PADI TecRec

[boomx5]

Well as I seem to be the only one on the board who hasnt seen seen MHK´s resume, I seem to have stepped on some toes, but Mike you were coming on a bit strong and someone hasd to play the devils advocate, that is the beautiful anonymity of the internet for you. You could be a 12 year old school girl from another dimension for all I know.

http://www.gue.com/info/resumes/kane.html

 

[Mako Mark]

yeah I saw it already

http://www.fifthd.com/itindex.htm

c´mon, you dont think I looked it up before that last comment?? gimme credit, and dont hang me out to dry for participating. play nice

 

[boomx5]

Well as I seem to be the only one on the board who hasnt seen seen MHK´s resume, I seem to have stepped on some toes, but Mike you were coming on a bit strong and someone hasd to play the devils advocate, that is the beautiful anonymity of the internet for you. You could be a 12 year old school girl from another dimension for all I know.

You are the only one who seems to be not playing nice here.

 

[MHK]

Well as I seem to be the only one on the board who hasnt seen seen MHK´s resume, I seem to have stepped on some toes, but Mike you were coming on a bit strong and someone hasd to play the devils advocate, that is the beautiful anonymity of the internet for you. You could be a 12 year old school girl from another dimension for all I know.

If you have a better course, GREAT, go and promote and teach it as you obviouly have, just dont think that criticizing your competitors will change the quality of the programs you or they have developed.

My intention isn't to slam anyone else's program, but I do have some areas of disagreement with the program and for whatever reason no one at PADI, nor anyone that is teaching or defending the program is willing to discuss. As you note, we put out our programs and we do our very best to answer any question(s) about the course content. Accordingly, in my mind I believe PADI has an equal obligation to discuss the core content of the skill(s) that they are purporting to teach. If I came on strong, please accept my apologies since I'm trying to keep the focus on the facts.

1 you cant overcome narcosis while breathing air at 165, so why pretend you can. I believe you can learn to cope with it, but narcosis is a chemical process in the mylin sheath. It is going to happen no matter how hard you hope or believe that it wont. you cant overcome it you can only learn to deal with it.

I agree that you can't over come it, but I disagree that you can learn to deal with it. That is tantamount to saying a guy that drinks every day can learn to drive home drunk. Maybe he'll get home if nothing goes wrong, but god forbid a kid runs out in the street or a car cuts him off.. The cognitive reflexes aren't prepared to deal with the situation, and the response rate will be deficient. Under water at 165' that means death. I would have rather they focused their efforts and resources on educating divers about helium, rather then enabling a depth range that they know full well is dangerous, and just recently encouraged their own membership to forcefully and vocally speak out against.

2 you cannot overcome the increased density of air at 165´ short of heating the gas, those are the laws of physics, therefore as divers we are stuck breathing a gas that you could almost stir with a spoon at that depth. What you can do is modify your activity so that you activity does not control your respiration, your respiration controls your activity. This has worked for me, This is what I would teach my students no matter which agency I was teaching for.

That is exactly my point, gas density is gas density and when you throw in poorly preforming regulators, double tanks, deco bottles, currents, drysuits you can start easily seeing the ability to retain and accumulate C02. C02 is 130 times more narcotic then N2, so as you stipulated above you can't overcome Nitrogen Narcosis, the diver at depth certainly isn't going to be able to overcome C02 retention. If you add helium to the gas you resolve the problem.

3 why should anyone worry about ICD, I have to agree with you, I dont personally know anyone that has had it (and I know my fair share of divers), and I have found few instructors that can adequately explain it.

We agree here, it isn't anything at all to worry about, frankly I don't even bother introducing the topic because it's a waste of time, but my point is that when I posed the question to Karl Shreeves about resisting the temptation to go the deep air route as opposed to going directly to helium he started offering that they didn't want to do that because of ICD. So my point is that if the defense for the reason of the program is ICD then it ought to be something of a true concern.

Dont forget, keep it friendly

I have tried to but if it appear otherwise I'll do my best to correct the perception

Thanks

 

[Spectre]

My intention isn't to slam anyone else's program, but I do have some areas of disagreement with the program and for whatever reason no one at PADI, nor anyone that is teaching or defending the program is willing to discuss. As you note, we put out our programs and we do our very best to answer any question(s) about the course content. Accordingly, in my mind I believe PADI has an equal obligation to discuss the core content of the skill(s) that they are purporting to teach. If I came on strong, please accept my apologies since I'm trying to keep the focus on the facts.

Maybe we should point him to that triox thread to show what it's really like to get beaten up?!

 

[Mako Mark]

Thanks mike, I think we are finding some common ground here after a rocky start.

I dont usually go down the road of using alcohol as a metaphor for Nitrogen narcosis, though I get your point. But i still feel that a dive that is more experienced diver (at these depths) should have learned to focus their attention on the things that require it and not let the other things distact them. I know that i seemed to make more errors as a beginner, and be effected by narcosis less as an instructor, not just over time, but during a dive. I will be focussed and clear headed during the descent and dive, but heading for home seems to cause a narcosis hit, and I believe this is a function of concentration, the more you relax, the more there is an effect.

I would dread to imagine that experienced drunks are better drivers than inexperienced ones, but insurance premiums do go down with age, maybe there is a connection??.

regarding the rest, we seem to be in agreement, so I have a question for you. If Karl is seen as going down the deep air route and resisting the introduction of Helium, at what depth would you recommend he introduce the dilutent gas? My previous comments were largely oriented to the old deep air and extended range limits of 190-220´

One thing I did notice in Miami at DEMA, was that when Karl introduced the DSAT trimix course to the course directors and membres in general, it was a far more cautious, older and wiser Karl than in 2001 when he introduced the tec deep.

He did stir up a hornets nest, and I guess some of the hornets are still mad (as indicated on this board), but at least he is trying to contribute. To take tec out of the lunatic or elitist fringe, and allow the development of "mainstream tec" and "recreational tec" (his words not mine) as the tec community grows. There will always be room for the explorers and innovaters, but they will open up the way for a new breed of tec divers, the followers.

Is there any reason that we couldnt take appropriately trained divers on 150' guided wreck dives?

Is there any reason that you couldnt take people on their once in a lifetime guided 100 meter dive at the blue hole at Dahab.

If you think this wont happen, too late, people are already doing it. That is how we learn, we gather knowledge from those we respect and trust.

I think the whole question about which card or book you use is not really important in tec diving, but sure as hell you better have a good instructor, DSAT actually raised the minimum requirements compared to most agencies.

Also, most of the PADI trained instructors that are interested in tec diving are already qualified by other agencies and crossing back to DSAT, or taking it extreemly cautiously. This is the way it should be. If there are cowboy instructors out there they should be shown how to do it right.

 

[Scubamedicjoe]

hum been watching theis and talked to couple my DIR buddies hear is something that bothers me
as stated by Cancum mark
My 2 cents worth is

"1 you cant overcome narcosis while breathing air at 165, so why pretend you can. I believe you can learn to cope with it, but narcosis is a chemical process in the mylin sheath. It is going to happen no matter how hard you hope or believe that it wont. you cant overcome it you can only learn to deal with it.

you need to know that your techniques and proceedures are suficiently engrained, and your task simplified to a level that allows you to dive in a competent and secure manner. "
First you can limit the effects of narcosis by diving trimix.
Second I don’t believe he's bashing Padi.
I believe he's try to speak about a questionable suggections and trying to limit the amount of possible deaths caused by it.

 

[MHK]

Thanks mike, I think we are finding some common ground here after a rocky start.

I dont usually go down the road of using alcohol as a metaphor for Nitrogen narcosis, though I get your point. But i still feel that a dive that is more experienced diver (at these depths) should have learned to focus their attention on the things that require it and not let the other things distact them. I know that i seemed to make more errors as a beginner, and be effected by narcosis less as an instructor, not just over time, but during a dive. I will be focussed and clear headed during the descent and dive, but heading for home seems to cause a narcosis hit, and I believe this is a function of concentration, the more you relax, the more there is an effect.

All of the available studies, including the one that was done at Duke University using divers inside and outside a chamber over multiple diver playing chess and checkers would dispute the results of building up tolerance levels. That being said, if I understand your point correctly, I don't know that I fully appreciate the following that you said:

"But i still feel that a dive that is more experienced diver (at these depths) should have learned to focus their attention on the things that require"

Do I read this correctly to suggest that a student should be experienced at those depths in order to beneft from the class? Meaning, of course, that begs the question that if they are already "comfortable" at that depth using air, then why do they need the class? I'm not trying to be combative, just trying to understand the point. My problem with the proposed solution to narcosis being building up a tolerance level is that it has been proven that it doesn't happen on the one hand and then on the other hand isn't something an agency can teach, you either dive deep on air a lot to build up the tolernace level, or you don't. So it brings me back to my original point, which is what is the purpose of the class if the agency brings nothing to the table other then to tell the student to dive alot to build up a tolerance level??

regarding the rest, we seem to be in agreement, so I have a question for you. If Karl is seen as going down the deep air route and resisting the introduction of Helium, at what depth would you recommend he introduce the dilutent gas? My previous comments were largely oriented to the old deep air and extended range limits of 190-220´

I'm not sure there is a hard bottom number, but as a rule of thumb, I don't go deeper then 100' absent helium, but if I'm doing a technical dive like a cave or wreck then I consider it in the 80' range. Depending on the dive, strong currents, doubles and deco or stage bottles, video equipment, cold, drysuit the 80' - 100' range becomes the gray area and I use either a 32% or a 30/30 depending on conditions and dive mission.

One thing I did notice in Miami at DEMA, was that when Karl introduced the DSAT trimix course to the course directors and membres in general, it was a far more cautious, older and wiser Karl than in 2001 when he introduced the tec deep.

I can appreciate that, I helped GUE release the Triox program and the only thing I can tell you is that you are never prepared for what can happen when you release a program. I never in my wildest imaginations expected what happened when we released our Triox program.

He did stir up a hornets nest, and I guess some of the hornets are still mad (as indicated on this board), but at least he is trying to contribute. To take tec out of the lunatic or elitist fringe, and allow the development of "mainstream tec" and "recreational tec" (his words not mine) as the tec community grows. There will always be room for the explorers and innovaters, but they will open up the way for a new breed of tec divers, the followers.

In all candor, that is precisely what worries me about PADI getting into the tech game. Most of the technical agencies, whether you agree with their ideology or not, more fully appreciate the need to be selective. My concern with PADI is that it has breed a culture of moving divers up the chain that really ought not be up the chain, you maybe, and I emphasis "MAY" be able to get away with that in the recreational realm, in the tech realm that culture is a receipe for disaster..

Is there any reason that we couldnt take appropriately trained divers on 150' guided wreck dives?

Is there any reason that you couldnt take people on their once in a lifetime guided 100 meter dive at the blue hole at Dahab.

If you think this wont happen, too late, people are already doing it. That is how we learn, we gather knowledge from those we respect and trust.

I fully acknowledge that it is happening, however I moved on from PADI when I resigned in about 1998 or so, I actually don't remember when. But my goal is to change the industry, not accept that people are willing to do stupid things and then figure out a way to help them do it. I wouldn't dream of doing those kind of things that you suggest, but I know that some do.. I've seen too many dead divers, and done too many accident analysis to make a few extra bucks doing these type of misguided dives. We train divers to be self-sufficent, dive in a unified team and preach that the team in only as strong as the weakest guy, these type of "experience", once-in-a-lifetime guided dives puts everyon in the team at risk and I wouldn't do it..

I think the whole question about which card or book you use is not really important in tec diving, but sure as hell you better have a good instructor, DSAT actually raised the minimum requirements compared to most agencies.

My biggest concern is the cultural atmosphere that has been created at PADI. It's not a slam to say that PADI pays a great deal of attention to marketing, that is pretty much an accepted premise, many of us just don't feel they have the ideological wherewithal to divorce themselves from that corporate culture, nor do many of us feel they have the expertise to teach technical diving. They make great materials, they produce great videos but the content leaves a lot to be desired. Evidence the "tech" divers sitting on their knees "crawling before they walk" as it is put in PADI lingo. Many of us feel that if a potential technical diver needs to sit on his knees to "crawl" then they need more experience and should be turned away from the class. PADI has proven that they don't understand the subtle intangibles that differentiate recreational diving from technical diving. Look at the way they teach you how to shoot a lift bag, that is embarrasing. I read the Trimix book and it was clear that they simply are lacking in terms of expertise and experience, but are trying to tailor a program that is inclusive in an environment that is very unforgiving..


Anyway, those are my thoughts and I wish PADI would have stayed in the recreational realm, but since they've decided to branch out they shouldn't be surprised if others comment on their program, that is afterall why boards such as these exist..

Later

 

[fins wake]

Second I don’t believe he's bashing Padi. I believe he's try to speak about a questionable suggections and trying to limit the amount of possible deaths caused by it.

This is in the eye of the beholder. Cancun Mike made some very interesting and valid points to those bothered to read his threads. Mr Kane is an instructor for a rival (=competing) agency, and some of us will look at his posts in that light.

Note that Sydney Diver asked for advice on the course from people who have actually done it, not from people who want to pick holes in the teaching materials or standards. I suggest that if this were a thread asking advice from people who'd actually done the GUE-F or Tech1 course, and somebody from a rival agency tried to pick holes in that, things would sound rather different. And rightly so. Do the rules change just because it's a GUE instructor?

Now, I really don't wish to enter an argument with MHK, but hasn't anybody noticed that right up to the point where he entered the debate, everybody actually played by the rules and answered Sydney Diver's questions? There was no bashing. Then, après lui le déluge.

Agency bashing? In my book, clearly yes. But also pretty bad sport from an instructor from a rival agency. This will - or should - raise necessary questions on objectivity etc.

 

[Laser]

This is in the eye of the beholder. Cancun Mike made some very interesting and valid points to those bothered to read his threads. Mr Kane is an instructor for a rival (=competing) agency, and some of us will look at his posts in that light.

Note that Sydney Diver asked for advice on the course from people who have actually done it, not from people who want to pick holes in the teaching materials or standards. I suggest that if this were a thread asking advice from people who'd actually done the GUE-F or Tech1 course, and somebody from a rival agency tried to pick holes in that, things would sound rather different. And rightly so. Do the rules change just because it's a GUE instructor?

Now, I really don't wish to enter an argument with MHK, but hasn't anybody noticed that right up to the point where he entered the debate, everybody actually played by the rules and answered Sydney Diver's questions? There was no bashing. Then, après lui le déluge.

Agency bashing? In my book, clearly yes. But also pretty bad sport from an instructor from a rival agency. This will - or should - raise necessary questions on objectivity etc.

I believe he summed it up in this paragraph...
" My intention isn't to slam anyone else's program, but I do have some areas of disagreement with the program and for whatever reason no one at PADI, nor anyone that is teaching or defending the program is willing to discuss. As you note, we put out our programs and we do our very best to answer any question(s) about the course content. Accordingly, in my mind I believe PADI has an equal obligation to discuss the core content of the skill(s) that they are purporting to teach. If I came on strong, please accept my apologies since I'm trying to keep the focus on the facts. "

Also, a Tom Mount quote in your sig line could lead one to believe you have an affinity to a particular agency...but that would be foolish.