which is your favorite tech scuba agency?

[MikeFerrara]

Using pre- and postrequisites, the instructor must be among other things, be a certified TecDeep diver himself, i.e. pass the actual course. This has historically not always been the case for technical cross-over programs, as you (should) well know. Also, to complete the final exam. This written exam has so far proven to be quite the equalizer ... very few instructors have passed it, at least in Northern Europe.

An instructor who meets the other requirements and holds an equivilant certification from another agency can take the written tests (standards and theory), turn in a peer skill eveluation and become a tec rec instructor. I agree that with some of the other agencie all you need is a freind who's an IT and you're in.

That's fair enough. Personally, I do have some problems with the evaluation, however. Let's take the following examples:
Well, it's actually an option on page 128. This is not how I was trained on the course, however. I agree the pictures and text on page 128 of the manual is a slam-dunk for rival agencies. The sooner they change this for the next edition, the better. But as I stated, I wasn't trained this way.

Again I realize that a good instructor can correct things like this. The instructor could also explain away the fact that all the pictures in the book show really poor technique and have his students do things different. As a PADI instructor I got fed up with having to make excuses for them. I really think it's important. Why wouldn't they picture a diver off the bottom and horizontal deploying a bag or donating the long hose?

I feel very strongly that no tech manual should show divers on their knees. In a course at this level there isn't any reason for the student to ever touch the bottom and they should know that from the start.

That's fine. I'm merely providing a 2nd opinion, that's all. And I still think it would be helpful taking the course before commenting with authority on all issues.

I couldn't take the course because I use trimix at those depths these days. I don't want to argue the deep air thing here but I choose not to take students to 165 ft on air.

It's just that comments like and are very, how shall I put it, neo-irvinian in nature, and not really conductive to reasoned argument. That rather gives a feeling of "PADI-bashing, same, same but different".

Respectfully yours
Fins

Point taken. I could have left out the clueless comments.

It's just that in the years that I've been asiciated with PADI I've been convinced that they really don't know what a diver should look like in the water and that their standards don't require or help a diver get there. That's what I mean when I say I don't think they get it. Yes their instructors can cover for them but in this regard I really don't think they should have to.

Some might argue that a recreational diver on a guided dive in the Caribbean doesn't need very good technique (though I'd disagree), there just isn't any way, IMO, to make that arguement in technical diving.

There are just some very fundimental and very important things (mostly related to technique) that PADI doesn't mention or require at any level of training.

Every diver depicted in the DSAT book would be incapable of anti silting techniques because their fins are always pointed down. These are the skills that a diver needs to get squared away before ever doing a deep dive at all.

I'm sure that any good instructor will see to that but they aren't all good and the standards don't require and instructor to see to it.

It would only require a few lines to be added to the standards. Why wouldn't they do it? Why wouldn't they show some squared away looking divers in the course materials? I think it's because they don't know what squared away looking is.

I argued this with PADI concerning their OW course materials. They said students would learn it in AOW but it isn't required there either. Could they make that argument for instructor training or technical training?

 

[fins wake]

Why wouldn't they picture a diver off the bottom and horizontal deploying a bag or donating the long hose? I feel very strongly that no tech manual should show divers on their knees. In a course at this level there isn't any reason for the student to ever touch the bottom and they should know that from the start. It would only require a few lines to be added to the standards.

These are all well-made points, and I'm actually at a loss to explain them, particularly considering that Karl Shreeves is a trained Full Cave diver as well as an accomplished technical writer (in the literary sense) and that there is no reason not to show things the proper way, as you've indicated.

The only explanation I can find is that at least some members of DSAT:s World Technical Diving Division in fact aren't technical divers at all (for at least some of them I know this as a fact, and I guess it's pretty universal). This is somewhat less impressive than the Naui Tec Advisory Board composition. Although the PADI representatives are well-merited in the recreational field, they may not jump at the sight of some of the pool pics, for example.

I agree PADI should revise its manual with concensus input from its technical instructors (the experienced ones with several years' other-agency tuition behind them, many of these Instructor Trainers or Course Directors) at first opportunity. A clearer requirement of standards as you indicated also wouldn't go amiss ... :umnik:

Until then, I think the experience and high standard of DSAT technical instructors - so far - will hold the fort ... ne_samur

I'll try to discuss these points with one of the World Technical Diving Division boys, since by lucky coincidence (think champagne and amuse-bouches) I'm running into him tonight. :boozer:

I feel Mike has made some very good comments toward the later threads, and I'm happy to leave the discussion here and any conclusions for the reader to decide. I'm glad the debate has been very civil as well, although considering the class of Mike and other participants, I'm not surprised.

:walksmil: Fins

 

[MikeFerrara]

Debates are good and they don't have to be fights (which are bad). Most of us on SB are able to pull that off with only a little slip once in a while. LOL

 

[fins wake]

There'll be a new revised edition of the PADI TecDeep Diver Manual later this year, sans errors. :bogey:

Thisch isch of the record, on the QT and very husch, husch. Schort of!

Finsch

Psch! The thingsch I do for the advanschement of schuba ... hick! Dsch! :cheering: :boozer: :banana:

 

[blackice]

I found an instructor that understood what I wanted to do and had the experience that I liked. I just happened that he was TDI so that's what I my c-cards say. But GUE is something that i may want to learn more about in the future.

 

[MikeFerrara]

There'll be a new revised edition of the PADI TecDeep Diver Manual later this year, sans errors. :bogey:

Thisch isch of the record, on the QT and very husch, husch. Schort of!

Finsch

Psch! The thingsch I do for the advanschement of schuba ... hick! Dsch! :cheering: :boozer: :banana:

What kind of things are they changing?

 

[bridgediver]

I will start. I enjoy the freedom to teach. I do not like mandates from agency headquarters.

What is your reason for your choice?

You give the reasons for your choice but not the choice itself. Who did you pick?

I'd also add that the point of the instructor being the most important put of selecting an agency is only partly true. I think that you need to identify the group that you plan to dive with and take the training that they have - or at least the training that they suggest. Not only will everyone be on the same page but the veteran divers of the group will be able to help you through the process as well.
I have the benefit of a great group of techies in my area and they are large proponents of GUE. I could use TDI, PADI or NAUI for local instruction but I believe the extra expense of travelling or importing an instructor to our location is worth the added cost to get the type of training that would easily blend with the rest of the group.

As an aside alot of the people in the group have multiple tech diving tickets in more than one agency.

 

[fins wake]

What kind of things are they changing?

That I can't answer, as discussions are ongoing between tech instructors, course directors and the DSAT working group, so nothing is cast in stone yet. I'm pretty sure a lot of the niggles will be needled out, though. A debate such as this one is great feedback for future revisions.

That said, as I've already indicated, I firmly believe the informed, dedicated student using the present manual with a skilled, experienced tech instructor is in very good hands. Let's not forget there are some very good sides already to the present manual.

 

[WRKNUT]

The main thing that this all comes down to is the INSTRUCTOR. From the Agency side of it, one thing that the new DSAT Tec/Rec course does have over the others is that there are specific skills that have to be done as well as a set number of dives. I personally would feel more comfortable after doing 12 dives with the instructor, rather than only the 6 dives that some agencies do.The book also provides better support material than TDI's, I haven't been able to check out the others.

 

[MikeFerrara]

IANTD and probably all the others have a minimum number of dives also. In the case of IANTD they also have a minum required bottom time in addition to a minimum number of dives. They also have a specific skill set that is required and all the stamina/watermenship stuff that DSAT leaves out.