DIR-F class will now be a certification class

[Bob3]

You may be interested in looking at the standard NOAA forms & tweaking them to better reflect your needs:
info: http://www.ndc.noaa.gov/tc_medical_processing.html
forms: http://www.ndc.noaa.gov/forms.html

The medical forms are pretty close to what's needed for the annual commercial diving exam, with a chest x-ray added in for the first year & every 5 years after.

Everybody I dive with is CPR-First Aid certified.

About that 3 mile run; that only shows how well a person can run (handy skill from the tone of some of the posts ) and aerobic fitness. A timed surface swim would reflect needed abilities more closely.

The "Body Composition Screening Form" could be combined with an aerobic fitness exam to avoid failing otherwise qualified individuals that might not meet the "height / width" requirement. It's not a good idea to tick off olympic weightlifters, pro football players, or other massively muscled fit individuals. :mean:

 

[SeaJay]

http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=242357#post242357

 

[Genesis]

Aerobic fitness is the entire issue with the "smoking" debate here. The argument is that aerobic fitness is severely compromised by smoking (probably, particularly if you're a heavy smoker), and therefore we just "ban smoking" among our trainees. The REST of the issue (that you might die 10 years early) is, quite frankly, none of GUE's damn business.

However, the implementation they have chosen is like banning drinking as a chestnut for stopping driving while impaired. Its a subset of the problem, but not the problem itself, and IMHO it was done entirely for political reasons, because there is a FAR more effective, impossible to cheat, and objective means of accomplishing the goal - determining aerobic fitness.

I like the 3-mile run because it addresses the problem, it avoids the value-judgement game, and yet it encompasses not only those who smoke (probably), but also those are just plain out of aerobic shape.

You can even calibrate the test by setting the time limit for the run to wherever you think is the minimum acceptable level of aerobic fitness, from a "brisk walk" all the way up to full-bore marathon runner fitness.

This resolves the ENTIRE BMI issue, the ENTIRE smoking issue, in fact, the ENTIRE aerobic fitness question all in one test that CANNOT be cheated, cannot be fudged, cannot be lied about and is positive and definitive in its outcome!

Add to that a timed swim (which they have), and you have both a basic watermanship test and an aerobic fitness test. Cool. If you want to get TRULY objective and anal require a recent medical with a stress test on a treadmill with a minimum pace and maximum heart rate.

That is the kind of objective standard that I applaud; it removes all the politics and ramrodding of a particular agenda, only tangentally-related to the issue at hand, from the equation and boils down the question to one of a simple yes or no answer - are you aerobically fit to a standard that is acceptable for this course?

That GUE has not adopted such a test, and dropped the rhetoric, speaks loudly to their agenda on the "smoking" issue. Its NOT health related as it pertains to scuba diving. It is "we insist that you follow our lifestyle orders to play with us, irrespective of whether or not you actually ARE fit" oriented.

It is for that reason offensive to me, just as it would be if they were to say, as I've noted, "its ok to snort cocaine, but smoking it is flat-out unacceptable!", or "if you're gay you can't be trained by us because you might be a risk to a rescuer's health", or any one of a number of other things that are only TANGENTALLY related to diving fitness but are VERY related to pushing a particular lifestyle agenda.

As for the Triox skewering on Usenet, it was MHK's claim that GUE had "studies" showing statistically significant CO2 impairment in the recreational range while on Nitrox that disappeared when breathing Triox - but of course, they're proprietary and he wouldn't provide a reference to them (that is, they're not "studies", they're anecdotes, because they have not been peer reviewed and published!) And this only happened about a month ago - are memories that short over on the left coast?

 

[MHK]

Genesis once bubbled...
As for the Triox skewering on Usenet, it was MHK's claim that GUE had "studies" showing statistically significant CO2 impairment in the recreational range while on Nitrox that disappeared when breathing Triox - but of course, they're proprietary and he wouldn't provide a reference to them (that is, they're not "studies", they're anecdotes, because they have not been peer reviewed and published!) And this only happened about a month ago - are memories that short over on the left coast?

I really have little interest in continuing a dialgue with you at this point. However, it's hard to let reckless idea's go without a response. I never said DISAPPEARED.. And once again, can you point to the link because I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't recall ever exchanges views with you prior to this thread, and I suspect I would remember yoru style.

But speaking to the larger audience, the issue wrt to Triox is that C02 is 130 times more narcotic the Nitrogen. Given the density of the gases, the depths that we are discussing, and the fact that He off gases 2.65 times faster then N2 it makes more sense use use a helium based mix. That is a generic over view, if you point to the specific thread I'll see if I can give greater detail, but I'm reluctant to get into a protracted engagement of ths issue with you because you appear to have a very narrow approach, and in this forum I feel as though I simply can not provide enough of anything to satisfy your concerns, so I'd rather not waste your time, and the time of the other members.

Later

 

[Aquamaniac]

I leave the 'puter for a few days, return to find Genesis in a senseless rant.....wow what a surprise.

And yet, you guys STILL enter into the debate, knowing full well that it will kill any chance of this thread staying on track.....

 

[Genesis]

don't recall ever exchanges views with you prior to this thread, and I suspect I would remember yoru style.

Good Lord Mike, we traded messages back and forth for something over a week on that thread! You don't recall me asking you "where's my gas?" and the modifying that to be more precise "where's my gas CARD?"

I don't keep archives and the server I use expires more quickly than I'd like, but I may have some of it logged privately here. I'll see what I've got.

(Yes, I understand that CO2 is significantly more narcotic. That's not the issue. The argument you made is that CO2 retention has been proven to be higher, at a statistical significance with relationship to impairment, at recreational depths between a Nitrox breather and a Triox breather. I challenged you to produce the evidence, at which point you hid behind the "I don't give away what we sell in our class on Usenet" excuse, which, as I pointed out, meant that you didn't have scientific evidence - you had anecdotes and claims. That was the point where you basically said there what you said here - you were retiring from the thread and you saw no point trying to "convince" me or anyone else you were right.)

The pattern between the two discussions was almost EXACTLY identical.

You made a set of claims, I called you on them and asked for your evidence in the form of scientically-acceptable (or at least scientifically-debatable!) articles, preferrably those that are peer-reviewed, and you hid behing the "GUE doesn't give away our course material on the Internet" excuse, essentially admitting that there are NO peer-reviewed (or otherwise published) scientific material to back up the claims.

IF that material existed, there would be nothing to hide, because the essence of such material is that it must be openly published along with enough data for an interested scientist to recreate the experiment and validate the claimed results.

 

[boomx5]

his name on there is not Genesis.

 

[Genesis]

Not hard to figure out, really.....

Has something to do with being on Usenet since 1983 or thereabouts.

 

[MHK]

Genesis once bubbled...


Good Lord Mike, we traded messages back and forth for something over a week on that thread! You don't recall me asking you "where's my gas?" and the modifying that to be more precise "where's my gas CARD?"

.

OK now I see the disconnect and it makes perfect sense to me.. You accused me of not remembering a thread with you. But if you are going to challenge credibility then in the interest of full disclosure you need to disclose that the thread was on a different scuba board AND you did not post under the name Genesis, you used the name Karl.. So how hell would you expect anyone to make the connection.. Talk about red-herrings. Not that someone has PM'd me with your identity I can't for the life of me figure out why you would hide the two and then make a charge that I don't recall our exchanges..

Now that I recall the exchanges, and I know who you are, it's much easier to say that you have simply distorted the facts, and if anyone wants to see the whole thread they can go to the www.scubadivernet.com and research the thread, I have no intention of re-living the distortions.

Karl, your way off base here and it isn't that I'm hiding anything from you, it's that you lack the capacity to digest the information and subscribe to a much different philosphy then I do and I've wasted enough time with you on the local board so I'm not doing it again. I wish I knew that Genesis was Karl, and also Karl Denniger and also RaiderKarl.. You just have too many names to keep up with you..

Have a nice day..

Later

 

[WreckWriter]

Bob3 once bubbled...
You may be interested in looking at the standard NOAA forms & tweaking them to better reflect your needs:

They don't want all those physical requirements, that would knock too many people. What they want is what they require (the only medical prerequisite) "must be a non-smoker").

WW