Best way to structure technical training

[NothingClever]

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.

For me, this reinforces the need for a more intensive dryland and underwater interview. This would help the instructor scope what students can be grouped together for the most efficient outcomes for instruction and student expectation. I realize this is a difficult proposal and I’m sure if I were running a dive center I could make equal and opposite arguments why mandatory UW interviews complicate matters. This is why I think WRSTC should step in and impose the requirement for technical training. That would recalibrate the industry with common parameters so as to not jeopardize student draw and profit.

 

[taimen]

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.

Now that is interesting, you were doing CCR MOD2 and OC normoxic together, at the same time and as a team? Is this common? Do all agencies allow for this, or only some?
The skill sets taught and all the drills vary quite a lot between OC and CCR courses, especially team protocols. I probably would have backed up from a MOD2 or CCR Cave course if I learned it was going to be mixed team.
I can see both pros and cons with a mixed team normoxic course, but would prefer courses where instructor and students are all on OC or CCR.
It is true that in real life you will be doing a lot of mixed team diving, and that should be taught too.

 

[KenGordon]

For me, this reinforces the need for a more intensive dryland and underwater interview. This would help the instructor scope what students can be grouped together for the most efficient outcomes for instruction and student expectation. I realize this is a difficult proposal and I’m sure if I were running a dive center I could make equal and opposite arguments why mandatory UW interviews complicate matters. This is why I think WRSTC should step in and impose the requirement for technical training. That would recalibrate the industry with common parameters so as to not jeopardize student draw and profit.

It would be practically difficult though. For me, and I think most people, this kind of training involves travel, lots of driving and staying away from home. If I had to do that an extra time for an interview it would be a serious barrier. Mostly this doesn’t go wrong, the informal process of asking about seems to work.

This is a niche activity. A small number of people are running the courses and really not many people take them. The people running them need to be able to use their judgement to decide whether a particular person is suitable, given the prerequisites. And there is always a risk that will be wrong, people get stale, out of practice etc.

 

[TheSweatyClam]

Just to clarify. You ARE learning new gases in Tech 1 and Tech 2. Tech 1 is normoxic trimix - 21/35 and 18/45; Tech 2 is hypoxic - 15/55, 12/65, 10/70....etc. I think what you might be getting at is most of the math is covered and stressed at the fundamentals level. There is no learning to calculate MOD, ATA, SAC rate, etc because those calculations or the core concepts that enable those calculations have already been gone over thoroughly.

I just looked at the SSI website. It looks like SSI basically said "scr3w it, no one takes our tech classes, might as well just name our programs whatever the hell we want". SSI 'Extended Range' only goes to 145ft and 100%--when every other Extended Range class would be to 170-200' and include two deco gases plus maybe bottom stage.

Names aside, SSI is taking a page out of PADI's book (tec 40-45-50) and breaking there tech classes down into small bite size chunks.

When I was first starting out I didn't care about the smaller breakdowns of classes--I even slightly favored it. Now that I have done more real world diving, I no longer like the smaller breakdown in classes. I find that the smaller breakdown of classes lends itself too much to diving past certification or being 'unsatisfied' with the current diving level. I have other tech agency certifications, but I think the GUE method of Tech 1, Tech 2, Cave 1, Cave 2, CCR 1, CCR 2 is the way to go. Each of those classes is a nice full mouthful--clear progression of skills and open up a large swath of future dives before needing to move on to the next level. You aren't babied with arbitrarily small bite sized morsels.

Some people will prefer the small bite size classes as they progress, but I don't share that philosophy. You should walk before you can run, but there comes a time where you need to be able to take a full bite; diving at 180ft is not the place for needing small bites

 

[kensuf]

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.

This is true too. People will tell you they want thorough training, but really many of them just want to have the c-card.

All I can do is continue to teach the best course that I can possibly teach.

 

[Marie13]

I’m doing my AN/DP/Helitrox class a bit different than the usual, but I suspect that’s due to location (Midwest) and it being the off season. We’ve got pool sessions and classroom time scheduled after New Year’s. Getting the classroom time done during the off season made sense. The shop has open pool time scheduled over the winter, and I’d go to work on stuff myself anyway, but when instructor suggested structured pool time rather than myself, I readily agreed. More time in the water is a good thing.

The combo I’m doing requires 10 dives. This will be 3 weekends.

 

[DustyC]

Question for the instructors but all are welcome to share your views.


Is there any reason or advantage for SSI to break their technical training into XR Nitrox with 130 feet depth limit and 50% Nitrox for deco? To the instructors who teach tech, what exactly are we trying to achieve by this mini-tech course? It appears that we are not confident in the students ability to hold a stop at 20 feet so we are graduating semi-tech divers with an error room for 70 feet?

What exactly is the best breakdown for creating solid and competent technical divers and why?

Just an aside, just about every SSI XR instructor I know of, does XRN and XR as one course. I got my XRN card halfway through, but it's one book (the book includes trimix for those going to that level) and generally combined as one course.