Looking forward to giving this a good perusal. Thanks for taking the time to pen it.
Review: TDI Normoxic Trimix with John Chatterton, November 2019
- Thread starter tmassey
- 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
OP
tmassey
Contributor
<Edited a bit from my original post>
Yes. That is exactly what I did. The SMB was stowed as we left the bottom. We were getting it ready on the way up, to be released when we hit 110 feet, 20 feet below our first stop.
The goal was to spend as little time as possible between the decision to leave the bottom and arrival at the first stop. That meant that anything that needed to be done between those two was done on the way. That way, we weren’t fumbling with our pockets and spools and such at 200 feet, before we left the bottom, nor were we having to reel in line before we arrived at our first stop. The goal was to have the SMB hit the surface just as we hit our first stop.
Not that I achieved that goal, nor would I even if I hadn’t dropped the spool. But that was the goal.
It’s an aggressive goal. I knew there was zero chance I could do it. But like I said: class is the time for new experiences and stretching yourself. So I did the best I could.
ETA: From thinking more about your question: the SMB would have to have been inflated before 110’: that’s when it was to be released. I guess you could think about riding the SMB during that time after inflation but before release. That wasn’t my strategy or goal, but I could see how you could do it. My guess was that John probably *was* doing exactly that... Like I said, this style of diving execution was well beyond my previous perspective. I’m sure I haven’t yet grasped all of the subtleties.
Another ETA: The more I think about this, the crazier it gets. Like I said in my review: this is just a little too far for me at this point in my diving experience. I think the focus on matching your execution to your plan is essential; but my current thinking is to approach that by adjusting my plan to match my dive style and capabilities, rather than requiring the level of precision demanded from my dive computer. Not that I don’t want to or won’t work hard to improve, but requiring a Chatterton *or* GUE level of precision is not of highest interest to me. This is a hobby I do for recreation, and as long as I can execute within an acceptable level of safety, that will be acceptable for me.
johndiver999
Contributor
Thanks for the write up! The question about SMB's was also interesting to me. From a previous thread on his methods, my recollection was that JC taught riding up and holding the smb (while it contained air) from the bottom all the way to the first stop.
I think I am accurately describing what was discussed previously; but to be honest that practice made little sense to me.
On the other hand, the practice as described in this thread (i.e., getting the spool and smb out and ready to be inflated) and then presumably releasing it immediately before reaching the first stop depth and thus not adding air to it until needed makes more sense to me.
Of course if the current is very strong, not releasing the smb from the bottom will cause the smb to hit the surface a long way from the wreck - maybe even hundreds of yards; which would be undesirable and make tracking the drifting divers much more difficult.
I think I am accurately describing what was discussed previously; but to be honest that practice made little sense to me.
On the other hand, the practice as described in this thread (i.e., getting the spool and smb out and ready to be inflated) and then presumably releasing it immediately before reaching the first stop depth and thus not adding air to it until needed makes more sense to me.
Of course if the current is very strong, not releasing the smb from the bottom will cause the smb to hit the surface a long way from the wreck - maybe even hundreds of yards; which would be undesirable and make tracking the drifting divers much more difficult.
Absolutely agree. Here's how we did it best I can describe (this was Advanced Wreck/AN/DP class along with the Tri Mix class)
Our bottom time was up, we'd gather together, communicate with your buddy where your first stop was at; we'd dump air from our BCD/Wing into our SMB which kept us neutral, you did not release the SMB. You and your buddy would start swimming up, smb was partially inflated already just not released - watching your computer for ascent rate, dumping air from your wing to control ascent and finally releasing SMB before you reached your stop. The SMB would virtually drag you up till you released it - why I call it riding the SMB up. The reasoning was less effort swimming up.......
At the time, it seemed overly complex, maintaining that perfect ascent rate, holding the spool/reel while watching your computer, the lag compared to what you were doing versing seeing, gas switch on the fly, computer change on the fly - ugghhhh - lots to go wrong. Watch him and Alec doing it like it was nothing - frustrating and I think it's overly risky for the depths I dive. I do practice it still, just not from those depths as the profiles we dive are more deep and shallow up verses square.
Good write up. Sounds like an "interesting" class.
OP
tmassey
Contributor
Thank you for writing that up. Yes, that *is* what he was trying to convey to us. The problem for me was that my SMB is closed, so I couldn’t add gas from my wing and remain neutral. Given that my training was to *release* the bag when I added gas, it only was an issue for a few seconds. Not for these dives, though...
Like total self-reliance (or total team-focus), total efficiency requires *far* reaching changes to gear and technique. Trying to do it when your gear and technique are *not* adapted to it is at best difficult, and at worst downright dangerous. I am not adapted to that philosophy.
*Should* I — or anyone else — strive for that goal? That is a question for each person. I have my own thoughts, of course, and anyway I need to think more deeply about my experience. That’s not really relevant to others, anyway. I just want people to be aware of the fact that these *are* questions they will be presented with if they go for this training.
Thank you for clarifying this for me and others. It helped.
JonG1
Contributor
What was the driver for tracking the ceiling as opposed to following the stop depths.
CAPTAIN SINBAD
Contributor
A very thorough write up and one that answers a lot of questions I had regarding John's Trimix class. It seems like you got a very good Trimix class and it will shape the way you approach diving from here on. You also happen to be one who has taken GUE-Fundies before. Were John's expectations regarding skills, the same as what GUE expected from you during your Fundies if you were to go for the Tech pass? Secondly, do you have to wear your deco bottle on both sides or is John Open towards wearing both on one side like the DIR set up?
Congrats!
Congrats!
OP
tmassey
Contributor
Excellent questions!
Mr. Chatterton's expectations of skills bear very little resemblance to the expectations in a GUE Fundamentals class. For one thing, this is *not* a fundamentals (lower case) class: it's an advanced technical class focused on a particular subject, and that subject is *not* general technical diving skills. As I wrote in my Advanced Wreck review, John's classes are quite focused on the subject at hand. So if you're expecting training and (especially) evaluation on basic technical diving skills, you will be disappointed. In fact, I *was* disappointed, when I took Advanced Wreck. I should have taken a different class: GUE Fundamentals or TDI Intro to Tech. (For those that don't read my review: it took me months to actually realize the tremendous value of the class I took, rather than measuring against my inappropriate expectations.)
For another thing, Mr. Chatterton's diving execution does not look anything like GUE. Because the basic premise of each side is significantly different, the final result is also significantly different. The expectations are significantly different. The equipment are significantly different. The skills are significantly different. Not only that, the motivations are significantly different. In my opinion, GUE is focused on consistent process above all other issues. This means that there is a relatively narrow "correct" way, and everything else is "not correct" (i.e. "wrong"). This narrow consistency brings its own substantial value, which is why it's placed so high. We might consider this an 'idealistic' approach, one that values that striving for correctness (the ideal) as a result all its own. Again in my opinion, Mr. Chatterton's philosophy is focused on bottom line efficiency. Each action is measured not against a specific standard, but against the result it generates. If the results are more efficient, then the process is better. We might consider this a 'pragmatic' approach, one that values the end alone to justify the means. With that deep of a difference in goal, how could you possibly compare the results they generate on the way to their goal? More importantly, *why* would you compare them?
That brings me to your second question. Did I *have* to wear the bottles on both sides vs. one side? I don't know: I never asked. My guess is, John wouldn't blink an eye. The beauty of total self-reliance is you don't really care what your buddy does, as long as it's not actively harmful to others. It won't affect you unless you want it to. The deeper question is, though: why are you taking this class from this instructor? You don't take TDI Trimix from John Chatterton to learn about helium half-lives or END calculations. You take it to understand his diving philosophy and see it in action. Conversely, you don't take GUE Tech 1 to learn about helium half-lives or END calculations. You take it to understand *their* diving philosophy and see it in action. Would you ask your GUE instructor if you had to wear your deco bottles on one side or are they open to wearing them on both sides? No: it's an affront to the class *and* the instructor. I feel the same way about the reverse.
If you take a class from an instructor -- any instructor, but *especially* ones with a highly-visible perspective like Mr. Chatterton or GUE -- you should focus on absorbing what they're trying to teach you. That's exactly why I've written these reviews. I want people to understand what they're signing up for. You don't have to believe in their perspective, and you don't have to continue with it past class, but in my opinion you *do* have to commit to it fully *during* that class. Otherwise, you'll be doing both yourself and your instructor a favor if you find a different class.
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to compare the differences between these philosophies. Or that you shouldn't be able to question why something is done one way or another. You can and you should -- before, during *and* after the class. But focusing on 'expectation regarding skills' or 'open toward certain bottle wearing' to determine taking this class is like focusing on the color of the clothes you'll pack to determine whether you'll go to Aruba or Alaska. I would think that the details and requirements of the destination *might* be a little more important. And if you're OK with the destination, do you want to try to undermine the process by ignoring the experience and advice of your tour gide? Or would it be fair to Alaska if you decided to go there -- but bring the clothes you use in Aruba?
In fact, as I wrote in my review, this is *exactly* why I took this class. All my friends have been to Aruba -- or at least nearby islands. I had even been to Aruba myself for a brief visit. I enjoyed it, though not as much as I thought I would. But I decided that I wanted to take a closer look at what Alaska has to offer. That way, I could form my *own* opinion about *both*. And I wanted to have the complete Alaska experience -- how else could I really understand the destination?
You can see the results of halfway-commitment. We discussed SMB deployment above. Mine was more difficult than it needed to be, because my SMB is closed. Had I had an open-bottom one, I would have been able to deploy it in the way Mr. Chatterton suggested and get the results that he intended. But I couldn't, so I didn't. Is it his fault that it was much harder for me than it needed to be? No. It's my fault for trying to use the wrong equipment. But the question to ask is *not* "should I have an open or closed SMB?" That's a side-effect. The question to ask is "what is my goal for deploying equipment during a dive?" *That* is a question that actually means something. The answer to that question will naturally determine what type of SMB to use -- as well as how to carry deco bottles and a dozen other decisions.
Before the class, I would have never appreciated the depth of alternatives to that question. Before Advanced Wreck, I had never considered the possibility of diving without sharing gas. Now I have. Before Trimix, I had never considered the possibility of diving centered on efficiency as the bottom line. Now I have. Doesn't mean I've converted to that mindset: I still dive a long hose... But that shift in perspective is the reason to take this class. And if you aren't willing to execute a dive in a way shaped by those perspectives, then how can you say you've experienced that perspective?
Similar threads
