What's wrong with being a recreational diver?

[DevonDiver]

Ok, if it makes you happier...

I am not a Tech Diver.

I am an accelerated staged decompression, trimix, nitrox, deep air, beyond recreational training course level wreck penetration diver.

Yeah,.. I can see how that is a sooo much more convenient term.....

 

[gcbryan]

Ok, if it makes you happier...

I am not a Tech Diver.

I am an accelerated staged decompression, trimix, nitrox, deep air, beyond recreational training course level wreck penetration diver.

Yeah,.. I can see how that is a sooo much more convenient term.....

I think his point was why not just call yourself a diver rather than including your resume or job description in your title?

Most people who ski could consider themselves skiers not downhill, moggel, bowl, backcountry, powder and hard packed skiers.

 

[gcbryan]

What is the possible benefit of half-teaching something?

Blurring the lines only serves as a subtle confirmation that is would be 'ok' for an OW diver to do decompression dives. Yet that diver would not have the full understanding of the requirements, procedures or dangers of that pursuit. Neither would they have the in-water dive skills or problem solving capacity to run those dives safely.

KNOWLEDGE IS FOR EVERYONE..... but it should be introduced progressively and in-keeping with the individuals personal development and capacity.

Too much knowledge can definitely be a bad thing...it can leads us into situations that we understand academically, but are nonetheless unprepared to deal with.

If you want to consider it half teaching then that would suggest that it's not a good idea. If you call it incremental knowledge then it suggests that your students would be more knowledgeable than others who were not exposed to the concepts at all.

One way results in students who focus on the safety stop and then zoom to the surface because they're now safe. Having greater knowledge of decompression would suggest that there is more involved than that for instance.

 

[DevonDiver]

But...at OW level....it is knowledge without purpose.

People 'zoom to the surface', despite being hammered with the message 'SLOWLY ASCEND FROM EVERY DIVE' and plenty of education on ascent speeds.

 

[DevonDiver]

I think his point was why not just call yourself a diver rather than including your resume or job description in your title?

Most people who ski could consider themselves skiers not downhill, moggel, bowl, backcountry, powder and hard packed skiers.

Ah, that makes sense. I hadn't read it that way.

For me...I don't even introduce myself as a diver... I just say 'Hi, I am Andy"

As for diving, it's my job, not just a hobby, so I don't really count it as something I would 'call myself'. My job description is Technical Diving Instructor.... but it is not description of 'me'.

Make sense? I confused myself now?!?!

 

[gcbryan]

But...at OW level....it is knowledge without purpose.

People 'zoom to the surface', despite being hammered with the message 'SLOWLY ASCEND FROM EVERY DIVE' and plenty of education on ascent speeds.

Here's the only problem...sure it would be better for you to teach them in your tech coarse rather than in OW however most of them are never going to be in a tech course so whatever they learn in OW may be all that they learn in a formal class setting.

Giving them a short verbal overview of decompression (theory not practical drills/skills) might be beneficial.

We assume that everything has to be divided up but that's only because of how short classes are. Beginners are capable of understanding theory...these aren't kids we are talking about here.

 

[DCBC]

A lot of the recent discussion seems to be based upon the approach given to the training process. This is multifaceted depending upon the philosophy and the perspective one takes.

1. The Student Perspective

People want to be taught safely. Most do not understand what that entails and depend upon the teaching organization to establish standards that are reasonable.

2. The Training Agencies Perspective

Diver training is a "business," as such there's a balance between what the minimum requirements should be and any "competitive advantage" which can result if lower standards are enacted (less training time equates to lower cost). Perhaps this is why the training standards are not generally similar. It also substantiates PADI's rise in size. Anyway you look at it training standards have been greatly reduced over the years.

The Instructor Perspective

Instructor's are required to teach to at least the minimum standards outlined by the training agency. Some (such as myself) decide not to train to minimums, but do more. When I was an owner of a Dive Store this put be at a disadvantage. I was even criticized by PADI for doing so. When I operated a commercial diver training center, it gave me an advantage, as the commercial operator was more concerned with the training received, rather than solely the DCBC/IMCA ticket.

Another factor is the possible restrictions placed on a Store Instructor by the Dive Shop. The Instructor may wish to provide more training, but this is discouraged. If they want more training sign them up for an advanced course (get more money).

So what's reasonable? Again this depends upon your perspective...

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

You only have to look at the myriad definitions of 'technical' diving offered in this thread to see that it is just an aspirational term, meaningless because it is so ill-defined. But, if it makes you happy to describe yourself as being a 'technical' diver...

You like to make assumptions about people, I see ... erroneous ones, in this case. But if it makes you happy, enjoy your prejudices.

I had no idea that Americans were taught that "going beyond the NDL was the work of the devil." .... but what would I know, since I only teach Americans how to dive. Far better to listen to some foreigner who heard it on the Internet (making you, no doubt, an expert in what Americans are taught).

Most British divers (and, I suspect, European divers in general) didn't know what 'technical' diving was until the term started in appearing in imported American books and magazines. When it was explained to us that 'technical' meant things like diving in drysuits on and in wrecks and doing planned decompression (the Horror! the Horror! You'll die!) most people shrugged at said, "Oh, they just mean 'diving'".

It might surprise you to learn that most American divers don't pay much attention to labels ... it's mostly marketing hype, perpetuated on the Internet and in diving magazines.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DevonDiver]

Here's the only problem...sure it would be better for you to teach them in your tech coarse rather than in OW however most of them are never going to be in a tech course so whatever they learn in OW may be all that they learn in a formal class setting.

Giving them a short verbal overview of decompression (theory not practical drills/skills) might be beneficial.

We assume that everything has to be divided up but that's only because of how short classes are. Beginners are capable of understanding theory...these aren't kids we are talking about here.

Ok, I understand you now. I thought you were advocating the delimitation of decompression diving at the entry-level stage. :bonk:

I do give my students an overview of what decompression involves...just some ancedotes of my tech dives... so that they have an awareness of the reasons for not overstaying their NDLs...along with the consequences of doing so (DCI)...again, real life examples. The message is very much on why they have to remain within their NDLs, rather than de-mystifying or promoting deco diving.

Far more effective, IMHO, is to spend more care and attention demonstrating to them proper ascent techniqes and increasing their awareness of depth/time whilst diving. I also use my dive computer as a training aid to demonstrate how their dive profile relates to their nitrogen build-up (suunto dive manager tissue saturation graphs are great for this) and offgassing (the no-fly time increasing after each dive).

 

[Atomic_Diver]

DevonDiver- your a tech instructor, i was just wondering i heard someone say that PADI or some other Recerational agency was going to start to teach aow divers how to conduct emergency Deco stops for dives not execeeding 15 mins past no deco (i guess they figure that any diver at 130' for over 15mins would have realized it by then?) , just in case they catch themselves at 130' for 25mins on air, as supposed to 10 mins NDL, is this a wise choice to only teach such a limited approach to "Technical" Diving deco stops for emergancy purposes only to advanced open water divers? i think if you want to learn to do Decompression dives you should at least have some (meaning at least 50) logged dives and sign up for the Deco Procedures course, I think Teaching recerational Divers how to do "Limited Emergancy Deco Stops" will conduct problems and divers will purposly extend their BT and than do Deco stops... some one may get hurt?