Chasing paper? Or competence?

[fjpatrum]

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.

Here's my question as a newb. If you're assuming a team member loses all their back gas, how are you also assuming a full deco obligation? It seems to me (as a newb, remember) that you can't have both. Now I can see how you'd incur some level of deco and then a team member blows an o-ring right before you start deco, but other than that, is it just "safety margin" you're planning for with these scenarios? Am I missing something else?

To the OP: Don't several well known SB posters offer something akin to a workshop or skills "seminar" similar to your concept? I suspect those fall under the auspices of "specialties" without actually requiring a C-Card, but I'm not sure I understand how that would be different than your query.

 

[nimoh]

Here's my question as a newb. If you're assuming a team member loses all their back gas, how are you also assuming a full deco obligation? It seems to me (as a newb, remember) that you can't have both. Now I can see how you'd incur some level of deco and then a team member blows an o-ring right before you start deco, but other than that, is it just "safety margin" you're planning for with these scenarios? Am I missing something else?

To the OP: Don't several well known SB posters offer something akin to a workshop or skills "seminar" similar to your concept? I suspect those fall under the auspices of "specialties" without actually requiring a C-Card, but I'm not sure I understand how that would be different than your query.

If the loss of back gas happened at the end of the 35 minute dive, the divers would have 1 tank between the two of them, and a full deco obligation that includes 2 minutes of ascent and a 7 minute stop.

If they each had a 130, then at the end of the 35 minutes each would have used 100ft3, 1 tank empty and 30ft3 in the other tank. The estimates show that 15ft3 is needed for each diver to reach the surface, so they would have enough gas to reach the surface with 0psi remaining.

However, what if one or both divers were a little stressed in this situation, and was breathing a little (or a lot) heavier than normal?

What if they spent a little time at the bottom trying to figure out what happened? Would this affect the length of their deco obligation? By how much?

Most of technical training involves learning how to plan for and handle situations like this.

 

[fjpatrum]

Thanks, Nimoh. Kind of what I expected based on my own (non-scuba) training but figured I'd try to see what I don't know.

 

[Lorenzoid]

. . .
The thread is more generally about whether a diver can acquire additional formal training (i.e., purchased from an instructor) a la carte, and the perceived associated pros/cons.

I think the answer depends on whether the instructor perceives the "a la carte item" to be within the envelope of the diver's existing, agency-sanctioned training and experience. I think instructors would be taking a risk teaching OW-certified divers a la carte elements of tec diving unless they're sure their insurance is going to cover them. That other thread has reinforced to me that elements of tec diving need to go together as a package, because the package of skills defines the outer envelope/profile of the diving that can be done safely, and the agencies have already done the work of defining what needs to be in each package. It comes down to the individual instructor's willingness to assume risk.

From a student's perspective, hey, I'd be glad to have an instructor teach me skills a la carte. It's not MY house that's at risk if I get injured.

 

[MWilliamson]

I'm new to diving, but I have 25 years of high school teaching experience and 30 of coaching high school sports.

Lorenzoid said it best.

In today's litigation happy society, I would not expect an instructor to teach a new way of diving without it being in a course setting. Deco, overhead, penetration, etc. is what I'm talking about because they require a LOT of new philosophy and skill sets. Why not? Because it opens them up to a easy lawsuit when something goes wrong for that diver later. Those are different levels of diving.

On the other hand, I think if the instructor was teaching a new skill, it wouldn't be a problem. Things like back finning or shooting an SMB don't require new techniques and philosophys. They are skills that can make the diver better at their current level.

 

[Aguablanco1]

It seems to me that the answer to the original question is, absolutely possible. All you have to do is find an instructor that is willing and able. If you are asking if someone should be required to teach just portions of a specialty that is a whole different subject.
RichH

 

[Jim Lapenta]

I offer several non cert workshops. I do these workshops under the same guidelines as a formal class. Med statements, liability release, etc. When it comes to specific skills I look at what the diver wants to learn, say shooting an SMB for example, now I can offer that as part of my OW, Advanced, Deep, and Intro to Tech courses and do include it in them. I can also offer it as part of a skills refresher for any of those levels. A refresher is not just OW skills under the agency I cert through. It can be any skills that are included in the formal class.
I teach my Buoyancy and Trim Workshop that way. They are OW skills. Do not need to follow a prescribed lesson as each student is different so I can tailor the class to each one. In that way I do follow a lesson plan. It is just tailored to each diver.

 

[rx7diver]

One thing to be said is: Coaching. I've specifically avoided the word in the rest of the post, but I think it's a great concept and a paradigm under which you could operate as an instructor without the heavy-handed repercussions. Scuba Coach Trace (Trace Malin) provides this service, and I'm VERY interested in taking him up on a day or two of his coaching.

Don't several well known SB posters offer something akin to a workshop or skills "seminar" similar to your concept? I suspect those fall under the auspices of "specialties" without actually requiring a C-Card, but I'm not sure I understand how that would be different than your query.

I offer several non cert workshops. I do these workshops under the same guidelines as a formal class. Med statements, liability release, etc. When it comes to specific skills I look at what the diver wants to learn, say shooting an SMB for example, now I can offer that as part of my OW, Advanced, Deep, and Intro to Tech courses and do include it in them.

It's great to know that some instructors have found a way to teach scuba skills a la carte, despite what I've just learned are very real concerns for professional liability exposure. I hope posters from the other thread will read this and be encouraged by it.

It seems to me that the real challenge, then, is finding a knowledgeable instructor who will agree to teach someone specifically what he/she wants to learn. Of course, it seems reasonable that a conscientious (and prudent) instructor will insist on teaching all required ancillary skills—necessary and sufficient ancillary skills—the student is lacking, and will price the lesson accordingly after explaining all this to and getting agreement from the student before the lesson commences.

Thanks for your replies and discussion. I've learned a lot. Again.

Safe Diving,

rx7diver

 

[rivers]

Here's my question as a newb. If you're assuming a team member loses all their back gas, how are you also assuming a full deco obligation? It seems to me (as a newb, remember) that you can't have both. Now I can see how you'd incur some level of deco and then a team member blows an o-ring right before you start deco, but other than that, is it just "safety margin" you're planning for with these scenarios? Am I missing something else?

To the OP: Don't several well known SB posters offer something akin to a workshop or skills "seminar" similar to your concept? I suspect those fall under the auspices of "specialties" without actually requiring a C-Card, but I'm not sure I understand how that would be different than your query.

You plan a gas reserve (minimum gas) to get you and your buddy back up to the next available gas source (whether surface or deco cylinder) while completing any and all stops from the most critical point in the dive, just before the planned ascent time.
I hope that makes sense

 

[DevonDiver]

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?

Formal courses insulate the instructor from a certain degree of liability. The agency carries responsibility for course design, syllabus and standards. Teaching outside of those formal constraints places that legal burden on the instructor. In some cases, their insurance may not cover that liability.

Very few instructor provide informal training. What some provide is informal reinforcement. That being, the refinement of skills, drills and knowledge at the level to which the student is already qualified.

For example, conducting fundamental skills with a diver who already holds open water - no new skills introduced, rather new approaches to existing skills, or higher levels of proficiency in the same skills are the output...

Teaching decompression ('lite', 'heavy', 'low-sugar', 'diet-size' or whatever other junk name someone might choose to invent in an effort to validate it...) is an entirely new skill-set and knowledgebase.

DSMB is an interesting case. It's not a skill on most entry-level courses syllabus. You seek tuition, because you don't know the skill. It's not a reinforcement or variation of anything you were previously taught. That said, the industry/community currently don't seem to demand training for this equipment. That enables dive instructors to add the training as a supplement wherever they deem fit. However, it also wouldn't stop a student taking legal action against the instructor, if they subsequently got hurt through mis-handling the DSMB. They instructor would have to defend how and why they taught the skill, their performance standards, their technique, the theory they imparted, the conduct of the lesson etc etc...

It's a free world so, of course, people are able to approach an instructor and ask for that training. I'd be dubious of any instructor who accepts those terms however. They'd be carrying the liability bucket just because the student was too tight-fisted to pay for a c-card.

...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).

What you've described is, almost exactly, the PADI Tec40 course. Ignore the words 'tec' and look at the syllabus and outcome. Isn't that what matters?

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

Again, this seems to be nothing more than an argument to save a buck and skimp on the cost of a card. That's understandable from the student's perspective. It's asking a lot from the instructor though.

Personally, I think all this stuff (OP mentioned in the first post) should be taught at Deep Diver level (except the word is 'emergency', not 'lite' deco). That'd make Deep Diver a valuable qualification (rather than the experiential junk it currently is) and would directly reflect the techniques, equipment and knowledge beneficial for deeper recreational diving.

I see a lot of 'revisionist' comments that try to (re-)define 'lite' deco as an acceptable practice for non-deco training recreational divers. Unsurprisingly, most of those comments come from non-deco trained divers - people who haven't benefited from further education on the issue. Forgive my bluntness, but it never looks like anything other than a plea for validation to enable the uninformed to do something they know they shouldn't do...

Scuba training has devolved enough. I'm surprised some people have the nerve to campaign publicly for lower standards...