RAID vs SDI vs GUE vs...

[Lorenzoid]

Thank you [PfcAJ]! Your excellent post cuts to the heart of a key issue. GUE Fundamentals is often recommended on SB as an option for divers who wish to increase their skill at diving, to 'up their in-water game,' as opposed to taking a Dive Master (or similar) course. Reports from people who've taken it indicate it can do that well. Unfortunately, when viewed from that perspective (e.g.: the rec. diver with no plans for tech. diving, cave diving, formal GUE team diving, etc...), some demands like the harness thing sound over-bearing and unnecessary, a bit on the 'control freak' side. Hence some of the critical pushback, and I speculate that might be the sort of thing that gave the OP the impression their approach seemed like a 'doctrine.'

What you and rjack321 posted puts it in perspective. I hope other people researching the option in the future run across your posts.

Yes, great perspective from AJ and Richard. Here it is in GUE's own words, from their web page:

WHY TAKE THIS COURSE?
The GUE Fundamentals course is by far GUE’s most popular program. It functions as a gateway into GUE training and it is an excellent way to personally experience what GUE is all about.

Some divers use the Fundamentals course as a way to improve on the less-than-optimal training they have received during traditional fast-track entry-level courses. Others see the course as a ticket to participate in GUE projects and activities. Many technical divers and even experienced instructors from other organizations use the course to improve basic skills and gain access to GUE’s cave and tech-training. It is not uncommon to have divers with very diverse backgrounds in the same class, which makes this course completely unique in the diving industry. Everybody will benefit, regardless of their current level of certification or experience. Graduating this course with a pass is something to be proud of, as the quality of a GUE Fundamentals diver is recognized all over the diving world.

 

[NothingClever]

I think Paul Toomer’s mission statement is excellent.

“Our mission is to be the benchmark brand for quality dive training globally through improved technology, training techniques, a proactive quality control system and ensuring the highest standard of dive instructors. The measure of our success is not the number of divers we train but the quality of our divers, every diver we train is an ambassador for RAID.”

@RainPilot , one of our moderators, is one of RAID’s premier instructors. I can vouch for his mentorship. He fast forwarded at warp speed my outlook on serious and technical diving. He’s definitely a better man than me because he’s high performance but still has patience for those still developing their focus.

 

[RainPilot]

Not exactly the warm, welcoming, family-friendly name I'd have expected.

Well, it started as Rebreather Association of Instructors and Divers but with the buyout of Barry by Jim in the early 2000's the open circuit side was spun up and given equal footing and the name was officially changed to RAID, it is no longer an acronym. RAID in its present form was started off in Australia by the former SSI franchise there, and their focus initially was SE Asia and Australasia, there is a much bigger presence there than the US representation would lead one to believe. DiveRAID.com would be the best bet, the connection with the pest spray is unfortunate but I doubt any of the founders had ever heard of that when they were starting up. I know I hadn't, its not a big thing outside the US...

is one of RAID’s premier instructors.

That is very kind of you to say, I take it you still haven't met many RAID instructors

As for the OP, many have already said it's the instructor not the agency but the agency minimum standards do have a role to play. Sadly many folks will drop to the lowest denominator possible, which when combined with poor/non-existent QA of the instructors leads to some very marginal training being done.

My take on the agencies listed:

• GUE
  • Small instructor pool so QA is very tight
  • Courses tend to be quite pricy
  • Standards do not allow for much "personalisation" of a course to fit ones needs (which is neither bad nor good, just a data point)
  • Opens up some interesting dive opportunities run by GUE folks
  • Path to CCR and sidemount still a bit odd from where I am standing so worth a look into if either of those are your bag
  • GUE certs will be recognised as entry into most other agencies if you want to branch out later
• TDI
  • Well rounded course layout and progression
  • QA not as good as GUE but still fairly good.
  • Materials are adequate but hardly modern
  • Deep air is still a thing, but there are equivalent helium courses within the system so you dont need to go that way if you dont want to
  • Lot of "big name" instructors. Overhead courses and standards are highly rated by many in the know.
• NAUI
  • Tricky outside US to find instructors for certain courses
  • Decent standards and a lot of room for an instructor to add requirements and tailor the course
  • Outdated thinking regarding deco gas choices
  • Still married to RGBM/bubble models but those can be adjusted to suit "current thinking" so I teach GF as do most of the other NAUI tech instructors I know
  • Sensible depth limit for normoxic (72m with 16/xx backgas so offers some more flexibility before going the hypoxic route)
• IANTD
  • Very nice course progression, especially with CCR/OC integration of various courses
  • Entry to tech via "light" tech with 10 min deco and a bit of helium to 45m gives a nice entry step to someone who is dipping their toe in the tech world
  • Big international presence
  • QA has been .... problematic... over the last few years if you read some threads on this forum and many other sources.
• RAID
  • Free learning and standards transparency is pretty revolutionary in the industry
  • Neutral buoyancy emphasis in all levels leads to there being fewer "bare minimum" instructors
  • Tech progression pretty complete, no hypoxic courses yet but that will change in the next few months
  • Easily accessible management ( Paul Toomer is on here, as is Steve Lewis and a couple of others)
  • QA is quite comprehensive, not to a GUE level but (touch wood) RAID hasn't had any "instructor killed a student and is still teaching" moments yet.
  • Global market penetration is still behind so not always possible to find a shop in your specific area

Full disclosure, I am a RAID IT as well as some others you can see in my signature, though I am pretty sure I have managed to be objective.

My final advice, is to put as much or more time into choosing your instructor than you would on the course. @Jim Lapenta has a pretty good book? blog? pamphlet? (sorry Jim I cant recall offhand now) about the process one should follow and it has been invaluable as a resource for me as an instructor (to be the kind of person someone should learn from) and many students as well.

Don't be shy to go on a fun dive with a prospective instructor (pay for their time if needed) and see how they look in the water, how you mesh with them etc once you've narrowed the field down.

 

[BoltSnap]

Tech progression pretty complete, no hypoxic courses yet but that will change in the next few months

Isn't this kind of strange? No one is qualified to go beyond 50 meters in RAID? If a diver wants to be qualified to go deeper, they will have to seek other agency for the training?

 

[RainPilot]

Isn't this kind of strange? No one is qualified to go beyond 50 meters in RAID? If a diver wants to be qualified to go deeper, they will have to seek other agency for the training?

No, there is a 60m normoxic course currently (same depth as most other agencies) but the hypoxic course (80m and deeper) is being finalised as we speak and is expected to be out by mid year. They have been revamping a lot of the courses and the hypoxic took a back seat to the more common courses for a while (its a small agency in terms of HQ staff and they're all divers who actively teach as well so time is always at a premium)

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Well, it started as Rebreather Association of Instructors and Divers but with the buyout of Barry by Jim in the early 2000's the open circuit side was spun up and given equal footing and the name was officially changed to RAID, it is no longer an acronym. RAID in its present form was started off in Australia by the former SSI franchise there, and their focus initially was SE Asia and Australasia, there is a much bigger presence there than the US representation would lead one to believe. DiveRAID.com would be the best bet, the connection with the pest spray is unfortunate but I doubt any of the founders had ever heard of that when they were starting up. I know I hadn't, its not a big thing outside the US...

That is very kind of you to say, I take it you still haven't met many RAID instructors

As for the OP, many have already said it's the instructor not the agency but the agency minimum standards do have a role to play. Sadly many folks will drop to the lowest denominator possible, which when combined with poor/non-existent QA of the instructors leads to some very marginal training being done.

My take on the agencies listed:

• GUE
  • Small instructor pool so QA is very tight
  • Courses tend to be quite pricy
  • Standards do not allow for much "personalisation" of a course to fit ones needs (which is neither bad nor good, just a data point)
  • Opens up some interesting dive opportunities run by GUE folks
  • Path to CCR and sidemount still a bit odd from where I am standing so worth a look into if either of those are your bag
  • GUE certs will be recognised as entry into most other agencies if you want to branch out later
• TDI
  • Well rounded course layout and progression
  • QA not as good as GUE but still fairly good.
  • Materials are adequate but hardly modern
  • Deep air is still a thing, but there are equivalent helium courses within the system so you dont need to go that way if you dont want to
  • Lot of "big name" instructors. Overhead courses and standards are highly rated by many in the know.
• NAUI
  • Tricky outside US to find instructors for certain courses
  • Decent standards and a lot of room for an instructor to add requirements and tailor the course
  • Outdated thinking regarding deco gas choices
  • Still married to RGBM/bubble models but those can be adjusted to suit "current thinking" so I teach GF as do most of the other NAUI tech instructors I know
  • Sensible depth limit for normoxic (72m with 16/xx backgas so offers some more flexibility before going the hypoxic route)
• IANTD
  • Very nice course progression, especially with CCR/OC integration of various courses
  • Entry to tech via "light" tech with 10 min deco and a bit of helium to 45m gives a nice entry step to someone who is dipping their toe in the tech world
  • Big international presence
  • QA has been .... problematic... over the last few years if you read some threads on this forum and many other sources.
• RAID
  • Free learning and standards transparency is pretty revolutionary in the industry
  • Neutral buoyancy emphasis in all levels leads to there being fewer "bare minimum" instructors
  • Tech progression pretty complete, no hypoxic courses yet but that will change in the next few months
  • Easily accessible management ( Paul Toomer is on here, as is Steve Lewis and a couple of others)
  • QA is quite comprehensive, not to a GUE level but (touch wood) RAID hasn't had any "instructor killed a student and is still teaching" moments yet.
  • Global market penetration is still behind so not always possible to find a shop in your specific area

Full disclosure, I am a RAID IT as well as some others you can see in my signature, though I am pretty sure I have managed to be objective.

My final advice, is to put as much or more time into choosing your instructor than you would on the course. @Jim Lapenta has a pretty good book? blog? pamphlet? (sorry Jim I cant recall offhand now) about the process one should follow and it has been invaluable as a resource for me as an instructor (to be the kind of person someone should learn from) and many students as well.

Don't be shy to go on a fun dive with a prospective instructor (pay for their time if needed) and see how they look in the water, how you mesh with them etc once you've narrowed the field down.

Thanks for the shout out. Actually 2 books. The first is geared towards newer divers and choosing an instructor. The second is more for beyond basic OW. The instructor selection process is basically the same but with added things to look for when setting up advanced training. I always recommend tech instructors for things like deep, recreational wreck, and even AOW as you are likely to get a more realistic view of the risks involved when you move beyond that 60ft BOW recommended depth and operators are willing to put people on sites and dives where many have no business being. All because they have an AOW card that is looked at like a get out of jail free card for the operation if the stuff hits the fan.

Both can be found on Amazon or direct from me.

SCUBA: A Practical Guide to Advanced Level Training​

SCUBA: A Practical Guide for the New Diver​

 

[WoodTurner]

Any follow up on this Cheizz?

 

[Cheizz]

Any follow up on this Cheizz?

I haven't decided yet. I talked to both GUE and TDI instructors this weekend (about the Fundamentals and Intro to Tech courses). I am leaning toward the TDI course because it seems the instructor can cater more to specific student needs and they are more flexible in terms of location and dates.

 

[WoodTurner]

I'm kind of in the same ship, considering between TDI, CMAS (NOB), IANTD.

 

[AJ]

I'm kind of in the same ship, considering between TDI, CMAS (NOB), IANTD.

Of those I would consider TDI or IANTD. Both are more recognized than CMAS as tech organizations.