Why waste money on training!?

[flots am]

I think people make a mistake when they lump foolish behavior in with legitimate self learning - much the same way people lump lack of skill in with modern certification. A fool is a fool whether they have a card or not.

Some one who is firmly planted in the formal training paradigm probably assumes a self learner skims one online article, throws on some doubles and heads for the deep like a cowboy. They probably can't see intelligence in the lack of defined structure. Not so. Many people, myself included, have a method of learning that is actually more rigorous, investigative and time consuming than what some courses might offer. There are techniques for taking on more knowledge, applying it, gaining feedback and adjusting as a result, just like formal education. Some just like doing it themselves.

How important is self reliance in advanced diving? Why do we promote the skill while decrying the behavior or personality type.

Some things are non-obvious until they're too late.

If your first tech dive is deep and long with a really thick wetsuit and heavy doubles "You're gonna have a bad time"

It's not obvious that your wetsuit could compress more than the lift available in your wing. This is the sort of thing that's better to learn about before you experience it.

The same thing goes for wreck penetrations, where it's completely possible to have perfect trim and still completely silt the place out. (bubbles disturb silt). There are all sorts of non-obvious ways to die, that are better to learn from someone else, than from personal experience.

There are a lot of things that can be learned without a class or instructor. But some of them are better/safer "with".

 

[DaleC]

Why would you do your first tech dive deep, long, with a really thick wetsuit and heavy doubles? That's not the sort of thing a self learner would do.

It just speaks to my point that self learning is misunderstood.

 

[fjpatrum]

Some things are non-obvious until they're too late.

If your first tech dive is deep and long with a really thick wetsuit and heavy doubles "You're gonna have a bad time"

It's not obvious that your wetsuit could compress more than the lift available in your wing. This is the sort of thing that's better to learn about before you experience it.

The same thing goes for wreck penetrations, where it's completely possible to have perfect trim and still completely silt the place out. (bubbles disturb silt). There are all sorts of non-obvious ways to die, that are better to learn from someone else, than from personal experience.

There are a lot of things that can be learned without a class or instructor. But some of them are better/safer "with".

I don't understand this concept/argument. What isn't obvious about considering the lift in your wing if you throw on a pair of doubles after diving singles? What isn't obvious about suit compression... hell you feel it on every dive, even in old wetsuits?

I'll give you the wreck penetration because most of us newbs wouldn't think bubbles are likely to silt up a wreck the way poor trim and finning techniques can. That said, if I chose to go out and do a penetration tomorrow, I'd make damn sure to consider that now that I've read it.

Self learning doesn't mean blindly pursuing some goal without research, though I'm sure some people do that.

Self learning, at least the way I see it (and the way I think DaleC is advocating) is actually doing some research and Learning something before making foolish mistakes.

That said, I personally wouldn't do penetrations without some heavy duty mentoring or a class. I would push slowly into the virtual overhead realm, though. Light deco (on air) with prior planning and appropriate equipment just isn't that complicated. For more complex dives that should really consider different gas mixes, I'd take courses.

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

I don't understand this concept/argument. What isn't obvious about considering the lift in your wing if you throw on a pair of doubles after diving singles? What isn't obvious about suit compression... hell you feel it on every dive, even in old wetsuits?

Aha. This is where that self-learner would have learned about creating a "balanced rig" if they had taken a tech class. The instructor would have demonstrated how a diver puts himself at great risk in the event of a wing failure, diving a wetsuit and heavy tanks (i.e. doubles) below about 60 feet.

FYI, the issue is this: a diver can get so negative with suit compression below 60 and no wing lift, that it becomes impossible to swim to the surface in the event of a wing failure. "Ok," the sport diver says, "I'll just ditch some weight so I can swim up." But then they turn into a missile as they ascend, so much for deco stops. And if our diver has 160cf or more of bottom gas to work with, he might just have needed those stops.

So this is where the self-learner who skips all the info on having a "balanced rig" -- and dives too deep in a wetsuit and shiny new doubles -- is at risk of drowning or getting bent.

Diving doubles isn't just about strapping on a larger air supply, and off you go. This is exactly the sort of thing that would get a self-learner in trouble, 'cuz they don't know what they don't know.

(If you look at my avatar, you'll see I have 2 tanks and a wetsuit. That suit never goes below 60 feet. If I'm going deeper, I dive dry.)

 

[fjpatrum]

Aha. This is where that self-learner would have learned about creating a "balanced rig" if they had taken a tech class. The instructor would have demonstrated how a diver puts himself at great risk in the event of a wing failure, diving a wetsuit and heavy tanks (i.e. doubles) below about 60 feet.

FYI, the issue is this: a diver can get so negative with suit compression below 60 and no wing lift, that it becomes impossible to swim to the surface in the event of a wing failure. "Ok," the sport diver says, "I'll just ditch some weight so I can swim up." But then they turn into a missile as they ascend, so much for deco stops. And if our diver has 160cf or more of bottom gas to work with, he might just have needed those stops.

So this is where the self-learner who skips all the info on having a "balanced rig" -- and dives too deep in a wetsuit and shiny new doubles -- is at risk of drowning or getting bent.

Diving doubles isn't just about strapping on a larger air supply, and off you go. This is exactly the sort of thing that would get a self-learner in trouble, 'cuz they don't know what they don't know.

(If you look at my avatar, you'll see I have 2 tanks and a wetsuit. That suit never goes below 60 feet. If I'm going deeper, I dive dry.)

Please reread my post you replied to... as I said this is obvious (trivially so) for almost anyone who's dove a 5mm or thicker wetsuit deeper than 60 feet. Squeeze and compression are readily apparent.

As a "self learner" who does understand a balanced rig, I ask again... what ISN'T obvious about this? Foolishness and self-learning aren't automatically the same thing. Can they overlap? Certainly, but it's not a given that someone teaching themselves is going to make such a "rookie mistake".

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

Please reread my post you replied to... as I said this is obvious (trivially so) for almost anyone who's dove a 5mm or thicker wetsuit deeper than 60 feet. Squeeze and compression are readily apparent.

Sure, but not everybody understands the dangers this can lead to with a heavier tech rig. I don't think it's self evident to a majority of divers. "Balanced rig" certainly isn't taught to most sport divers. The tech philosophy of ditchable weight is completely different from that in rec diving.

As a "self learner" who does understand a balanced rig, I ask again... what ISN'T obvious about this? Foolishness and self-learning aren't automatically the same thing. Can they overlap? Certainly, but it's not a given that someone teaching themselves is going to make such a "rookie mistake".

Then you're fine.

I think a common pitfall that scuba self-learners fall into is they focus too much on learning about the gear, and not enough skills or theory. Some of the dangers of taking on new equipment are not always obvious.

 

[DevonDiver]

I think a common pitfall that scuba self-learners fall into is they focus too much on learning about the gear, and not enough skills or theory. Some of the dangers of taking on new equipment are not always obvious.

I agree - and it is what I see regularly on the forums and in real life; where divers progressing into more advanced diving activities seem overly fixated on equipment issues and neglect skill and competence components.

Research online shows a wealth of certain information, but a deficit of others. There's a thousand articles on tech equipment configuration, dozens of videos showing good buoyancy, frog-kick and long-hose air-sharing.... but none that capture the 'essence' of technical/overhead training in regards to task-loading, decision-making, situational awareness and stress management. Those are the issues that I see entry-level tech/overhead students struggle with.

Many of my students do prepare effectively for their training through self-research. I counsel them to do so. That doesn't mean they won't find my courses incredibly challenging. So... where does that challenge come from, if they have self-studied and prepared effectively?

A competent, expert instructor/mentor will drive the student to near-meltdown. They will show the student their limitations. That's an important part of development. I don't think it is realistic to expect a self-study diver to be able to achieve that same sort of pressure and demand. The end result: the self-study diver can make the mistake of over-estimating their competency and make erroneous safety decisions (particularly in relation to their comfort zone/limits) thereafter..

The other issue is feedback and critique. Self-study doesn't provide that; at least, not to any proven standard. Feedback/critique is a necessary tool for fine examination of weaknesses and flaws. In advanced diving, small things matter more. Learning by yourself, or with an equal peer, can easily lead to over-estimation of performance. The tendency is to make comparison with what you were, rather than what you should be; a flawed assumption. I see many divers at the level of transition from recreational to technical diving who believe they are 'highly skillfull' - they do so because they judge themselves against their former peer group (recreational diving community) rather than their future peer group (technical diving community). Having an instructor/mentor removes that tendency for misplaced comparison.

 

[gcarter]

Aha. This is where that self-learner would have learned about creating a "balanced rig" if they had taken a tech class. The instructor would have demonstrated how a diver puts himself at great risk in the event of a wing failure, diving a wetsuit and heavy tanks (i.e. doubles) below about 60 feet.

FYI, the issue is this: a diver can get so negative with suit compression below 60 and no wing lift, that it becomes impossible to swim to the surface in the event of a wing failure. "Ok," the sport diver says, "I'll just ditch some weight so I can swim up." But then they turn into a missile as they ascend, so much for deco stops. And if our diver has 160cf or more of bottom gas to work with, he might just have needed those stops.

So this is where the self-learner who skips all the info on having a "balanced rig" -- and dives too deep in a wetsuit and shiny new doubles -- is at risk of drowning or getting bent.

Diving doubles isn't just about strapping on a larger air supply, and off you go. This is exactly the sort of thing that would get a self-learner in trouble, 'cuz they don't know what they don't know.

(If you look at my avatar, you'll see I have 2 tanks and a wetsuit. That suit never goes below 60 feet. If I'm going deeper, I dive dry.)

What's your backup plan for a leak in your dry suit with the loss of its buoyancy? (And why is that backup no good if you are diving wet? (And if there is no backup, how is this really any better?))

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

What's your backup plan for a leak in your dry suit with the loss of its buoyancy? (And why is that backup no good if you are diving wet? (And if there is no backup, how is this really any better?))

The wing is backup for the drysuit and vice versa. It's unlikely both would fail on the same dive. With a wetsuit, your wing has no backup unless you dive a dual bladder wing. An SMB can give you buoyancy in a pinch too, but not much.

In tech diving, drysuits are considered "self compensating" or neutral for purposes of calculating balanced rigs.

 

[ams511]

Cousteau was a French Navy diver. I just bought a tank & reg for $100 and a book on how to use them.

How many pages is the book? If it is the one I am thinking of it is quite thin.

Cousteau may have been a Navy diver but navies at the time did not use scuba. They used surface supplied air, primitive rebreathers and maybe one of those continuous feed contraptions. I am not sure what they are called but the air flowed into a full face mask and was vented out with an OPV valve.

---------- Post added February 20th, 2014 at 06:35 PM ----------

The dive shops and the certification agencies are in the business of increasing profits for their shareholders. Some more so than others. NAUI for example is a non-profit which has no shareholders. The organization is based upon membership. Each NAUI Instructor has a vote, they elect a Board of Directors from the membership; which in-turn guides Staff in the running of the organization. If money is made, it doesn't go into anyone's pocket (unless you happen to be an employee and get a salary). The goal is to provide quality education to divers.

Naui may be non-profit with the stated goal of providing quality education BUT the organization works for the financial benefit of its members. If it didn't then the members would move to other organizations. It is basic economics.

I have a Padi OW cert along with Naul advanced and rescue certs and a TDI nitrox cert. Personally, I found very little difference in training between the different organizations. My Padi course was at least 4 weeks and maybe 6 not including the certification dives, but this was back in 90 or 91.

There is no real standardization in content. In my Naul advanced OW training my wreck dive was to a submerged truck in a quarry. Yes it was cold and dark but quarries are not known for changing conditions or strong currents. Is this dive equivalent to dive in the ocean? I don't think so.

I have little respect for dive training agencies. At one point they were dead set against technical diving, it was too dangerous and would give the sport a bad name. However, when it became clear the market was a profitable one then suddenly they were all for it and training instructors which may have never done a technical dive.