Took the plunge!

[Rick Inman]

If I understood the explanation right, using the light during the course was recommended if the light was owned and thus assumed to be fundamental part of that owner’s anticipated diving (future) – not so much that it was fundamental part of Fundies course per se. Diving conditions differ, maybe canister light is not fundamental for every diver (at least not at the point they attend Fundies).

Moreso, SHUSH, or it will become impossible for many to get into GUE training system early on without going through the anticipated OW (might not be so bad idea if it just was viable) because DIR-F equipment requirements will include compulsory drysuit, can light, doubles etc which many at the entry level just do not possess. I’d hope I could learn and practice the basics while obtaining the material stuff on the side, hopefully able to apply knowledge bit by bit as I go too.

However, our original poster, the Good Doctor, will be training in and diving in waters that often require, and usually benefit from a good dive light of some sort. Granted, you can get away without it on the 10' deep rope course during class, but once he really goes diving locally, he will use a light.

Heck, you could take the class without a dry suit, too and avoid that task (one poor sole in our class actually did that). But why would you want to if you usually dive dry?

It's why they don't teach the class in a pool. It's not where and how you'll be diving.

(BTW. Are my 30 days up yet? )

 

[pennypue]

If I understood the explanation right, using the light during the course was recommended if the light was owned and thus assumed to be fundamental part of that owner’s anticipated diving (future) – not so much that it was fundamental part of Fundies course per se. Diving conditions differ, maybe canister light is not fundamental for every diver (at least not at the point they attend Fundies).

Moreso, SHUSH, or it will become impossible for many to get into GUE training system early on without going through the anticipated OW (might not be so bad idea if it just was viable) because DIR-F equipment requirements will include compulsory drysuit, can light, doubles etc which many at the entry level just do not possess. I’d hope I could learn and practice the basics while obtaining the material stuff on the side, hopefully able to apply knowledge bit by bit as I go too.

WHO told you THAT????

I was the only student in my class that was in doubles.
AND one student was in a wetsuit too.

Our requirements were a back inflate and a long hose with a bungeed backup. Granted all three of us were in bp/w.

To call doubles, a light and a drysuit compulsory is wrong, inaccurate and misleading. I could see an instructor asking for that for a particular class if the diving conditions were such that it was warranted (cold dark water!!!), but I can assure you, not all fundies classes have those requirements.

 

[piikki]

Heck, you could take the class without a dry suit, too and avoid that task (one poor sole in our class actually did that). But why would you want to if you usually dive dry?

My point having been that conditions differ, and choices differ but still SHUSH, so DIR-F requirements won't close the door for too many... Not everyone has the priviledge of leaving stuff in the trunk. I am in wets at this point (had a 5+ month long season this first year, cranky that it's over). It's quite likely I will be doing Fundies without a drysuit too, not because I want to avoid the task-loading but simply because I don't have the suit yet.

P.S. Pennypue, the OR after the SHUSH refers to the whole sentence... I know its monstrously long sentence but nobody's claiming they are compulsory - just fearing it's going to go that way....

 

[MHK]

Hey gang,

This has been an interesting thread for a wide variety of reasons. It's encouraging to see so many divers wanting more and more information about the various changes we are implementing. At the risk of sounding ungrateful about the enthusiasim, I suspect some are over thinking the issue a tad and making it more complicated then need be, or then was intended.

The DIR-F class has continually evolved based on the needs, goals and desires of a widening student base. Originally the class was offered under a workshop based paradigm, and quite frankly was targeted at students that wanted tech 1 or cave 1 type training, but had no previous DIR training. These potential Tech or Cave students were compromised in their ability to successfully complete a Tech or Cave class since the underlying core tennants of DIR were unavailble, in terms of structured class format. With the invention of the DIR-F class, students seeking higher level classes had the ability to gain the rudimentary skills prior to taking the cave or tech training. We saw a vast increase of students successfully completing cave and tech classes as a result of taking the DIR-F class initially.

With success came the necessity to more formalize the DIR-F class and move it from a workshop based, all-inclusive class to a "certification" based, less-inclusive format. ie; gear requirements, swim test etc. etc. In other words, it was once an anything goes type format that moved to a more structured "certification" type format.

After an exhaustive analysis of the merits and shortcomings of the class, we concluded that students often times have goals that were incompatible with the current structure. On the one hand, to the extent a student wanted to go on to cave training, but took the pre-requisite DIR-F class in a single tank and no light(s), that student would likely show up in cave country ill-prepared for the demands of cave diving since s/he would lack the training in doubles and light(s), which are mandatory for such an overhead environment. On the other hand, imagine a student that had no desire whatsoever to ever see the inside of a cave, or to do deep technical diving, but merely wanted a class that added additional safety margins for diving in the 60' - 100' range. To the extent we made mandatory the use of doubles and/or lights, and to the extent we held that student to a skill set level of someone that needed more precise propulsion techniques and/or bouyancy control, that reef diving student would be unnecessarily burdened with the requirement to use doubles and purchase expensive lighting systems beyond the scope of what is needed for such a less demanding environment.

With that backdrop in mind, it's easy to see why we chose the path of bifrucating the class into an upgradable format to more readily prepare students for the environment that they will be diving. Moreover, to the extent a student takes the DIR-F without having any intention whatsoever of going to cave country, but subsequently changes his/her mind, rather then requiring that student to pay for an additional class, that student could do a evaluation with any DIR-F instructor to assess the possibility of upgrading.

Hope that helps.

 

[TSandM]

(BTW. Are my 30 days up yet? )

No.

But I figure it's kind of okay to post in the DIR forum, as long as we aren't proselytizing, and in this case, we are preaching to the choir.

Reading what Rick wrote about not trying to make the class easier, but trying to get the needed skills out of it, I realize that part of the difference was the experience levels of the divers in the class. We ranged from 8 dives to hundreds . . . clearly, for some of the people, the basic ingredients of buoyancy control and good trim were solid and required no thought, and for others, they were still a challenge. How much task-loading you wanted to add to the soup depended on where you started. One profits very little from making a task hard enough that it's never accomplished anywhere near successfully. Better to break it into pieces and master the pieces, and then make it more complicated. Or at least that's the way I thought about it.

Since I didn't pass, I get a reevaluation anyway, and by that time, I WILL be able to add the light.

I don't know where the OP is in his basic skills, but if he thinks it's reasonable, I do believe it would be helpful to have a light for signalling. Buddy awareness and team communication are such a big part of the DIR concept, and light signalling really helps with that.

I would seriously doubt that GUE would stop teaching a Fundies-type class to those of us not using doubles and so forth. The fact that they are still working at putting together an OW class shows that they are fully aware of the population of non-technical divers who are dissatisfied with their level of instruction and skills. I don't think they'll abandon us

On the other hand, the owner of my LDS informed me today that, single tank and above NDLs and all, my use of a BP/W and long hose and taking DIR-F makes me a technical diver. Isn't that nice?

 

[aquaoren]

Oren,

With all due respect, I think this is that last thing that a diver should do. I'll tell my students all the time that if they have a light they should use it. The purpose of the class is to learn the fundamental concepts of diving with the equipment you will be diving with on a regular basis. I also tell my students all the time that they shouldn't concentrate on "passing" the class inasmuch as they should focus their efforts on what the underlying purpose of the class, which is to learn the "fundamentals", hence the name of the class.

It doesn't make any sense to me to take a class to learn the fundamentals, but then omit a pretty important piece of equipment. We teach a significant amount regarding passive light communication, which greatly enhances team diving. As such, the light becomes an integral part of the equation so, in my mind, it makes more sense to learn how to deal with it under controlled conditions such as the supervision of the instructor. And lastly, I would say that often times students have difficulty with the long hose and the light cord getting twisted. By watching those mistakes on the video tape debrief it makes it much easier to resolve and makes it much easier to prevent it from happening in the future.

I appreciate that it's a different mindset about going into a class not worrying about passing it, but what I like to tell my students is the important part of the class is the information and the skill sets, not the c-card at the end.

Hope that helps.

Bob,
Thank you for responding but I think that to a certain degree we may disagree about how people learn best and incorporate knowledge. In my teaching experience (taught surgery to future heart surgeons in a department for experimental surgery), I came to realize that you can not advance without a solid basis. In order for the basis to be solid, the students have to understand and be able to perform the most basic skills before they can build on them. Kinda like learning to walk before starting to run. If the student missed only 1 step and isn't aware of it, he will not be able to build on it. Overtasking unneccessary, leads to students missing things and not being able to understand why certain things should be done in a certain way.
In my case, it was never about passing the course but being able to concentrate on the most basic skills. I don't consider light handling a basic skill. It's an instrument that is very helpfull but not essential. If I would be talking to someone else than you, I'd say you shouldn't substitute equipment for skill.
Personally, I learn best when I take things apart, understand the basics and logic behind them and later can put everything together again with closed eyes.
Let me ask you honestly, how much can a student learn of the skills that are being demonstrated while he is fumbling around with the light hose trying to untwist it from the long hose and not being able to pay attention?
Dunno, I may be only especially slow learner or have 2 left hands...