Observed an OW class yesterday

[divad]

Not for some, I guess!

elitist.

 

[boulderjohn]

I'd personally love it if people learned that on their OW course. I'd also like them to do all skills neutral with good trim. Which is what I had to do when I did fundamentals. However it's totally unrealistic to expect that output standard from a recreation entry level OW course.

That is, sadly, the belief of instructors who have never seen it done and therefore feel justified in refusing to give it a try.

 

[The Chairman]

elitist.

Verclich!

 

[divad]

Verclich!

Spelling?

 

[The Chairman]

Busted.

Spelling?

 

[divad]

Busted.

 

[HantsDiver]

That is, sadly, the belief of instructors who have never seen it done and therefore feel justified in refusing to give it a try.

There is one agency that I know off which has standards which are strict when it comes to trim and buoyancy. That's GUE. I'm yet to meet a single fundamentals instructor with 100% pass rate or anything close to it. So either your standards are lower or you are better than pretty much every GUE instructor on the planet. I'm going to presume it's lower standards/expectations - if not start an agency and pass on the knowledge JJ has made plenty from doing so.

 

[HantsDiver]

I disagree: Trim is only important WHEN you propelling yourself. The submarine doesn't really worry about trim unless it's moving. Why should we? Airplane pilots never adjust trim when they are on the tarmac. For a diver, your trim or attitude in the water is important if you want to maintain any semblance of neutral buoyancy. If the thrust is not parallel to the bottom, then you'll have to adjust your buoyancy in order to compensate and then adjust it again when you slow down or stop. If your legs are down, even a bit, then you'll have to release air from your BCD as you swim and then put it back when you stop. If your legs are pointed up a bit, then the opposite happens. Get the trim right to begin with and the rest becomes easy.

You seem like a great instructor. And I want to have a meaningful conversation rather than it looking like I'm rude.

When I ascend/descend I'm usually in trim. Clearly in both of these situations I'm in trim but not neutrally buoyant. I don't think the link between the two is as connected as you feel.

Now I can overcome poor trim using thrust. But that isn't good trim. It falls apart when you taking away the forward/backward momentum.

My students don't seem to have an issue with it, so calling it unrealistic is over the top. Get the trim right first, and it's as easy as pie.

As I've said you seem like a good instructor who cares. And I'll repeat what I've said before. Not a single fundamentals instructor has 100% pass rate. That's with generally fairly experienced divers. If you can achieve that 100% of the time with OW divers then you are clearly the greatest instructor to walk the planet.

 

[boulderjohn]

There is one agency that I know off which has standards which are strict when it comes to trim and buoyancy. That's GUE. I'm yet to meet a single fundamentals instructor with 100% pass rate or anything close to it. So either your standards are lower or you are better than pretty much every GUE instructor on the planet. I'm going to presume it's lower standards/expectations - if not start an agency and pass on the knowledge JJ has made plenty from doing so.

This post makes two fallacies.

1. I compares a GUE Fundamentals class (which was designed to prepare experienced divers for the rigors of cave diving training) with an introductory OW class. That is like a math teacher strutting around the department office bragging about how much more math his calculus students know than the Algebra I students.

2. It assumes a high failure rate in education is a good thing. It isn't. In a well designed curriculum, students who have the required prerequisite skills and who put in the required time and effort in the amount of time designed for course completion should complete the course satisfactorily. If there is a high failure rate in a course with properly screened students who are giving the expected effort, then either the expectations for the course are not realistic given the planned time (you can't teach Calculus I in a month), or the quality of instruction was not up to the par.

 

[ScubaWithTurk]

This post makes two fallacies.

1. I compares a GUE Fundamentals class (which was designed to prepare experienced divers for the rigors of cave diving training) with an introductory OW class. That is like a math teacher strutting around the department office bragging about how much more math his calculus students know than the Algebra I students.

2. It assumes a high failure rate in education is a good thing. It isn't. In a well designed curriculum, students who have the required prerequisite skills and who put in the required time and effort in the amount of time designed for course completion should complete the course satisfactorily. If there is a high failure rate in a course with properly screened students who are giving the expected effort, then either the expectations for the course are not realistic given the planned time (you can't teach Calculus I in a month), or the quality of instruction was not up to the par.

I agree with this and was thinking the same thing when I read the post.

If you want to compare you should look at PADi who trains divers to do skills on their knees (for the most part even though I know some PADI instructors here teach neutral) vs. RAID where all the OW skills need to be done neutral and in good trim. That would be more apples to apples than a PADI vs GUE IMHO.