Non GUE DIR

[MonkSeal]

See, and after all this, we're back to "its the instructor not the agency".

But GUE quality control guaranties that all instructors can give education at same level and will require the same skills from students.

 

[Randy43068]

Here are the few things that I rely on:
1. GUE defined what DIR is
2. I agree that this is the way I want to dive
3. GUE guaranties certain level of skills for divers that their instructors certified
4. From my experience GUE trained divers are skilled as expected to be

If there's another agency that can do 4. for every diver I'll change my opinion.

GUE won't pass students just because they took the class and paid their money. They hold high standards, that's what I like about them. I know it to be a fact that PADI will pass people with questionable diving skill. I've personally seen it.(hence the fact) This practice is probably not limited to PADI, either.

GUE trained divers choose to dive together because they know what the standards are. That’s not to say that every GUE trained diver is diving up to the standard they were trained to, but at least it's a fixed measure.

Personally, I wouldn’t want to see any other training agency use the term DIR unless they can match the standards set forth as GUE has.

My comments are NOT to inflame or cause a pissin’ match between PADI or any other training agency or GUE. The above comments are what I’ve observed over the last 3 years of my diving avocation.

 

[Randy43068]

Originally Posted by StSomewhere
See, and after all this, we're back to "its the instructor not the agency".

It seems that GUE holds it's instructors to a higher standard not allowing them to pass a student who isn't ready.
I suppose other agencies have an instructor here and there who hold the bar high, but it's common knowledge to be the exception not the rule.
IMHO...

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Great.. my big fear is that, because of NAUI, "DIR" is going to be redefined as whatever you want...

Tavi, have you taken any classes from a GUE instructor to compare what you think DIR is and is not? Has your NAUI instructor?

I don' t think there's any danger of NAUI or any other agency redefining "DIR" ... I don't see a business case for them to do so, and without the financial incentive to change their standards, I don't think they will. What NAUI does do is give their instructors the freedom to raise their personal standards if they choose to ... and I think this is where a cross-over of former GUE instructors to NAUI might have an impact.

From what I've seen of NAUI Tech classes, there are a lot of similarities ... but it's not DIR, and I don't think they're attempting to market it as DIR. NAUI has what it considers a solid program and I don't see them changing that program because a few former GUE instructors crossed over. Instead what they'll do is allow those instructors to include some additional training in their own (instructor-specific) curriculum. As long as the minimum standards are met, an individual instructor can raise the bar as high as they feel appropriate. So yes, I feel it will boil down to "it's the instructor" in this case. If what y'all are worried about is that those former GUE instructors who are crossing over will teach DIR as NAUI instructors, I'd have to wonder what makes you think they'll teach it any differently than they did when they were GUE instructors? In which case, the point is ... what?

At a recreational level, there's a whole different consideration ... which gets back to the question of how high should the bar be set for the basic recreational diver. NAUI's standards aren't much different from any of the other major agencies. In my area, several NAUI instructors have been through GUE training. I've only gone as far as DIR-F ... which I do not consider sufficient to make someone a "DIR diver". But as Mike Ferrara mentioned, I (and a few other NAUI instructors I know) took notes on what was being taught and how ... then we incorporated some of what we learned into our own training curriculum. That doesn't mean we are attempting to teach DIR ... it means we're introducing our students to an approach and mindset that is compatible with what they will learn if they later choose to take DIR classes.

The major advantage to a recreational instructor having taken DIR training isn't to try to replace DIR training with something else ... it's to approach recreational dive training in a manner that will be consistent with what's taught in the DIR classes. If the student decides to continue their training along those lines, then I will refer them to an appropriate GUE instructor. If not, then they will have benefited from having been taught a more methodical way to look at things like dive planning, buddy skills, buoyancy control, and other core skills.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Dan Gibson]

I don't believe you have your facts straight on this one. George and several other WKPP divers would probably take exception to this statement.

Here are the few things that I rely on:
1. GUE defined what DIR is

 

[lamont]

Great.. my big fear is that, because of NAUI, "DIR" is going to be redefined as whatever you want...

Is this a big deal? I wouldn't mind seeing that label die and just take 'GUE' classes and be a 'GUE' diver. The 'DIR' label has too much baggage associated with it.

EDIT: and the whole 'anyone can be DIR', 'no they can't', 'yes they can' debate in this thread is *exactly* what I mean by 'baggage'. st*u and go diving people...

 

[Dan Gibson]

A few months ago, that appeared to be what was going to happen IIRC. I believe it was in one of the Quest magazines.

Is this a big deal? I wouldn't mind seeing that label die and just take 'GUE' classes and be a 'GUE' diver. The 'DIR' label has too much baggage associated with it.

 

[Derek S]

Is this a big deal? I wouldn't mind seeing that label die and just take 'GUE' classes and be a 'GUE' diver. The 'DIR' label has too much baggage associated with it.

Exactly. This is what GUE is moving towards, IMO.

Again, I see too many people missing the forest for the trees.

 

[bridgediver]

But GUE quality control guaranties that all instructors can give education at same level and will require the same skills from students.

In light of what has occured this past month I'd say CQ at GUE is either faulty or not as wide spread as they would have us believe. I'm not sure this statement or your point #3 or #4 is true.

As an example, a DIRF in cold, fresh, low vis water is totally different than warm, good vis, ocean water - the same skills are taught but one is alot more difficult to pass than the other.

Maybe GUE caused the all the negative feelings about DIR and not the other way around? I see it getting worse, not better

 

[MonkSeal]

In light of what has occured this past month I'd say CQ at GUE is either faulty or not as wide spread as they would have us believe. I'm not sure this statement or your point #3 or #4 is true.

I don't see what CQ has common with what has occured past month. Has any of students complained on training received?

How can you say that my point #4 is not true? To remind you, my point #4 was: "From my experience ..." From mine, not yours, not anybody elses.

Maybe GUE caused the all the negative feelings about DIR and not the other way around? I see it getting worse, not better

But it's not obligatory to go DIR way or to get education from GUE. If you like it you take it. If you have negative feelings you don't take it.