Getting My Technical Training Started
- Thread starter SnorkelLA
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
They actually do have a cave course (I have that certification myself), but few people know about it. Don't use the names interchangeably--saying you are cave certified when you are actually cavern certified is very misleading.
I would ask around the area and see what kinds of courses are available. Take your time and ask a lot of questions. Try to find an instructional program you like. Although it is not hard to cross over from some programs to other programs when you are part way through, it can be close to impossible for some others. If you are part way through a TDI program and decide to go to GUE, for example, you will be in for a shock when you find out what that will take. As someone who has crossed twice, I assure you that if I were to do it all over again, I would find a single program and stick with it.
Next, be ready for a surprise. Although your cavern training was probably a good introduction, learning technical diving is often like starting over for some divers. It can take a long time to get where you want to go. Be prepared to do a lot of practicing.
DevonDiver
N/A
I'd echo what others have said about the benefit of seeking out some form of preparatory training and assessment prior to enrolling on a tech program. It's important to understand the tolerances that you'll be expected to perform at in training - and to have improved your core skills to meet those tolerances in advance of the course. Where possible, transition onto your chosen technical rig in advance, so that equipment familiarity begins to get ingrained.
I personally feel that insufficient emphasis is put on this by many agencies - and, consequently, technical courses generally tend to focus on 'remedial' development of buoyancy, trim, propulsion, situational awareness and a precision approach - rather than being entirely focused on developing the new procedural and equipment capabilities needed.
Whilst many tech instructors carry out some form of base-line assessment/check-out prior to courses, there often lacks any formal performance requirement. GUE/UTD solved that dilemma through the 'Primer' and 'Fundies' courses. Other agency instructors might offer mentoring or clinics as a preparatory basis (although these won't be formal pre-requisites with the agencies they represent).
IMHO, far too many technical instructors accept students on to course/s without any knowledge of student baseline capability - this is especially true where students desire to progress through multiple courses (i.e. 'zero-to-trimix') in a single, unbroken, phase of training.
My advice is to concentrate entirely on developing the core skills needed to technical dive - and ensure you have those at a sufficient level of comfort and level of precision, before engaging on formal technical training. You'll get much more out of training that way - progression rather than remediation.
Having covered the basic pre-requisite capabilities, you need to do a lot of research on your potential training provider. I believe that the instructor is more important than the agency. Some agencies are more robust in their instructor standards than others - so there is some justification in expecting a 'lowest common denominator' of instructor capability from X, Y or Z agency. That said, if you are properly researching the potential instructor/s, then the agency 'minimum standards' cease to be an issue.
As others have said, expect to be humbled and frustrated during your training. That's a good thing and is evidence that you're being trained properly.
Don't try and rush through multiple training courses, in a short space of time. Most divers are unlikely to fully assimilate a full spectrum of skills and procedures into their muscle memory, at the correct standard and precision, without substantial post-qualification practice and repetition. Allow for some time/dives between formal courses for you to turn 'knowledge of skills' into 'assured capabilities'.
Technical diving demands huge investment and commitment. Many people focus on the financial implications of that... and aren't wrong to do so. However, the investment and commitment of TIME is also critical. Be patient and don't attempt to 'fast-track'... get the most value from training through a staged, progressive development of capability over an extended timescale.
As a technical diving instructor, I am actually of a split-mind over the relative merits of having a single instructor versus multiple instructors. When I teach, I am confident of my ability to mentor and develop a student through multiple phases of training. I see a huge benefit for that. However, I also see that exposure to multiple approaches, opinions and mindsets is also greatly beneficial to the long-term development of a technical diver - and this can be achieved through seeking out a variety of competent instructors as you progress. Whilst I remain undecided on the optimum choice, I think that a critical factor, in either case, is to remain aware that there is no such thing as 'perfect' - remain open-minded, investigative and critical in your acceptance of knowledge. Don't, under any circumstance, allow yourself to become a clone of the person who teaches you...
I personally feel that insufficient emphasis is put on this by many agencies - and, consequently, technical courses generally tend to focus on 'remedial' development of buoyancy, trim, propulsion, situational awareness and a precision approach - rather than being entirely focused on developing the new procedural and equipment capabilities needed.
Whilst many tech instructors carry out some form of base-line assessment/check-out prior to courses, there often lacks any formal performance requirement. GUE/UTD solved that dilemma through the 'Primer' and 'Fundies' courses. Other agency instructors might offer mentoring or clinics as a preparatory basis (although these won't be formal pre-requisites with the agencies they represent).
IMHO, far too many technical instructors accept students on to course/s without any knowledge of student baseline capability - this is especially true where students desire to progress through multiple courses (i.e. 'zero-to-trimix') in a single, unbroken, phase of training.
My advice is to concentrate entirely on developing the core skills needed to technical dive - and ensure you have those at a sufficient level of comfort and level of precision, before engaging on formal technical training. You'll get much more out of training that way - progression rather than remediation.
Having covered the basic pre-requisite capabilities, you need to do a lot of research on your potential training provider. I believe that the instructor is more important than the agency. Some agencies are more robust in their instructor standards than others - so there is some justification in expecting a 'lowest common denominator' of instructor capability from X, Y or Z agency. That said, if you are properly researching the potential instructor/s, then the agency 'minimum standards' cease to be an issue.
As others have said, expect to be humbled and frustrated during your training. That's a good thing and is evidence that you're being trained properly.
Don't try and rush through multiple training courses, in a short space of time. Most divers are unlikely to fully assimilate a full spectrum of skills and procedures into their muscle memory, at the correct standard and precision, without substantial post-qualification practice and repetition. Allow for some time/dives between formal courses for you to turn 'knowledge of skills' into 'assured capabilities'.
Technical diving demands huge investment and commitment. Many people focus on the financial implications of that... and aren't wrong to do so. However, the investment and commitment of TIME is also critical. Be patient and don't attempt to 'fast-track'... get the most value from training through a staged, progressive development of capability over an extended timescale.
As a technical diving instructor, I am actually of a split-mind over the relative merits of having a single instructor versus multiple instructors. When I teach, I am confident of my ability to mentor and develop a student through multiple phases of training. I see a huge benefit for that. However, I also see that exposure to multiple approaches, opinions and mindsets is also greatly beneficial to the long-term development of a technical diver - and this can be achieved through seeking out a variety of competent instructors as you progress. Whilst I remain undecided on the optimum choice, I think that a critical factor, in either case, is to remain aware that there is no such thing as 'perfect' - remain open-minded, investigative and critical in your acceptance of knowledge. Don't, under any circumstance, allow yourself to become a clone of the person who teaches you...
What kind of diving are you interested in doing? Ocean wreck diving, cave diving ect. Find an instructor that has tons of experience doing the kind of dives you want to do. Then talk to them and see if their approach to diving and teaching fits with what you want.
When I to the step into the tec world I went a spend 5 days in the Keys learning for a instructor that had thousands of dives doing the kind of diving I wanted to do. I talked to them and email at length before I the class. I like the idea of going out of town and immersing myself in the training for a period of time. I also liked doing the training somewhere I was unlikely to get blown out when we did the dives.
When I to the step into the tec world I went a spend 5 days in the Keys learning for a instructor that had thousands of dives doing the kind of diving I wanted to do. I talked to them and email at length before I the class. I like the idea of going out of town and immersing myself in the training for a period of time. I also liked doing the training somewhere I was unlikely to get blown out when we did the dives.
eelnoraa
Contributor
GUE fundantamental or UTD essential of tech are good courses to start. They are not tech diving training, but they prepare you for that. The term "fundamental" and "essential" kind of sounds like basic, but you will surprise how much you learn from it. Many very experience tech divers still think their GUE fundie is the best bang for the buck diving training.
I'm mainly interested in wreck penetration. I have penetrated wrecks before beyond PADI limits, but those were small(ish) vessels with wide passages and an easy bailout plan. I'd be very interested in learning to penetrate the deepest levels of some larger, more historic wrecks. Wreck diving has always, always fascinated me, I'm not sure why, but that would be the technical direction I'd want to take
I agree 100%. Worse, I can see where a student who is all tech'ed out in shiny new gear who is using the certifications interchangably might slip past the sign on the confidence of his superior training. While I do not hold out that the OP will actually slip past the sign untrained, I'd like to point out to the thread's audience these overhead accidents often start on the surface perhaps weeks before the dive. Cavern is a fun course whereas for many people Cave is an experiment into your emotional, physical, and psychological states of being.
With that established, I agree it sounds like you're on the right track for now, and try to take a few pics along the way. I so wish I had pics of me bulldozing my way into Ginnie the first time. Oh well...
Similar threads
