More than "Advanced", but not really "Technical"

[lowviz]

...//... Since *all* (do any not?) of the classes after rec push redundancy, then perhaps the non-tech diver ought to pull him/herself up by her short hairs and figure out that there is a *reason* for it. ...//...

That is one of the reasons I've only and ever been suggesting a well-taught formal course. The instructor is likely to pull his students up a bit harder just to make the point.

...//... By cavalierly deciding there IS such a thing as 'lite' deco, and that it IS acceptable to have an overhead without redundancy, ...//...

I don't know where that came from, just reviewed my posts in this thread.

...//... the next step - which also requires and understanding of risk and risk management.

I still don't see the disconnect between my position and yours, isn't understanding risk and risk management concerning some divers' regular contact with the NDL what this is all about?

Maybe my tech training is causing me to miss the forest for the trees. I just can't get past statements like "I never bother with that area (of my dive computer) it always reads 99." -pretty obvious that the diver in question only watches his gas supply and depth. Giving this diver more gas would be pure foolishness. My question, starting in the original post, remains: would a course that demanded gas management and redundancy benefit a recreational diver that had no intention of going tech.

...//... There is no such thing as a diver deciding for only him- or herself to incur deco. That decision immediately impacts other divers in the area, and the boat, and the first responders . . . to think otherwise is short-sighted and juvenile.

Of course.

 

[DevonDiver]

would a course that demanded gas management and redundancy benefit a recreational diver that had no intention of going tech.

..would a course that demanded gas management, redundancy, appropriate mindset, precision dive planning and a higher level of fundamental scuba skills benefit a recreational diver that had no intention of going tech.

Why only pick 2 aspects, then disregard the complimentary training... so as to avoid ''tech''?

I don't think the scuba police conduct snap raids to confirm whether tech graduates actually do tech dives

 

[lowviz]

OK, you got me on that one. Yes, all the above, and same question...

You wouldn't take a Tech 40 with a pony/sling bottle any further along the tech progression. So there is a difference between that course and "going tech"...

 

[DevonDiver]

If they took the course in that configuration (pony), for that purpose (recreational diving with capability). I'd only advise that as an option only for someone certain they have no immediate interest in pursuing further tech qualifications.

My personal opinion is that the learning curve in tech is too steep to enable someone to do Tec40 with single/pony then expect to jump into a set of doubles for Tec45. They'd struggle too much with equipment familiarity to master the new skills at the reqd standards. Hence, the need for ''make up'' training if they subsequently decided to pursue tech,.

Either way, subsequent training (i.e. Tec45) would only commence once they'd been satisfactorily assessed in the necessary standardized technical rig.

 

[tursiops]

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point.

A better question would be to ask what his point was. By stating it was rhetorical he already stated why.

(Although a close read of the posts leading up to his rhetorical question should answer that as well).

Yes, I know what a rhetorical question is. I was asking why he asked it, because it only made him look stupid rather than making a point. Although, now that I think about it, that was indeed consistent with his earlier posts.

 

[Dive-aholic]

:furious:

When did that change?

Well, Ross got $45 more . . . . because it IS worth it . . .

Never. At least not for several years. Ross has offered multiple licenses for both the desktop and mobile versions for several years. I've even gone through two phones in one year and he was kind enough to give me a third license after I emailed him and explained my situation.

 

[Doc Harry]

So what term.... do you suggest for the recreational diver that strays into and out of deco?

Incompetent

So what procedures.... do you suggest for the recreational diver that strays into and out of deco?

Remedial dive planning would be a good start

 

[lowviz]

Thanks yet again. You keep me painfully aware that there are people on this board that are so "rules based" that they have no ability to enter into intelligent discourse. I really am wasting my time here...

 

[DevonDiver]

Thanks yet again. You keep me painfully aware that there are people on this board that are so "rules based" that they have no ability to enter into intelligent discourse. I really am wasting my time here...

Yet, so many of us can't understand why you'd want to justify diving beyond your training. Why expose yourself to needless risk, for the sake of a lack of commitment to self-development? The A&I forum is swelling with examples of people who thought the 'rules didn't apply to them''.

Over-training (tech for rec) ensures knowledge and skill beyond the demands of your diving. A good thing. A safeguard.

Under-training (rec for tech) ensures knowledge and skill below the demands of your diving. A good contender for Darwin's Law.

It's really simple... and diving agencies are unequivocal about it.... all of them.... the training they provide comes with caveats. One major caveat is no decompression unless specifically trained for it.

Doc Harry is absolutely correct to use the word "incompetent" to describe non-deco trained divers who stray into staged decompression obligation:

Incompetent: not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully.

The "doing something successfully" is a near-certain assurance of returning from the dive safely, under every circumstance, on every occasion. It's that simple.

It can also be applied to the failure to successfully plan and follow the dive plan within the parameters for which that diver is trained to conduct. Willfully exceeding safe parameters, whether through negligence or willful disregard is "incompetence" for any diver. A diver who cannot recognize when they are unnecessarily exposing themselves to increased/unreasonable risk or who is incapable of planning, monitoring and adhering to a dive plan should indeed seek remedial training...

 

[lowviz]

...//... the training they provide comes with caveats. One major caveat is no decompression unless specifically trained for it.

Doc Harry is absolutely correct to use the word "incompetent" to describe non-deco trained divers who stray into staged decompression ...//...

Christ, staged decompression! Is anybody actually paying attention? I'm talking about, and ALWAYS have been talking about, "FAKE" deco. As in, my computer is set conservatively and I want to add tech skills to my ascent.

Somebody cap this thread...