Deep cert or aim for tech

[boulderjohn]

Or that person is just not in the place to pass that exam/test at that given time.

this is apparently a very difficult concept for people to understand. What you wrote is true of every class at any time. That is why people fail classes everywhere.

When you design a curriculum, your goal is to design a class so that all properly screened students who do what is expected of them will be able to complete the course in the identified length of time. As I mentioned elsewhere, You do not expect people to pass Calculus I in a week. There will always be people who don't do it, but if the number of people who don't succeed is high, you need to look at the reasons. It may be, for example, that you are expecting students to make too much progress in the length of time you have allotted for the class.

When I took my cave class (the specific class after Apprentice Cave that is often called "full cave,"), I had some trouble with exiting a very high flow cave cleanly (pulling out the reel specifically), and I needed a day beyond the expected advertised length of the class. Having me come back the next day was the right move. If it were to happen to a large percentage of students, the instructor should ethically advertise a different class length and adjust the course fees accordingly so that students knew what to expect.

Great theory, but it is only that. We see 85-90% failure rate when very qualified soldiers attempt to complete BUDS. Should they redesign that course to have more people pass, regardless of the quality of the passing the course?

In logic, we refer to this as a weak or false analogy. The purposes of a civilian training course and an elite military unit preparation are entirely different. A course teaching paying students assumes all students properly in the program can pass the course if they work appropriately and are given proper instruction. That is different from military training designed to weed out the lesser capable people and identify elite fighting units with skills that can only be achieved by a relative few.

 

[DevonDiver]

What is the PADI equivalent to GUE Fundies?

There is no formal equivalent, in any of the mainstream agencies.

Most 'Intro-to-tech' programs are more akin to a 'Tech DSD' in purpose and design. The goal is to provide a 'sampler' experience, rather than a performance benchmark.

Of course, that doesn't limit individual instructors from focusing an 'intro-to-tech' experience to mimic a Fundies type approach.

Obviously, there can't be a pass/fail criteria on an intro-to-tech experience ... and that's what's most beneficial in GUE-F.... it's what motivates students to diligently practice, prepare and remediate their skills.

For so long as mainstream agencies permit tech students to train whilst kneeling (and even fill their manuals with photos of kneeling and out-of-trim divers)... it could be stated that no mainstream tech syllabus offers a comparison to GUE-F.

Again, the standards applied by individual instructor can exceed the norm... but we're talking about course/agency goals and performance outcomes.

 

[DevonDiver]

When you design a curriculum, your goal is to design a class so that all properly screened students who do what is expected of them will be able to complete the course in the identified length of time.

So, we might consider GUE-F as proper screening.

In contrast, mainstream agencies merely require certain specialty courses (deep, nitrox, rescue) to have been taken. None of those specialties apply any assessment for fundamental tech preparedness... and therefore might not be considered 'proper screening'.

The consequences of not doing that 'proper screening' are what causes so much debate (such as in this thread); where we must discuss the need for remedial training, extended timescale courses and dismissed performance standards.

I'd suggest that most mainstream agency tech courses don't have a high failure rate. That's not through adequate preparation in the syllabus, nor through effective screening. It's because good tech instructors routinely extend courses to remedy preparedness deficits. Or because bad tech instructors lower their standards, train on their knees, and sign off students regardless.

 

[Doby45]

In logic, we refer to this as a weak or false analogy. The purposes of a civilian training course and an elite military unit preparation are entirely different.

So anything other than what YOU think is not logical? No one in this world is "required" to take any GUE class. Therefore, if GUE wants to make their requirements to be more or less the "elite" of the diving world then I would say my analogy is one point. One is combat and one isn't is the only difference and your little quip about "logic" is a straw man. So if they want to be viewed as elite you are going to have people that are not looking for that and they will in fact run business off. They will also gain business from the very ones that want to pound their chest about how awesome they are. In taking the class some WILL be awesome and some will not. My point stands.

 

[billt4sf]

GUE Fundamentals ...is essentially an introduction to technical diving, and the only shop I know of that offers it in the area where I live uses it for that purpose--it is a required introduction to its technical diving program.

The skills that are taught in it are not unique to GUE--all technical divers have those skills, and all agencies that offer technical diving offer introductory classes. Any instructor in any agency who is also a technical diver should be able to teach those skills, and every technical instructor in every agency offers a class that teaches those skills.

GUE will require that you have 100% their specified gear package. .

I didn't find that to be the case. Rather, our GUE instructor worked with what we had and, over time, convinced me that I didn't need some of what we had.

We also didn't find that it was "an intro to tech diving". We took the Rec course, and we found that we spent most of the time working on doing the basic diving skills while maintaining buoyancy. As such, it was invaluable (even though we never "passed").

- Bill

 

[stuartv]

Do you really only have 0 - 24 dives? If so, take nitrox and just enjoy diving for a while. Maybe GUE Fundies if you want to go that way. Leave the tech and deep stuff until you have more dives. Relax and enjoy the show.

- Bill

GUE Fundamentals was created as an introduction to cave diving because people who were coming into cave training did not have the necessary basic skills needed for those classes. It is essentially an introduction to technical diving, and the only shop I know of that offers it in the area where I live uses it for that purpose--it is a required introduction to its technical diving program.

The skills that are taught in it are not unique to GUE--all technical divers have those skills, and all agencies that offer technical diving offer introductory classes. Any instructor in any agency who is also a technical diver should be able to teach those skills, and every technical instructor in every agency offers a class that teaches those skills.

You don't have to go on to technical diving, though. You can take classes like that just for those basic skills. GUE will require that you have 100% their specified gear package. Many of the other programs will teach those skills in whatever gear you own, only requiring the tech gear if you are going on to the full tech program.

As far as standard PADI courses go, the equivalent would be Intro to Tech or the Tec Deep program, both of which teach those skills. All agencies that teach tech courses have introductory courses that teach those skills, because the student has to have those skills to get the tech certifications.

I have never taken a single course from PADI or GUE.

But, I have read the online information about relevant courses (to this conversation) that both offer. The nearest equivalent to GUE Fundies appears to be PADI Discover Tec or Tec 40.

After reading the info on those, my opinion is that it is patently ridiculous to suggest that either of those PADI courses is an equivalent to GUE-F that one might suggest to someone who is fairly new to diving and is considering taking GUE-F. Just for one example, even Discover Tec would have the student diving in doubles. GUE-F can totally be done with a single tank (at least, according to a friend of mine who did it in a single tank). And this is what the PADI website says about Discover Tec:

What will you learn?
Your PADI Tec Instructor will explain the equipment you’ll use and go over basic tec diving procedures, such as the importance of diving in teams. You’ll get in the water, make gear adjustments, then simply explore and get a feel for the equipment.

An equivalent choice to Fundies? Even a somewhat-near-equivalent? Preposterous!

 

[sea_otter]

We also didn't find that it was "an intro to tech diving". We took the Rec course, and we found that we spent most of the time working on doing the basic diving skills while maintaining buoyancy. As such, it was invaluable (even though we never "passed").

- Bill

Bill raises a very good point which is often overlooked. A lot of people (perhaps even most) who take Fundies aren't looking to it as a prereq for future tech classes. They're simply taking it to learn to be a better diver and to increase comfort and fun for recreational dives. GUE now offers a Fundies part 1 class which is just that. It doesn't come with a pass/fail score. The goal of the class is simply to improve buoyancy, trim, awareness, team skills, and just plain make diving more enjoyable. My 75 year old mother took this class, and she can't stop raving about how great it was. She certainly has no ambition to take up tech diving or carry a set of doubles.

 

[w3dge]

Back to the OP's question, where in the UK are you based?

If you're anywhere near South Wales, I could recommend Karl Kruger at Bay Divers (Bay Divers - South Wales Swansea Cardiff Scuba Diving Club TDI PADI TEC) also.

 

[soggybadger]

Back to the OP's question, where in the UK are you based?

If you're anywhere near South Wales, I could recommend Karl Kruger at Bay Divers (Bay Divers - South Wales Swansea Cardiff Scuba Diving Club TDI PADI TEC) also.

Hi. Been away and unable to reply. I'm based in East Anglia but travel to the Midlands a fair bit. Thanks for the info.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

The skills that are taught in it are not unique to GUE--all technical divers have those skills, and all agencies that offer technical diving offer introductory classes.

In order to not violate PADI's code of conduct, I won't name agencies, but I have taken tech courses with two other agencies, neither of which required skills to be executed even remotely at the same level as I had to in GUE fundies. Not even close. Not in the same ballpark. "Did Kosta close and open his valves? Check." My experience does not mean that a diver won't acquire fundies/essentials/basics level of skills in their courses, but it does mean that it isn't guaranteed.