IANTD's Essential's Class

[rjack321]

I got GUE training up through Tech One and RB80 years ago and at the time GUE training was definitely something that was different and could be found nowhere else. In my small corner of the diving world I have watched GUE training evolve along with the other agencies. The level of instructors I see now in GUE has fallen quite a long way from the original and there are many more quality instructors with other agencies now that stress team diving and other 'DIR" concepts.

GUE training is still of good quality but I don't think you can anymore take the GUE instructor card as absolute proof that you are getting a top flight instructor anymore- as they have expanded they have become alot more "average" in some locales the best instructor may be GUE but in others maybe not. You still know what you are basically getting with a GUE class - lots of team diving concepts- high stress on skills- DIR equipment configuration but this is also present now in many other instructors classes as well but you can not shop by their agency label you need to interview the instructor. As you pass the fundies/intro level the interview become even more important as this is where experience of the instructor as well as philosophy becomes a higher priority.

+1
I have seen some great GUE instructors and some who struggled. There are also alot of other high quality options out there as well since these concepts have spread beyond a "hub" of a few NACD instructors and the WKPP (some of the best of those have quit too, like Tyler Moon)

Water skills-wise, I am not sure if Tom Mount even teaches that much or when he does holds his students to a suitably high standard. At one point he retired, sold the agency and now he's back in charge. As far as academic material goes, I doubt he's teaching the same concepts that most of us would recognize as "DIR". The whole question is like asking if TDI "Intro to Tech" from Bret Gilliam would be like taking Fundies. Answer = not.

To me its pretty simple. If you liked what you saw in the GUE-F class, I would find out who was teaching, take that, and see what you get out of it.

 

[GShockey]

Superlyte,

I applaud your desire to become a better diver. I am sure I can speak for everyone when I say that you share a similar desire to everyone who has read your posts.

I think you would be pleasantly surprised if you made the effort to meet a few GUE instructors. I don't know what part of Florida you are from, but there are several of us in North and South Florida. I suggest you PM me with your city/region and I can put you in touch with the closest instructor. Then, if you wish, I will facilitate an introduction for you and you can hit the ground running. The internet stereotypes are not what you will find in real life. If you wish, I will also be more than happy to provide you with answers to any questions you may have about GUE training and our approach to diving and diving training. You can get my GUE email address from the GUE website.

Alternately, if you are planning on visiting the Pacific Northwest, bring your dive gear........

Best,

Guy Shockey
GUE Instructor

 

[ucfdiver]

I'm not sure what current cave instructors you're referring to, but I can tell you that I was required to complete internships under IANTD, NACD, and NSS-CDS. While I'm technically "crossing over" to NACD, I still had to complete an additional internship with Larry Green. Had I not already been an NSS-CDS instructor I would have had to complete the full NACD process. Same goes with becoming an NSS-CDS instructor. But both of those agencies have very similar processes to become an instructor with them. Those agencies also appear to be pretty strict with their processes.

Strict as in allowing classes to be "mixed teams"? Strict as in no gear standards? Strict as in no decompression training at full cave (at least not required) yet no adv nitrox/deco requirement? Strict as in there's never an instructor reevaluation? Strict as in there's photos on instructors websites of students in deco bottles for a basic cave class at little river and nothing was done when the training director was told? Strict as in some instructors are teaching 1/2+200 for stages and some teach 1/3rds? Strict as in not even a survey is mailed to or filled out by students to fill out asking questions about their course?

What exactly are they strict about? Of course, I wouldn't know, since the training standards aren't available online (GUE's are).

But anyways, back to crossovers...I just don't see what they're useful for other than the financial aspect. The fact is, had your nss-cds instructor process been subpar, now the NACD has an instructor who they've only partially trained. I've talked to a few instructors about their crossover process, and even they weren't impressed.

BTW- To finish my rant, one of the most impressive things I think GUE does is filming students for feedback. I know you do this as well, and think you're doing your students a great service. I wish agencies would require it.

 

[LiteHedded]

yea. strict like that

I had video feedback in my iantd cavern class. but that was just a thing nick did. not an iantd thing. it's extremely helpful

 

[rjack321]

Strict as in allowing classes to be "mixed teams"? Strict as in no gear standards? Strict as in no decompression training at full cave (at least not required) yet no adv nitrox/deco requirement? Strict as in there's never an instructor reevaluation? Strict as in there's photos on instructors websites of students in deco bottles for a basic cave class at little river and nothing was done when the training director was told? Strict as in some instructors are teaching 1/2+200 for stages and some teach 1/3rds? Strict as in not even a survey is mailed to or filled out by students to fill out asking questions about their course?

What exactly are they strict about? Of course, I wouldn't know, since the training standards aren't available online (GUE's are).

But anyways, back to crossovers...I just don't see what they're useful for other than the financial aspect. The fact is, had your nss-cds instructor process been subpar, now the NACD has an instructor who they've only partially trained. I've talked to a few instructors about their crossover process, and even they weren't impressed.

BTW- To finish my rant, one of the most impressive things I think GUE does is filming students for feedback. I know you do this as well, and think you're doing your students a great service. I wish agencies would require it.

I don't have a beef with proper cross-overs. Either an instructor has got "it" or they don't. But IANTD and the other huge agency (TDI) are almost singlehandedly responsible for the our manta here that its "all about the instructor". They don't have the gumption to publish high standards so students can see when they aren't being met, implement a rigorous instructor QA process, or personally weed out the shoddy instructors. Tom Mount may or may not be a good instructor himself I don't really know I've never even met him. But as the head of IANTD (still/again) I think he's partially responsible for the travesty of crappy instructors that students have to find out about through the grapevine and try to avoid.

The 3 "DIR" agencies (GUE, UTD, and ISE) don't have this issue. They publish their standards, they are handpicking instructors, have QA processes, strive for continuous instructor development/improvement, and not allowing poor performing instructors to stay.

 

[ucfdiver]

I don't have a beef with proper cross-overs. Either an instructor has got "it" or they don't. But IANTD and the other huge agency (TDI) are almost singlehandedly responsible for the our manta here that its "all about the instructor". They don't have the gumption to publish high standards so students can see when they aren't being met, implement a rigorous instructor QA process, or personally weed out the shoddy instructors. Tom Mount may or may not be a good instructor himself I don't really know I've never even met him. But as the head of IANTD (still/again) I think he's partially responsible for the travesty of crappy instructors that students have to find out about through the grapevine and try to avoid.

The 3 "DIR" agencies (GUE, UTD, and ISE) don't have this issue. They publish their standards, they are handpicking instructors, have QA processes, strive for continuous instructor development/improvement, and not allowing poor performing instructors to stay.

None of these agencies post standards. If they did, we could hold instructors responsible.

 

[DennisS]

Tom Mount may or may not be a good instructor himself I don't really know I've never even met him.

He ran the Univ of Miami (RSMAS) scientific diver program in the early 70's, his standards were high.

 

[LiteHedded]

None of these agencies post standards. If they did, we could hold instructors responsible.

it wouldn't matter

 

[rjack321]

He ran the Univ of Miami (RSMAS) scientific diver program in the early 70's, his standards were high.

Maybe but why are there IANTD instructors "to be avoided" now? Where are the high standards for the instructors issuing IANTD cards?

Not every GUE instructor is perfect, but they actually try to maintain high standards. I give GUE an A for effort and an A-/B+ for implementation of instructor QA.

IANTD and TDI are huge and rate F for effort and implementation of instructor QA. Finding out who's a crappy instructor (ahead of time or after the fact) should never be a student responsibility.

 

[ucfdiver]

Which agency was it that did RB training at Eagles Nest when the students weren't cave cert and then did NOTHING about it?