Changes to Fundies...

[Bob Sherwood]

What this means is the instructor is now limited to a max in water of 4 people. In the past, some would put six in the water at once. This is really only an issue with 4 students.
No single person classes are sanctioned.
2 people make one team.
3, makes one team.
5-6, you have two teams: a team of 3 and a team of 2. Instructor must double dive and focus all attention on the in water team.
Personally with 4, I would split into 2 teams and double dive.
the entire focus should be on the best interest of the student
Best, Bob

Thanks for all the insta-PM's. Looks like I needen't worry too much. Most of the anticipated changes are for the better. What surprised me was the proposed instructor-to-student ratio (in water at least) change. If it's going to be 1:4 does this mean the 3-man team practice is out of the window? I so thought that was kind of GUE'ish. Or maybe some stuff somebody gets drilled alone for something (except that can't buddy up with instructor).

 

[MonkSeal]

Some time ago we discussed about these issues:
- primary light attachment
- corrugated hose, inflator hose and bungie loop

For the 1st issue: fixed boltsnap on the handle and bungie loop (for double ender) is required.

For the 2nd issue: both the corrugated hose and inflator hose go inside the bungie loop.

I'm just curious: Are these just recommendations or it will become GUE standard?

 

[MHK]

The proposed changes will only serve to make the class even better then it is today. One of the comments I hear very often at the end of the class is "The class was great, but it was just too much information in too short of a time". Essentially what we are trying to accomplish is to remove that problem by extending the class to 4 days, and including additional skills that some, if not many, of the instructors already include.

For example, those that have taken my class all know that I always put in a toxing diver rescue. Until now that was beyond the scope of the class, but we felt it important enough to make in inclusive going forward. GUE is one of the only agencies that actually encourgaes it's instructor corp to exceed minimium standards, so what JJ did was to incorporate many of the advances that some of us were doing anyway..
I doubt anyone will be disappointed in the changes, all we did was to more formalize many of the excesses that we felt were important.

Moreover, we reduced the in-water ratio's to provide for a more complete hands-on experience. I believe most will see this changes in a positive light, especially given that the norm of the industry is to go in the opposite direction, ie; increase in-water ratio's, shorten classes, omit certain skills, etc. etc.

Hope that helps.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I see you are creating two "levels" of Fundamentals ... Rec and Tech. For those who have already taken and passed Fundamentals, will there be any additional requirements prior to taking Rec Triox or Tech 1?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[lamont]

I am concerned about the change to the inflation hose policy...if both hoses are inside the bungee that can cause issues.

*sorry*, I just wanted to ***** about something miniscule.

That can cause the inflator to get disconnected if the hose is short and the connector get caught by the bungee. Really, I've never understood why this was a problem since your backup buoyancy are your lungs and propulsion (and drysuit if you've got one).

I've been more swayed by El Guapo's argument that putting only the corrugated hose under the bungee traps the whole thing and can impede using it as a third regulator.

 

[piikki]

I see you are creating two "levels" of Fundamentals ... Rec and Tech. For those who have already taken and passed Fundamentals, will there be any additional requirements prior to taking Rec Triox or Tech 1?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

That was one of the only negatives I picked from the proposed changes. Since, at the moment, I am not capable of hauling doubles (and don’t own a canister light) I would be automatically destined to the B-class. Not that I am dreaming of passing and getting any cards on the first go, and by the time I re-try my back might be able to tolerate doubles BUT I kind of dislike the idea that Fundamentals course would have this division. I’d keep Fundies about fundamental skills and issues about diving, and not create another step inside it if indeed Fundies is meant for novices (too). I have no idea what eg Tech 1 requires but I’d rather the step be after Fundiesl. Or then there should be the GUE OW and DIR-F to choose between rather than have all kinds of level confusions for people starting up the progression.

Now I have to think if this kind of thinking is against ‘just’ learning it but it’s nearly like you start fearing there are going to be the ‘serious DIR-F courses’ and less serious (rec) ones, and people (with inside info) hunting to see which ones to participate in depending on who are coming.

 

[SeanQ]

Now I have to think if this kind of thinking is against ‘just’ learning it but it’s nearly like you start fearing there are going to be the ‘serious DIR-F courses’ and less serious (rec) ones, and people (with inside info) hunting to see which ones to participate in depending on who are coming.

I was thinking along the same lines.

Bob or MHK: What would be the recommended route for someone who currently dives a single tank recreationally but wants to pursue tech in the future? I've read many posts on this board advising future DIR-F students not to practise skills before taking the class because it is hard to unlearn bad habits. So for someone like me who has no doubles training but wishes to learn, which would be the best route?

 

[lamont]

That was one of the only negatives I picked from the proposed changes.

I think its a good idea. I found a large gap in between my fundies class (which was fairly recreationally focused, with only one doubles-diver in the group) and my RecTriox class. There was certainly a need for something in between them.

 

[Spectre]

That can cause the inflator to get disconnected if the hose is short and the connector get caught by the bungee. Really, I've never understood why this was a problem since your backup buoyancy are your lungs and propulsion (and drysuit if you've got one).

IMHO, the only time it could potentially be an issue is when you are arresting a decent, but in that case; 1) you'd not be pulling on it and 2) you should be intermediately putting gas in there and should be able to arrest it quickly enough with drysuit or lungs anyway. When AG tried to demonstrate it popping out, he had trouble getting it do disconnect on my rig. When I tried it the other way, it could still disconnect, in fact easier, if the bungee gets up against the inflator itself.

I've been more swayed by El Guapo's argument that putting only the corrugated hose under the bungee traps the whole thing and can impede using it as a third regulator.

That was the reason I chose to have both in the bungee to begin with, it made it so that I could pull it out if necessary.

To me, it was just one of those things that I didn't see as that critical, and chose to do it the way I did it, since I couldn't find a compelling argument to go with the recommended method. I just didn't see it as a big deal, easily remedied [if it was to pop off] with the downside of it being a PITA if you happened to actually need that 3rd air source.

 

[piikki]

I think its a good idea. I found a large gap in between my fundies class (which was fairly recreationally focused, with only one doubles-diver in the group) and my RecTriox class. There was certainly a need for something in between them.

Maybe I misunderstood something about the idea. My opposition is to the muddling of the steps/courses in the beginning when things are fuzziest anyway - not adding needed steps to cover the gaps in existing system to aid students on their path. (I claim not to know if any gaps exist, and what needs there are since I am at the level of entering, and can only speak of what confuses me more or less).

So, particularly emphasizing that Fundies course (currently) is the entry level course I find it slightly confusing that it could be geared into this “I might get more if I took it one way or less if I took it the other” (I am not opposed to remedial courses but the main opposition comes from the fact that at the start one would then need to know these paths which adds to evaluation burden for a rookie). I do not assume that each F-course is 100% the same (naively I expect all are quality, and I will get about the same with some added bonuses in some places). I hope not to appear paranoid but I’d like there to be a pure starter, and any gapping courses would be offered after I learnt to kick, route my stuff and keep my trim, and all that basic stuff. Keeps the system nice and streamlined and easier to understand, and as long as gapping courses are available from that point on one is way more informed (and hooked) to find one that is appropriate.