Tri-Mix Agencies?

[LiteHedded]

these classes dont make any sense at a--................WAIT A SECOND!!!

 

[ucfdiver]

Maybe he shouldn't be going deep, your right. Its difficult to fasten hard rules to what people should and shouldn't aspire to. Different regions demand different training levels, sometimes to get the most experience and dives out of a region you need to have the benefit of a bit more education. Here in the NE for example, easy access to shore dives or shallow reefs just doesn't exist. Sure, there are SOME shallow dives to be had, but most decent dives start at 100ft and keep getting deeper from there. Why not learn to accelerate my deco sooner and start taking advantage of decreased physiologic risks as long as a divers performance is commensurate with the required skills.

Good points tough, thanks for posting that.

You know, I have a very close friend looking to advance their level of dive training recently, faster than they should IMO. Their skills aren't bad, but with so few dives I worry about their preparedness. To be honest, I can't even pinpoint when you're ready, but after seeing first hand a few moments that would have killed me if they would have happened just a little earlier in my diving career, I have a new respect
for the dangers.

Hate to say it, but sometimes you can't explain why experience is needed...which sucks, because it would be so handy to have that ability.

 

[DevonDiver]

A ton of assumptions have been made, which I think might be based greatly on his dive number. Perhaps if he lied on his SB profile and put 500-1000 the tone of the posts here might be different. Dive number, IMHO, correlates very very poorly with experience, because the measure has so much bias and inherent variation.

I would say the opposite. Dive number (showing relevant time spent breathing scuba underwater) identifies a number of areas that generally do correlate to increased experience and capability.

People learn at different rates, assimilate skills with varying amounts of practice and extract 'lessons' from events more or less effectively than others. However, regardless of variation there still exists a a direct link between experience underwater and capability.

This is especially true when we start considering capability on the basis of 100 dive increments. When a diver first qualifies, they undergo a steep learning curve and rapid skill development. The learning curve is 'steep'. Over time it flattens considerably. At that time, the main experience development tends to be when the diver is confronted with problems. Assuming that the chances of a problem arising are low frequency, then the diver would typically complete a large number of dives in order to gain exposure (and learn) from those events.

With more dives, comes more exposure to a variety of dive sites, dive partners and dive equipment.

Typically, with more dives, a diver has more chance of being mentored by other divers and/or undergoing more training.

A diver may start their progression with a very high level of confidence and innate ability to absorb and demonstrate their training. The so-called 'natural diver'. They have a high capacity to ingrain what they are taught...and utilise those skills afterwards. However, their sum total of skill is still limited by what they were taught.

It is easy to confuse those divers, with a simularly skilled diver who has also had exposure to non-taught experience gained from random events when diving.

Likewise... to study a diver's ability to perform core diving skills (such as bouyancy, trim and various drills and procedures) is often seen as the truest reflection of their skill. This isn't 'wrong', but it merely represents their ability to reproduce what they have been shown. Reproducing what you are taught is just one issue. It is not the same as having those skills ingrained, so that they do not add to task loading and/or would be still performed when the diver is multi-tasked or stressed.

A 'natural' diver, with the best tuition, will have good skills underwater. However, there still exists a period of time where those skills have to be ingrained as reflexive responses that exist under all circumstances. That time is gained by experience under water.

When I first took tech training (with a very highly regarded instructor), I was a divemaster, with 170+ dives. I always found diving to be easy. My bouyancy, trim, finning and basic skills were good. My stress levels were low. I had lots of confidence.

...and then my experience on my first couple of tech training dives was an utter nightmare. I was very task loaded...and this reflected in a degredation of my core skills. I was very surprised (and disapointed with myself) because of that. It was a very humbling lesson.

I suppose that is the difference between having good skills and having ingrained skills.

I now have ingrained skills. They don't come apart under pressure. That is the result of several thousand dives.

Yes.... there is a great variability in the capacity of divers within a set number of dives. However, there IS a general development 'curve' that all divers follow. That curve is sharper at the earlier stages of development.... and can lead to more variance. As experience progresses, that curve flattens and leads to less variance.

This curve is reflected by the 'minimum dive' requirement for tech training and is entirely logical. The OP may have risen quickly up the steep initial curve of development... but hasn't had chance to ingrain those skills yet.... he isn't yet into that flattened curve of development which provides the embedding of skills and learning by experience.

 

[TSandM]

Beautiful post, Andy. Or as a friend of mine said, a 20 dive diver who takes Fundies will LOOK like a 100 dive diver, but won't BE a 100 dive diver . . .

 

[ScubaFeenD]

I would say the opposite. Dive number (showing relevant time spent breathing scuba underwater) identifies a number of areas that generally do correlate to increased experience and capability.

[edited]

This curve is reflected by the 'minimum dive' requirement for tech training and is entirely logical. The OP may have risen quickly up the steep initial curve of development... but hasn't had chance to ingrain those skills yet.... he isn't yet into that flattened curve of development which provides the embedding of skills and learning by experience.

So while I agree that number CAN correlate with experience, it doesn't have to, and you make far too many assumptions about what people experience underwater for judgement based solely on number to be valid. In fact, the correlation is so lose in my mind that in many cases it is untrustworthy. 1000 dives on shallow reefs isnt 1000 dives in puget sound or in jersey or etc...

Further, the flaming of the OP occurred without any further inquiry into his experience. Clearly, the diving gods on the boards seem to think you need many many hundreds of dive before you EVER get to a level of skill and experience necessary for trimix (or triox, more appropriately), which the actual experienced leaders of training agencies dont seem to think is as necessary. I know many here are GUE divers and believe in the system of training. No one would question their experience for sure, and they dont seem to think there are extreme experience requirements before getting into entry level triox. All you have to do is learn skill, there is nothing in the standards about ingrained skill and response under pressure. In fact, task loading and failures are, at most, limited in even the highest levels of the GUE recreational curriculum. In fact looking like a fundamentals diver at 20 dives (rec pass with a 5 foot allowed buoyancy window prepares you right away for triox, doesn't it?)

I mean, the guy asked about trimix and the flaming began. No one asked for more info, they just looked at his dive number and made a judgement. Trimix shouldnt be an exclusive club, and instead of flaming divers interested divers here should probably be friendlier. God, this whole discussion reminds me of the history readings about nitrox...

 

[ucfdiver]

So while I agree that number CAN correlate with experience, it doesn't have to, and you make far too many assumptions about what people experience underwater for judgement based solely on number to be valid. In fact, the correlation is so lose in my mind that in many cases it is untrustworthy. 1000 dives on shallow reefs isnt 1000 dives in puget sound or in jersey or etc...

Further, the flaming of the OP occurred without any further inquiry into his experience. Clearly, the diving gods on the boards seem to think you need many many hundreds of dive before you EVER get to a level of skill and experience necessary for trimix (or triox, more appropriately), which the actual experienced leaders of training agencies dont seem to think is as necessary. I know many here are GUE divers and believe in the system of training. No one would question their experience for sure, and they dont seem to think there are extreme experience requirements before getting into entry level triox. All you have to do is learn skill, there is nothing in the standards about ingrained skill and response under pressure. In fact, task loading and failures are, at most, limited in even the highest levels of the GUE recreational curriculum. In fact looking like a fundamentals diver at 20 dives (rec pass with a 5 foot allowed buoyancy window prepares you right away for triox, doesn't it?)

I mean, the guy asked about trimix and the flaming began. No one asked for more info, they just looked at his dive number and made a judgement. Trimix shouldnt be an exclusive club, and instead of flaming divers interested divers here should probably be friendlier. God, this whole discussion reminds me of the history readings about nitrox...

I think you're taking offense to this unnecessarily since you have less than 100 dives. It really isn't meant as rude.

 

[Rhone Man]

When I first took tech training (with a very highly regarded instructor), I was a divemaster, with 170+ dives. I always found diving to be easy. My bouyancy, trim, finning and basic skills were good. My stress levels were low. I had lots of confidence.

...and then my experience on my first couple of tech training dives was an utter nightmare. I was very task loaded...and this reflected in a degredation of my core skills. I was very surprised (and disapointed with myself) because of that. It was a very humbling lesson.

I remember an instructor recommending the PADI search & recovery course for a similar reason. His basic point was: you might think your skills are good, but until you endure some serious task loading, you can't really see how intuitive those skills are.

 

[waterpirate]

Again this has gone around in a complete circle and is back. The bottom line is get training, period. If the instructor is willing to sign your card and train you, then have at it. If the problem is the trainer.... Untill the scuba police deputy's are sworn in"it is what it is".
Eric

If you feel truly gifted as a diver TDI still inserts the wording "or equivalent experiance" as a pre-requisite to there standards. If the trainer thinks your ready.....

 

[lamont]

Further, the flaming of the OP occurred without any further inquiry into his experience. Clearly, the diving gods on the boards seem to think you need many many hundreds of dive before you EVER get to a level of skill and experience necessary for trimix (or triox, more appropriately), which the actual experienced leaders of training agencies dont seem to think is as necessary.

I don't list my number of dives in my profile because I agree that ones level of certification doesn't necessarily correspond to how intelligent they are in a discussion.

However, I've been a good 50-dive diver, and I've seen many 50-dive divers.

None of them are really ready for 150 foot, 20 minute mandatory decompression dives. You simply don't know what you don't know at that point.

Sorry.

And yes, I disagree with the "actual experienced leaders of training agencies". I don't know where those "experienced leaders" are finding 50-dive divers ready for mandatory decompression diving -- I have never seen it.

Maybe such a thing exists, but it seems more like the Sasquach to me. And if any 50-dive diver thinks they're the exception to the rule and *they're* the diver who is better than everyone else and ready for mandatory decompression at 50 dives then they're just wrong...

And divers with hundreds of dives, good in the water, technically certified have screwed up and blown to the surface. You have to have the mentality that you cannot screw up at the technical level, and you need to have a fairly deep toolbox of skill and techniques, and you need to have screwed up before. Putting on new undergarmet without adjusting your weighting needs to happen on a rec dive, not a tech dive. Forgetting your v-weight needs to happen on rec/training dive. You need to know techniques for getting every last ounce of gas out of your drysuit and wing and simply not allowing yourself to blow off any stops. All of that comes with having enough dives under your belt to have screwed up where it doesn't matter, so you don't screw up where it counts...

You also need good situation awareness, and even the best 50-dive divers simply don't have the situational awareness they're going to have at 150-dives (some 150-dive divers are, of course, lousy and oblivious -- but the bar here is someone at 150-dives who is actually *good*).

 

[David_57]

I started to feel confident to enter the TDI Advanced Nitrox/Decompression course at a little over 300 dives (close to 200 with doubles and tech rig).

Lamont you hit the nail on the head that's exactly how I felt when I did a self analysis before starting this course, especially the part about screwing up. In addition how you handle the situation once you realize you have screwed up and that takes a few screw ups before you figure it out if you get my drift