]

The comparison question about GUE-F was driven by the desire to equivalent training without the 'drama'.

While I may not know exactly what you mean by 'drama', I do believe I get your drift.

I probably should qualify myself as being one of those folks that Steve suggested that may have a bit of an idea of this comparison between the two courses.

Having been through the previous iteration of the current DIR-f myself, and having gone back as a 'buddy' and a re-qual dive of sorts on the current DIR-f "tec", I have a relatively good idea of this course at the working end.

To keep it short, also having had a relatively small hand in drawing up and have taught "a'" version of the Intro class (Thanks here goes Bobby Franklin in my case), I would think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on here at ground level as well.

Re-read my last post in this matter as it is about as accurate as you're going to get.

If you want a GUE dir-f, you're going to have to go get it from the 50-odd instructors in the world that can teach it. If you want what my friend Dan MacKay (GUE Instructor) has affectionately called "The poor man's DIR-f" (reasons afore mentioned), you MAY get it here. It really is too much of a moving target within TDI to give you an answer that is correct across the board in this matter.

Without a doubt there will be similarities, this should go without saying, but I do not believe this was your question.

I run mine as a Tec-Dirf and have always had that in mind, I have no idea how others run theirs. This is the crux of the problem in attempting to answer your question.

 

[ppo2_diver]

"The poor man's DIR-f"

I love it!!!!