PADI TecRec

[Snowbear]

Is that, as was pointed out, DSAT's prerequisites are more stringent in terms of the number and depths of dives required than other agencies....

As far as certs, it appears you are correct. Because they require the Deep diver specialty, the PADI class does, in fact, require more cards than does the GUE class. As far as # and depths of dives, I've more than met PADI's requirements, but because I haven't bought the Deep Diver Specialty, I'm not qualified. Yeah - I guess that makes their requirements more stringent, even though I don't have to be able to hold a 70' stop.

The GUE Tech1 class requires passing DIRf as well as 100 logged dives. Despite passing DIRf, the Tech1 instructor will evaluate the individual on his/her fundamental skills. Doesn't matter if you've had 100 dives or 1000 - if you can't maintain neutral buoyancy, you won't finish.

Trouble is, I would rather not return to the kneeling/crawling position of my OW class to get the tech certification. During my DM training, I was continually admonished for not kneeling on the bottom of the pool to demonstrate basic skills such as mask clearing.

What's the point of "learning" to shoot a bag while anchoring myself to the bottom when the usual scenario (and how I've been doing it) of performing this task in real life likely requires doing it neutrally buoyant in mid water?

 

[GDI]

GDI--- there is a 300' hole 40 mins from my house, called the "culo negro" (the black hole) that I have seen the bottom of. Would I dive it with you??? Probably not, I'm an army brat, so I am suspicious of all things military.

I was a mil brat as well and then went and did the serve my country thing, Proudly I admit. I could understand your suspicious feeling but keep a stiff upper lip there anyway lad

 

[MikeFerrara]

• PADI Advanced Open Water Diver (or qualifying certification from another organization)
• PADI Rescue Diver (or qualifying certification from another organization)
• PADI Enriched Air Diver (or qualifying certification from another organization)
• PADI Deep Diver (or qualifying certification from another organization)
  Have a minimum of 100 logged dives of which 20 must be enriched air dives, 25 dives must be deeper than 18 metres/60 feet and at least 15 dives must be deeper than 30 metres/100 feet
• Minimum age: 18 years old

Sorry, you aren't qualified to be coddled. j/k

However, take the DIR-F course (no qualifying certification from another organization) and you can take Tech Diver 1.

Great the demand that you take the deep diver specialty which is a class in diving deep with shallow diving equipment and techniques that doesn't even teach gas management. Even when I was a PADI instructor I refused to teach that class.

Then they insist that you go below 100 ft 15 times diving that way. It would be better if they required a basket weaving specialty.

 

[MikeFerrara]

"Rescue" is one of those "keys" that fits agency "locks", irrespective of how well you can dive, and irrespective of the fact that at least some of the orthodoxy you will be shown in the Rescue class is just plain wrong in a technical environment.

The purpose of the rescue class is to introduce multiple methods and thinking on your feet to use what makes sense for the situation.

What's taught that's just plain wrong?

 

[Genesis]

The purpose of the rescue class is to introduce multiple methods and thinking on your feet to use what makes sense for the situation.

What's taught that's just plain wrong?

That any diver found unconscious must be taken immediately to the surface, without checking for the possibility that he is tonic following an O2 hit, and without replacing any missing regulator with one that has a known good breathing gas.

If you do that and he IS tonic, you just killed him. Congratulations.

My instructor "explained this away" by simply saying that for a recreational diver he won't be toxing. Golly gee, I'm glad that the high priests of the orthodox dive religion are prescient and can predict with 100% accuracy that someone doesn't have a "hot mix" in their tank and/or is not below the MOD.

How hard is it to make a reasonably-decent guess at whether this is what's going on when you first arrive on-scene?

Let's be honest here Mike. MOST of the time, if you come across someone unconscious on the bottom, they're screwed. Just consider the timelines; let's say you find someone on the bottom, not breathing, at 100'. By the time you can make a safe ascent 3 minutes have passed. You have one more before there is a 90+% probability that he's dead, and this assumes that you find him INSTANTLY from the time that he suffered whatever caused the problem in the first place. That is extremely unlikely; more likely is that your "4 minute window", which is how long you have before his odds go in the toilet, is gone before you can get to him and get him to the surface, and that assumes he has circulation. If he doesn't then it is essentially 100% certain that he's screwed, since you can't give him compressions or use an AED in the water; by the time you can extract him and strip his gear, that four minute window is LONG expired. Indeed, I timed these scenarios in my class; the typical timeline from discovery underwater IN A POOL to recovery on land, simulating a tow back to the boat, NEVER met that 4-minute window. Therefore, if he has no circulation he's cooked. The only way you have a shot at saving him, in reality, is if you find him immediately after the event AND he has ceased breathing BUT still has circulation AND his airway is not compromised (e.g. full of water.)

So MOST OF THE TIME an unconscious diver on the bottom is screwed, if you do not witness the original event. Therefore, the balance of harms says that since this is the case, if he's NOT screwed, because the only thing wrong with him is that he has toxed, you REALLY don't want to be doing what PADI mandates.

Here's the thought process.

Let's say that just 5% - or even 1% - of the time the diver has toxed.
The "orthodox priests" say that risk is so small that taking him up immediately is the "right move."

The problem with this is that the "high priests" all flunked statistics class in high school. Determining that this is the "right move" is impossible without knowing what percentage of those who you find on the bottom, who have not toxed, are already dead.

In reality, most of the time a person who is found unconscious and not breathing underwater and has not suffered an O2 hit is dead. This is nearly 100% certain, simply due to the timelines involved.

The amount of time required to know, with reasonably certainty, if the victim is tonic (rather than dead) is very small. That amount of time is not material to the victim's chance of survival if he has not toxed.

However, if he has, and you take him up before he comes out of that phase, you kill him outright from a severe overexpansion injury (severe enough to literally pop his lungs) because his airway is locked closed.

Further, if he has, even if you don't take him up, if you do not replace a missing reg with one that has a known safe breathing gas in it, when he comes out of it his first respiration is water instead of air - he drowns and dies.

Since there is a known scenario that can cause unconsciousness underwater but, other than the risk of spitting out the reg and drowning is itself not dangerous, it is purely insane not to assess for this possibility before making the decision to take him to the surface.

PADI accounts for this by simply ignoring that the possibility exists!

 

[J1M1]

That any diver found unconscious must be taken immediately to the surface, without checking for the possibility that he is tonic following an O2 hit, and without replacing any missing regulator with one that has a known good breathing gas.

If you do that and he IS tonic, you just killed him. Congratulations.

My instructor "explained this away" by simply saying that for a recreational diver he won't be toxing. Golly gee, I'm glad that the high priests of the orthodox dive religion are prescient and can predict with 100% accuracy that someone doesn't have a "hot mix" in their tank and/or is not below the MOD.

How hard is it to make a reasonably-decent guess at whether this is what's going on when you first arrive on-scene?

Let's be honest here Mike. MOST of the time, if you come across someone unconscious on the bottom, they're screwed. Just consider the timelines; let's say you find someone on the bottom, not breathing, at 100'. By the time you can make a safe ascent 3 minutes have passed. You have one more before there is a 90+% probability that he's dead, and this assumes that you find him INSTANTLY from the time that he suffered whatever caused the problem in the first place. That is extremely unlikely; more likely is that your "4 minute window", which is how long you have before his odds go in the toilet, is gone before you can get to him and get him to the surface, and that assumes he has circulation. If he doesn't then it is essentially 100% certain that he's screwed, since you can't give him compressions or use an AED in the water; by the time you can extract him and strip his gear, that four minute window is LONG expired. Indeed, I timed these scenarios in my class; the typical timeline from discovery underwater IN A POOL to recovery on land, simulating a tow back to the boat, NEVER met that 4-minute window. Therefore, if he has no circulation he's cooked. The only way you have a shot at saving him, in reality, is if you find him immediately after the event AND he has ceased breathing BUT still has circulation AND his airway is not compromised (e.g. full of water.)

So MOST OF THE TIME an unconscious diver on the bottom is screwed, if you do not witness the original event. Therefore, the balance of harms says that since this is the case, if he's NOT screwed, because the only thing wrong with him is that he has toxed, you REALLY don't want to be doing what PADI mandates.

Here's the thought process.

Let's say that just 5% - or even 1% - of the time the diver has toxed.
The "orthodox priests" say that risk is so small that taking him up immediately is the "right move."

The problem with this is that the "high priests" all flunked statistics class in high school. Determining that this is the "right move" is impossible without knowing what percentage of those who you find on the bottom, who have not toxed, are already dead.

In reality, most of the time a person who is found unconscious and not breathing underwater and has not suffered an O2 hit is dead. This is nearly 100% certain, simply due to the timelines involved.

The amount of time required to know, with reasonably certainty, if the victim is tonic (rather than dead) is very small. That amount of time is not material to the victim's chance of survival if he has not toxed.

However, if he has, and you take him up before he comes out of that phase, you kill him outright from a severe overexpansion injury (severe enough to literally pop his lungs) because his airway is locked closed.

Further, if he has, even if you don't take him up, if you do not replace a missing reg with one that has a known safe breathing gas in it, when he comes out of it his first respiration is water instead of air - he drowns and dies.

Since there is a known scenario that can cause unconsciousness underwater but, other than the risk of spitting out the reg and drowning is itself not dangerous, it is purely insane not to assess for this possibility before making the decision to take him to the surface.

PADI accounts for this by simply ignoring that the possibility exists!

If they continue to beleive that the possibility of someone toxing out is very slim on a dive they need to think again. They need to come up with procedures such as letting the diver get through the seizure and not bringing him to the surface during the episode, and if the seizure shows no signs of stopping ie-many minutes have passed, tilting the divers head back trying to keep the airway as open as possible and keeping the reg in his mouth while ascending after the seizure.The seizure itself is not fatal. However a closed airway certainly would mean lungs pop like ballons if the diver is brought to the surface, even from the 20 ft. stop.And losing the reg would mean certain drowning.

 

[Mako Mark]

I'm getting the distinct impression that both mikes, and others think that the present depth of 130'/40m for recreational diving limit is too deep, Is this true?

I must agree with the comments on the¨PADI deep course, it is very simplistic, is very old, and needs to be updated in the light of developing tec diving protocols. However it is not a Tec diving course, and it was written in 1988. we have to keep that in the context of when it was written. PADI was still using USN tables in 1988 and still had decompression on those tables even though they discouraged the use of it (paradoxically)

When I teach deep specialty to recreational divers, rather than a tool to allow divers to deep dive safely, I teach it as more a tool to change their attidude to the dangers of deep diving and inform them that deeper diving should not be undertaken lightly, and the limits of recreational diving equipment and protocols. Its main validity is to discourage deeper diving without further training.

I wouldnt advocate to anyone that the four dives of the course is sufficient as an all encompassing training to dive safely to 30-40 meters. What it does do though (in the hands of a concienious instructor) is introduce the topic, install a respectfull attitude to the elevated risks of deep diving and allow the diver to decide whether this type of diving is worth the extra effort/risk/hassle/training/equipment.

We know that recreational divers exceed the limits of recreational diving, and I believe that this is due to ignorance of the risk and techniques to overcome or minimize those risks. Is an Advanced diver an ADVANCED diver, no that is why the programs name was changed.

Same with the rescue course, it is not written in context of the technical diver, a new version is on its way though, and perhaps it will touch on the topic. Genisis, your example was very specific and a good topic for discussion with divers taking your rescue course (if they show the slightest interest in tec diving), but if you are teaching rescue to vacation divers, keep it in context, you adapt courses to the needs and interests of you students.

I think there is a need for a more comprehensive or advanced rescue/dive medic course, and I see it emerging, I believe EFR are working on it and the obvious need for it in tec diving is outstripping what is included in the individual tec diving courses.

As I am not an expert on DIR and GUE fundemental curriculum, MHK may be able to tell us how he approaches rescue theory in the tec context, is it included, or does it merit a separate course.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Certainly bringing a toxing diver directly to the surface could ba a mistake however if we look at a representative cross section of recreational divers I'll bet there are lots of things that can cause a diver to loose conciousness or appear that way. It could anything from a heart attack to a diabetic event and the most likely is probably just a good old fasioned near drowning. All of which may be far more likely on a recreational dive than a tox and in each of those cases the diver needs to be taken to the surface. There are recreational divers out there on all kinds of medications and with all sorts of medical conditions.

From my experience I would have to say that the MOST likey reason that a diver would be out and on the bottom is that they suffered some event like OOA and/or a rapid ascent then passed out and sunl back down. Again this diver needs to get to the surface.

I would also tent to agree that most often an unconcious diver on the bottom is a revovery but there are cases like our own Dr. Paul Thomas who was down for like 10 minutes brought up and revived and lived to tell about it.

There's also a good possibility that the victem is the rescuers buddy since were not talking about public safety davers here.

It still wouldn't be a bad idea to add discussion and practice for a toxing diver to a rescue class though. The importance of not bringing a convulsing diver to the surface is mentioned in the nitrox text but there's no requirement to practice it.

In regard to rescue breaths, it's true that we don't know if there is a pulse or not. Since we can't check we assume there is and provide rescue breaths. However things aren't looking good for the diver and there isn't much that can be done in the water so the need to get out. I wouldn't recommend any significant delay in egress for the sake of providing rescue breaths.

 

[J1M1]

Same with the rescue course, it is not written in context of the technical diver, a new version is on its way though, and perhaps it will touch on the topic. Genisis, your example was very specific and a good topic for discussion with divers taking your rescue course (if they show the slightest interest in tec diving), but if you are teaching rescue to vacation divers, keep it in context, you adapt courses to the needs and interests of you students.
.

The main problem here is that padi is making an open water rescue course a prerequisite for technical training. I do not know if self or buddy rescue are touched upon in the padi tec. book. but as genesis pointed out it seems that they ignore many issues that are relevant to budy rescue in differing situations. I hope they are not falling back on the ie-("o.k. now this is where your rescue course should come into play with a buddy that needs rescue.")
It must be adressed from the point where you are now able to make an informed descision on how to rescue someone that may for instance be going through a seizure or something you would not face in the open water diver realm of rescue. You are right however in your statement that the rescue course is in context with the kind of divers it needs to be. I hope they do not expect a diver that is being tec. trained by padi to fall back on their rescue training if for instance they needed to remove me from the water during a O2 hit.
SAFE AND HAPPY DIVING J.D.

 

[Mako Mark]

2 good points mike.

Heart attacks kill the most recreational divers in my experience, and there is more and more talk about the benifits of NOT delaying egress for the sake of ventilations, what they probably need is CPR and defribulation so get them out of the water.

With tec divers this may be very different.
The tonic state would mandate that you should wait until the diver stops convulsing before surfacing, and I believe that the primary cause of death in tec diving is the effects of breathing a hyperoxic gas.

However, I think that joe average would probably forget this in the heat of the moment. remember that most of our human instincts are completely wrong when talking about diving, hence the neet to act rather than react.

Time of immersion is not an accurate guide to probability of resuscitation, It is a rough guide.