Fundies -- my bottom line

[MXGratefulDiver]

As much as I still really like the instructors from my original shop, one does not dive with them without paying an instructor's fee.

Now THAT I did not realize ... gee, if I charged a fee for every new diver I took out and mentored, I'd probably be able to justify the expenses I put into being an instructor ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[TSandM]

Don't get any ideas, Bob!

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Don't get any ideas, Bob!

Oh ... your horseback riding lessons are more than adequate compensation ... in more ways than I imagined they would be ... four days later I am almost able to walk normally ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[PerroneFord]

Ridin the horse makes many good men sore later Bob. No worries.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Ridin the horse makes many good men sore later Bob. No worries.

Actually, the riding lesson was very much like a DIR-F class ... a logical progression starting with an explanation of the gear, a discussion about the different types of gait that a horse has, why good posture and attention to leg position are important for proper balance ... all that stuff. Then we started with the horse on a lunge line ... walk, canter, trot ... and progressed to the point where I could "post" a trot while guiding the horse myself (as opposed to "plopping", which was my previous method of riding a trotting horse). I learned about all the bad habits I had picked up from previous riding experiences, and what I would need to do to correct them. There was even some situational awareness thrown into the mix (because horses, after all, DO have a mind of their own).

It was very much a DIR-H sort of thing ... right down to the humbling moment when I found myself on the ground with the horse staring down at me (with, I swear, a grin on his face). The only thing missing was the video ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[TSandM]

Okay, next time I'll bring a camera.

(She says, feeling enormously pleased with herself to have been even metaphorically equated with a GUE instructor . . . )

 

[MikeFerrara]

Most people who write the class up talk about how much they learned. When I sit down and tally it, I didn't actually LEARN that much, if learning means you really got something. I did learn the frog kick, and I got a good beginning handle on the helicopter turn, and a little of the back kick. That was truly new learning.

Part of this, I think is because of who you're diving with. I audited a DIRF and part of another and I don't think I learned anything at all...except for picking up some fantastic teaching techniques.

Keep in mind that most of what's taught in DIRF is, in theory taught in every open water class. Please note the "in theory" part there.

Buoyancy . . . ah, buoyancy. Every Fundies writeup dramatizes the difficulty of maintaining one's buoyancy to GUE standards while being task-loaded. But you know what? I don't think anybody can TEACH that. I think you have to LEARN it by repeated trial and error. I mean, what can somebody tell you? Stay alert for early changes in depth; anticipate buoyancy changes and vent/add air early; and be aware of what your breathing pattern is doing to your status. But YOU have to do it, feel it, think about it, manage it. Fundies gives you an opportunity to work on it in structured drills where you are forced to recognize where you fall short -- if you didn't at the time, you will on the tape. Seeing yourself on the videotape is very useful, because sometimes your perception of how you are oriented in the water, or what you are doing, is just plain faulty or incomplete. This is a MAJOR strength of this class, and I think it should be used in more instructional settings. It's expensive and labor-intensive, but SO valuable. And entertaining, too . . .

Skills? Well, we all already knew how to flood and clear a mask, how to take a mask off and replace it, how to remove a regulator and replace it. Again, buoyancy was the challenge here. Long hose deployment was new because the long hose was new. S-drill was new, but I won't say I got it really down, nor did most of my class. My group -- the novice divers -- didn't attempt to shoot a bag or do a valve drill.

So, as I see it, what happened in Fundies was that I was presented with some information and a set of skills. I was shown how the skills should be done, and shown what the standards are for doing them satisfactorily. I did not "learn" them -- that will take time and practice.

I think I ended up in the camp of the people who think this class should be broken up into two pieces -- a workshop to present the skills and ideas, and a second evaluation session. Because I don't think someone for whom the skills are new will ever be able to master them to the required standard in four dives, or even six. And the number of people with hundreds of dives or instructor certifications who don't pass Fundies are confirmation of that to me.

You hit on some good stuff here. I don't think that two days in the water is enough time for most students to actually improve their skills to a passing point. From what I've seen though, divers who go out and practice this stuff, now that they know what to practice and what it should look like, improve at light speed in comparisson to most other divers. I'd also be willing to bet that a diver who takes OW training from one of the DIRF instructors could come pretty close right from the start (or shortly after)because they're teaching the same stuff and more time can be spent in the water in an OW class.

I think there are lots of things that you got that you'll come to appreciate even more as time goes on.

 

[lamont]

My experience with DIRF was similar. Some of the GUE kool-aid in the lecture actively annoyed me, kind of like JJs book. Similarly a lot of the lecture stuff that was good, was review for me from what I'd been exposed to from diving with the shop or reading on the net and not really enough on deco theory. The major point of the class is really the video review and in-water skills.

There was also a taste that we got of what "situational awareness", "equipment, environment, team" and "team diving" really meant which was also a huge eye opener. Having a buddy float off and "die" while being task-focused turned those from academic concepts into reality (and there was much more about those concepts than I would have ever guessed before being shown it).

What Lynne has interpreted as my opposition to DIR-F (and DIR in general) is my disagreement with the dogma -- especially relating to equipment. Without any desire to get into a discussion about the equipment (and yes, I absolutely understand the why and it is appropriate -- don't get me wrong), I fail to understand the rationale for the dogmatic requirement for all the gear at the "Fundamentals" level.

At the fundies level it really isn't very dogmatic. You have to have a long hose, because so much of the class is about managing the long hose and dealing with long hose task loading. You also need non-split fins so that you can do helicopter kicks and at least have the equipment to do the back-kick.

If you do want to go beyond recreational diving into technical diving, though, it is a good idea to do DIRF with a fully-compliant gear set. It gives you the opportunity to deal with the tasks that are specific to the gear and deal with the task focusing and video review of the gear-specific clusters while you've got an instructor there to ask about techniques and such.

If, as it appeared, the most important "skills" taught/learned at her DIR-F were equipment agnostic, then why make the task more difficult by adding unnecessary equipment changes? And, in listening to her, it is apparent to me the most important "skills" were bouyancy control and situational (buddy) awareness. The use of the "special" DIR equipment appeared to be pretty incidental to the really important stuff -- AT THIS ENTRY LEVEL OF TRAINING.

Well, viewed as a progression of classes, we were severely harmed in our RecTriox class by not having previously done fundies in doubles. We spent a lot of RecTriox going over fundies skills because we had previously all done fundies in singles.

It may be a problem with the GUE class progression, but the higher levels of training are not the place to be dealing with equipment changes. At that point you need to be dealing with multiple failures (mask off + air share + shut down post) and managing team resources, and not dealing with trying to clip your SPG off.

In my discussions with her, I've used the novice pilot analogy. IF someone wants to become a jet jockey, they don't start their training on a jet -- they start with the simplest plane to work on the skills appropriate at that level. As the important skills (flying straight and level, making turns without changing altitude, talking to ATC, taxiing and taking off, and of course, the one mandatory maneuver, landing) improve, you add more equipment complexity. Here, as a relatively novice diver, I saw Lynne's basic /important skills, get worse as she learned her new equipment. It just seems to me to have added an unnecessary level of complexity to a learning situation that is complex enough on its own.

Heh, when I look at the pictures from wakulla of guys with rebreathers, scooters and a cluster of stages the DIRF gear kinda looks like its the simplest plane...

 

[wb416]

Actually, the riding lesson was very much like a DIR-F class ... a logical progression starting with an explanation of the gear, a discussion about the different types of gait that a horse has, why good posture and attention to leg position are important for proper balance ... all that stuff. Then we started with the horse on a lunge line ... walk, canter, trot ... and progressed to the point where I could "post" a trot while guiding the horse myself (as opposed to "plopping", which was my previous method of riding a trotting horse). I learned about all the bad habits I had picked up from previous riding experiences, and what I would need to do to correct them. There was even some situational awareness thrown into the mix (because horses, after all, DO have a mind of their own).

It was very much a DIR-H sort of thing ... right down to the humbling moment when I found myself on the ground with the horse staring down at me (with, I swear, a grin on his face). The only thing missing was the video ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I laughed out loud when you said the horse was staring at you!! That's funny!!!

I"m still chuckling! :rofl:

 

[Adobo]

As much as I love my wife, I really hate it when she writes what I am purported to think and/or believe.

Just for the record:

1. What she was shown, what she was taught, what she has learned as a result of taking DIR-F will make her a better diver. Her biggest problem as a diver/dive buddy is her focus -- too much -- which means I, as her buddy, have too often been a solo diver for all intents and purposes. Her instructor strongly emphasized situational awareness -- and if she really gets that, she will have become a much better diver/buddy.

2. I am NOT a cave person! I find the geology interesting, but I also find them sterile and generally monochromatic. So, if she does go into Cave Diving she'll probably do it with someone else. (Although I wouldn't mind doing a cave tour in Mexico sometime -- who knows, maybe I'll be transformed.)

What Lynne has interpreted as my opposition to DIR-F (and DIR in general) is my disagreement with the dogma -- especially relating to equipment. Without any desire to get into a discussion about the equipment (and yes, I absolutely understand the why and it is appropriate -- don't get me wrong), I fail to understand the rationale for the dogmatic requirement for all the gear at the "Fundamentals" level.

If, as it appeared, the most important "skills" taught/learned at her DIR-F were equipment agnostic, then why make the task more difficult by adding unnecessary equipment changes? And, in listening to her, it is apparent to me the most important "skills" were bouyancy control and situational (buddy) awareness. The use of the "special" DIR equipment appeared to be pretty incidental to the really important stuff -- AT THIS ENTRY LEVEL OF TRAINING.

In my discussions with her, I've used the novice pilot analogy. IF someone wants to become a jet jockey, they don't start their training on a jet -- they start with the simplest plane to work on the skills appropriate at that level. As the important skills (flying straight and level, making turns without changing altitude, talking to ATC, taxiing and taking off, and of course, the one mandatory maneuver, landing) improve, you add more equipment complexity. Here, as a relatively novice diver, I saw Lynne's basic /important skills, get worse as she learned her new equipment. It just seems to me to have added an unnecessary level of complexity to a learning situation that is complex enough on its own.

I would suggest that the use of a primary reg on a long hose and a backup reg on a necklace is another important skill/configuration taught in fundies but to me, that's just a matter switching out some hoses.

There are some folks who are teaching a fundies style class and yet don't make all the specific DIR gear mandatory. Personally, I do not see why one cannot achieve proper trim in a jacket style or back inflate BC. They ask you to bring paddle style fins but don't really mandate it. It may be tough to learn the back kick on split fins but the entertainment value would most likely make it worthwhile.