Opinions on DSAT TecRec courses

[DevonDiver]

I took and now teach the DSAT Tech Deep. It's a good course, equal to any comparable 'extended range' programme. However, (as others have said) the real choice is between instructors not agencies.

I concur that a Fundies or Intro-to-Tech course would pay dividends...especially if you have time to go away afterwards and get your core skills to a high standard using the info/appreciation generated on these programmes.

The other option is to go straight into a full tech programme, but finish it with a recognition that you will be far from an accomplished technical diver...and condequently keep your diving initially conservative, keep practicing and progressively gain experience and competance up to the maximum depths to which you are certified (just as you should do with recreational diving).

 

[IDS_Bill]

Also, in my DSAT class valve drills, and most other skills, were conducted on the knees on a platform

Actually there are requirements in later dives for neutral buoyancy S-Drills.

 

[IDS_Bill]

Okay I have been reading all of the posts and will jump in here. I am a DSAT Tec and Trimix instructor (and I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!).

First off - DSAT just changed their courses and there are now 3 sub courses in the tec program (Tec40, Tec45 and Tec50). There are varying opinions for why they did this and I won't get into reasons or my opinion but it breaks up the skills similar to TDI.

There was a comment that the 'TecDeep' program is an 'Air' program - not true. Standards specify Air or Nitrox as backgas.

The PADI materials are very good - yes. But that is only part of it. I did my rebreather cert through IANTD and there were no formal materials (Optima CCR). The materials help and reflect the level of detail in the course structure.

That aside, there are comments about learning buoyancy, fin kicks, etc... in 12 dives. NO tec course should consist of only the cert dives and even with those, there will likely be do-overs as you go through the program and screw the pooch on certain skills. I encourage students to do as much diving in between (NOT TEC DIVING!!! but in doubles) to get the skills down and we do a skill assessment at the beginning of the class. If you do not have complete mastery of basic rec skills, you are not ready for tec.

In the end though - as Devon said - it all comes down to your instructor. You will find guys that will hold your hand, push you through and sign off and you will find instructors who actually teach, hold you up to the standards and do it right (not to be confused with DIR ).

When it all comes down to it, do you want to get a tec cert or do you want to be a tec diver - two very different things and, no matter which agency you go through, the instructor is the one who makes the difference.

Dive safe and enjoy the course, no matter which one you pick. You can't go wrong either way.

 

[Rainer]

There was a comment that the 'TecDeep' program is an 'Air' program - not true. Standards specify Air or Nitrox as backgas.

Same thing. No helium. Diving drunk, *especially* when you're just starting out into deeper diving seems backwards. Thankfully, there are agencies now that promote He right away for 150' (and even shallower) dives (NAUI, GUE, UTD, etc).

 

[IDS_Bill]

Same thing. No helium. Diving drunk, *especially* when you're just starting out into deeper diving seems backwards. Thankfully, there are agencies now that promote He right away for 150' (and even shallower) dives (NAUI, GUE, UTD, etc).

So you are promoting moving into trimix diving right off the bat?

Part of learning technical diving is learning to deal with narcosis. I think it is quite a stretch do try to criticize an agency for teaching on air/nitrox for diving to 165.

 

[Rainer]

Part of learning technical diving is learning to deal with narcosis.

Did your driver's ed class cover how to drive drunk?

Why learn to "deal with narcosis" when you can simply avoid it? If I'm spending good money for a technical charter, I prefer to remember the dive and do it as safely as possible. But if you dive to get high, that's cool, too.

Thankfully there are more "enlightened" agencies today...

 

[Blackwood]

So you are promoting moving into trimix diving right off the bat?

Not right off the bat, just when it's necessary. I wouldn't promote trimix in basic open water, for example. That would be pointlessly expensive.

Personally, I sometimes start noticing narcosis between 80 and 100 feet, so if I'm planning a moderately challenging dive beyond those depths, helium is a major consideration.

Part of learning technical diving is learning to deal with narcosis.

Why? What's the benefit of learning to deal with something that smart gas choices will eliminate (or at least minimize)?

 

[IDS_Bill]

Did your driver's ed class cover how to drive drunk?

Why learn to "deal with narcosis" when you can simply avoid it? If I'm spending good money for a technical charter, I prefer to remember the dive and do it as safely as possible. But if you dive to get high, that's cool, too.

Thankfully there are more "enlightened" agencies today...

Wow - so you would want to go on a dive trip in a 3rd world (say Busuanga or Saipan) where helium is not available, do some technical diving and all the time be with someone who has never experienced narcosis? I guess you are more 'adventurous' than me.

I see where you are going with your 'enlightened' statement. I'm not taking the bait.

After seeing divers panic at 150 and go for the surface because their disposition for narcosis was paranoia and panic but they didn't know it until it happened down deep, I can safely say I want the divers that I am in the water with to be experienced in what their specific manifestation of narcosis is and how to recognize and deal with it.

And the drunk driving statement? C'mon grow up.....

 

[IDS_Bill]

Not right off the bat, just when it's necessary. I wouldn't promote trimix in basic open water, for example. That would be pointlessly expensive.

Personally, I sometimes start noticing narcosis between 80 and 100 feet, so if I'm planning a moderately challenging dive beyond those depths, helium is a major consideration.



Why? What's the benefit of learning to deal with something that smart gas choices will eliminate (or at least minimize)?

So what would you do if you went to Truk or somewhere that they really don't have helium? Sit on the boat and be deck fluff? I CERTAINLY agree that helium has its place but, just like nitrox, you learn to dive without it before you learn to dive with it.....

 

[rjack321]

For a "new" program DSAT adopted the worst practices in gas selection from the older agencies (IANTD, TDI etc), combined them with a laughably horrible example set of skills on their DVD, and matched them all up with a very PADI-like instructor corps (I know a DSAT tech instructor up here teaching students in wetsuits - 48F water, 50m depths on air + deco all in a wetsuit )

All in all there are better gas choices than DSAT provides, better skills demos to learn from and (maybe not universally) better instructors as well. There's really very little to put DSAT at the forefront of technical training or any facet thereof.