DIR, RDP & computer.. ???'s from a newbie

[DepartureDiver]

Tony, I just wanted to make sure your questions have been answered. Would you like to discuss the 120 rule some, multi-level procedures or any other type of procedure?

 

[-hh]

RE: DM's & Instructors failing Tables @ DEMA

But demonstrating the ability to use tables and the understanding of basic decompression theory is a requirement of every DM and instructor course that I know of.

True, but it happened anyway.

IIRC, the failure rate was over 25%, and it was several years ago (back when Tables were much more actively being taught!). I can no longer recall just which publication reported it, but it had to have been either _UnderCurrent_, _In-Depth_ or in _UnderwaterUSA_ (yes, I know I'm starting to date myself here).

RE: Lack of Education Degrees

Are you confusing formal education with intellegence?

No, not at all. What I'm saying is that you can be very intelligent, yet not particularly qualified (dare I say "unqualified"?) to do something because you haven't had the applicable training.

For example, I'm smart enough that I could probably be a good MD if I went to Medical School, but at the present, I haven't, so I'm unqualified.

We constantly harp about the importance of Scuba training, but we forget that "Teaching" is a learned skill unto itself. If we move up a level above that, we're talking about the science and practice of designing a training course and a "train the trainers" class. The proper preparation for someone looking to do this is at least a MA in Education in addition to their classroom experience base.

I won't say that they're absent from Dive Agencies, but they've not been particularly visible, at least at initial glance. I'd really like to be wrong here.

I think you're wrong here. You should really get familiar with how they teach dive planning before saying something like this. The "120" thing is just a convenient way to remember the "NDL" within a given range.

I did say that I'd be very cynical and make it a point to check out the specifics.

Personally, I have simply heard far too many disconcerting things over the past few years that make me very uncomfortable, dating back to the days when "slobbitis" bends were considered an acceptable practice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last I had heard, they had refused to open up their DCS models to Peer Review, which is the traditional method of creating checks-and-balances within the Scientific Community.

With the independant verification of their works thus unresolved, I consequently place minimal confidence in them. If you wish to place what IMO is blind faith trust in their works, that is your business - - YMMV.


-hh

 

[MikeFerrara]

True, but it happened anyway.

IIRC, the failure rate was over 25%, and it was several years ago (back when Tables were much more actively being taught!). I can no longer recall just which publication reported it, but it had to have been either _UnderCurrent_, _In-Depth_ or in _UnderwaterUSA_ (yes, I know I'm starting to date myself here).

I'm not surprised because many of them can't dive very well either.

No, not at all. What I'm saying is that you can be very intelligent, yet not particularly qualified (dare I say "unqualified"?) to do something because you haven't had the applicable training.

For example, I'm smart enough that I could probably be a good MD if I went to Medical School, but at the present, I haven't, so I'm unqualified.

We constantly harp about the importance of Scuba training, but we forget that "Teaching" is a learned skill unto itself. If we move up a level above that, we're talking about the science and practice of designing a training course and a "train the trainers" class. The proper preparation for someone looking to do this is at least a MA in Education in addition to their classroom experience base.

Weel, there's lots of university profs that design their own courses and don't have degrees in education or anything to do with educational system design. In fact, Id bet that's the norm.

I won't say that they're absent from Dive Agencies, but they've not been particularly visible, at least at initial glance. I'd really like to be wrong here.

Actuallt the agency that's probably put the most work into making sure their system was educationally sound over looked one little thing...what needed to be taught. LOL. They do a great job of teaching but just not the right stuff. Oh well.

I agree that it's important to know how to teach and to go about it in a way that works. It's all a waste though, without the technical competance to know what to teach.

In diving, maybe there are problems in both areas.

I will point out one thing though. If you're a lousy teacher but know what diving well is and insist your students dive well before they get a card, the student may have to teach themself in order to finish. When they finish, though they'll dive well even without any one having a degree in education. The result is a student who can dive. If, on the other hand, you take a bunch of educational system designers and have the design a course for a skill in which they have no technical competence, you end up with a valid system to teach invalid methods.
In diving we get both.

I did say that I'd be very cynical and make it a point to check out the specifics.

Personally, I have simply heard far too many disconcerting things over the past few years that make me very uncomfortable, dating back to the days when "slobbitis" bends were considered an acceptable practice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last I had heard, they had refused to open up their DCS models to Peer Review, which is the traditional method of creating checks-and-balances within the Scientific Community.

I hadn't heard this. If you're talking about the WKPP? some of their profiles are public and BRW and DAN has had access to the data and even do dopler testing. BRW has referenced this in public many times.

There is also a DIR group in Mexico who has dived similar profiles and it's all public.

If this is what you're talking about peers can review away.

With the independant verification of their works thus unresolved, I consequently place minimal confidence in them. If you wish to place what IMO is blind faith trust in their works, that is your business - - YMMV.


-hh

I'm doing no such thing

The fact is that divers are doing things and getting reliable results and science hasn't caught up. Some of it works and as far as I can tell they're just now getting a hint as to why.

However if you look at what GUE is teaching and how, it fits very nicely within the accepted tables. They have however greatly simplified the planning process kind of like what you do in algorythem design. Actually, that's exactly what it is.

They are not teaching recreational divers to "push any limits".

 

[-hh]

...there's lots of university profs that design their own courses and don't have degrees in education or anything to do with educational system design. In fact, Id bet that's the norm.

Colleges have Department Heads and Independent Accredation Organizations who functionally create a feedback loop to perform QA.

Public Schools have State Certifications that require a BA/Education or higher, and the Federal "No Child Left Behind" bit has additional requirements. More QA.

If, on the other hand, you take a bunch of educational system designers and have the design a course for a skill in which they have no technical competence, you end up with a valid system to teach invalid methods.

Non-Sequitor: any real Professional knows better than to practice outside of their field of expertise - - here, you need an Education pro who's also a scuba diver (or a diver who's also a Educator) to be qualified to establish the training system.

I hadn't heard this. If you're talking about the WKPP? some of their profiles are public and BRW and DAN has had access to the data and even do dopler testing.

Dopplers measure the output of the Deco Model's mathmatical simulations, and can be done without divulging what's inside the "Black Box" (the proverbial 'source code' of the mathmatical formulas themselves). Therein lies the difference between our respective statements.

-hh

 

[newdiverAZ]

k lemme toss a lil in to see if my understanding is correct on the deep stops, and on/offgassing. On your ascent the greatest change in the pressure gradient is when you reach 1 ata absolute. At this point the faster tissues become the concern as far as bubbles are concerned, so the slow ascent rate and the deep stops still have you ongassing some but you are on gassing the slower tissues. I noticed a while back when my buddy and I altered the way we dive, I felt alot more energetic afterwards. We started doing really slow ascents, 20fpm or so, doing 5 mins at 15, 3 mins at 10 and about 2 mins to the surface from there. Most of are dives are shallow in the stupid lake. And as I picked up from Uncle Pug, relax on the surface don't be in a rush to climb 100 stairs, as this is the point where the greatest pressure gradient is.

 

[DepartureDiver]

k lemme toss a lil in to see if my understanding is correct on the deep stops, and on/offgassing. On your ascent the greatest change in the pressure gradient is when you reach 1 ata absolute. At this point the faster tissues become the concern as far as bubbles are concerned, so the slow ascent rate and the deep stops still have you ongassing some but you are on gassing the slower tissues. I noticed a while back when my buddy and I altered the way we dive, I felt alot more energetic afterwards. We started doing really slow ascents, 20fpm or so, doing 5 mins at 15, 3 mins at 10 and about 2 mins to the surface from there.

That's a fine way to look at it. I would only change the term fast compartments to the limiting compartment (which for a single dive is always faster than a "slow" compartment). Another way to look at it is that gas wants to come out of solution and bubbles want to grow. But by coming up slow, any bubbles that want to grow may actually start collapsing instead of expanding due to the deeper stops and slow ascents. Still a little simple, but it gives you the idea. BTW, good for you with a 20 fpm ascent rate.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Dopplers measure the output of the Deco Model's mathmatical simulations, and can be done without divulging what's inside the "Black Box" (the proverbial 'source code' of the mathmatical formulas themselves). Therein lies the difference between our respective statements.

-hh

That's what guys like BRW are doing.

Some divers are going out and finding what works. Others are comming along behind and trying to explain why it works. Others are just waiting for some one to convince them.

The process isn't anything new.