DIR- GUE GUE fundamentals, tec pass?

[ginti]

I see this mentality all the time with young kids and swimming. "stay out of the deep end" as if the deep end is any more dangerous to a child as the shallow end. When my daughter leaned to swim, the pool was open, deep end or shallow. (actually had to explain that to my wife who was not a water person).

Mandatory decompression is just that, mandatory. 15 min or 30 min, dont matter, same as depth, 120, 130, or 170. Same procedures, same risks, same amount of training. But Rec 3 doesn't let them use the optimum gas, that is "bamboozling".

I can not see the same risks.
A mistake on a dive requiring 15min of deco on nx32 may end up with some troubles.
A mistake on a dive requiring 30min of deco on nx50 may end up with many more troubles.
Different risks -> different skills & different training.

If you want to tech dive, learn to tech dive. If you want to cave dive, learn to cave dive. If you want to Ow dive, learn to ow dive.

If you want to dive at 130ft, learn to dive at 130ft

 

[helodriver87]

more half measures from GUE in the age of “make 2k for each class I sell”

Shock. Surprise.

Same number of classes (T1-CCR1-CCR2 vs T1-T2-CCR), better learning process for diving the unit. I agree with you on Rec 3. Mostly just dropping some bait with the CCR2 comment. We've played that one out already.

 

[PfcAJ]

If you want to dive at 130ft, learn to dive at 130ft

and a class for 125’? 120’?

The skill is “tech diving”. Mandatory deco, Trimix, single deco bottle. Make pretend half measure classes serves no purpose other than to transplant money from students without skill or confidence into the pockets of instructors.

learn to tech dive.

 

[arthurng311]

One can make an argument for a course with 110', 120', 130', for me it is very simple, tech 1 is 3 bottles in total, same with rec3 gases non hypoxic, and ascend gas with 32% just makes 0 sense to me. tech 2 is 5 bottles and hypoxic gas, makes total sense for me, but for me t2 is now doesnt make too much sense due to the technological advancements in CCR and also price in helium going up too much

 

[dewdropsonrosa]

I’d like to know which instructor only sleeps for 4hrs during a class.

In reality from people who have actually done a class, it’s 10 hours of instruction a day on average.

In reality as a person who did the class, this was my experience. We needed all of our waking hours for various commitments: instruction, homework, gear prep, land practice.

 

[ginti]

and a class for 125’? 120’?

The skill is “tech diving”. Mandatory deco, Trimix, single deco bottle. Make pretend half measure classes serves no purpose other than to transplant money from students without skill or confidence into the pockets of instructors.

learn to tech dive.

Actually, I believe I understand what you mean. At the end of the day, I choose the path you are suggesting for me, so I like it and I agree in a certain way.

However, I do not think there exists any "RIGHT" way to do things. My point is that, since there are people who are more than happy with Rec3 restrictions, I believe the course makes sense from:
- business point of view (more money)
- marketing point of view (more people take the course, more people know the agency, in a way)
- diving community point of view (no doubt a Rec3 diver is more skilled than a PADI deep diver - depending on the instructor, sure -, and probably even more interested in environmental conservation and knowledgeable about safety issues, projects, etc.)

 

[CptTightPants21]

more half measures from GUE in the age of “make 2k for each class I sell”

Shock. Surprise.

Going to disagree with this one. CCR 1 and CCR 2 fit perfectly with the rest of the class curriculum. You can make some rationales, but it was always a little hinky having a 6 day class to certify a diver with zero CCR experience to the top of the mountain. We don't have that kind of zero to hero progression in any other class. A triathlon athlete and rock climber might be ready to start mountaineering, but we aren't certifying for K2.

In terms of classes, I think something like a 2 or 3 day wreck course primer would be beneficial. A lot of the diving skills can overlap and be applicable with wreck diving, but might be nice to try to plan an actual course/primer. Not every instructor would be able to teach it, a rough outline would also have requirements that the student must do at least one dive on a boat that is 200ft long with light (cavern) rules of penetration. No let's go dive the 50ft pleasure craft in a quarry and call it a 'wreck'.

Depending on class composition you could do Tech 1 wreck dives or Rec 2/Fundies tech pass wreck dives.

Actually, I believe I understand what you mean. At the end of the day, I choose the path you are suggesting for me, so I like it and I agree in a certain way.

However, I do not think there exists any "RIGHT" way to do things. My point is that, since there are people who are more than happy with Rec3 restrictions, I believe the course makes sense from:
- business point of view (more money)
- marketing point of view (more people take the course, more people know the agency, in a way)
- diving community point of view (no doubt a Rec3 diver is more skilled than a PADI deep diver - depending on the instructor, sure -, and probably even more interested in environmental conservation and knowledgeable about safety issues, projects, etc.)

Except that the requirements for Rec 3 are that you must have taken Rec 2 or passed Fundies with a Rec Pass and even most GUE divers don't know what Rec 3 fully entails so your bottom two points are moot. That just leaves point #1.

 

[ginti]

Except that the requirements for Rec 3 are that you must have taken Rec 2 or passed Fundies with a Rec Pass and even most GUE divers don't know what Rec 3 fully entails so your bottom two points are moot. That just leaves point #1.

I know people who took Rec3 and became divers better than before they took it, so point #3 stands true, period.

Regarding marketing, if you look at the market (TDI, IANTD, etc.) most agencies have recreational courses up to 40m/130ft. There are reasons, even if you may not agree with them. When I say that the course makes sense from a marketing point of view, what I mean is that it makes GUE more complete in the eyes of recreational divers, and therefore more appealing. As a consequence, more people are interested in taking the courses and potentially may spread the name of the agency around.

 

[rjack321]

It's called "training" to avoid that. SOP for GUE is always the same, regardless of the mix you are switching too. That argument is why they created 80%, the "fear" of complete disaster.

Oh I think 32% as an ascent gas is just horrible logic

But if you don't have the skills because you're a fundamentals+ level diver who wants a weeklong class to be taught how to get a tech pass with some different gases thrown in but still don't have the skills to dive an actual hyperoxic gas - then there isn't much choice.

 

[Jack Hammer]

Here is the simplicity for folks to follow . . .

10 mins of planned decompression on a switched gas is a tech dive, regardless of the depth. It is no longer a "recreational" dive. So why get recreational training and knowlege to make tech dives?