Chasing paper? Or competence?

[rx7diver]

Gentle Divers,

I've been following another thread currently running on SB: www.scubaboard.com/forums/advanced-scuba-discussions/473465-more-than-advanced-but-not-really-technical.html. That thread and similar threads invariably leave me mulling over the following question: Ought a diver be able to approach a (knowledgeable) instructor, ask to be taught a certain skill but within certain constraints, negotiate a price, and be taught that skill?

For example, suppose a diver knows that he/she wants to do only non-accelerated "lite" deco within recommended recreational scuba depth limits (i.e., no deeper than ~130 fsw) in a non-physical-overhead environment, while absolutely NOT wearing doubles (manifolded doubles, independent doubles, sidemount doubles).

This diver has absolutely no interest in learning non-silting finning techniques, for example, nor how to safely switch to higher-FO2 deco mix(es), etc., etc., etc.

This diver has absolutely no interest in acquiring a technical diving certification card, not interested in chasing another piece of paper.

Ought this diver be able to approach a (knowledgeable) instructor, ask to be taught this skill, negotiate a price, and be taught this skill? What do you think? Is it possible to do this? Should it be/not be? Upside/downside?

I have my own opinion—I'm old, and we old guys always have an opinion—but I'd like to learn yours.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Safe Diving,

rx7diver

 

[WheelsUSN]

In most cases the liability insurance that instructors have only covers them while teaching or supervising activities that are sanctioned by the instructor's agency. The courses that lead to a piece of paper are sanctioned by the agency. So unless I write a curriculum for the skills that you want to be taught and submit it to my agency for their approval then I have no liability insurance if something happens to you during the lesson.

Knowing that, it is up to each instructor whether or not they want to take that risk and how much they would choose to charge to do so. Depending on the skills that you want to be taught (for example, intentionally entering deco without a redundant gas supply) you might find that the price that the instructor is willing to negotiate is much higher than it would cost to take the full course that would get you a piece of paper saying that you have been trained to properly perform those skills.

 

[PfcAJ]

So no redundancy on a dive that doesn't allow you to surface in even of an equipment failure. Sounds like a pretty bad idea to me. I'd also argue that a single tank doesn't offer enough gas for 2 divers to share air through their ascent and decompression. Also unwise.

The he course doesn't exist because a single tank isn't the right tool for the job.

 

[Nirvana]

I am not an instructor, but here is my take on the subject. If a diver wants one particular skill to be taught (releasing a DSMB or diving with doubles) I think it is not too difficult in most cases (it was not in mine) to find an instructor or even an experienced mentor to teach that skill. Provided it is a simple enough skill and it is compatible to the level of the diver asking for the lesson.

The problem is that some skills are difficult to teach in isolation, or may not be taught so due to the risks involved in their application. In the case you mentioned, as alluded by WheelsUSN, going into deco puts the diver in increased risk of DCS in the case of an early ascent. Therefore, the diver must have redundancy in his gas supply in order not to be forced to ascend before time. This point makes it necessary to learn to dive in doubles (manifolded, side mounted or isolated) or at least with an H or Y valve and manage possible failures in this new equipment. Plus, buoyancy control has to be more precise than is required of regular recreational divers. Some knowledge on decompression theory and currently used algorithms would be welcome too. These items alone should justify at least an entry level technical course.

What I mean is that, in many cases, such as this one, the diver would be best served by going through an existing, already structured course, and learning something he thinks he will not use (non-silting propulsion techniques, in your example) than trying to creat a course specific for his interests.

 

[rx7diver]

So no redundancy on a dive ...

PfcAJ,

My example in the OP is just that: an example. Rewrite it to make it work for you, if you wish. The example doesn't preclude redundancy. For example, suppose the instructor agrees to teach this diver but only if the diver agrees to wear a suitable bailout/pony/buddy bottle. This is all hypothetical. This could be *any* skill, not necessarily the skill I describe in my example.

Safe Diving,

rx7diver

---------- Post added January 15th, 2014 at 10:08 PM ----------

In most cases the liability insurance that instructors have only covers them while teaching or supervising activities that are sanctioned by the instructor's agency. The courses that lead to a piece of paper are sanctioned by the agency. So unless I write a curriculum for the skills that you want to be taught and submit it to my agency for their approval then I have no liability insurance if something happens to you during the lesson.

Thanks, WheelsUSN. I didn't know this. This helps me understand many of the responses in the linked thread.

Safe Diving,

rx7diver

 

[Bob DBF]

An instructor and his insurance are soon parted if training is not within the parameters of his agency and the aforementioned insurance.

If I want specific training and don't need or want a card, I do it the old fashioned way and train myself. Back when I wanted to learn deco, I spent a lot of quality time reading the Navy Dive Manual. Today there a lot more resources to choose from than in the late '60's, as well as gear that makes the dives a lot safer. Although I still have the old j-valve double 72's, I wouldn't do the same dives on them I once did.



Bob
--------------------
OBD

 

[Superlyte27]

Gentle Divers,

I've been following another thread currently running on SB: www.scubaboard.com/forums/advanced-scuba-discussions/473465-more-than-advanced-but-not-really-technical.html. That thread and similar threads invariably leave me mulling over the following question: Ought a diver be able to approach a (knowledgeable) instructor, ask to be taught a certain skill but within certain constraints, negotiate a price, and be taught that skill?

For example, suppose a diver knows that he/she wants to do only non-accelerated "lite" deco within recommended recreational scuba depth limits (i.e., no deeper than ~130 fsw) in a non-physical-overhead environment, while absolutely NOT wearing doubles (manifolded doubles, independent doubles, sidemount doubles).

This diver has absolutely no interest in learning non-silting finning techniques, for example, nor how to safely switch to higher-FO2 deco mix(es), etc., etc., etc.

This diver has absolutely no interest in acquiring a technical diving certification card, not interested in chasing another piece of paper.

Ought this diver be able to approach a (knowledgeable) instructor, ask to be taught this skill, negotiate a price, and be taught this skill? What do you think? Is it possible to do this? Should it be/not be? Upside/downside?

I have my own opinion—I'm old, and we old guys always have an opinion—but I'd like to learn yours.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Safe Diving,

rx7diver

The simple answer: No. We have standards for a reason. They are good reasons, whether you can understand them or not, they were put there for a reason. Deco in a single tank? Deco involves a virtual ceiling. A ceiling of any sort requires redundancy. That redundancy comes in the form of twin tanks.

---------- Post added January 15th, 2014 at 10:45 PM ----------

I just read the rest of the thread. It seems most of us are on the same page.

I'd guess the OP would need to give us a few more examples on which skills he'd like to learn. Want to learn how to clear goggles instead of a mask? Sure, I can actually teach you that. We can agree on a price, you can pay me that price in advance. When we're all done, if you passed the skill, you will NOT get a card, but you will know how to clear a set of goggles.

What else did you have in mind?

 

[victorzamora]

Ought this diver be able to approach a (knowledgeable) instructor, ask to be taught this skill, negotiate a price, and be taught this skill?

So, your OP has a couple of conflicting points. The quote above is what I absolutely agree with. If you want to learn back-finning, call up an instructor you trust, and negotiate a price. Once you get done/satisfied, you finish it up by paying out. TOTALLY makes sense. It's more of a coaching session than a training session. I TOTALLY support this if you don't have a good mentor offering their time.

However, the rest of your post was atrociously dangerous. What you're suggesting is that you want an instructor to teach you how to break the limits of your cert without the proper training to do so. Purposefully breaching NDLs in purely rec gear without any of the other requisite skills. Do you think that all of the fancy crap tech divers learn to do is for show? I'm really not trying to be a butthead about it, I'm honestly asking. Besides the non-silting techniques, everything else is about useful skills even on normal Rec dives or "Lite deco." As has been mentioned above, proper redundancy isn't just about YOUR gas, but the gas of your buddy. Gas planning is about knowing for sure where you'll be in terms of gas reserves if all goes well, and what to do if it doesn't. All of the additional stuff you'd learn in a Tec40 class is so you can do dives that put you into deco with the training and knowledge to do those dives safely. That's what the card says, that the instructor believes you can accomplish those dives.

There are classes for you if you want to go a half step beyond what you're certified for. There are plenty of mentors out there to teach divers how to dive within their certs with more skill. There are coaching sessions for those not fortunate enough to find a mentor, and there are some courses to get you closer to what you want. For example, a good PPB course would work for a lot of what divers want.

 

[TSandM]

Without addressing the specific example: My husband put together a workshop that included a group of skills and some academics. He offered it to the professional staff at the dive shop where he teaches. An instructor for another shop learned about it and reported him to PADI. He was told that he could not teach this workshop (which did not offer any certification) at a PADI 5 star shop. He then submitted the outline as a Distinctive Specialty and got it approved, but as a consequence, he MUST teach all the things that are in the outline, if he offers the class.

This is a big part of why an instructor might balk at teaching something which is a part, but not all of an approved class.

 

[rivers]

I've just run some numbers through Baltic deco doing a 'light deco' dive. A 35 minute dive with an average depth of 100 feet will require 7 minutes of deco using 32% back gas (using a gradient factor of 30/85). Assuming a .7 SAC, a diver requires at least 114 cubic feet of gas. So even if you're using a 120 or 130, it doesn't give you much in the way of redundancy if a member of your team loses all of their back gas. There's a reason why if you're getting into deco (even light deco), doubles aren't just a recommendation but more of a requirement.
I can see why instructors do not teach deco to those who are not willing to make the jump to twins.