What do you wish was taught during your tec classes?

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

It seems to me that there are some groups/people/agencies that eschew computers almost completely, and others that overly rely on them. While most tech divers tend to fall in the middle - plan traditionally (however that may be for them), dive the first portion of the dive "mostly" as they planned, then utilize their computers to get them to the surface as their plan is usually conservative relative to the reality of their dive.

Concur and I definitely fall in the middle. I wear my four schedules on a slate with an analog depth and bottom timer on one arm and a DC on the other.

All my planning is done with a DPS app, transcribed to the arm slate and then I try to internalize my stops of 3 minutes or more. I find that scheduled stops less than 3 minutes (derived from my DPS and on my slate) usually “evaporate” from my DC during execution of the dive. In my planning I call them “ghost stops”.

After splashing, I dive to my DC making sure not to dive past (deeper, longer) than my slate tables so that if I have a DC failure, I simply pick up the appropriate schedule with my slate. I know it’s going to be 2 minutes longer here and 4 minutes longer there than what my DC would say if it were operational. I don’t care because I’ll be confident knowing that I’m going to surface alive and unbent.

Regarding the “ghost stops” - if my DC tells me to decompress for 1 minute at 12 meters, I’m going to stop for 1 minute at 12 meters. I just normally find during execution that my DC gives me credit for off-gassing from one stop to the next.
 
It seems to me that there are some groups/people/agencies that eschew computers almost completely, and others that overly rely on them. While most tech divers tend to fall in the middle - plan traditionally (however that may be for them), dive the first portion of the dive "mostly" as they planned, then utilize their computers to get them to the surface as their plan is usually conservative relative to the reality of their dive.

Using a pre-calculated plan, using something like MulitiDeco and then transferring it over to a slate is good for training where you have to follow the plan and stick within its conservative parameters. This is great for learning planning and also great for in-water techniques such as sticking to a stop and teamworking.

After returning home following a course and after a couple of dives with the dive slate, the utter convenience of following the computer beckons: max dive time and TTS (time to surface) then becomes your best friend. Having been through the planning training it does root you in the best of both worlds: planning plus the convenience of computers.

Obviously you dive with more than one computer. And praise be for modern reliable computers.


Question: do certain agencies** still push their "work it out in your head" ratio deco techniques, or have they succumbed to the convenience and accuracy of computers?


** you know who they are!
 
I don't want to sound like a fanboy (I'm an IANTD and CMAS instructor and have certificates also from TDI), but all the technical classes I took prior to GUE would leave me after the class with still some sort of disconnect between what was thought in the class and what I could actually do in real live. Sometimes it was how it was taught (planning) sometimes because of intricic difficulties (best mix and different deco plans), sometimes because the actual in water time training was not sufficient.

With GUE (Tech 1, Tech 2, Cave 1, Cave 2)... this was never the case. I literally with full ease could do a 70m, 1 hour deco dive after completing tech2 and within 15-20 dives we would be doing 80m+ dives. Keyword is "at ease, no stress", because I was fully confident that these dives were now in my range post course.

Prior to GUE I would think that technical diving, was actually very technical and very complicated. In reality it is neither.

Remark1: The technical courses I took with IANTD/TDi were all 10+ years ago so this might have changed (I know it did a bit with IANTD).
Remark2: I know I'm not very objective.
 
Using a pre-calculated plan, using something like MulitiDeco and then transferring it over to a slate is good for training where you have to follow the plan and stick within its conservative parameters. This is great for learning planning and also great for in-water techniques such as sticking to a stop and teamworking.

After returning home following a course and after a couple of dives with the dive slate, the utter convenience of following the computer beckons: max dive time and TTS (time to surface) then becomes your best friend. Having been through the planning training it does root you in the best of both worlds: planning plus the convenience of computers.

Obviously you dive with more than one computer. And praise be for modern reliable computers.


Question: do certain agencies** still push their "work it out in your head" ratio deco techniques, or have they succumbed to the convenience and accuracy of computers?


** you know who they are!

I can only answer for GUE (no experience with UTD or any other similar programs) and then not officially... I'm not an instructor. But let me chime in.

Ratio Deco is not taught in any GUE courses I know of at this moment. Instructors might mention it as a way to show how tables work, but the line is already for quite some years... plan using decoplanning tools, not some ratio. That said, in my personal diving in a range where I'm really comfortable because I've done so many dives (40-60m), I'll use ratio to just quickly mentally check that what we are planning aligns with what I know. Why they don't teach how to use computers in courses, probably because after planning enough dives in a range you start to understand how deco works in that range. If you just use a computer without any thought you miss this important mental step.

However computers have become much better, the good ones are no longer using proprietary software from which the result doesn't make any sense. With the shearwaters, you just use the Buhlman model, agree on the GFs you are going to use as a team and the ascend profile generated by the computers will be spot on. Next they have become bulletproof, so computer failures really are a thing of the past. And finally they bypass human error, which is cause of many deco mistakes. So yes why not use them.

How I do it in practice at this moment really depends on what the team wants. Sometimes we'll use deco software and then use and finetune that ascend profile (so you do deco in your head, but not really ratio deco). Sometimes we'll just use computers, but of course will always plan before what the ascend would look like. I typically dive with only 1 computer (unless I 'm using the JJ), I have a depth gauge/timer in my drysuit pocket, I have typical tables written down in my wetnote and I have the mental picture of what the ascend profile should look like. That's enough backup if the computer decides to go bonkers ;-)

Ps: The reason I'm saying "what the team wants" is because in my diving it happens quite often that I need to dive with a "walk on". So typically I adjust to how they like to plan their deco dive.
 
Weird. I did GUE Tech1 a few years ago and we were taught, and used, ratio deco in addition to pre-dive planning using software. I can only speak for the UK but I think everyone here who is GUE trained uses ratio deco: what is most common is to use a ratio deco ascent profile but also have a shearwater as a backup to give a sanity check.
 
I like to have a secondary BC for deco dives in addition to tables
 
Weird. I did GUE Tech1 a few years ago and we were taught, and used, ratio deco in addition to pre-dive planning using software. I can only speak for the UK but I think everyone here who is GUE trained uses ratio deco: what is most common is to use a ratio deco ascent profile but also have a shearwater as a backup to give a sanity check.

Likewise... but plan with DecoPlanner (or Android/iOS app de jour), and devise what the ratio is... ie, deeper/shallower/longer/shorter of target as well as what happens (if applicable) in a ‘missed wreck’ situation... how does the deco change?

In fact, inDepth? just published a 2 part article on ratio deco


_R
 
Well I hope a GUE instructor will chime in, but knowing quite a lot of them reasonably well and having participated in quite a lot of experience dives of T1 and T2 classes as a walk on (just looking for diving buddies) I have to disagree.

Already in 2016 when I did T2, the official line was to advice against ratio deco to be used for dive planning.

Likewise... but plan with DecoPlanner (or Android/iOS app de jour), and devise what the ratio is... ie, deeper/shallower/longer/shorter of target as well as what happens (if applicable) in a ‘missed wreck’ situation... how does the deco change?

In fact, inDepth? just published a 2 part article on ratio deco
_R

That's something entirely else. I'm talking about not using a dive planner at all to plan the deco part of your dive, but really just the 1:1 ratio for 45m (which I myself still use quite a lot) or the 2:1 ratio at 60m.

What you are doing, and still is being thought in class as far as I know is:

- use tables or the decoplanner du jour.
- Take the result and adjust the ascend profile a bit, but keeping the amount of deco in the 50% bracket and O² bracket the same as the results that your decoplanner gave.
- Calc more bottom time, less bottom time, deeper and shallower and try to device a sort of ratio for that.

Let's say you plan a dive, and decoplanner says the following:
27m: 1'
24m: 1'
21m: 2'
18m: 3'
15m: 3'
12m:4'
9m:8'
6m: 11'
3m: 19'

You could adjust it a bit depending on what you like and write down:
1' from 27 to 24m
5' in 50% range (21m-9m)
20' at 6 (O²)
10' at 3 (O²)

I guess that is what you are typically doing... running the numbers and then adjusting them for ease of use. That's something completely different from planning a 60-70m dive without using any tables or planner at all. Which is what we were doing in the past, and there were quite a few accidents/incidents happening, because people were taking the ratio way out of context. On tech 1 level (1:1) there is not much you can do wrong, as long as you stay close to the ratio parameters (depth, decogas, decotime) but stray too far from it (like every ratio) and you can get in trouble fast, specially if you go a lot shallower (30-35m).
 
I hope you know that you don't write about oxygen. The 2 is lowercase ;)

I have done courses with a lot of different instructors, I only never did and will never do a course on a level I already have. So I haven't done shortcuts, but knew what I want. And have learned also the autodidactical way. That is a way that is most times not accepted in diving.

In some courses I really did not learn anything (normoxic trimix), it was exactly the same as ART, but only a few meters deeper.
In other courses I learned stage handling, but no real planning (ART). But in all courses I never learned a real and working lost gas scenario. The 1.5 rule for example.

As I am also an autodidact, I have learned some things myself by searching on internet, using a camera and tripod to film myself, etc. This way can be used for finkicks, sidemount, trim, etc.

Also I have learned myself ratio deco. I now explain it others also. But I also tell the the history and I use ratio deco just as an easy way to know how long a dive will be. Not for the detailed planning. If someone had explained it to me in a course it would be a nice extra. But now I know it and can explain it to others.
But never use it as main dive planning. Just as extra.

I also learned myself the backkick. For my ART course I had an instructor who could swim backwards really well, but did not explain it to me. Then, as autodidact I spent hours and hours solo under water to learn it. And after a 6 weeks or so I could swim as fast as he could backwards ;)
Officially the backkick is not in ART, but if someone had helped me a little bit, I would have make the progress easier and faster. Now it was really that I wanted to learn it.

2 weeks after buying my first ccr I decided that it was time to plan a full trimix course a few months later. I was looking for a course in Malta, but then found an option by doing this during my holiday in Austria. As I already had planned to do some 100m dives in Austria I told him that I only could do the course on the first 2 days and that 1 day in my country was possible. Otherwise I would go to Malta. He agreed and it was paying for a card. We have done 2 dives on trimix to 73 and 76m and as I said I wanted some instruction for my money we did a day before going to Austria. There was no diveplan, just follow your computer and that was my course. For me I was ready for this course. I had trained a lot, readed a lot, knew a lot about diveplanning on ccr, so it was not that I missed it, but if I pay someone, I prefer to hear the story. The days after the course I have been 5 times over 100m till 128m without instructor. This was for me more worthfull than the course.
So even if you have a student that knows already everything needed for a course and knows all the skills already, tell and explain it. That is what I found a pity in this course. I paid literally 756 euro for a plastic card of 50 cents. I had no single theorysession and the dives were also short and nothing special without skills.
Oh yes, sometimes you get as instructor a student that already knows what must be done in a course. But even then, give the course where is paid for. And be sure as instructor that you know more than the student about planning, etc. The answer: I dive on my computer is in my eyes a wrong answer. For me it gave the feeling the instructor really did not know about diveplanning.

My cavecourse was easy for me, but I liked it. There was not done more than needed (16 dives of 35 minutes), but I was prepared for cavediving on my own. The only thing we never did in a course and I did the first dive after the course was diving on really 1/3. The turnpressure was never reached in the course. Also was my first dive after the course a dive to 35m and we had some deco. I was already deco certified, so within my certification rules I could do deco. The deco was no problem that I had never done this with instructor, but I would have liked it if we ever had reached the turnpressure.
I always let students reach a turnpressure in a course.
And tell divers a little bit more if they ask things. For example, stage cave diving is not in a full cave course. But you know that this is done almost directly after a course here. So explain it. Within standards you maybe cannot do it during a dive, but talking about it is not wrong.

If I teach now a trimix course, we talk about: diveplanning with a planner, using wetnotes as diary (I show them my old wetnotes with dives done, and after a dive I write the amount of gas used to know if the planning was right, but I also have for almost every dive already a plan in my wetnotes. This information is lost if you use slates), ratio deco, pragmatic deco. Lost gas scenario's, longer or deeper than planned, in water updates, etc.
I can now dive without problems with all kind of technical divers, from all kind of agencies and know what to expect.

I think a good instructor must have read a lot of books also, books from all kind of agencies. Also the instructor must have done a lot of dives on the level or over the level he is teaching on. As instructor know more than is needed to teach a course. And don't teach if you are afraid to do the teached dives solo. This does not mean that you must dive solo, but you are responsible and must always be able to do such dives solo. I have had instructor who are absolutely not able to do the dives they teached on their own.
 
if one assumes you participate in a technical course that represents a new frontier on your knowledge ands skillset tthen theres a limit to how much a person can absorb and apply -its not until you put those new skills in to practice that you then realise what the gaps are so its a question that is more hindsight. I think theres great value in a mentoring approach to instruction but to quote an old adage - you dont know stuff that you dont know

I would have liked a really good debriefing session after each day -stuff i did well - stuff i need to work on plus at the end of the course some recommendations of what dives im ready for and cautions/reservations that the instructor has ( pertaining to over ambitious or over confidant attitudes etc)
 

Back
Top Bottom