Best way to structure technical training
- Thread starter CAPTAIN SINBAD
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Reinforcing your position, I think a deliberate underwater interview should be mandatory to manage the expectations of the student and to help the instructor zero in on UW skills needing attention.
If the licensing agencies want to look away from sloppy instructors and low adherence to standards in the rec world in the interest of maintaining and renewing the client base (and therefore profits), that’s one thing. But I think WRSTC (recreational in nature, I know) should establish clearer common standards (or perhaps enforce them more vigorously) for non-commercial technical dive instruction. The stakes are higher.
As it stands, I’m starting to sense that relaxed instructional habits of the recreational world have bled over into the tech world.
Returning to the axiom.....“it’s all about the instructor”.
This is partly true. There are good divers that had bad instructors and there are bad divers that had good instructors. If a diver passes and then thinks he knows all, his level goes doen. This is not only for divers, but also for the ones who reached the instructor level. Even as an instructor you have to practise sometimes.
Yes, there are divers that take the cheapest courses, there are divers who take the most expensive ones, but most find something in the middle that brings them on the level good enough to dive safe, make fun and do the dives they want. There are divers that can do all tech courses in a few months, others need years. Agencies have to make money, set standards to make it safe, but not that way that the more talented diver has to step away from courses and start to become self trained because of slow politics by agencies. The money must be earned of course. You don't want to slow down a talented and motivated diver and you don't want to get accidents. Agencies have to find something in the middle. So the option is to do courses fast, cavern-full cave in 1 week (that is not always zero to hero, some divers have the skills to do it and they don't need to be slowed down), or do a combination of normoxic and full trimix (or adv. nitrox and normoxic) must be available for the ones that are able to do it. It is the instructors task to slow down the ones that are not good enough. So here it is ' it is all about the instructor'. And yes, I know also that then the diver maybe moves to another instructor to sign off, but you cannot blame the instructor or the student, you did what you think that is right at that moment.
There is no proof that 'fast' students have more accidents than the 'slow' ones.
I agree, the problem is some intro courses don't require full tec gear, heck even PADI Tec 40 only requires a single cylinder with H valve - which I never teach BTW. To really allow the student to see how twinsets or sidemount cylinders dive, you need to do the full monty, and get them deep enough that you can properly evaluate buoyancy. Pool or confined water doesn't allow this IMO, especially in dry suit.
Maybe, but I don't think so. There is a big negativity about people who did fast courses, so some divers will not be open about it. That is NOT Zero to hero, but that are the skilled divers who did the courses fast because they can. Yes, that is a small group. But there is not mentioned in accidents that 'fast' divers had accidents, or that the fast courses are the reason of the accident.
But back to the TS, agencies have to find a way in the middle that motivate the faster ones and don't slow down them, but also don't make diving unsafe, and of course, earn enough money. And for the divers that are less talented and skilled, they can do the courses in slower steps, or the instructor can slow people down who want, but can't.
You cannot say to all divers that they have to do 50 dives after their last course on their new level before moving to the next course. Some can do it in 10 dives, others need 100. Divingcourses are a game between selfreflection of the diver, the role of the instructor, safety, the willing to learn from the diver, etc. And if you cannot find your way in agency X, then you go to Y and maybe find your way.
A good instructor also advices you, not only require things that are not in standards. If an agency does not have an essentials as required, you can advice a student to do it, but not without knowing him. You must have done an evaluation dive to know the divers skills. Then the essentials or fundamentals can be usefull for a lot of divers, but still not for every diver. The problem is that some instructors judge without knowing the diver. (and divers do the same of course, that is human). Partly because of money, partly because of ego.
And to make this back to different agencies and structures: people are different and then choose the way that fits them. It is like the best instructor is not the best as soon as personality does not fit.
This is the challenge: there should be standards that are flexible enough to allow advancement for the people that are capable and ready to progress quickly, but at the same time the community needs to understand that minimum standards are MINIMUMS and that generally speaking, courses and training should go beyond those minimums.
The other side of that equation is time = money. Some people want the cheapest option out there, which means they may be getting the bare minimum.
Yes, I agree, it is allways hard to find the right way for everybody. And if you say no to a student, then he will find another instructor with lower standards.
The student first has to look what he wants. Time, money, amount of certs, etc. But the student can also read standards and decide that instructor X is not for him (for example if an instructor makes his own rules, that also happens), or that agency Y is not the way to go (requirements that are not needed for the student, or not fit his idea of diving best mix vs standard gases for example, or promotor of solo diving).
And because no diver is the same, there are different agencies. So it is possible to find a way that fits.
You originally talked about recreational divers getting certified and then developing skills, which is why I mentioned PPB. I know it is not an intro to tech course and as such it can't be compared to Fundies or Essentials. However it can be compared to a UTD ESM. Both ESM and PPB (when taught by an instructor who goes above and beyond) give divers skills that will be of great help when they begin to go the tech route.
This reminds me... it is not just the instructor who is involved with the student’s skills. Other students are too.
When I did my 60m CCR course there was another student who had a 50m OC trimix qualification. He had done it with an instructor known to the instructor we were both taking the course with. So he is doing 60m OC and me 60m CC. It turned out he was not up to it, hadn’t really done much since the previous qualification and suffered from some skills rot. The delay meant I had to come back another day to finish the course.
This was nobody’s fault, just illustrates that progression is not strictly forwards. Qualified at level X does not mean able to take a course for X plus one, or possibly even at X.
Similar threads
