That's pretty much exactly what you said. She's right. I guess if you can't stand behind what you said watch the door does hit you on the way out.
Video from a Training Dive with John Chatterton
- Thread starter Zack-Bloom
- 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
That's pretty much exactly what you said. She's right. I guess if you can't stand behind what you said watch the door does hit you on the way out.
Here is my honest take on all this. FWIW
Chatterton is without question an amazing accomplished and famous wreck diver. For folks who are passionate and excited about diving and wrecks, getting the chance to take a class and go diving with him is an amazing thing. No question at all.
We can argue about trim all day. I'm still here and for quite a bit of my early tech diving career as a diver and new tech instructor (as of 95) it wasn't even really on my radar. Buoyancy control was. I evolved since then and fee now that trim is an essential and foundation skill that must be mastered in the early stages of technical training. Not because it's always needed, but because it always will make the dive better. In many foreseeable circumstances and environments, it's not negotiable, fine buoyancy and trim control are absolutely needed for safety. It doesn't matter if the tech dive being conducted absolutely requires it, or may be nice or even if it doesn't matter so much during some segments of the planned dive (digging for china, no mount cave), it DOES need to be a tool that the tech diver can employ without effort while task loaded reasonably. That is central to dive safety. You can pull quite a bit off without it and compensate with big brass ones, calm head, a big experience base with lots of mistakes. Some do. However any instructor that teaches that as central is completely missing the point as to why we teach. We should be teaching so that divers learn the techniques, academic knowledge, rationale and yes mistakes of others in as controlled an environment as possible. We shortcut the danger of sole learning by mistakes and reduce the experience needed for the student to gain levels of competence depending on the course. But, we can only go so far, and skill development and experience, guided by instructors and mentors outside formal class still matter greatly. We shouldn't be, especially in the technical diving construct so much a short cut that the student is never expected to master any skills along the way but we keep on taking them deeper, farther, more task loading and ignore the fact that they quite frankly are still not truly competent in basic stuff.
Regardless of all that, we have standards.
I tend to exceed them. For a diver coming to me that expressed they want to learn so they could do the dive the OP did on the last day of class that had the prerequisites that Chatterton lists for the class
I first would have to do advanced Nitrox, possibly depending on certs a Deco Procedures class. That combined with me is 5-6 days, You can find instructors teaching that in 3 days... and cheaper.. I may very well do that "on" a wreck, but I sure as hell am NOT gonna be doing any overhead environment on that class, no way, no how.. unless they were already a fully certified penetration wreck diver.. which Advanced wreck is so that is the goal, not what they are coming to me with.
Now.. the Hydro is deeper than the training limits of ADV Nitrox (130) or Deco Procedures (150), pkus I am not teaching beyond 130 on air anyhow, so Helitrox. Another couple days.
Then the actual advanced wreck course would be 4 days.
In other words, 11 to 12 days to get to where the 3 day class of Chatterton ended up. I do that for a few reasons, standards, time needed to not just show something but enough for the students to master it and lastly and firstly because I don't want dead students, even after they are no longer students. So I try to do all I can to prevent it within reason and knowing that people will be people. I will most likely in about a quarter to a third of the times I am teaching that type of course progression slam on the breaks and have the students go practice and get some experience before we proceed. That is because there is so much so fast they hit the wall and stop progressing and start regressing. Pushing forward at that point is just useless. I am trying to build, not break. (too badly anyhow)
Anyhow, YMMV.
If you ever find yourself as a student covering up for your instructor when you find out they had been violating standards on your course.. well I get it actually. But you REALLY , REALLY should be considering what the actual quality and value of the instruction was. No matter who that instructor is. No agency is gonna "yank your card" out of hand and will work with you somehow to make sure you either understand the true limits of your training and card, or re-mediate areas of weakness. If your instructor is telling you they know more than any standards..well that is a huge danger sign. The standards are done by committees of very experienced instructor trainers in whatever the standard is. That room ,having been in a few is filled with "strong" views by SME's and the end product I promise you has been beaten to death to ensure they are solid as can be given the state of the industry at that time, and will be an evolving document as time , technology, knowledge and yes deaths and accidents all shape change. IF you are taking a course from a tech agency that hasn't changed the standards in 20 years.. JUST DON'T.
Chatterton is without question an amazing accomplished and famous wreck diver. For folks who are passionate and excited about diving and wrecks, getting the chance to take a class and go diving with him is an amazing thing. No question at all.
We can argue about trim all day. I'm still here and for quite a bit of my early tech diving career as a diver and new tech instructor (as of 95) it wasn't even really on my radar. Buoyancy control was. I evolved since then and fee now that trim is an essential and foundation skill that must be mastered in the early stages of technical training. Not because it's always needed, but because it always will make the dive better. In many foreseeable circumstances and environments, it's not negotiable, fine buoyancy and trim control are absolutely needed for safety. It doesn't matter if the tech dive being conducted absolutely requires it, or may be nice or even if it doesn't matter so much during some segments of the planned dive (digging for china, no mount cave), it DOES need to be a tool that the tech diver can employ without effort while task loaded reasonably. That is central to dive safety. You can pull quite a bit off without it and compensate with big brass ones, calm head, a big experience base with lots of mistakes. Some do. However any instructor that teaches that as central is completely missing the point as to why we teach. We should be teaching so that divers learn the techniques, academic knowledge, rationale and yes mistakes of others in as controlled an environment as possible. We shortcut the danger of sole learning by mistakes and reduce the experience needed for the student to gain levels of competence depending on the course. But, we can only go so far, and skill development and experience, guided by instructors and mentors outside formal class still matter greatly. We shouldn't be, especially in the technical diving construct so much a short cut that the student is never expected to master any skills along the way but we keep on taking them deeper, farther, more task loading and ignore the fact that they quite frankly are still not truly competent in basic stuff.
Regardless of all that, we have standards.
I tend to exceed them. For a diver coming to me that expressed they want to learn so they could do the dive the OP did on the last day of class that had the prerequisites that Chatterton lists for the class
- Students must show a minimum of fifty logged dives.
- Students must be certified as an Advanced Open Water Diver
- Students must be certified in Nitrox.
- Students must be certified as Basic Wreck, Cavern, Ice Diver, or Decompression Diver.
I first would have to do advanced Nitrox, possibly depending on certs a Deco Procedures class. That combined with me is 5-6 days, You can find instructors teaching that in 3 days... and cheaper.. I may very well do that "on" a wreck, but I sure as hell am NOT gonna be doing any overhead environment on that class, no way, no how.. unless they were already a fully certified penetration wreck diver.. which Advanced wreck is so that is the goal, not what they are coming to me with.
Now.. the Hydro is deeper than the training limits of ADV Nitrox (130) or Deco Procedures (150), pkus I am not teaching beyond 130 on air anyhow, so Helitrox. Another couple days.
Then the actual advanced wreck course would be 4 days.
In other words, 11 to 12 days to get to where the 3 day class of Chatterton ended up. I do that for a few reasons, standards, time needed to not just show something but enough for the students to master it and lastly and firstly because I don't want dead students, even after they are no longer students. So I try to do all I can to prevent it within reason and knowing that people will be people. I will most likely in about a quarter to a third of the times I am teaching that type of course progression slam on the breaks and have the students go practice and get some experience before we proceed. That is because there is so much so fast they hit the wall and stop progressing and start regressing. Pushing forward at that point is just useless. I am trying to build, not break. (too badly anyhow)
Anyhow, YMMV.
If you ever find yourself as a student covering up for your instructor when you find out they had been violating standards on your course.. well I get it actually. But you REALLY , REALLY should be considering what the actual quality and value of the instruction was. No matter who that instructor is. No agency is gonna "yank your card" out of hand and will work with you somehow to make sure you either understand the true limits of your training and card, or re-mediate areas of weakness. If your instructor is telling you they know more than any standards..well that is a huge danger sign. The standards are done by committees of very experienced instructor trainers in whatever the standard is. That room ,having been in a few is filled with "strong" views by SME's and the end product I promise you has been beaten to death to ensure they are solid as can be given the state of the industry at that time, and will be an evolving document as time , technology, knowledge and yes deaths and accidents all shape change. IF you are taking a course from a tech agency that hasn't changed the standards in 20 years.. JUST DON'T.
oldschoolto
Contributor
If you were more than a one trick pony you'd know that "DOOR" is what a skydiver calls when he is opening the door to leave and you don't have to worry about the door hitting you in the ass... You keep thinking that heluim will save you from a CO2 build up... But you are one of those divers that "DOES IT RIGHT" but somehow keep dieing.... I stick with what has kept me and a lot of other old people alive..
Jim...
I can play this word game, too.
They didn't say that. You said He doesn't "help." They said He does help (reduce CO2 buildup). They didn't say He will totally "save you from a CO2 build up."
Words are fun.
They didn't say that. You said He doesn't "help." They said He does help (reduce CO2 buildup). They didn't say He will totally "save you from a CO2 build up."
Words are fun.
Glad it works for you. You’ve added nothing to the discussion other than “it works for me.” Well no sh-t. We know a lot of stuff works for a lot of people. That doesn’t mean an instructor can be half assed
Degenerate
Contributor
You LITERALLY said helium does not help.
You would have to be either extremely uneducated or incredibly dumb to make a statement like that.
MichaelMc
Working toward Cenotes
I'm big on trim (and still learning) and it being an unconscious default state. Yet, early in my SB reading I read a vignette of a cave student struggling to do something in horizontal trim and maybe flow and the instructor later saying "why didn't you (go inverted/sideways/head up/settle on the rocks) that would have been more appropriate". That stuck.
Reducing CO2 buildup seemed a key lesson of this class. So it makes sense to me to have students break trim to ground themselves on hard steel against a current, as a teaching moment. So they actually do it as a real example.
That said, hanging level did not seem the default when either conferring in the wreck or on ascent, though the camera angle often makes that hard to judge.
Kudos to the OP for posting.
Reducing CO2 buildup seemed a key lesson of this class. So it makes sense to me to have students break trim to ground themselves on hard steel against a current, as a teaching moment. So they actually do it as a real example.
That said, hanging level did not seem the default when either conferring in the wreck or on ascent, though the camera angle often makes that hard to judge.
Kudos to the OP for posting.
Helium mix and wob
I can quantify it, I've tested it, not just in use by me but on actual testing machines. It matters, quite a bit, in OC regulators and very much so in CCR along with other factors like filter (actual filter or filtering material like sorb). There are many variables but in virtually every possible scenario it's noticable. Does it matter well inside the air envelope generally? Nope. Does it on the outer envelope? In a huge fashion, in fact it is enough to make the margins acceptable when otherwise it wouldn't. The utterly boring fact (little truth,I like being narced, but it is stupid to be at the margins, to teach while narced or to expect optimal learning it acceptable safety to narced students) that helium reduces narcosis is FAR from the only a safety bonus in the bigger weighted holistic examination
I can quantify it, I've tested it, not just in use by me but on actual testing machines. It matters, quite a bit, in OC regulators and very much so in CCR along with other factors like filter (actual filter or filtering material like sorb). There are many variables but in virtually every possible scenario it's noticable. Does it matter well inside the air envelope generally? Nope. Does it on the outer envelope? In a huge fashion, in fact it is enough to make the margins acceptable when otherwise it wouldn't. The utterly boring fact (little truth,I like being narced, but it is stupid to be at the margins, to teach while narced or to expect optimal learning it acceptable safety to narced students) that helium reduces narcosis is FAR from the only a safety bonus in the bigger weighted holistic examination
Chris the way you outlined the course structure and timing is dead on. I don't teach advanced wreck but that is EXACTLY how I would teach it ...plus IT MAKES SENSE , and would be defendable in court imho
(Mod Note: reference to deleted messages removed)
(Mod Note: reference to deleted messages removed)
Similar threads
