DIR- GUE GUE Tech 2 Training Depths

[Trace Malinowski]

I cannot find any minimum training depths listed for GUE Tech 2. Most agencies list minimum and maximum training depths. I see max depths listed in GUE standards. Not that there is anything wrong with no minimum. My personal belief is that the only real benefit of depth when doing experience dives is for the student to experience how fast gas goes. And, maybe seeing milestone numbers for a confidence boost while being totally clear-headed. For the instructor the benefit is assessing student comfort with depth. While there is no substitute for the real thing, almost every other aspect of a trimix dive can be simulated. I had to postpone teaching a PSAI Trimix 2 class due to conditions at depth being unsafe. Would it be possible to teach a Tech 2 class above 170 feet of actual depth in GUE standards? Just curious. As a GUE student, my classes did Tech 1 diving at 150 feet and Tech 2 at 230 feet IIRC. But, all things being equal, carrying 3 bottles, doing rotations, doing Tech 2 speed changes, could a Tech 2 be done at 130 to 170?

 

[Ayisha]

Maybe @johnkendall will help you out?

 

[johnkendall]

There are no minimums in standards, however I would not like to see a T2 class being taught fully in T1 range.
We trust our instructors to do what is best for the students, so I would not certify a class where we didn't do at least a couple of dives with hypoxic backgas.

 

[stevensamler]

There are no minimums in standards, however I would not like to see a T2 class being taught fully in T1 range.
We trust our instructors to do what is best for the students, so I would not certify a class where we didn't do at least a couple of dives with hypoxic backgas.

15/55.

 

[beester]

Just speaking as a GUE diver here, not a GUE instructor. For me personally one of the big benefits of GUE training is exactly the fact that certain scenario's can possibly be done during experience dives (both in cave and tech). I do think it's harder for the instructor, because the risk is potentially higher doing a valve failure scenario and then a gas sharing ascend from 230 feet (T2) then doing this simulated from 130 feet. However at the time you are doing the experience dives the instructor will normally already know if it's feasible with the group he is training.

For me it was a big asset doing these scenarios as well at depth (or for cave diving, reasonably far in a cave). Nothing hammers down the importance of min gas as sharing gas after a simulated failure and ascending to your first gas switch while monitoring your manometer (I was the donating diver) and seeing the needle drop down fast!

For sure most skills you can and should train at more controlled circumstances, If I'm rusty I'm not going to practice tank rotations or an s-drill at 200+feet, let alone 100 feet, no I'll do it shallow, however at that moment in time in a course when you have been practicing and practicing and are under supervision of a good instructor I think there is real benefit in experiencing some of these scenarios in "real" circumstances.

Just IMHO.

 

[kirill egorov]

One of the most complex skills - and hardest to master - is an ascent with variable rates, where students not only matching proper speed, but maintain constant awareness of the current, line, teammates and maintain constant communication within the team. In my opinion that is the biggest benefit of running experience dives close to the stated maximum depth for a given class.
Everything else - valve failures, bottle rotations, switches, back and deco gas sharing - can be done during a number of 100ft / 30m dives.

It is totally to our instructor discretion, how they are going to spread skills amongst a number of dives - and we (BOD) do not want to micromanage them. Let's say we set up a minimum depth... Then weather is not co-operating during the last days of the class. Now instructor has a choice: cancel the class (tough if a class being taught by a traveling instructor - as re-scheduling final dives will be problematic); go to the stated depth (while possibly accepting significant weather associated risk) or do a shallower dive, closer to the shore, in a more protected area (and break standards - as minimum depth is clearly specified there).

So, obviously we (GUE BOD) would prefer all of our instructors to finish the class with an experience dive (s) to a max depth - but we also want them to make sound choices if weather/logistics/conditions intervene.

With Best Regards
Kirill A. Egorov
GUE Assistant Training Director

 

[Trace Malinowski]

I think depths around 170 would still allow for a nice educational profile of a Tech 2 ascent.

 

[kirill egorov]

170 is a deeper end of t1, so students are not experiencing anything new.

Dive to 250 will require the use of 15/55, hypoxic protocol on a way down, and ascent with three speed segments (30, 20 and 10 feet a minute) before they will reach a gas switch depth. This ascent will take something like 10-12 minutes.

Dive to 170 will require 18/45, no hypoxic protocol, single ascent speed (170 to 80 in 3 minutes and a 1 min stop at 80).

So from learning perspective as well as experience standpoint, if conditions, logistics and location allows instructors (imho) should try and take students close to the max training depth stated by the standards.

Best regards
Kirill A. Egorov
GUE Assistant Training Director

 

[tbone1004]

@kirill egorov would you allow say 15/55 with hypoxic protocol to be used on a 170ft dive in the event of the conditions changing like you posted in post #6?

 

[Trace Malinowski]

You can dive 15/55 and do all speed changes, switches, rotations, etc. That's just my opinion that if conditions prevented deeper diving during a course, the deeper end of T1 can still provide a T2 ascent.

Descend to 20 ft on Nx50
20 feet switch to bottom stage
Descend to 170
Bottom stage cache & switch
Ascend 170 to 130 @ 30 ft/min on back gas
120 - 1
110 - 1
100 - 1
90 - 2
80 - 2
70 - Nx50 switch
30 - rotation + back gas break
20 - oxygen switch then 12 on/6 off until deco is done
3 ft/min to surface

My point is that, IMHO, if an agency had no minimum depth an instructor could determine whether he or she was able to provide a proper education and skill evaluation when weather or the environment might prevent deeper diving. At PSAI, I don't have the option, because agency standards specify that students come within 10 feet of max course depths. It's been a pain until this week when conditions have improved for 240 to 250 foot dives. Thanks for the information about GUE standards. If the organization allowed for an instructor to still conduct class in the spirit of training when the environment didn't play nice it might have been a reason to become a GUE instructor.