PADI TecRec

[Big Blue Planet]

Okay another monster one,

Find myself getting sucked in again. I will address Mike's questions with as much frankness as I can manage without speaking for others.

First, PADI/DSAT, would not have gotten involved in this area unless the membership had asked for it repeatedly. This includes myself many times. Also, they would have left it alone for a lot longer if the tech only agencies had not begun to teach recreationally. With that being said, Jill did not develop the program. She participated on content review and made suggestions. If you want to know the true origins of the program I can address it because I was there at the first meeting. Terrence Tysall and I had a meeting with Drew and Karl to discuss PADI/DSAT getting involved in developing technical diving courses in, I believe, 1998. October to be exact. We were certainly not the first to discuss it with them, but things did begin to move forward after that meeting.

From that meeting, began a process of investigation. Course development continued for launch at DEMA 2000. If memory serves, the development involved a great deal of technical divers from all over the planet. All of these technical divers had extensive experience in expedition diving and exploration. The truth is that a great deal of the foundation of the program is derived from what Terrence had made his personal teaching methodology.

For years, both Terrence and I had taught our own programs with content and diving that more than covered the existing tech course standards. We both felt that the existing course offerings and textbooks that were available at the time were grossly underwelming. I would find it hard to believe if anyone would disagree with the statement that DSAT does know how to produce very good training materials. Built with the right course philosophy and approach, the system is a good one.

Mike you can feel that your agency is superior. It is good to have pride in what you have worked hard to build. I assume that any good instructor will produce a good diver. I will not agree to the feel of the statements you make that yours is the only one way that makes an effective technical diver. It is just not true. In the end, we all swim in the same water. GUE is not the only agency teaching from a system.

The use of a system is important. Learning one way of doing things will always produce better results than a survey course will because the diver leaves knowing at least how to do one way very well. Survey courses that introduce several ways to accomplish survival skills leaves divers wondering which method to use just when that should not be the issue. However, it is very important to arm people with the ability to workup changes when necessary for the needs of a dive.

I view it as rig for wreck and dive cave, but with that you must be multimode and multi-environment capable. The diving is diver dependent. We have to train the diver first and fit the system to the need. We disagree on how this is best accomplished.

Being effective in the water will always out weigh achievements. I would applaud a dive that is done well in shallow water over a bad one done for no particularly good reason at great depth, distance or duration.

Mike quote.

Secondly, I did speak to Karl about my concerns, in fact, Karl and I dove together when he was beta testing the program and I had the opportuntiy to review the program even before it was ever released and I did raise these issues to which I still haven't received a response.

Continued...

Have you really asked Mike? Pick up the phone and ask the man. I have read some of the former posts. Mike I do have to disagree with your statement that you had a view of the course as a reviewer. Never happened. When we dived together it was a Cambrian trip, not a PADI event. You may have looked at copy, I do not know, but you were not consulted for comment formally or informally.

I cannot speak for Drew. He may have made such statements. I am sure these statements were well prior to the move to develop technical diving programs. Everyone is entitled to change their mind. Applying circumstances from that time to the current situation is like looking at what was done twenty years ago then applying modern techniques to pull apart what they did. Context of the time has to be taken into account.

If people are that concerned, pick up the phone and call those you have questions for. I never have any trouble reaching anyone I need to at PADI. I would say that you should remember these are people just like all of us. If you have a normal conversation with them they are very happy to discuss almost anything, but if you go in looking for blood they will shut down like any of us would. No one wants to fight off slings and arrows. But, in a civil conversation, I certainly do not mind addressing real questions posed to me, nor do they.

But, you are right. We will have to agree to disagree. I do not view the use of air to teach or dive in 165 as reckless or endangering anyone. We do disagree on air as a tool. I do not view it as a magical line in the water column where air becomes impossible to use. Does air have issues that need to be addressed if it is the choice as the tool to make deep dives? Yes. Is it the best choice for deep dives all things being equal. Probably not. But, that does not mean it is useless or unacceptable to train in its use beyond 130 feet, 40M. I mean some in this air is evil movement would have us breathing helium now at the surface because air is evil. Come on. On your dives on the tower, you entered the water with one team diving air. I was one of them. I can frankly say that I functioned well and could have dealt with problems that arrised.

Was I impaired from where I was on the surface. Certainly. You well know I will never advocate the use of air at depth. That is a personal choice of the diver and the team and the project. But, I will not sit here and pretend that air is somehow magically evil simply because you cross a depth threshold. You well know that my reasons for diving air beyond the recreational limits is a choice mainly dictated by mission needs for projects in remote areas and with NOAA. I train for effectiveness on the bottom and the ability to produce results with or without the optimum tools. So, I either maintain my capability to use those tools I have to use or stop doing the projects. I choose to do the projects. Others can make their own decisions based on what their needs are. Sometimes, air is just simpler to go do a dive with. Sometimes the detail of the work makes helium based mixtures the better choice. But, it is a choice.

Of course, I am the poster child for strokery. I am not here to sword fight or get into a pissing match. I do my dives and participate in projects that I am passionate about. I try to be better this dive than the last and better tomorrow than today. I use every dive as a learning experience.

I certainly would never say diving beyond 200 feet/60M is acceptable on air. Anything beyond a ppO2 of 1.4 is certainly not the best choice. Certainly, former glory stories of excessive depths discussed in the past are off base with our current understanding. A line at 165 is not arbitrary. It has far more to do with what is already recognized in Europe as the limit with proper training. Plus, there just is nothing wrong with it. You will never agree, but I question whether you would stick to it if faced with the decision not to dive or dive with air if the target was tempting enough. Certainly, air is not the best choice, but sometimes it is all you got and there is nothing wrong with it when temptered with proper predive preparation and analysis.

I do not believe that training with a narcosis load with the proper supervision is wrong, especially when the student is properly trained. I would say, this is in open water with good conditions. If the environment is significantly cold, the visibility is poor, diving in any overhead environment or when highly technical or detailed work must occur the choice of air as a proper tool gets shallower. But, I do believe we live in a world where divers are responsible for their own actions and need to have the ability to rationally choose the best tool for all the conditions facing them. Blindly dictating diving policy for all conditions and all environments with one set of tools is not realistic. Life is just too complicated.

Students on their knee is not an unjustifiable act. It depends on the context. If it is early in the process and skills training is the focus, sometimes it is easier to introduce the skill with the student stable on the bottom. Is it better to have them do this in the pool and treat the openwater as if it is always an on event. Sure. Also, if there is an emergency and the bottom is needed, then fine. If you are in a non or low impact environment and conducting deco, laying on the bottom poses little concerns. I mean how many times have either one of us tucked ourselves in cuts in Little River during deco.

I will say once you enter operational mission oriented dives in a course the students have no need nor should they be contacting the bottom and doing all they can to not even impact the bottom. I will not pass a candidate if they are not able to minimize their impact in the environment. Nor should anyone, DSAT or any other course. We have to bring stundents to an effective level appropriate for the level of training.

to be continued

 

[Big Blue Planet]

Then, the student must continue to apply the methods and mindset to make it automatic. No course will allow for automaticity. It can build the foundation. The diver has to create a ritual for it to become habitual. This will always be a mileage sport. No course can provide the training to replace practical experience. But, if a diver leaves a tech course without being able to participate as an effective participant in a project they have no business being passed. They should be able to function well in the support role as well.

I will not comment on the circumstances of the W2 project or what was accomplished because I was not there. I have little knowledge of the challenges faced or what the mission of the project was, nor is it important in this discussion. Besides, I think all of those who have explored there deserve credit. It takes commitment of time, passion and money that few understand or can comprehend. They just have no idea.

This sport is just microscopically small. If we want to progress, we have to work together to advance the sport. I certainly would have preferred to see a cooperative effort to explore Wakalla with the full strength and support of the entire industry to blow the doors off that system. Of course, another karst window would probably help even more.

Enough.

G2

 

[roakey]

Any instructor out there that is teaching to the minimum standard is doing a disservice to their clients.

Actually I'd like to take a look at this quote as well.

Any agency which has minimum standards so low that a PADI Course Director would say this about his OWN agency is doing a disservice to the sport/industry as a whole, never mind the instructors that are "teaching to the minimum" doing a disservice to their clients!

This is the most concise statement from someone "in the know" that not only is PADI's standards way, waaaay to low, but PADI doesn't give a hoot about improving them.

That reply is a keeper, that's for sure!

Roak

 

[MikeFerrara]

There's not reason that an instructor shouldn't be able to teach per the minimum standards and teach a good class.

The only reason to leave the standards sub-standards is to allow shorter more cost effective classes that are by default condoned by the agency.

Of course this is even more true for entry level training where the classes are sometimes sold for $99.

If the agency wants more taught or wants it taught better they should say so by putting it in writting in their training standards.

 

[boomx5]

There's no reason that an instructor shouldn't be able to teach per the minimum standards and teach a good class.

What should the minumum standards be? Or, is it simply subjective to the training agency. Or, maybe it should be subjective to the instructor, since some people always say that's what you need to do ( find a good instructor). Or, maybe the minimum standards should be set by the student/consumer who is paying for the class. Should the standards be driven by market demand ( what the consumer demands) or by an agency who only cares about doing things the right way and not just earning more $$?

I know you and I have talked about this a bit Mike. The quality shops have a hard time competing with the cut-rate shops that only offer discounted training. So what happens is they turn out inferior divers; divers trained to the minimum standards because of the "puppy mill" mentality of get them in and out as quick as possible.

 

[Mako Mark]

Any agency which has minimum standards so low that a PADI Course Director would say this about his OWN agency is doing a disservice to the sport/industry as a whole, never mind the instructors that are "teaching to the minimum" doing a disservice to their clients!

This is the most concise statement from someone "in the know" that not only is PADI's standards way, waaaay to low, but PADI doesn't give a hoot about improving them.


Roak

Oh gimme a break,

Being a course director has nothing to do with it, course directors are not married to PADI, are not spokespeople for PADI, and this quote did not apear to me to be agency specific and nor should it be.

PADI/DSAT standards as have been discussed exhaustively in this thread are actually higher than most agencies, specifically with regards to pre-requisites and number of dives, as Grant clearly stated in the sentence after the one you quoted.

 

[MikeFerrara]

What should the minumum standards be? Or, is it simply subjective to the training agency. Or, maybe it should be subjective to the instructor, since some people always say that's what you need to do ( find a good instructor). Or, maybe the minimum standards should be set by the student/consumer who is paying for the class. Should the standards be driven by market demand ( what the consumer demands) or by an agency who only cares about doing things the right way and not just earning more $$?

I know you and I have talked about this a bit Mike. The quality shops have a hard time competing with the cut-rate shops that only offer discounted training. So what happens is they turn out inferior divers; divers trained to the minimum standards because of the "puppy mill" mentality of get them in and out as quick as possible.

U fortunately the consumer market seems happy enough with things the way they are.

But of course they don't have anything to compare to.

 

[roakey]

Being a course director has nothing to do with it, course directors are not married to PADI, are not spokespeople for PADI, and this quote did not apear to me to be agency specific and nor should it be.

Wrong, wrong, right, wrong -- Since he did not exclude PADI form the statement, it is included. Simple English.

Roak

 

[MHK]

Hey Grant we really need to work on the length of your posts ;-). BTW, in case many of you haven't figured out Grant and I know each other for quite a while and I consider him a friend, we just disagree on the issue.

Grant, since you are willing to join us, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind answering a few questions?

Let's assume that we agree to disagree respecting narcosis, as I have repeatedyly stated that narcosis is the smaller of my concern(s), but for some reason I can't get anyone from PADI to speak to the increased C02 retention and accumulation that is caused in part by the density of the gas at depth. If PADI is advancing a theory that air to 165' is safe under "certain" circumstances, and under "controlled" and "properly supervised" dives for purposes of narcosis, what specific, [ or scientific evidence, if you have any] is taught by PADI to reduce C02 accumulation? Bearing in mind that even you ceede the point that air isn't recommended for certain dives, how do you account for the fact that C02 is 130 times more narcotic then N2. So if 79% N2 is only appropriate under "certain and supervised" occasions, what is taught in the PADI class respecting C02???

Secondly Grant, I doubt we'll ever agree that putting a student on their knees at this level of diving is appropriate under any circumstances. If the student needs additional experience or work to learn to handle skills at this level, and can only do so on their knees, then my feeling is that they have no business yet diving at this level, and rather then an agency or instructor enabling an otherwise unqualified diver by putting him on his knees, I'd prefer that they turn the diver away and tell him to get more experience. I disagree with that practice at the OW level, but I see absolutely no place for it whatsoever where you are offering, by your own admission, a more risky gas to depths of 165'. If a diver needs to do a mask R & R, or a deco bottle switch on their knees because of some type of skill defeciency then they aren't ready to be diving to 165'.. I think at the core of my concern is this intangible, and this ideological difference. I don't think tech diving needs to be "all-inclusive" whereas by your very own statements it's clear that PADI does, and it appears that they are willing to make concessions where we believe that concessions shouldn't be made. That is a large part of my problem with PADI entering the tech market. They've made many concessions in the recreational market, and I'd prefer not to argue the merits, or lack thereof at this time, but I don't think anyone will argue that the concessions were made to be "all-inclusive". Many of us feel strongly that we fear that PADI will do the same in the tech market.

Lastly Grant, does anyone at PADI seriously consider Isobaric Counter Diffusion anything other then a fancy term?? I mean, seriously can't PADI get off of this non-starter?? This is a largely ficticuous concept that has no application in doing dives in the 165' range for the run times even remotely applicable to the PADI diver. In other words, isn't it a complete misdirection to distinguish deep air diving from helium based diving in the subject range?? I mean if Isobaric Counter Diffusion is something to worry about in helium based diving in the 165' range then why isn't a concern beginning at the 166' + range covered in the PADI Trimix course???

Grant, if you have the time I'd appreciate you staying in this conversation since, as you suggested, I had already attempted to have these direct conversations with Steve Mortell and he referred me to you and/or Karl. So I'll take you unless Karl cares to jump in as well..

Thanks

PS. No comment on Drew Richardson's editorial asking PADI members to speak out against ANY agency that promotes or teaches deep air??

 

[Big Blue Planet]

Okay,

Comments are already being taken out of context. I am happy to clarify. Yes, I will keep my responses shorter, Mike. We have known each other for a long time. As, Mike said I too consider him a friend. Just because we share differences, does not mean we cannot get along. We have dived and i hope would continue to dive together in the future.

Now, as for the standards issue. My reference is by NO MEANS saying that the standards are not high enough. What I am saying as a professional an instructor should give more. Will a client be adequite if they take a course to the minimum standard. In the Tec Deep course I would say yes. For other agencies, I cannot. I am not familiar with all agencies so I am not going to bash.

However, at this level that is not good enough, but you cannot dictate that in a standard. Much of what I speak to is not standardable. For the program to be global and apply to all environemts it must be flexible. The standard is there to assure a minimum compliance. I know of none of the top tech instructors that teach for any agency that only teach what is in the standard. For anyone out there who is thinking of teaching at the standard and nothing else, please stop teaching. We need to give more and arm above that.

It is about being functional and effective. It also has to do with the interpritation of the standard. Most do not read them for the philosophy of what is trying to be accomplished. They view them as a laundry list of things to have the students do. Besides in the Tec Deep course it is clear that there is room to demand more than what is simply in the list.

Creating a functioning tech diver involves far more than having them be polished with a set of skills on a list. We literally change who they are and how they think. We do not sell a card or even what the card allows them to do. The client is the product, we are selling what the training allows them to become and that is not limited to just the diving side of them.

The standards are fine. There is no program in the world that is perfectly defined by the list of standards. Standards are important and allow for programs to be defended legally, but it is not the whole of the instructional process. It is just one piece. I think if you actually read the Tec Deep program cover to cover, you would see that it is built on solid theory and making people capable. Is it perfect, probably not. Do I teach exactly as the course is written, no. But, no system is perfect. In spite of what people think. Real world will destroy the best laid plans often.

G2