DIR- GUE GUE fundamentals, tec pass?

[ginti]

And I don't even understand why a person without a tec-pass shouldn't do deco in certain easy conditions. Sure, if you want to participate to an expedition project in the middle of the ocean, with scooters and potentially big waves - you need great skills.

But if you dive the Mediterranean coasts, during the day, with cristal clear warm water, no currents and no other hazards... come on what is the problem with 10minutes of deco? You are not going to have problems because of 10 degrees of trim, or because you don't know how to use a canister light (that you don't use in these conditions).

I'd like to know what you @johnkendall think about this course, if you don't mind

 

[jadairiii]

- people who are not interested in going deeper than 130ft/40m
...

I understand the "not going below 130'", which Fundies Tech is perfect for, But to reiterate AJ's post, Rec-3 deco procedure makes no logical sense. Why teach someone mandatory deco procedure with 32% nitrox as your deco mix? To quote an unnamed diver....that is farm animal stupid....might as well teach them 80%

 

[ginti]

I understand the "not going below 130'", which Fundies Tech is perfect for, But to reiterate AJ's post, Rec-3 deco procedure makes no logical sense. Why teach someone mandatory deco procedure with 32% nitrox as your deco mix? To quote an unnamed diver....that is farm animal stupid....might as well teach them 80%

On this point I agree with you. It would make more sense to teach deco with nx50 or pure oxygen. I guess the idea is to avoid confusion (and, by the way, I know many people who do deco with air or nx at low percentage of oxygen... they just take more time)

But saying that a course is absolutely to avoid just for one (important) point is a bit excessive I think

 

[PfcAJ]

On this point I agree with you. It would make more sense to teach deco with nx50 or pure oxygen. I guess the idea is to avoid confusion (and, by the way, I know many people who do deco with air or nx at low percentage of oxygen... they just take more time)

But saying that a course is absolutely to avoid just for one (important) point is a bit excessive I think

We call that class “Tech 1”.

 

[rjack321]

On this point I agree with you. It would make more sense to teach deco with nx50 or pure oxygen. I guess the idea is to avoid confusion (and, by the way, I know many people who do deco with air or nx at low percentage of oxygen... they just take more time)

But saying that a course is absolutely to avoid just for one (important) point is a bit excessive I think

Rec3 teaches them 32% as an "'ascent gas" because they don't have the skills or the mindset to dive EAN50 or O2 as a deco gas. You can accidentally switch or use 32% on a 130ft dive and its not a complete disaster.​

And I don't even understand why a person without a tec-pass shouldn't do deco in certain easy conditions. Sure, if you want to participate to an expedition project in the middle of the ocean, with scooters and potentially big waves - you need great skills.

But if you dive the Mediterranean coasts, during the day, with cristal clear warm water, no currents and no other hazards... come on what is the problem with 10minutes of deco? You are not going to have problems because of 10 degrees of trim, or because you don't know how to use a canister light (that you don't use in these conditions).

I'd like to know what you @johnkendall think about this course, if you don't mind

How far down that slippery slope do you want to slide? If GUE fundamentals divers are doing this: 1) I would be surprised and 2) they don't have the right mindset to actually take tech diving and planning tech dives seriously.

Plus have you calculated the gas needed in double 80s or steel12s needed for a EAN32m, 30m, 45minute dive including enough for "stressed" backgas deco for 2? Fundamentals teaches minimum gas ascents for a reason.

 

[ginti]

Please do not take it as a fight in which I want to prove that you are wrong. On the contrary, I am here to learn. By the way, thanks for the replies!

We call that class “Tech 1”.

Correct me if I am wrong, but REC3 is a course to 130ft, with a lot of gas breathable at that depth (I think this is the only reason to use nx32 as ascent gas), and way less deco. That is, a lot more time to manage problems and a lot less risks... for these reasons I wouldn't compare the two classes

Rec3 teaches them 32% as an "'ascent gas" because they don't have the skills or the mindset to dive EAN50 or O2 as a deco gas. You can accidentally switch or use 32% on a 130ft dive and its not a complete disaster..​

​

This is what I thought when I wrote "avoid confusion", and now that you explain it- it makes even more sense to me

How far down that slippery slope do you want to slide? If GUE fundamentals divers are doing this: 1) I would be surprised and 2) they don't have the right mindset to actually take tech diving and planning tech dives seriously.

I would be surprised too, and I agree that they shouldn't do tech. But (1) it's their choice and (2) this is a recreational course... and it is not the only reason why a diver may want to take REC3

Plus have you calculated the gas needed in double 80s or steel12s needed for a EAN32m, 30m, 45minute dive including enough for "stressed" backgas deco for 2? Fundamentals teaches minimum gas ascents for a reason.

I have not taken the course and I will not: I have no idea if the course actually teaches how to properly calculate gas for the team, but I assume it does. If it doesn't, I am ready to change my mind instantly

P.S. very soon, tech1 for me, without rec3

 

[seeker242]

Pretty darn sure the training dives are limited to 150’ for t1. If not by written standard then de facto by the instructors teaching it.

But even if it wasn’t... so 5 aisles at your grocery store? If you aren’t mentally ready for tech diving.... don’t tech dive.

Ok, but what if a GUE diver doesn’t want to tech dive to begin with? They should just stay above 100’ and that’s that? Are all dives below 100’ tech dives?

 

[arthurng311]

Ok, but what if a GUE diver doesn’t want to tech dive to begin with? They should just stay above 100’ and that’s that? Are all dives below 100’ tech dives?

Tech diving is just a term to categorize things, i treat every dive as i would do a tech dive, at the bare minimum the mindset is the same, i would need to have a solid gas plan, a rough goal of the dive (it could be just going down to see some fish) and a equipment check, this doesnt change if i were to dive to 30m or 100m. From my perspective below 100' one would require more gas to adhere to a good planning strategy, also they would have a higher chance to need to deal with decompression, also narcosis becomes a important factor. All of these things add together to make a dive more challenging and requires more training. I believe the most important differentiating part of GUE diving is the mindset, tech/rec mostly boils down to how you define things and is much less important. I would just say that if you want to dive below 100' getting further training is highly advisable, and tech 1 seems like a good reasonable course for that, and even if you just want to dive to 130' i would argue the techniques which are taught in the tech 1 course is suitable for a dive to 130' and the more rigorous the training is the better it is anyhow, no one ever died from being overprepared.

 

[rongoodman]

Ok, but what if a GUE diver doesn’t want to tech dive to begin with? They should just stay above 100’ and that’s that? Are all dives below 100’ tech dives?

In the GUE world, dives below 100' are done with some He in the mix, to which you gain access in Tech 1. (Tech dives are usually considered to be those in which you no longer have direct access to the surface, either because of a deco obligation or a hard overhead, although that definition can vary among agencies.)

 

[ginti]

In the GUE world, dives below 100' are done with some He in the mix, to which you gain access in Tech 1. (Tech dives are usually considered to be those in which you no longer have direct access to the surface, either because of a deco obligation or a hard overhead, although that definition can vary among agencies.)

You gain access even in Rec3, just with more restrictions than in Tech1

Tech diving is just a term to categorize things, i treat every dive as i would do a tech dive, at the bare minimum the mindset is the same, i would need to have a solid gas plan, a rough goal of the dive (it could be just going down to see some fish) and a equipment check, this doesnt change if i were to dive to 30m or 100m. From my perspective below 100' one would require more gas to adhere to a good planning strategy, also they would have a higher chance to need to deal with decompression, also narcosis becomes a important factor. All of these things add together to make a dive more challenging and requires more training. I believe the most important differentiating part of GUE diving is the mindset, tech/rec mostly boils down to how you define things and is much less important. I would just say that if you want to dive below 100' getting further training is highly advisable, and tech 1 seems like a good reasonable course for that, and even if you just want to dive to 130' i would argue the techniques which are taught in the tech 1 course is suitable for a dive to 130' and the more rigorous the training is the better it is anyhow, no one ever died from being overprepared.

sure, but still I do not get why one must be overprepared. If Rec3 is appropriate for diving up to 130ft (as I assume), I do not see any reason why a person should take the Tech1 if not interested in anything deeper than 130ft or long deco. Also, if a person does not have many possibilities to train with other "DIR" (what a horrible word) buddies, some extra training before the tec pass makes sense, and Rec3 would perfectly serve this scope. Lastly, for some people it takes a lot to get the tecpass (several years, even 4 or 5), so the Rec3 gives these people the tools to extend a bit their limits without incurring in too demanding training or dangerous situations.

I agree that most of the divers do not need it, but for some divers, it looks just a nice course, I think... I'd like to understand where the shortcircuit lays in my reasoning (because if all of you think that this course is bad, there is for sure a mistake in my thoughts)