More than "Advanced", but not really "Technical"

[gcarter]

When did I specifically tell anyone to get training they already had?

You may have, may not have, I could not be bothered to go back and check, but I will ask your own question back, are you the only poster in this thread? Where did I say it was you I was referring to? AFAIR, I did not point to any individual.

This is getting beyond silly.

 

[boulderjohn]

You may have, may not have, I could not be bothered to go back and check, but I will ask your own question back, are you the only poster in this thread? Where did I say it was you I was referring to? AFAIR, I did not point to any individual.

This is getting beyond silly.

Posts #231 and #238. But you are right--this is getting beyond silly.

 

[gcarter]

Posts #231 and #238. But you are right--this is getting beyond silly.

Those posts were replies to you. Not the same thing. I am sorry if you cannot see that.

 

[lowviz]

...//... I am advocating keeping divers out of the space between rec and tec in execution of dives, without the proper training. Study all you want. It will make smarter. If I caught someone on the hang, not in a emergancy situation, on a boat I was diving off.... I would start asking the hard questions. ...//...

I do not imply any disrespect with this question, but I find it highly relevant to the topic of "proper" (your word) and "formal" (my word) dive training:

How is it that you challenge divers in deco when your bio states that you don't hold a single (completed) formal technical certification? If you are also the captain or crew of the Waterpirate, you have every right on that boat, but not as a technical diver, only as a captain or crew.

 

[waterpirate]

No offense taken. My bio clearly states that the path I am on is not normal and should not be followed. Truth is, I wonder sometimes how I cheated the reaper as long as I did. My bag of luck held out long enough for the experiance and age to impart some wisdom. Also that initial training I recieved in 1981 is not what is given now.
I am still on the road to full trimix. I presented to an instructor who test dove me and agreed to train me at that level. I agreed to take the card from his hand only when he held it out, not before. So wisdom, age, and experiance is what gives me the right to try and help/admonish divers who I see " out over their skis". It is the culmination of those things, not a card that support my position.
Eric

 

[boulderjohn]

Absolutely not. What you choose not to respond to is at least as meaningful as what you do say.

I guess I have a funny habit when dealing with social media. When I see something being discussed that I don't feel I can respond to with anything valuable, I don't respond to it. When I see something that I can respond to but others have already covered it pretty well, I don't respond to it. When I see something being discussed and feel I can say something that will be at all helpful, I respond. I guess that must make me an odd duck.

I honestly tried to add information that might be helpful to the instruction, but apparently I included information that some people didn't want to read. I apologize and will unscubscribe so that I won't make that error again.

 

[doctormike]

This is one of the strangest, most convoluted threads that I have ever read. Most of the posts now seem to be about procedural stuff, meta-posts about the posts themselves.

What was the original question? Something about split fins, right?

 

[lowviz]

This is one of the strangest, most convoluted threads that I have ever read. ...//...

Agreed, but I like to allow my threads to wander. I finally got the answer that I was looking for, well, maybe more like finally understand the problem.

The problem with giving formal technical dive instruction to recreational only divers is seen quite differently by technical instructors in general and by recreational divers in general. I was unaware of this until the last pages of this thread. It now seems pretty clear that the huge disconnect has to do with the whole concept of advocacy and liability.

 

[waterpirate]

I think threads should be able to wander around as the focus changes and evolves with the depth and quality of the posters. The dive ED curriculum as evolved into a structured block system with clear goals for each advancement. In 1981 that was not the case. There is no right or wrong or beter, it is just different. The one thing that has come as a plus is that more people are diving, and it is not just for dare devils anymore.
Eric

 

[DevonDiver]

Thanks Andy. Very interesting post that just shows how two people can be discussing the same topic, possibly even using some of the same terminology, but still be worlds apart in understanding. In my field advocacy is a frequently used concept that promotes the interest and rights of the client. In theory, it supports the individual, not the agency or profession. It encourages education to better enable the individual to determine the choices and actions that are best for them rather than just the standard procedures (or treatments).

So yeah, I can see how we can look at this very differently.

Yes, that's reasonable. Can I ask? Does your field involve threat to life or health, should the individual make the wrong choices?

I do want to be clear, I advocate appropriate training for advanced diving activities, which if done wrong, pose a significant threat to life. "Appropriate training" does not necessarily mean a formal certification course - it just means access and involvement with practical and theoretical expertise. I, personally, don't give a hoot about 'licenses' and c-cards. When it comes to diving, the proof is in the pudding, as we Brits say.. That said, for the vast majority of divers, the only realistic access to such expertise is through a formal, paid, course.