Cave Training and Etiquette Real or Imaginary?

[boulderjohn]

I also wanna add, not exactly what you're asking, but is relevant to the discussion on this thread, what was not worked on during my cave class was, 0 time spent on buoyancy, 0 time spent on trim, 0 time spent on propulsion, 0 time spent on awareness, absolutely not a single second on those
That's because I had taken a GUE fundies class before I decided I would take up cave diving, I signed up to learn cave diving, not diving. Because of that, the instructor could focus all the class time teaching me about specifics of cave diving.

I have made several posts so far to this effect. My situation was similar. I had a number of tech diving certifications before I took my cave classes. I could do the kicks, and my buoyancy was pretty decent. I was accustomed to diving doubles. My instructor could focus on cave skills.

When you look at a typical diver who has the entry skills listed for most cave courses, you will see someone with little to no experience in those skill areas. As I said in my probably overdone explanation of instructional theory, a person who comes into a course with significant deficits in the prerequisite skills cannot succeed. A high school student cannot go from algebra I to calculus. As I understand it, GUE Fundamentals began its life as a class that could have been titled "Pre-cave Skills." I think every agency should offer such a class, and I think every instructor needs to be up front on the kind of skills a diver should have before entering the cave program.

 

[RJP]

As I understand it, GUE Fundamentals began its life as a class that could have been titled "Pre-cave Skills." I think every agency should offer such a class, and I think every instructor needs to be up front on the kind of skills a diver should have before entering the cave program.

Sounds a lot like "Cavern" to me.

 

[boulderjohn]

Sounds a lot like "Cavern" to me.

Seriously? Have you looked at cavern requirements? Do you think a typical AOW diver can come into a cavern class and learn for the first time how to do a frog kick, modified frog kick, modified flutter kick, helicopter turn, and really solid buoyancy and trim in addition to learning all the cave-related skills that comprise 90% of the requirements in the typical time allotted to a cavern course?

 

[RJP]

Seriously? Have you looked at cavern requirements? Do you think a typical AOW diver can come into a cavern class and learn for the first time how to do a frog kick, modified frog kick, modified flutter kick, helicopter turn, and really solid buoyancy and trim in addition to learning all the cave-related skills that comprise 90% of the requirements in the typical time allotted to a cavern course?

Whether any individual student is prepared coming IN to a cavern class is a different question. Based on what Jim posted above, however, it looks like students should come OUT of a cavern with those skills. The language clearly says "the course develops..." rather than "the course anticipates that you will show up ready to be handed your card..."

Of course I'm not being naive here. It would be impossible for an instructor to take a "typical AOW diver" and have them sorted out over a two-day cavern course. But should a "typical open water diver" even be signing up for a cavern class? Sure, it's hard for an instructor in central Florida to vet the skills of someone who's scheduling a class via e-mail from 1,000 miles away. But maybe this goes back to an earlier part of this thread; isn't it incumbent upon them to communicate not just the "prerequisites" for the course but also the "expectations" that an instructor would have of a diver enrolling in a cavern class?

And, if there are certain expectations of student enrolling in a course, perhaps those expectations should be included in the agency's description of the course? If not, we can hardly fault the "typical diver" who shows up with a deficit in the very skills that it seems the course is intended to develop. In their minds they're coming to the course to LEARN those things, not to demonstrate proficiency right off the bat.

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

The NSS-CDS cavern course and the NACD cavern course are setup and designed for two different purposes.

Initially the class was setup as a safety course to help show open water divers the fundamentals of diving in an overhead environment. The class was designed to help educate divers as to the hazards of diving into an overhead environment and to help show them why they need training to do this safely. The class be taken in standard open water gear with a minimal of gear configuration, specifically "danglies".

The second purpose is to give the student the framework for cave diver training.

 

[TSandM]

I guess the point I keep trying to make . . . I make it to this board, and I make it to our students (and anyone else who will stand still for me to listen) is that buoyancy, trim, non-silting propulsion, tolerance for task-loading, light signals -- ALL that stuff can be learned in open water, and closer to home. And to me, it SHOULD be learned in open water, and practiced and practiced well, before somebody heads off to take an overhead environment class. Otherwise, the instructor is faced with a conundrum: Do you hold this diver, who has traveled for a "cavern" class, in open water until their skills are good enough for the cave (which may WELL take more than the two days generally allotted for a cavern class), or do you take this person INTO the cave to continue to work on their skills, and accept the damage to the cave that ensues?

We took a group of divers down to Mexico a year ago, and five of them signed up for cavern classes. Some turned out not to be well-prepared for the class, and spent all their time in open water, never entering the overhead. I was EXTREMELY proud of their instructor for doing that, but I really felt for the students, who traveled to MX and spent multiple days of their vacation practicing skills they could have learned in open water. (BTW, these were NOT our students, just people who signed up for the trip, one of whom we had never met before that event. The one student of ours who did the cavern class passed it neatly.)

 

[RJP]

The NSS-CDS cavern course and the NACD cavern course are setup and designed for two different purposes.

Which is which?

Funny, my NACD cavern course used the NSS-CDS manual. In fact I only call it an "NACD course" because at the end the instructor asked me which card I wanted - since he covered the requirements for either/both - and I chose NACD. Don't even recall why at this point. I think it was because I liked their logo better.



---------- Post added March 27th, 2015 at 01:04 PM ----------

I guess the point I keep trying to make . . . I make it to this board, and I make it to our students (and anyone else who will stand still for me to listen) is that buoyancy, trim, non-silting propulsion, tolerance for task-loading, light signals -- ALL that stuff can be learned in open water, and closer to home. And to me, it SHOULD be learned in open water, and practiced and practiced well, before somebody heads off to take an overhead environment class.

You well know I'm in full agreement. And you've read my experience many times.

I was fortunate enough to find great OW instruction through shear luck of the draw. I had no idea that what I was taught was "hard" nor that as a new diver I shouldn't be able to do such things as maintain neutral buoyancy and horizontal trim... much less frog and back kick. Danglies? I was never offered any. BP/W was standard gear as far as I knew.

I met my NACD instrutor at a picnic table in Ginnie Springs at 8am on the appointed Saturday. He had several hours allotted to gear configuration. He took one look at the rig set up on the table, looked at me, and said "Is your gear still in your car?"

 

[LiteHedded]

Which is which?

Funny, my NACD cavern course used the NSS-CDS manual. In fact I only call it an "NACD course" because at the end the instructor asked me which card I wanted - since he covered the requirements for either/both - and I chose NACD. Don't even recall why at this point. I think it was because I liked their logo better.



---------- Post added March 27th, 2015 at 01:04 PM ----------



You well know I'm in full agreement. And you've read my experience many times.

I was fortunate enough to find great OW instruction through shear luck of the draw. I had no idea that what I was taught was "hard" nor that as a new diver I shouldn't be able to do such things as maintain neutral buoyancy and horizontal trim... much less frog and back kick. Danglies? I was never offered any. BP/W was standard gear as far as I knew.

I met my NACD instrutor at a picnic table in Ginnie Springs at 8am on the appointed Saturday. He had several hours allotted to gear configuration. He took one look at the rig set up on the table, looked at me, and said "Is your gear still in your car?"

my iantd cavern class used the cds manual as well

 

[Redshift]

Sounds a lot like "Cavern" to me.

I agree. Look at the syllabus of cavern. It's supposed to cover trim and propulsion techniques. GUE does not have a cavern course. It makes sense to have Fundamentals. And of course it's something good to have for non-cave technical diving. But I don't agree with the breaking up courses into even more courses. A diver who is used to OW diving and can be AOW and then comes to cavern needs some skills that are not just running a line, sharing gas or doing a lights-out drill. It also needs to have proper trim, buoyancy and propulsion techniques for that environment. Why to say that all these are needed, but you are only willing to teach part of them?
Of course that this can make cavern a demanding course. It's not just getting to know in a very limited way how the cave environment is. It's getting the foundations to progress safely. Maybe some people find it odd to have so much training for such limited dives... but does Fundamentals give any extra limits? A cavern course should be demanding, properly done and respected.

 

[GDI]

It doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't taught to me during class, but I don't think I know/remember how to do a primary tie off with TS, picture 4 is what I use, 5 and 6 I'm not sure I know how, could you please give a brief explanation how it's done.
Everything else is exactly what I was taught/remember/do

Thank you

The primary basic is just a wrap of a minimum three wraps times. This is used when and where the primary tie-off only allows for a single wrapped line, It can put stress on cave structure if over tight and too much movement occurs. Rated as good and acceptable but not best method.

The primary with Tension Spring (TS) is used when it is possible to better secure the primary wrap and having access to the end of the secure point is ideal. This is accomplished by knowing how to tie a 1/2 clove hitch. Once the wrap of three is wound you simply twist the line creating a loop and place it back over the tie point in the opposite direction.

The action of pulling on such a line puts stress on the line and not the cave structure. Note: Never stress the line to much, just enough to keep things tight and clean. Always think TLC (tension, lock and clip)

I think I demo this better then I might be explaining it, does this help?