some one count to three and say "Go"
PADI TecRec
- Thread starter Mario S Caner
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
MHK
Guest
MikeFerrara:
I believe you are correct in that they are referring to Jill, but some on the WKPP have questioned how she set that record. I believe she claims that it was a 10,000' penetration, the problem I'm told from the guys that have done the tunnel she refers to is that the tunnel is only 5,000' so there is an abundance of questions as to whether she meant 10,000' [ie; 5,000' in and then 5,000' out]. Several of the woman on the WKPP have done penetrations up to 6,500', which using the above logic would mean a 13,000' "penetration".. I don't believe she has ever clarified her position, atleast not that I've heard, perhaps someone else has more updated information..
Hope that helps.
Big Blue Planet
Registered
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
- # of dives
- I'm a Fish!
Mike,
I do not post to sites, as you well know. I was sent this thread by a friend and thought on this rare occasion I would post. I have not read the entire thread and never plan to. Just do not have the time.
You do tend to paint things one way. It is to be expected as you are a GUE Instructor. I am not going to get into a DIR discussion with you. I do not pretend to be an expert in it. I do find it fascinating that you seem to take the stance that you are an expert on every other program that exists, when clearly you are a biased source. Just as I am. I do actively maintain ratings in three agencies, however, so I do know more than one.
Tec Deep was developed to have a system of education that would provide the basis to develop the necessary skills to become a technical diver and then progress on to gain access to further reaches. As far as the materials and development went, they represent considerably more effort than anything else available.
As much as I am sure you will disagree, the program does provide a system that will allow a diver to gain the skills necessary to function well as a technical diver. It is a system and like any system it is only as good as the operator using it. At this level, you cannot system the diver out of the equation. Technical diving is and will always be diver dependent. Unlike some that believe the system can solve all the human problems involved in this sport. Tec Deep does not pretend to have those answers across the board, but does attempt to establish solid community standards for those things that are critical and train the diver as the central critical element.
This is clear in the fact that if you were to do the course in a drysuit, the course could be run as DIR if it was desired by the instructor conducting the course. Of course, by it not being a GUE course I would assume it would immediately be deemed strokery. I would submit that Tec Deep is equally as valid as DIR. I am sure you will disagree. Tec Deep focuses on the diver first, configuration second. It is not DIR, rather an educationally valid, scientifically validated and diver first system.
I can attest to the fact that divers that participate in a Tec Deep course do exit the course capable of doing more than manage equipment and survive the dive. Personally, I would never certify a Tec Deep student that was not capable of doing far more. If they are not operationally, psychologically or attitudinally prepared, they do not pass. This is without exception or reservation. They must be effective from day one and be able to accomplish things on the bottom.
Courses are not done with the divers on their knees. Again, this is simply untrue. I do not progress students further in the course if they are not able to be purposeful in every aspect of the dive at all times. Working position is maintained at all times through all activities. It is not any different from any instructor that is training divers to be optimum and effective. Certainly, we both can agree that the state of training prior to and even today outside of Tec Deep on average is poor. I see divers all the time that frankly suck. Yes, even some were GUE. Of course, the numbers are going to reflect relative size. I am sure there very well might be bad Tec Deep Instructors out there. But, on average Tec Deep will be far better than most.
Tec Deep offers a lot more than what else is available. It is an actual text book. You would think that should be a given. However, few others appear or function very well in that role. I would go so far to say that the average Tec Deep graduate is superior to the average technical diver any where else, but again I am biased. When we look at training at this level, you and I both know regardless of agency that it is instructor dependent.
The prerequisites for becoming a Tec Deep instructor exceed any published elsewhere. But, that is meaningless because tech training is so dependent on the instructor. Agency affiliation is only going to point to a pool of instructors that a new client is going to have research extensively prior to beginning training. A great instructor is going to produce a good tech diver under any system. Some systems make that easier than others.
I know you agree about the systems approach, because we have discussed it in the past. So, no matter what the system of instruction, the diver course is only going to be as good as the instructor applying the system. When a system must be global, standards have to be made to apply to the entire world. Standards are not the definitive answer to what is in a course. They are a minimum. For a program to be global, there has to be provisions that allow for local applications.
Any instructor out there that is teaching to the minimum standard is doing a disservice to their clients. We need to do away with the concept that the standard is what is done and nothing else. If an instructor feels there needs to be more to a course then they can simply add it. The quality of training in the technical diving community is and has been bad. The Tec Deep program exceeds any published standard out there.
GUE, is facing the same problem as they grow. It is well known that not all GUE Instructors are of the same caliber. There has been a great deal of internal politics and upset people. The same problems faced by all the agencies. GUE has solid messages in a good deal of what they preach. I would question 20% of it and most of the method of delivery. But, that is the marketing and branding campaign that seem to be settled on by those in the association. I also question the message when in the same voice GUE says buy only one type of gear from us and that message changes as the available of gear changes from theses sources. Is it a system or a marketing campaign designed to drive business unrelated to training to other companies owned by the Board of GUE?
PADI and DSAT are not perfect, but no one is. They do care about what they are doing and what they have produced. I do not agree with everything in the courses, but there is room for me to add or change what I do to make that blend.
Content development was produced by many sources. I cannot speak to all of those involved because I do not know them all. I do know that Jill had input, as well as Paul. Terrence Tysall contributed a great deal. Many others with considerable experience well beyond your own participated in the development of the courses. I too participated in the development process.
PADI does not view the program as an end for everyone or a huge money maker. It is viewed very much in the same light as a racing development program is by the auto manufacturers. It is clear that technical diving drives innovation in the sport. This is seen as of value to be a part of by PADI. I am not an employee of PADI or DSAT. I do work with them regularly independently. PADI has not been absent for the technical diving community. They have sponsored many programs for decades. Many members are very active in the technical diving community. As you are, having been a PADI member yourself. PADI may well have never gone down this path if the traditional technical diving agencies had not begun training recreationally. But beyond that, the PADI membership had been requesting it for a long time. I would not have participated in the development process if I did not feel DSAT would do a superior job. They have.
If you are trying to imply that the Tec Deep program was developed in a DSAT vacuum you are simply mistaken. I will not speak for Jill. I do suggest that if you have questions about any of her claims that you call her on the phone and ask her directly rather than speculating about something you were neither present for nor have any direct knowledge of. I am sure she would be more than happy to discuss any aspect of her diving career with anyone. She is a nice person.
Now, if you want to fault her for problems of the W2 project simply because she was there, then are you not casting stones in a glass house. I do not think anyone would blame you for the fatalities you witness while diving the Doria. I certainly do not. Guilt by association for her is only acceptable if you are willing to take it for the Doria when you were there. I do not think that is reasonable. Besides, making light of any fatality is unprofessional and in bad taste. They are all tragedies and we can point to fault in any incidence. But, that does not allow anyone to learn from any of it.
WKPP has an impressive list of accomplishments, but there have been plenty of incidences that are simply never made public. Those incidences, I am sure, have provided valuable lessons to the project. However, by not making that information public, no one else can use those lessons to prevent them in the future on other projects.
Much of what you suggest is simply unsupported by any data or evidence. Produce the data if you feel the need to make statements about so much of this. The data simply does not exist. It is based on antidotal observations rather than scientific evidence.
To be continued...
I do not post to sites, as you well know. I was sent this thread by a friend and thought on this rare occasion I would post. I have not read the entire thread and never plan to. Just do not have the time.
You do tend to paint things one way. It is to be expected as you are a GUE Instructor. I am not going to get into a DIR discussion with you. I do not pretend to be an expert in it. I do find it fascinating that you seem to take the stance that you are an expert on every other program that exists, when clearly you are a biased source. Just as I am. I do actively maintain ratings in three agencies, however, so I do know more than one.
Tec Deep was developed to have a system of education that would provide the basis to develop the necessary skills to become a technical diver and then progress on to gain access to further reaches. As far as the materials and development went, they represent considerably more effort than anything else available.
As much as I am sure you will disagree, the program does provide a system that will allow a diver to gain the skills necessary to function well as a technical diver. It is a system and like any system it is only as good as the operator using it. At this level, you cannot system the diver out of the equation. Technical diving is and will always be diver dependent. Unlike some that believe the system can solve all the human problems involved in this sport. Tec Deep does not pretend to have those answers across the board, but does attempt to establish solid community standards for those things that are critical and train the diver as the central critical element.
This is clear in the fact that if you were to do the course in a drysuit, the course could be run as DIR if it was desired by the instructor conducting the course. Of course, by it not being a GUE course I would assume it would immediately be deemed strokery. I would submit that Tec Deep is equally as valid as DIR. I am sure you will disagree. Tec Deep focuses on the diver first, configuration second. It is not DIR, rather an educationally valid, scientifically validated and diver first system.
I can attest to the fact that divers that participate in a Tec Deep course do exit the course capable of doing more than manage equipment and survive the dive. Personally, I would never certify a Tec Deep student that was not capable of doing far more. If they are not operationally, psychologically or attitudinally prepared, they do not pass. This is without exception or reservation. They must be effective from day one and be able to accomplish things on the bottom.
Courses are not done with the divers on their knees. Again, this is simply untrue. I do not progress students further in the course if they are not able to be purposeful in every aspect of the dive at all times. Working position is maintained at all times through all activities. It is not any different from any instructor that is training divers to be optimum and effective. Certainly, we both can agree that the state of training prior to and even today outside of Tec Deep on average is poor. I see divers all the time that frankly suck. Yes, even some were GUE. Of course, the numbers are going to reflect relative size. I am sure there very well might be bad Tec Deep Instructors out there. But, on average Tec Deep will be far better than most.
Tec Deep offers a lot more than what else is available. It is an actual text book. You would think that should be a given. However, few others appear or function very well in that role. I would go so far to say that the average Tec Deep graduate is superior to the average technical diver any where else, but again I am biased. When we look at training at this level, you and I both know regardless of agency that it is instructor dependent.
The prerequisites for becoming a Tec Deep instructor exceed any published elsewhere. But, that is meaningless because tech training is so dependent on the instructor. Agency affiliation is only going to point to a pool of instructors that a new client is going to have research extensively prior to beginning training. A great instructor is going to produce a good tech diver under any system. Some systems make that easier than others.
I know you agree about the systems approach, because we have discussed it in the past. So, no matter what the system of instruction, the diver course is only going to be as good as the instructor applying the system. When a system must be global, standards have to be made to apply to the entire world. Standards are not the definitive answer to what is in a course. They are a minimum. For a program to be global, there has to be provisions that allow for local applications.
Any instructor out there that is teaching to the minimum standard is doing a disservice to their clients. We need to do away with the concept that the standard is what is done and nothing else. If an instructor feels there needs to be more to a course then they can simply add it. The quality of training in the technical diving community is and has been bad. The Tec Deep program exceeds any published standard out there.
GUE, is facing the same problem as they grow. It is well known that not all GUE Instructors are of the same caliber. There has been a great deal of internal politics and upset people. The same problems faced by all the agencies. GUE has solid messages in a good deal of what they preach. I would question 20% of it and most of the method of delivery. But, that is the marketing and branding campaign that seem to be settled on by those in the association. I also question the message when in the same voice GUE says buy only one type of gear from us and that message changes as the available of gear changes from theses sources. Is it a system or a marketing campaign designed to drive business unrelated to training to other companies owned by the Board of GUE?
PADI and DSAT are not perfect, but no one is. They do care about what they are doing and what they have produced. I do not agree with everything in the courses, but there is room for me to add or change what I do to make that blend.
Content development was produced by many sources. I cannot speak to all of those involved because I do not know them all. I do know that Jill had input, as well as Paul. Terrence Tysall contributed a great deal. Many others with considerable experience well beyond your own participated in the development of the courses. I too participated in the development process.
PADI does not view the program as an end for everyone or a huge money maker. It is viewed very much in the same light as a racing development program is by the auto manufacturers. It is clear that technical diving drives innovation in the sport. This is seen as of value to be a part of by PADI. I am not an employee of PADI or DSAT. I do work with them regularly independently. PADI has not been absent for the technical diving community. They have sponsored many programs for decades. Many members are very active in the technical diving community. As you are, having been a PADI member yourself. PADI may well have never gone down this path if the traditional technical diving agencies had not begun training recreationally. But beyond that, the PADI membership had been requesting it for a long time. I would not have participated in the development process if I did not feel DSAT would do a superior job. They have.
If you are trying to imply that the Tec Deep program was developed in a DSAT vacuum you are simply mistaken. I will not speak for Jill. I do suggest that if you have questions about any of her claims that you call her on the phone and ask her directly rather than speculating about something you were neither present for nor have any direct knowledge of. I am sure she would be more than happy to discuss any aspect of her diving career with anyone. She is a nice person.
Now, if you want to fault her for problems of the W2 project simply because she was there, then are you not casting stones in a glass house. I do not think anyone would blame you for the fatalities you witness while diving the Doria. I certainly do not. Guilt by association for her is only acceptable if you are willing to take it for the Doria when you were there. I do not think that is reasonable. Besides, making light of any fatality is unprofessional and in bad taste. They are all tragedies and we can point to fault in any incidence. But, that does not allow anyone to learn from any of it.
WKPP has an impressive list of accomplishments, but there have been plenty of incidences that are simply never made public. Those incidences, I am sure, have provided valuable lessons to the project. However, by not making that information public, no one else can use those lessons to prevent them in the future on other projects.
Much of what you suggest is simply unsupported by any data or evidence. Produce the data if you feel the need to make statements about so much of this. The data simply does not exist. It is based on antidotal observations rather than scientific evidence.
To be continued...
Big Blue Planet
Registered
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
- # of dives
- I'm a Fish!
GUE has a preselected audience. It makes life easier if you are going to uninvite everyone that does not fit a strict profile. The problem is that most of the people on this list would be among the uninvited. WKPP has done very interesting practical decompression work acting as their own test subjects. But, again it is a prescreened audience. If you try to make a system that fits an inclusive audience of the people that are going to do the dives anyway, even if they are not trained, you have to build that system to account for that global audience. GUE developed its system for large cave passage. They have applied that to the other areas they dive. Areas that they once said were strokery become accepted once their project has the need for it. This is just unrealistic when you are designing a system that has to be applied globally.
You have never been short on your own opinion, which is fine, neither am I. I would suggest that rather than speculate about so many of these matters you simply pick up the phone and ask people. It is so much nicer to carry on these types of conversation face to face or voice to voice. The whole reason I stay away from the boards is that there are just so many people on them who would prefer to engage in circular arguments and pick apart a response rather than carry on a truly productive exchange where people actually grow and learn.
You have done a lot of diving and should be proud of what you have done, but remember there was a day where you were brand new asking me where you should train for technical diving during your Divemaster course. Different opinions do not make them wrong.
Valid and highly scientific projects in every possible diving environment have been accomplished using the methodology in the Tec Deep program. NOAA has found the systems valid enough to allow what is being taught to be used for their projects. The program was built from a foundation of working technical diving projects. The Cambrian Foundation finds the methodology acceptable and they have a reciprocity agreement with NOAA. Neither organization endorses the Tec Deep program, but they do not do that for any program.
Let's be clear. There are more than one valid system for conducting technical diving operations available in spite of what is being said. Some have more important things to do with their time, like actually dive.
We will never agree on our stance on where and how deep air should be used. Remove all the BS and air is jut a tool, just like helium. Air is an acceptable tool for diving. Where that line is drawn in the end is up to the operator. What is not said is that for all the noise, most of those who say air is the work of the devil below 130 are the same people that would strap it on and dive beyond 130 if the need arises and there was no helium. Mike, I know you are one of them. It is hypocritical to be so unrealistic.
There are areas of the world where helium is impossible to get or unbelievably expensive. In a perfect world trimix is a better tool, but it is not always there. The limit on Tec Deep is 165 to the maximum depth. Does not mean the instructor has to go there. There are environments where air is a poor tool below 100 feet. There are other environments where the right diver can effectively and safely use air below 165. Is air as effective as trimix at those depths? Hell no. But, be real. 165 in good visibility and warm water is one atmosphere beyond 130. That is simply not that big a deal and I know you know that.
Mike, you are taking a political stance rather than a practical one. You have seen air used effectively at depth. I think we can all agree that air at depth is a second choice tool and that extreme depth is out of the question. Deep air records and for that matter depth records in general are pointless and serve little purpose. It is just people chasing numbers on a depth gauge, trying to be the best hockey players in Brazil. No one really cares and it just does not matter.
So, not trying to pick on you or make it personal. You know me, not my thing, but let's keep it real and not be so over the top.
Effective diving is good no matter whose flag we are waving or what agency's initials we have a number with. Good projects are just fun to learn about and much more fun to enjoy rather than tear apart. You and I have both lost a lot of friends. Let's make those memory's count for something by educating rather than tearing people down. This community is just too small to not be working together to make things better. I know you agree on that.
Grant W. Graves
You have never been short on your own opinion, which is fine, neither am I. I would suggest that rather than speculate about so many of these matters you simply pick up the phone and ask people. It is so much nicer to carry on these types of conversation face to face or voice to voice. The whole reason I stay away from the boards is that there are just so many people on them who would prefer to engage in circular arguments and pick apart a response rather than carry on a truly productive exchange where people actually grow and learn.
You have done a lot of diving and should be proud of what you have done, but remember there was a day where you were brand new asking me where you should train for technical diving during your Divemaster course. Different opinions do not make them wrong.
Valid and highly scientific projects in every possible diving environment have been accomplished using the methodology in the Tec Deep program. NOAA has found the systems valid enough to allow what is being taught to be used for their projects. The program was built from a foundation of working technical diving projects. The Cambrian Foundation finds the methodology acceptable and they have a reciprocity agreement with NOAA. Neither organization endorses the Tec Deep program, but they do not do that for any program.
Let's be clear. There are more than one valid system for conducting technical diving operations available in spite of what is being said. Some have more important things to do with their time, like actually dive.
We will never agree on our stance on where and how deep air should be used. Remove all the BS and air is jut a tool, just like helium. Air is an acceptable tool for diving. Where that line is drawn in the end is up to the operator. What is not said is that for all the noise, most of those who say air is the work of the devil below 130 are the same people that would strap it on and dive beyond 130 if the need arises and there was no helium. Mike, I know you are one of them. It is hypocritical to be so unrealistic.
There are areas of the world where helium is impossible to get or unbelievably expensive. In a perfect world trimix is a better tool, but it is not always there. The limit on Tec Deep is 165 to the maximum depth. Does not mean the instructor has to go there. There are environments where air is a poor tool below 100 feet. There are other environments where the right diver can effectively and safely use air below 165. Is air as effective as trimix at those depths? Hell no. But, be real. 165 in good visibility and warm water is one atmosphere beyond 130. That is simply not that big a deal and I know you know that.
Mike, you are taking a political stance rather than a practical one. You have seen air used effectively at depth. I think we can all agree that air at depth is a second choice tool and that extreme depth is out of the question. Deep air records and for that matter depth records in general are pointless and serve little purpose. It is just people chasing numbers on a depth gauge, trying to be the best hockey players in Brazil. No one really cares and it just does not matter.
So, not trying to pick on you or make it personal. You know me, not my thing, but let's keep it real and not be so over the top.
Effective diving is good no matter whose flag we are waving or what agency's initials we have a number with. Good projects are just fun to learn about and much more fun to enjoy rather than tear apart. You and I have both lost a lot of friends. Let's make those memory's count for something by educating rather than tearing people down. This community is just too small to not be working together to make things better. I know you agree on that.
Grant W. Graves
Bravo!
"Deep air records and for that matter depth records in general are pointless and serve little purpose. It is just people chasing numbers on a depth gauge, trying to be the best hockey players in Brazil. No one really cares and it just does not matter."
Now this short paragraph should be part of every class! OW thru Tec Deep!
theskull
"Deep air records and for that matter depth records in general are pointless and serve little purpose. It is just people chasing numbers on a depth gauge, trying to be the best hockey players in Brazil. No one really cares and it just does not matter."
Now this short paragraph should be part of every class! OW thru Tec Deep!
theskull
Constructive debate is healthy....lets remember that in our diving community, we all want pretty much the same thing....to enjoy the underwater environment....before its gone.
I agree with theskull and while I have said similar things in my classes I will use Grant's quote....
I agree with theskull and while I have said similar things in my classes I will use Grant's quote....
MHK
Guest
Hey Grant, nice to see you jumping into the frey. I'm not sure if you will be checking in for follow-up's but hopefully someone will forward it to you. Hey Grant, just for future reference can you make your response a tad bit more cogent, I have ADD ;-). Also, I note that you said you hadn't read all of the posts in this thread, but frankly from my perspective this has been one of the more productive threads we've had in a long time and I see little evidence of flames.
That being said, let me see if I can clarify for you my overall objections which I suspect, as you say, we may just have to agree to disagree.
On a broarder level I see the Deep Air program as catering to an audience that for the longest time PADI has forcefully spoken out against. In other words, it speaks to caving to market demand when at it's core PADI knows that Deep Air is excessively irresponsible and dangerous. I'd love someone from PADI to reconcile Drew Richardsons' very own editorial in PADI's very own training magazine encouraging diver's to speak out against any agency that promotes or offer's deep air training. PADI has never reconciled their differing positions, so for me I'm suspicious of the motivations.
As you state" If you try to make a system that fits an inclusive audience [ emphasis added] of people that are going to do the dives anyway,... you have to build a system to account for that Global audience"
Grant, I have a major problem with that premise. That is sorta like saying college kids are going to drink and drive so perhaps we should offer drunk driver's-ed classes. Enabling a dangerous act is vastly different then standing tall and speaking out against it so many of us see PADI's entrance into the deep air market as a sell out. They previously asked their very own members to speak out against it, but then didn't have the courage of their convictions to stand against it.
As for picking up the phone, Grant you know me well, who do I call?? I've been trying to get PADI on record for years.
As for the students on their knees , can I take it from your comments that you agree at his level of diving that putting students on their knees is an unjustifiable act??
I'm trying to be responsive to as many of your comments as possible, perhaps we can use smaller posts and go line by line next time.
As for Jill, I agree her and Paul are very nice people and I have no problem with them personally, in fact, I thought Paul was particularly helpful when we were all in Akumal. I'm not sure Jill and I saw eye-to-eye about my gear configuration ;-), but let's not go there ;-), nor do I fault her "simply because she was there". Grant that is a bit of hyperbole, Jill was the Dive Safety Officer of the project, and in the short time they were there they accomplished very little, despite a budget of over $1,000,000. In short, they had a few months of direct and daily access and didn't get anywhere near accomplishing what the volunteer WKPP support diver do on a weekly basis, nor did they come anywhere near what George or JJ have done. It's also a matter of factual record that one diver got bent, one diver toxed and a third diver died. I'm just stating facts. To the extent that I fault anyone on that project, it's the laxed attitude towards solo diving that permiates the project. Furthermore, that was way beyond the scope of anything we were discussing, it was a paranthetical in response to someone else's comments. I'd just as well move on from that entire discussion base.
Anyway Grant, I'm grateful that you decided to post and hope you'll stay around for a while, but it's hard for me to pick out pieces of a program that I like versus pieces of the program that I don't like when the larger picture is that I don't think the program should exist in the first place.
Let me have your thoughts..
Thanks again for joining our little cyber community..
That being said, let me see if I can clarify for you my overall objections which I suspect, as you say, we may just have to agree to disagree.
On a broarder level I see the Deep Air program as catering to an audience that for the longest time PADI has forcefully spoken out against. In other words, it speaks to caving to market demand when at it's core PADI knows that Deep Air is excessively irresponsible and dangerous. I'd love someone from PADI to reconcile Drew Richardsons' very own editorial in PADI's very own training magazine encouraging diver's to speak out against any agency that promotes or offer's deep air training. PADI has never reconciled their differing positions, so for me I'm suspicious of the motivations.
As you state" If you try to make a system that fits an inclusive audience [ emphasis added] of people that are going to do the dives anyway,... you have to build a system to account for that Global audience"
Grant, I have a major problem with that premise. That is sorta like saying college kids are going to drink and drive so perhaps we should offer drunk driver's-ed classes. Enabling a dangerous act is vastly different then standing tall and speaking out against it so many of us see PADI's entrance into the deep air market as a sell out. They previously asked their very own members to speak out against it, but then didn't have the courage of their convictions to stand against it.
As for picking up the phone, Grant you know me well, who do I call?? I've been trying to get PADI on record for years.
As for the students on their knees , can I take it from your comments that you agree at his level of diving that putting students on their knees is an unjustifiable act??
I'm trying to be responsive to as many of your comments as possible, perhaps we can use smaller posts and go line by line next time.
As for Jill, I agree her and Paul are very nice people and I have no problem with them personally, in fact, I thought Paul was particularly helpful when we were all in Akumal. I'm not sure Jill and I saw eye-to-eye about my gear configuration ;-), but let's not go there ;-), nor do I fault her "simply because she was there". Grant that is a bit of hyperbole, Jill was the Dive Safety Officer of the project, and in the short time they were there they accomplished very little, despite a budget of over $1,000,000. In short, they had a few months of direct and daily access and didn't get anywhere near accomplishing what the volunteer WKPP support diver do on a weekly basis, nor did they come anywhere near what George or JJ have done. It's also a matter of factual record that one diver got bent, one diver toxed and a third diver died. I'm just stating facts. To the extent that I fault anyone on that project, it's the laxed attitude towards solo diving that permiates the project. Furthermore, that was way beyond the scope of anything we were discussing, it was a paranthetical in response to someone else's comments. I'd just as well move on from that entire discussion base.
Anyway Grant, I'm grateful that you decided to post and hope you'll stay around for a while, but it's hard for me to pick out pieces of a program that I like versus pieces of the program that I don't like when the larger picture is that I don't think the program should exist in the first place.
Let me have your thoughts..
Thanks again for joining our little cyber community..
I dont think you ever will get get them on the record mike, and you certainly wont get them on the board.MHK:
I dont think they see the need to justify themselves, history will do that for them, good or bad.
Unfortnately even as a PADI instructor I couldn't get them to justify their views. You seem to have two choices. 1, Take it or 2, leave it.
"Any instructor out there that is teaching to the minimum standard is doing a disservice to their clients. We need to do away with the concept that the standard is what is done and nothing else. If an instructor feels there needs to be more to a course then they can simply add it. The quality of training in the technical diving community is and has been bad. The Tec Deep program exceeds any published standard out there."
Lets look at the above quote...
I totally agree that more should be done than the minimum but...
Maybe if people didn't sue over stupid s^&t there wouldn't be this minimum standard c$@p. I teach above and beyond the minimum standards, and I (like to) think that I produce much better than average divers; however each time I wonder that if for some reason something went wrong (because once you begin to teach you realize there is always that one person who will screw it up no matter how many precautions you take), you are f&^%$ed.
Welcome to an instructor's world.
Lets look at the above quote...
I totally agree that more should be done than the minimum but...
Maybe if people didn't sue over stupid s^&t there wouldn't be this minimum standard c$@p. I teach above and beyond the minimum standards, and I (like to) think that I produce much better than average divers; however each time I wonder that if for some reason something went wrong (because once you begin to teach you realize there is always that one person who will screw it up no matter how many precautions you take), you are f&^%$ed.
Welcome to an instructor's world.
Similar threads
