The BEST Tec Training Agencies?

[kanonfodr]

<begin mini rant>
We can debate standards, procedures, and gas mixes until we are blue in the face but has anyone asked the question that matters a little bit more in my mind than any of that other stuff: Does "X" program turn out quality divers?? Divers that you or I would want to dive with?? Has anybody on this thread received training from the agencies in question??

It doesn't matter if you've got the best curriculum in the world when your divers can't clear their mask without going to their knees or ballooning 15 feet in the water doing so. Has anyone dived with a PADI/DSAT/TechRec/WTFever diver?? More than one??

Case in point; an instructor at the LDS I usually get my fills from is a PADI/DSAT-trained Technical Diver. He dives a backplate/wing with a long hose regulator setup and doubled tanks. While it may or may not be Hogarthian, DIR, or anything else (haven't seen the setup personally), a hog rig is pretty much the standard kit across technical diving, AFAIK. It simply gets modified for that agency/instructor/class/diver to fit their needs.

I'm not necessarily agency-bash, or defend against such, but it seems that we are only looking at the materials used to present the information rather than how the divers getting that training ultimately perform in the water which I think is also important. Granted, the instructor is a large part of that information exchange, but there are extremes on both sides of the instructor/agency equation that can prevent one from surmounting the shortcomings of the other.

<end mini rant, hope I didn't anger anyone>

Peace,
Greg

 

[Rhone Man]

Actually to be a PADI/DSAT (Tech) instructor, you should be PADI MSDT (PADI OWSI + 5 specialty instructor + 25 c-cards issued) and have only the tech diver level training. There's no tech instructor training. It's just an administrative procedure.

I think you also have to have done 25 decompression dives yourself, ie. you can't whip straight from doing the Tec courses to teaching the Tec courses.

 

[Red Sea Shadow]

I think you also have to have done 25 decompression dives yourself, ie. you can't whip straight from doing the Tec courses to teaching the Tec courses.

As far as I remember they were 20 deco dives and that was for being a Trimix instructor. However, PADI tech program has undergone some changes so I'm not sure what the pre-requisites are now.

 

[Colliam7]

Actually to be a PADI/DSAT (Tech) instructor, you should be PADI MSDT (PADI OWSI + 5 specialty instructor + 25 c-cards issued) and have only the tech diver level training. There's no tech instructor training. It's just an administrative procedure.

No, that's not exactly the case. It is a little more involved than that. Under the 'old' DSAT system, you could a) take a Tec Instructor training course, OR b) apply directly to PADI to become a DSAT Tech Deep Instructor, as long as you met the following requirements:
1. Be a current, renewed PADI MSDT
2. Be a PADI Enriched Air Instructor
3. Be PADI Deep Diver Specialty Instructor
4. Be certified as a DSAT Tec Deep Diver or equivalent
5. Have Assisted with at least 2 DSAT Tec Deep Diver Courses or one Tec Level One and one Tec Deep Diver Course
6. Minimum of 270 logged dives, with at least 25 stage decompression dives that had a maximum depth deeper than 130 feet
7. Certified a total of 10 or more PADI Deep Divers and or PADI EANx divers (any combination is OK)
8. Successfully complete the Tec Deep Instructor Standards Exam and Tec Deep Instructor Theory and Practical Application Exam
9. Meet the peer review waterskill requirement listed on the DSAT Tec Deep Instructor Application through the attesting signature of a DSAT Tec Deep Instructor. (Basically you have to show you can do the skills that you will be teaching tec diver students - valve shutdowns, etc.)

So, I guess that direct application could be considered an administrative procedure, once you met all the requirements, which includes assisting in the teaching of a couple of Tec courses, and completing the exams, etc.

With the implementation of the new Tec 40/45/50 system, it is a little more complicated. You can still a) take the Tec Instructor training course OR b) apply directly, in which case you must:
1. Be a current, renewed PADI MSDT
2. Be a PADI Enriched Air Instructor
3. Be PADI Deep Diver Specialty Instructor
4. Be certified as a DSAT Tec 45 Diver (or equivalent from another organization)
5. Have a certification from another training organization as a Tec Instructor or higher.
6. Have at least 20 staged decompression dives in doubles
7. Have successfully completed the Tec Instructor exam
8. Have taught or assisted with 2 courses that qualify that qualify as meeting the requirements of the DSAT Tec 40 courses, or assisted with one DSAT Tec 40 course.

So, essentially, the only way to become a Tec Instructor going forward (after June 2010) will be to take the Tec Instructor training course, or already be a Tec Instructor in another organization.

Wow. I just read the PADI Tech Intructor requirments, and your right... That's shocking.

What, specifically, is 'shocking'?

Perhaps, a problem in this approach, whether it involves PADI, NAUI, TDI, whatever agency, is that no system of standards or performance criteria is perfect. There is always the chance of 'pencil whipping', not every Instructor Evaluation examiner does an equally conscientious job of evaluating whether each candidate is a capable teacher, there really isn't a formal process in place for periodic performance-based recertification of instructors (or divers), and virtually every training organization produces, and apparently tolerates the continued presence of, at least some instructors that may not be entirely effective, capable or even marginally competent, notwithstanding all of our not-altogether-objective, self-congratulatory rhetoric about 'standards', and 'quality'.

it seems that we are only looking at the materials used to present the information rather than how the divers getting that training ultimately perform in the water

A good point. We actually do 'look' at that performance but I would venture to suggest that our 'looks' are often biased, and lacking in objective criteria for assessment. In any endeavor - dive training, high school teacher preparation, undergraduate education, health care delivery - it is easiest to evaluate Structure. Sometmes, we are so bold as to evaluate Process. But, to evaluate Outcome is difficult, expensive, and seldom pursued with any degree of sophistication.

 

[Red Sea Shadow]

So the second option under the new system is mainly a crossover for PADI MSDT or higher (since the candidate should have a Tec Instructor certificate from another agency)?

 

[DCBC]

... helium is for sissies.

How can you say such things? You kinda need it past 250'

 

[Colliam7]

So the second option under the new system is mainly a crossover for PADI MSDT or higher (since the candidate should have a Tec Instructor certificate from another agency)?

Yes. And, PADI is marketing it as just such an option.

 

[Colliam7]

This is one of the BIG differences in technical programs. Some agencies don't do any technical diving without trimix, and others don't do any trimix until the bitter end.

A very good example of differences, Lynne. And, PADI only recently changed their standards to allow helium on Dive 12 (last and deepest) of the Tec Deep course. Personally, I suspect that shift will continue to evolve, and helium will eventually be allowed in all PADI Tec courses, beginning at Tec 40. But, that will take time.

PADI, TDI and IANTD teach air and nitrox down to 165-180 feet. Seems pretty similar to me. GUE teaches Helium earlier than the others, but that is just a nuance IMO. I like that they do that, but I'm not sure it's neccesary.

Well, not exactly accurate. PADI teaches air only to 165', which is deep enough, certainly. And, some would consider GUE's early inclusion of helium to be a major difference, not a subtle nuance. I do not necessarily, but it was such a contentious issue that it may have pushed PADI in the direction of incorporating the helium option in Tec Deep, on Dive 12 as noted above.

There are a number of SB threads that debate the relative conservatism of the algorithms used in different dive computers. Suunto, in particular, sems to attract more than a little criticism, some of it quite vigorous, on the basis of how conservative the algorithms used in their computers are perceived to be. In some ways, PADI is the 'Suunto' of dive training. They are conservative. They didn't move into nitrox quickly (as several posters have noted), they didn't move into technical training as early as some, they don't allow helium as early as some, only now are they moving toward Cave training. Like Suunto, they are not conspicuous risk takers. So, if someone wants truly 'cutting edge' - the absolute frontier-moving training course, they should probably look to an agency other than PADI. That is not a criticism or compliment to PADI or any other agency, and doesn't mean one agency is 'best' or 'worst', going back to the topic that strated this thread. Rather, there are some differences that divers should consider in selecting which agency to train through.

 

[IDS_Bill]

Actually to be a PADI/DSAT (Tech) instructor, you should be PADI MSDT (PADI OWSI + 5 specialty instructor + 25 c-cards issued) and have only the tech diver level training. There's no tech instructor training. It's just an administrative procedure.

Not TRUE - Jesus, doesn't anyone research anything before they post anymore???

 

[IDS_Bill]

Seriously, HOW many times do we have to go through this painful multithread collection of differing opinions? In the end, It is the INSTRUCTOR!!!!! I am about ready to crossover to TDI due to this Tec40/45/50 crap but in the end, it is the instructor who makes or breaks the training.

Case 1: You have an agency with wonderful standards and procedures but the instructor cuts corners, is sloppy, sets a poor example and essentially sells you a cert.

Case 2: You have an agency who is missing some things and could improve their procedures but the instructor says, "Hey, this is satisfying standards, but I would like to show you some additional techniques and relate some practical experience that I have picked up over the years". NOTE - you are NOT increasing the requirements to complete the cert (bad) you are increasing the amount of knowledge passed on to the student.

One of the worst things I have seen lately is instructors who stick to the minimum standards to slip their students through. Sure the minimum depth for a final dive might be 120 but is that the same as hitting 165 and really getting the effects of narcosis, decompression requirements, etc? (Just one of many examples). I'll shut up now.

Again - Instructor Instructor Instructor!!!