JeffG
Contributor
Yea...The TDI manuals suck too, except the new Advanced trimix. It is an excellant manual.Dive-aholic:The book isn't that bad. At least they don't talk about "erts"!
Padi Dsat
- Thread starter HybridDiver
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Dive-aholic:The book isn't that bad. At least they don't talk about "erts"!
Someone told me that it was being changed. I don't know if it has been or not but I have the first addition of the book and it's there. They talk about holding onto something with your legs or having a buddy hold you down while you inflate the bag.
If you want I can dig the book up from where it's burried in the garage and get you a page number and/or direct quote.
As far as I can tell, there is no perfect tech training manual out there. Tech training has really only been around for about 15 years and is still evolving. Recreational training has 50 years of development under its belt. I don't think theres any bad info in any of them, some just written better than others. I think anyone getting into tech should read all of them, thats why I prefer an agency that allows the use of other resources.
As far as the depth limits in these courses, they are just that, limits. Nothing says you have to go to 165' on air to complete the class. Same w/ TDI, 150' is a max depth. A 100' dive for 45 minutes is a deco dive, its not all about depth. Personally, I think a diver learning tech needs to do a little deep air training, at this level of diving you should have some idea of your personal tolerance to narcosis. It will give you a better idea of how to plan END's in future dives. Also, you will have a much better appreciation of helium when you've actually experienced a little narcosis. I talk to a lot of experienced divers, and its amasing how many have never really experienced narcosis. I know for myself, 150' is the deepest I will go on air as my personal narcosis at this depth is pronounced but still manageable. I prefer a little helium at this depth, and I know that from real experience, not by what I've read or heard.
Tech diving is pushing limits, period. How can one push limits when you don't know what they are? 150', even 165' under supervised training conditions is a good way to learn what your limits are. 130' may be all you can stand, but how do you know if you'll only dive mix below 100'? Too much emphasis, in my personal opinion, gets put on specific gases and mixes. On an expedition, for example, where top offs are being done, the chances of getting a specific mix for every dive are rare. A little improvising and fudging comes into play and this is made easier by knowing things like actual personal limits.
All the above is my personal opinion. You don't have to agree, thats why its called a discussion board
As far as the depth limits in these courses, they are just that, limits. Nothing says you have to go to 165' on air to complete the class. Same w/ TDI, 150' is a max depth. A 100' dive for 45 minutes is a deco dive, its not all about depth. Personally, I think a diver learning tech needs to do a little deep air training, at this level of diving you should have some idea of your personal tolerance to narcosis. It will give you a better idea of how to plan END's in future dives. Also, you will have a much better appreciation of helium when you've actually experienced a little narcosis. I talk to a lot of experienced divers, and its amasing how many have never really experienced narcosis. I know for myself, 150' is the deepest I will go on air as my personal narcosis at this depth is pronounced but still manageable. I prefer a little helium at this depth, and I know that from real experience, not by what I've read or heard.
Tech diving is pushing limits, period. How can one push limits when you don't know what they are? 150', even 165' under supervised training conditions is a good way to learn what your limits are. 130' may be all you can stand, but how do you know if you'll only dive mix below 100'? Too much emphasis, in my personal opinion, gets put on specific gases and mixes. On an expedition, for example, where top offs are being done, the chances of getting a specific mix for every dive are rare. A little improvising and fudging comes into play and this is made easier by knowing things like actual personal limits.
All the above is my personal opinion. You don't have to agree, thats why its called a discussion board
TomP
Contributor
MikeFerrara:
The text I have has a 2000 copyright date. The reference in question is on page 128. I had actually missed this when i took the class but i wasn't surprised because i found a lot of oddities and inconsistencies in the book.
My 2 cents in general...
With all its flaws i think it was a decent book and has hopefully matured into a good book. In any case, it is one source of information in a process that requires 2, with the instructor to my mind being far more critical. My instructor teaches both TDI and DSAT and I'd be hard pressed to think that his expertise, professionalism, and ethics varies according to the text he's required to use.
I also think there may be too much emphasis on the depth limit. I didn't take the class because i wanted a 165' foot floor. I did want to dive a little deeper (100 - 130)but primarily i wanted to dive longer. The value of the class to me was centered aound the configuration and skills necessary safely extend my bottom times.
I thought kneeling on the bottom and kneeling on a wreck was quite fine. I liked the scene in the nitrox video that "previewed" DSAT tech courses in which a diver dragged a stage bottle through the water by the regulator hose.
Scuba Cowboy:As far as I can tell, there is no perfect tech training manual out there. Tech training has really only been around for about 15 years and is still evolving. Recreational training has 50 years of development under its belt. I don't think theres any bad info in any of them, some just written better than others. I think anyone getting into tech should read all of them, thats why I prefer an agency that allows the use of other resources.
As far as the depth limits in these courses, they are just that, limits. Nothing says you have to go to 165' on air to complete the class. Same w/ TDI, 150' is a max depth. A 100' dive for 45 minutes is a deco dive, its not all about depth. Personally, I think a diver learning tech needs to do a little deep air training, at this level of diving you should have some idea of your personal tolerance to narcosis. It will give you a better idea of how to plan END's in future dives. Also, you will have a much better appreciation of helium when you've actually experienced a little narcosis. I talk to a lot of experienced divers, and its amasing how many have never really experienced narcosis. I know for myself, 150' is the deepest I will go on air as my personal narcosis at this depth is pronounced but still manageable. I prefer a little helium at this depth, and I know that from real experience, not by what I've read or heard.
Tech diving is pushing limits, period. How can one push limits when you don't know what they are? 150', even 165' under supervised training conditions is a good way to learn what your limits are. 130' may be all you can stand, but how do you know if you'll only dive mix below 100'? Too much emphasis, in my personal opinion, gets put on specific gases and mixes. On an expedition, for example, where top offs are being done, the chances of getting a specific mix for every dive are rare. A little improvising and fudging comes into play and this is made easier by knowing things like actual personal limits.
All the above is my personal opinion. You don't have to agree, thats why its called a discussion board
This is one of those things that there is and always has been a range of opinions on. I've done training dives to 170 ft on air and nontraining dives to comparable depths. Personally, I don't think this is an experience that one needs as part of their education.
Learning to drive drunk is all about pushing limits. How do you know how many beer you can handle and still drive when you've never tried it? 6, even 8 under supervision is a good way to learn where your limits are. How do you know you can even handle 4 if you don't try?Scuba Cowboy:Tech diving is pushing limits, period. How can one push limits when you don't know what they are? 150', even 165' under supervised training conditions is a good way to learn what your limits are. 130' may be all you can stand, but how do you know if you'll only dive mix below 100'? Too much emphasis, in my personal opinion, gets put on specific gases and mixes. On an expedition, for example, where top offs are being done, the chances of getting a specific mix for every dive are rare. A little improvising and fudging comes into play and this is made easier by knowing things like actual personal limits.
All the above is my personal opinion. You don't have to agree, thats why its called a discussion board
Too much emphasis is put on driving with no alcohol in your system.
On a weekend binger for example, when you really don't know what it is your buddy's are pouring down your throat, you'll be glad you have experience enough to know approximately how much you might be able to handle, if things go just right anyway.
Sounds kinda dumb when I put it that way doesn't it?
Most of us over the last 20 or so years have had to take drivers education classes prior to obtaining a license...........I did it myself, and I'm sure it was commonly accepted that the best policy is a zero tolerance policy, and not one of our instructors in the organization we paid to teach us, implied anything different. Too bad dive training agencies are so sloppy and aren't into teaching good diving practices.
Makes me wonder why folks even waste thier money on them.
edit: some spellin'
TomP
Contributor
Since most states have upped the drinking age to 21 the chorus may have been unamimous but certainly not effective. My drivers ed instructor was a moron and i learned nothing from him but he sure towed the line on zero tolerance - back then it wasn't booze though, it was reefer madness.Steve R:
ekewaka
Contributor
Steve R:
I wasn't planning on any doing any DSAT training, but now I think I may have to get the video just for the entertainment value.
Similar threads
