tmassey
Contributor
If you've ever read a review by me, you know it will be many things -- including LONG... Have your beverage handy!
This is in review of @rsingler's recent Regulator Service Technician Training class: https://www.scubaboard.com/communit...rvice-technician-training-unrestricted.605706 Several people have asked for my thoughts, so I'm going to put them here.
A little bit of information about my review of this class. There is one important aspect that needs to be kept in mind. This was the very first class. We were warned up front and multiple times that this was the first class. And like the first pancake, it was probably going to come out a bit gnarly. How do you figure out if the griddle is hot enough or the batter is too thick? You throw a test pancake out there... And once you see what went *wrong*, you make the proper adjustments -- and things get better.
We were that first sacrificial pancake. I fully expect that even the second class will benefit noticeably from our experience. But I can't review the second class: I wasn't in the second class. I was in the first, and that's all I can review. That means that some of my observations are possibly -- even probably -- going to be fixed. No doubt @rsingler has *already* made changes based on his experience and the feedback he's received. But part of that 'fixing' might also come from how you as the student prepares in advance. So even if the same difficulties from our 'test class' don't appear to the same degree, being aware of them may still help you to have a better class.
Finally, I have intentionally not read any reviews by any other fellow students. So some of these points may have been covered in detail, and possible solutions discussed. Or, you may find that things I list as weaknesses were someone else's favorite part! Each person is different, and each person's expectations are different as well. Finally, I've intentionally left some time between the class and writing this review. I find that helps to put things in a little bit better perspective; but it also may mean that some of the details may be fuzzy in my mind -- or flat out incorrect. So if you see something I've written that conflicts with something else wrote, keep these factors in mind.
It seems unfair to write a detailed review of this class. I've described our class as the 'test pancake', but it was more than that. When we signed up for the class, there wasn't yet a class to take -- and we were clearly told that from the very beginning. And even when we were doing the class, it was clear that we were experiencing a rough draft. That means that a lot of elements that you would expect to be part of a class just weren't there: documented prerequisites and requirements, packaged deliverables, even an agenda were sometimes no more than a bare suggestion of what *might* happen.
But to be clear: we were told all of this *up* *front*. We *knew* it was going to be a rough draft. And book critics don't review the rough draft: they review the final draft. Editors review rough drafts -- but they don't do it in public.
So what I will try to do here is document my experience: how I prepared, how I went through the class, and how I might have done things differently in the future. I'm going to try to avoid a great deal of critique of the class itself. I have 'em, but like a good editor, I'll save those for the author!
While I do not want to harp on every weakness of the class, I do want to give an honest idea of the state of the class as I took it. In the end, the experience I had was definitely valuable, but also feels unfinished. This left me wanting more, despite the clear value I actually received: like going to a restaurant and receiving a meal that was satisfactory, but just left out too many of the details that make a positive restaurant experience different from just a satisfactory meal. If you are someone who values a rough and raw experience for what it is, without a great deal of polish or hand-holding, then you will benefit from this class. If you are someone for whom a curated experience with consistent attention to detail is important, I would suggest you wait until further iterations of this class have had a chance to build out those details.
There were three significant areas of the class: logistics leading into the class, preparation for the class, and the class itself. Each of them were significant undertakings on their own, and each provided their own value -- and their own difficulties.
The logistics leading into the class were a significant element of the entire class experience. This part of the experience was... a bit intense. This class needs a *lot* of stuff. Regulators to work on. Tools to work on them with. Parts to install and replace. Equipment to tune and test our regs with. And reference material to educate and guide us.
For us, especially in the beginning, there wasn't a lot of specific written direction on this. This lead to a great deal of unique back-and-forth and overlap. This was certainly compounded by, shall we say, highly-motivated students (Who? ME? Tightly-wound?!?) who were both running ahead of the process and just knowledgeable enough to be dangerous. I think we ended up with "Class E-mail #18" by the end, each of which was really its own *thread* of multiple e-mails, and which does *not* include the multiple threads started by me as a student (and, I'm sure, other students). At one point a few days before the class, @rsingler said he had been part of more than 300 e-mails. There's only 10 students... That's a lot of back and forth.
This was clearly an area where being the test pancake lead to some difficulties. No doubt this will be much cleaner in future classes -- it was improving noticeably even by the end of ours.
A very large reason for a lot of this back-and-forth was because there wasn't a lot of fixed requirements put upon us up front. What tools and parts you need is mostly determined by what type of regulators you are working on. Seeing as everyone had a different regulator (or more than one!) they wanted to work on, that meant that there was no commonality, so it's hard to make specific recommendations. (And I'm not kidding: I'm not sure that any two people in our class were working on the same device at any time in the class... Close, maybe, but not quite the same.)
How can you reduce or avoid this? Well, one way might be by limiting the amount of variability -- and that means limiting the variety of regulators. I would suggest sticking to regulators that are *very* similar or even identical to the ones that will be demoed in class. That's a pretty painful restriction if your chosen reg isn't in that limited list, but it would certainly help to dramatically reduce the number of confusing choices before the class -- as well as during. My guess is @rsingler isn't going to require that: he's way too accommodating!
But as a student, especially a student with limited previous experience, it may benefit you to make sure that the reg you're using is *very* close to what will be worked on in class. And you'll need to determine that early in the process, because literally everything else will flow from that choice of target devices.
No doubt, this will improve for the next class. By the end of the process, there was a suggested tool list, divided up into 'must have', 'nice to have', 'like to have' and 'you have too much money'. That was a *great* list to have -- which we didn't get until *well* into the process. You'll likely have it day one...
Target regulators and tools are not the only things you will need to prepare in advance. In addition, you will need to make sure you have an adequate space to work in, and sufficient audio and camera resources to participate on Zoom. This is an area that can be overlooked, and can take away from the experience. For our class, there wasn't much emphasis placed on this. We did have a few opportunities to connect in advance and make sure our conference equipment worked, but there was no real effort to simulate our actual class experience in advance.
On to page two...
This is in review of @rsingler's recent Regulator Service Technician Training class: https://www.scubaboard.com/communit...rvice-technician-training-unrestricted.605706 Several people have asked for my thoughts, so I'm going to put them here.
A little bit of information about my review of this class. There is one important aspect that needs to be kept in mind. This was the very first class. We were warned up front and multiple times that this was the first class. And like the first pancake, it was probably going to come out a bit gnarly. How do you figure out if the griddle is hot enough or the batter is too thick? You throw a test pancake out there... And once you see what went *wrong*, you make the proper adjustments -- and things get better.
We were that first sacrificial pancake. I fully expect that even the second class will benefit noticeably from our experience. But I can't review the second class: I wasn't in the second class. I was in the first, and that's all I can review. That means that some of my observations are possibly -- even probably -- going to be fixed. No doubt @rsingler has *already* made changes based on his experience and the feedback he's received. But part of that 'fixing' might also come from how you as the student prepares in advance. So even if the same difficulties from our 'test class' don't appear to the same degree, being aware of them may still help you to have a better class.
Finally, I have intentionally not read any reviews by any other fellow students. So some of these points may have been covered in detail, and possible solutions discussed. Or, you may find that things I list as weaknesses were someone else's favorite part! Each person is different, and each person's expectations are different as well. Finally, I've intentionally left some time between the class and writing this review. I find that helps to put things in a little bit better perspective; but it also may mean that some of the details may be fuzzy in my mind -- or flat out incorrect. So if you see something I've written that conflicts with something else wrote, keep these factors in mind.
It seems unfair to write a detailed review of this class. I've described our class as the 'test pancake', but it was more than that. When we signed up for the class, there wasn't yet a class to take -- and we were clearly told that from the very beginning. And even when we were doing the class, it was clear that we were experiencing a rough draft. That means that a lot of elements that you would expect to be part of a class just weren't there: documented prerequisites and requirements, packaged deliverables, even an agenda were sometimes no more than a bare suggestion of what *might* happen.
But to be clear: we were told all of this *up* *front*. We *knew* it was going to be a rough draft. And book critics don't review the rough draft: they review the final draft. Editors review rough drafts -- but they don't do it in public.
So what I will try to do here is document my experience: how I prepared, how I went through the class, and how I might have done things differently in the future. I'm going to try to avoid a great deal of critique of the class itself. I have 'em, but like a good editor, I'll save those for the author!

While I do not want to harp on every weakness of the class, I do want to give an honest idea of the state of the class as I took it. In the end, the experience I had was definitely valuable, but also feels unfinished. This left me wanting more, despite the clear value I actually received: like going to a restaurant and receiving a meal that was satisfactory, but just left out too many of the details that make a positive restaurant experience different from just a satisfactory meal. If you are someone who values a rough and raw experience for what it is, without a great deal of polish or hand-holding, then you will benefit from this class. If you are someone for whom a curated experience with consistent attention to detail is important, I would suggest you wait until further iterations of this class have had a chance to build out those details.
There were three significant areas of the class: logistics leading into the class, preparation for the class, and the class itself. Each of them were significant undertakings on their own, and each provided their own value -- and their own difficulties.
The logistics leading into the class were a significant element of the entire class experience. This part of the experience was... a bit intense. This class needs a *lot* of stuff. Regulators to work on. Tools to work on them with. Parts to install and replace. Equipment to tune and test our regs with. And reference material to educate and guide us.
For us, especially in the beginning, there wasn't a lot of specific written direction on this. This lead to a great deal of unique back-and-forth and overlap. This was certainly compounded by, shall we say, highly-motivated students (Who? ME? Tightly-wound?!?) who were both running ahead of the process and just knowledgeable enough to be dangerous. I think we ended up with "Class E-mail #18" by the end, each of which was really its own *thread* of multiple e-mails, and which does *not* include the multiple threads started by me as a student (and, I'm sure, other students). At one point a few days before the class, @rsingler said he had been part of more than 300 e-mails. There's only 10 students... That's a lot of back and forth.
This was clearly an area where being the test pancake lead to some difficulties. No doubt this will be much cleaner in future classes -- it was improving noticeably even by the end of ours.
A very large reason for a lot of this back-and-forth was because there wasn't a lot of fixed requirements put upon us up front. What tools and parts you need is mostly determined by what type of regulators you are working on. Seeing as everyone had a different regulator (or more than one!) they wanted to work on, that meant that there was no commonality, so it's hard to make specific recommendations. (And I'm not kidding: I'm not sure that any two people in our class were working on the same device at any time in the class... Close, maybe, but not quite the same.)
How can you reduce or avoid this? Well, one way might be by limiting the amount of variability -- and that means limiting the variety of regulators. I would suggest sticking to regulators that are *very* similar or even identical to the ones that will be demoed in class. That's a pretty painful restriction if your chosen reg isn't in that limited list, but it would certainly help to dramatically reduce the number of confusing choices before the class -- as well as during. My guess is @rsingler isn't going to require that: he's way too accommodating!

No doubt, this will improve for the next class. By the end of the process, there was a suggested tool list, divided up into 'must have', 'nice to have', 'like to have' and 'you have too much money'. That was a *great* list to have -- which we didn't get until *well* into the process. You'll likely have it day one...

Target regulators and tools are not the only things you will need to prepare in advance. In addition, you will need to make sure you have an adequate space to work in, and sufficient audio and camera resources to participate on Zoom. This is an area that can be overlooked, and can take away from the experience. For our class, there wasn't much emphasis placed on this. We did have a few opportunities to connect in advance and make sure our conference equipment worked, but there was no real effort to simulate our actual class experience in advance.
On to page two...