Best agency for learning Tech diving - criteria given - honest :)

[lv2dive]

I have to admit to a bit of confusion here as well. That has always been my impression although admittedly, I cannot speak to 11 years. [emoji6]

That's pretty funny. Over the 11 years I have been on ScubaBoard, I thought the pattern was just the opposite.

 

[Edward3c]

perhaps it's a European thing, because all of the tech agencies I've trained with ... NAUI, TDI, IANTD, and NSS-CDS ... promoted pretty much the same rig. Even my sidemount class (IANTD) wanted me in a configuration that provided a long hose on one cylinder.

Why would anyone who's done a twin-set course then go and do a side-mount. For BSAC its just another twin-set configuration, nothing special.

I'd think that any dive that has a potential for a restriction should mandate the long hose ... unless you've got a redundant air source that's separable from the diver that can be safely handed off in an OOA situation.

BSAC do promote long hose, just not rapped round the neck.

Curious ... if twinsets are going OUT of fashion, how do you guys provide redundancy?


... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Redundancy, you must be kidding. Dives were called when we hit reserve, at 30bar. Not unusual to surface with 10 or less. Much safer today.

Even with twins there was no redundancy. 1^St cylinder breathed until empty, open 2^nd cylinder until balanced, close 1^st cylinder and breath 2^nd until empty, open 1^st cylinder again to finish the dive. No pressure gauge.

Cylinders were only 160bar then, hence why they were twined. I bought a new high pressure luxfer 207bar in the early 80s which allowed single cylinder diving.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Why would anyone who's done a twin-set course then go and do a side-mount. For BSAC its just another twin-set configuration, nothing special.

... because a cave isn't the place to experiment with a new configuration ... I considered it a good investment.

BSAC do promote long hose, just not rapped round the neck.

OK, that makes more sense. I don't see many folks stuffing a long hose where I dive, but beyond the ability to re-stow it I don't really see much wrong with it either.

Redundancy, you must be kidding. Dives were called when we hit reserve, at 30bar. Not unusual to surface with 10 or less. Much safer today.

Even with twins there was no redundancy. 1^St cylinder breathed until empty, open 2^nd cylinder until balanced, close 1^st cylinder and breath 2^nd until empty, open 1^st cylinder again to finish the dive. No pressure gauge.

Cylinders were only 160bar then, hence why they were twined. I bought a new high pressure luxfer 207bar in the early 80s which allowed single cylinder diving.

Do you do this while diving overheads? Unless I'm missing something obvious, this doesn't appear to me to be a particularly prudent thing to do. Certainly wouldn't be a risk I'd be willing to take.

Do you also manage your gas that way in sidemount?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

---------- Post added April 3rd, 2015 at 12:00 PM ----------

I have to admit to a bit of confusion here as well. That has always been my impression although admittedly, I cannot speak to 11 years. [emoji6]

... since you and I have dived together, I'd say your impressions are a bit more valid than those who have never met me before ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Edward3c]

... because a cave isn't the place to experiment with a new configuration ... I considered it a good investment.

We teach twins for deep diving not for cave penetration. That's a very specialist skill set.

OK, that makes more sense. I don't see many folks stuffing a long hose where I dive, but beyond the ability to re-stow it I don't really see much wrong with it either.

Once deployed in an OOG situation why would it be re-stowed?

Do you do this while diving overheads? Unless I'm missing something obvious, this doesn't appear to me to be a particularly prudent thing to do. Certainly wouldn't be a risk I'd be willing to take.


Do you also manage your gas that way in sidemount?


... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Gas management back then was nearly none existent and has no bearing on today's teachings.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

We teach twins for deep diving not for cave penetration. That's a very specialist skill set.

I guess that points to one of the reasons why BSAC was brought up as an outlier of how the skills are typically taught by other agencies. If you don't dive twins in caves, how do you get redundancy?

Once deployed in an OOG situation why would it be re-stowed?

Underwater it wouldn't ... but what about once you reach the surface? Wouldn't you want to stow it prior to getting onto a boat, or a shore exit?

Gas management back then was nearly none existent and has no bearing on today's teachings.

... unless you've figured out a way to breathe water, I believe that gas management has a bearing on everything you do underwater on scuba equipment ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[PfcAJ]

You re stow it once the oog diver is no longer out of gas. Think deco bottle, stage, fixed whatever issue made them think they were out of gas, etc.

This type of thing is covered in gue training.

 

[boulderjohn]

You re stow it once the oog diver is no longer out of gas. Think deco bottle, stage, fixed whatever issue made them think they were out of gas, etc.

You also stow it after doing an S-drill.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

You might want to check that. I have only called you out once in all of these years, which was on this thread, after seeing dozens of your posts critical of GUE across various threads over time, and noticing this very prevalent pattern in your posts.

You are mistaken. My posts aren't critical of GUE at all ... they're critical of people who think GUE is the answer to every question someone poses about who to take technical or cave instruction from.

Not all GUE instructors are equally good ... and even the best ones can be a poor choice for certain divers or personality types. I can think of a couple of cases where the choice to take a GUE class turned into a fiasco primarily because there was a poor mesh between how the instructor taught and how the student was most able to learn ... and it was not because of GUE, but because of a fundamental incompatibility between student and instructor. In one of those two cases, the student re-took the same class with a different GUE instructor and did just fine. That was also my experience when I took Fundamentals, which is why I took it twice.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Ayisha]

You are mistaken. My posts aren't critical of GUE at all ... they're critical of people who think GUE is the answer to every question someone poses about who to take technical or cave instruction from...

Which is what I stated in the first post, below.

Bob, people have covered nuances within the varying tech agencies since early on in this thread so that the op could further look into them, yet you keep repeating yourself that all the GUE trained individuals have justified only GUE training.

You're still repeating yourself and still going in circles.

 

[Edward3c]

I guess that points to one of the reasons why BSAC was brought up as an outlier of how the skills are typically taught by other agencies. If you don't dive twins in caves, how do you get redundancy?

No, BSAC don't teach cave diving. Going through the sumps etc in Yorkshire or South Wales involves as much mountaineering as diving.

Underwater it wouldn't ... but what about once you reach the surface? Wouldn't you want to stow it prior to getting onto a boat, or a shore exit?

I'd be more interested in getting the casualty safe than worrying about something as insignificant as a trailing hose.

... unless you've figured out a way to breathe water, I believe that gas management has a bearing on everything you do underwater on scuba equipment ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

At some point I'm hoping the penny drops that I'm talking about the 1970s, not today. Breathing one cylinder dry and de-canting was the gas management practice of the day.