TDI Extended Range Instructor Trainer is South FL?

[boulderjohn]

Question for you. Any idea on the requirements for TDI normoxic trimix?

I don't know if anything has changed since I got that certification, but I do have my book in front of me right now. Why do you ask?

 

[Tracy]

I guess that is the difference. I won’t certify a student to a max course depth unless I dive the depth with them. You won’t get a Trimix card from me unless we do a 200’ dive.

If I taught TDI Extended Range it would be the same hence why I refuse to teach it.

This is my thinking as well. Maybe not 200, it might be 180 if that is what makes sense in the situation. But it wouldn't be to 135 to meet minimum standards.

 

[NothingClever]

That is not what I said at all.

I recognize from your follow up response that it was unintentional but I inferred the same thing (minimal standards) from your first response.

 

[boulderjohn]

So I got out my TDI normoxic book, which I assume is now obsolete. (I hope so.) The title is Extended Range Diving & Trimix. It was written in 2002. It has section on the evolution of extended range courses, noting that they used to be called "deep air," a title that fell out of favor. Original limits were 218 FSW, then 200, and now 180. It talks about setting depth records, noting that Guinness no longer recognizes those records.

It should be noted that TDI was created by Brett Gilliam, who held the depth record for deep air diving, at well over 400 feet. A few years ago I had several multiple hour conversations with Brett, ostensibly on another issue, but he did talk a lot about those dives, especially the ones he did with Sheck Exley. It is clear from rereading the book now that this history is deeply ingrained in the course.

Another factor that is deeply ingrained in the course is Gilliam's animosity with George Irvine III. When I took the course, I was coming fresh off several years of UTD DIR experience, and I clearly recognized several thinly disguised attacks on Irvine's DIR approach in the course. Irvine, of course, wanted divers to use helium on all dives deeper than 100 feet, and that conflict still rages to this day, as is evident in this thread. Gilliam's personal history with Irvine was lengthy part of our conversations.

 

[Tracy]

How many times do I need to repeat myself?

if you actually read any of my posts you wouldn’t have any problem understanding my position.

At this point you are not contributing to the thread, just trolling.

I am reading your post, that is the source of my confustion.
You said,

"i would definitely not endanger a student by going to 180 feet on air, just because I could under that standard."

Which sounds like, I would certify a student to dive 180' on air, but I would never do it myself.

That is why I am confused.
You teach the class, it says in your signature that you are an instructor for it, but you are saying you won't go that deep.
If you won't do it, why do you teach and certify for it?

 

[boulderjohn]

Question for you. Any idea on the requirements for TDI normoxic trimix?

As I said before, my TDI trimix book has probably become obsolete, but it includes both the Extended Range class and the normoxic trimix class. The trimix section is 9 pages long. The (assumed) newer version might be longer.

 

[NothingClever]

@divebutt

Best to call TDI headquarters and ask for a referral list.

We at ScubaBoard are sometimes (often?) challenged to provide a direct answer.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

As I said before, my TDI trimix book has probably become obsolete, but it includes both the Extended Range class and the normoxic trimix class. The trimix section is 9 pages long. The (assumed) newer version might be longer.

I made a mistake in expecting readers of my comments to understand that I was not suggesting to skip open water and every follow on course before taking TDI trimix. Per Become a Certified Technical Diver - International Training - SDI | TDI | ERDI | PFI, there are two separate paths for trimix: heliotrox and deco procedures, both of which require advanced nitrox (or concurrently).

Deco procedures requires one deco cylinder. https://www.tdisdi.com/wp-content/u...andards_08_Decompression_Procedures_Diver.pdf

So does heliotrox: https://www.tdisdi.com/wp-content/u...ual/TDI Diver Standards_10_Helitrox_Diver.pdf

I don't know why you would look at old materials when TDI publishes their guidelines online. So when you said the following:

You are violating a basic concept of instruction in a way I mentioned recently in another thread. Learning is a transition from old learning to new, a step by step process takes the student up the ladder of learning in achievable steps. (Think partial mask flood, full mask flood, mask removal and replacement, and no mask swim and replacement.) Dealing with two deco gases is a pretty big skill step, and having the student learn it in a class going to 200 feet might be a bit much.

you just went off into the weeds.

 

[kensuf]

What I am gathering from this discussion is that the true value of the course is teaching the use of the second deco gas, and in teaching that second deco gas, you don't have to go to 180 feet. In other words, the emphasis of the course is misplaced by talking about depth and extended range.

If the course is done shallower and focuses on using two decompression gases, then it make a lot more sense.

Managing two deco cylinders is one part of extended range, and this part should be done in shallow water so that during the deep experience dives it is easy.

A second is managing problems with reduced margins (time pressure of being at 6.5ata), that is not as easy to simulate in shallow water.

Another piece of the extended range course puzzle is narcosis management / mitigation. It's debatable about whether that piece can really happen, but I bet dollars to donuts narcosis at 180' is a lot different than at 130'. If an instructor believed in narcosis management then I don't see how it could be simulated in 130' of water if a student is getting a ticket punched to 180'.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

A second is managing problems with reduced margins (time pressure of being at 6.5ata), that is not as easy to simulate in shallow water.

Another piece of the extended range course puzzle is narcosis management / mitigation. It's debatable about whether that piece can really happen, but I bet dollars to donuts narcosis at 180' is a lot different than at 130'. If an instructor believed in narcosis management then I don't see how it could be simulated in 130' of water if a student is getting a ticket punched to 180'.

That's why I don't see a point in teaching.

It reminds me of Razorista simulating cave diving and deep diving in a pool.