Looking for a good tech instructor

[john120283]

And to add a note, if it your intent to get a "provisional" Fundies pass (you need to dive doubles to get a full pass), be sure your buoyancy skills are very good. That was my mistake (and insufficient diving experience in a drysuit)

There are two types of Fundies passes, Rec and Tech. There are differences in the standards for each of those. In order to move on to Technical training (Tech1 or Cave 1), you will need a Tech pass.

A provisional means that you didn't meet all of the standards required for the certification you were attempting to achieve. The instructor will give you feedback on what you would need to work on and you have 6 months to work on those skills and get an evaluation by a GUE instructor.

 

[lostsheep]

But how the individual diver and his buddy/team choose to dive after the course is over is up to them.

My GUE instructor told me I could not go on to tech 1 unless I committed to the configuration 100% of the time even outside of the local group’s events / charters.

Final nail in the coffin right there for me

 

[Lorenzoid]

My GUE instructor told me I could not go on to tech 1 unless I committed to the configuration 100% of the time even outside of the local group’s events / charters.

Final nail in the coffin right there for me

Maybe it's an individual instructor thing to ask that of students? I recall stories like yours--maybe it was you in some other thread--but I haven't heard of some kind of official oath being asked of students. I'm sure instructors do want to see that you buy into the system before taking you to the next level. If you're actively criticizing the system or blabbing about how you don't plan to follow it, why would they bother teaching you further? But do you really think every Tech 1 grad has been doing 100% of their dives, including those within clearly recreational limits, precisely within the standards, meaning for rec dives a 7-ft hose, never dipping below 100 feet, etc? I think that most divers who are doing tech dives stick with what they were taught in Tech 1 simply because by that point they really have bought into it and truly believe in the rationales behind the system. But I doubt anybody is going to know or wants to know if a diver has discreetly deviated from some aspect of the standards from time to time.

 

[lostsheep]

Maybe it's an individual instructor thing to ask that of students? I recall stories like yours--maybe it was you in some other thread--but I haven't heard of some kind of official oath being asked of students. I'm sure instructors do want to see that you BUY into the system before taking you to the next level. If you're actively criticizing the system or blabbing about how you don't plan to follow it, why would they bother teaching you further? But do you really think every Tech 1 grad has been doing 100% of their dives, including those within clearly recreational limits, precisely within the standards, meaning for rec dives a 7-ft hose, never dipping below 100 feet, etc? I think that most divers who are doing tech dives stick with what they were taught in Tech 1 simply because by that point they really have bought into it and truly believe in the rationales behind the system. But I doubt anybody is going to know or wants to know if a diver has discreetly deviated from some aspect of the standards from time to time.

You NAILED it. If this story was the only one I personally know of, I wouldn't conclude that. Unfortunately, I know of several others that when combined are highly suspicious. You can DM if you want more info.

To the OP, if you can find a good GUE instructor in your area that you like, it will serve you well. Go talk to them.

 

[rjack321]

Maybe it's an individual instructor thing to ask that of students? I recall stories like yours--maybe it was you in some other thread--but I haven't heard of some kind of official oath being asked of students. I'm sure instructors do want to see that you buy into the system before taking you to the next level. If you're actively criticizing the system or blabbing about how you don't plan to follow it, why would they bother teaching you further? But do you really think every Tech 1 grad has been doing 100% of their dives, including those within clearly recreational limits, precisely within the standards, meaning for rec dives a 7-ft hose, never dipping below 100 feet, etc? I think that most divers who are doing tech dives stick with what they were taught in Tech 1 simply because by that point they really have bought into it and truly believe in the rationales behind the system. But I doubt anybody is going to know or wants to know if a diver has discreetly deviated from some aspect of the standards from time to time.

Some of us own and dive multiple CCRs other than JJs too! With non-standard dil! Heavens to Betsy!

 

[rjack321]

My GUE instructor told me I could not go on to tech 1 unless I committed to the configuration 100% of the time even outside of the local group’s events / charters.

Final nail in the coffin right there for me

Who was this and what year? You can name names yanno?

 

[SpeedyJ]

Who was this and what year? You can name names yanno?

Prepare to be high roaded about not naming and shaming

 

[rjack321]

Prepare to be high roaded about not naming and shaming

Shrugs you've joined the LEGIONS who claim some GUE aficionado or instructor was bad to them but now seem to have no spine to say who it was or when it happened. Not a very exclusive club sadly.

 

[Nick_Radov]

My original question remains. To stay within the GUE standards, no diver should descend below 100 ft without helium

If you can provide a reference to "decades of incident reports", I'd be most appreciative. And since we're talking GUE standards (always 32% nitrox), the EAD is about 64 80 feet.

Sure, here are some references.

https://apps.dan.org/publication-library/

Aquanaut Mailing List Archive Service

Aquanaut's mailing list archives.

aquanaut.com

Accidents, Incidents, & Near Misses

This forum is for the discussion of incidents that are near, on, or under the water that divers can learn from. The main objective is to make us all safer. See the Special Rules. Please post your surprise, indignation, or memorials in the Passings forum. Old name: Old merged forum name(s)...

scubaboard.com

If you're looking for a formal quantitative risk analysis then you're not going to find it. There are too many variables and the source data is limited. But if you spend enough time reading through the archives then the risks associated with deep air become pretty obvious. It's usually not the sole cause of a tech diving incident but often a contributing factor.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that EAD calculation? Nitrox and air are pretty similar in terms of gas density and narcotic effect.

If you think your WOB is excessive at 100', perhaps you should upgrade your regulators.

The WOB and hypercapnia concern is more a matter of respiratory physiology than regulator quality. As the gas density increases airway resistance goes up, and then if you really have to exert yourself (like to handle an emergency) you can exceed your ventilatory capacity. Any decent regulator can deliver enough air to keep you alive way deeper than 100 ft. But the ones that are designed to deliver exceptionally high volumes of gas also tend to be more finicky and likely to free flow. Those should be avoided for back gas; save them for stages where free flows are less of a concern.

 

[Willdiveforhugs]

Update 2:

I have successfully connected with Jason Cook for GUE fundamentals June 6-9.

So we shall see.

- I would like to eventually become a tech diver

- The immediate term goal is to become a proficient air diver with excellent habits

With that in mind, is attempting to enter the course with doubles and trying for a tech pass realistic and or advisable?

(I have never dove doubles, but do have the opportunity to try them on realistically 2-3 dives with local dive team prior to this course)

Thank you for your thoughts.

Felix