which is your favorite tech scuba agency?

[WRKNUT]

I feel that the new DSAT TEC/REC course is the best by far. The book provides a lot more info than the other agency's plus there are a specific amount of dives and skills that the instructor has to put you through. The
course is designed great and is a smooth transition into TEC Diving!!

 

[MikeFerrara]

I feel that the new DSAT TEC/REC course is the best by far. The book provides a lot more info than the other agency's plus there are a specific amount of dives and skills that the instructor has to put you through. The
course is designed great and is a smooth transition into TEC Diving!!

I think you need to define best. The book certainly has the best printing job and the best pictures but I'm not so convinced about the content.

In what subject matter does it provide more info? Have you compared it to the IANTD "Technical Diving Encyclopedia"?

The DSAT text contains little or no physiology, little or no decompression theory and leavs the student to blindly follow their computer for the most part. They do this with no discussion of any of the issues that concern a diver when selecting gasses or decompression stratagies. These subjects are every bit as vital to a technical diver as skills in the water.

They like to use silly achronyms to remember how to do simple things like switch gasses. "NOTOX"? What a convolution. I can't even remember what the letters stand for but I know how to switch gasses. LOL

Any comments on their proposed procedure for shooting a bag?
Compare the IANTD chapter on equipment configuration to any thing in the DSAT text and tell us what you find.

To bring up a point that's often argued by Michael Kane, the DSAT text tells divers that they can learn to manage narcosis but never tells them how to do that. Nor do they present any evidence that it can indeed be done at all. As I mentioned above they leave out all physiological aspects like the effects of CO2 on narcosis or for that matter oxtox or the potential effects of a dense gas on CO2 build up.

The book may appear well planned and easy to navigate but I think it's mostly full of sheep dip.

Oh, and it doesn't have anything to do with the text but we've already been seeing the fresh crop of soon to be tec rec instructor doing bounce dives in the quarries to get their 25 staged decompression dives to qualify to teach the class.

If you get an experienced technical diver and instructor who has picked up the DSAT class to take advantage of the strong PADI marketing you might get a passable class. Although it's hard to imagine a good technical diver and instructor doing that. If you get one of these quarry bounce divers you're just going to get a card and you won't know crap about technical diving.

But I'm guessing they'll get a bunch or resorts to have tec rec deep DM's to guid this new crop of tech divers and most will manage to survive as long as they don't try any real technical diving.

IMO, instead of developing technical courses they should go back and have a look at what's missing from their OW materials that will make it hard to find one of their divers who is prepared to go into technical diving to start with.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Because of the comments I made in my last post I pulled the DSAT text and standards out to review before further comment.

Some 3 alarm point that jumped right out at a glance.

General technique...
Just as in their recreational courses, there is no mention of trim and no requirement that the diver ever be correctly trimmed. In fact there are dozens of pictures in the book and the instructor outline and almostevery diver is vertical except for the many pictures of divers on their knees. The few picture that show divers almost prone still have them at a head up attitude with their kneed badly droped.

I have been unable to find any reference to finning technique at all. I have yet to come accross a performance requirement that divers demonstrate any anti silting techniques. Well, the entire subject is just skipped.

Buddy skills...

The first thing that jumped out is that divers are never required to ascend or descend in any kind of formation. I guess that's why they don't need to teach a reverse kick.

Air sharing...

They are just plain wrong. they depict the skill performed while kneeling with the doner lifting the primary up and over the head. That's a good way to create a monster free flow. The doner should be horizontal, remove the reg from the mouth with the mouth piece pointing down and move the reg streight from there to the OOA diver with only a slight duck of the head.

Lift bag deployment...

I mentioned this before but it's a biggie. They teach to get as much air into the bag as possible while holding onto something with your legs or with other divers holding you down.

There just isn't any need to put that much air in the bag when shooting it from depth. Gas expands on ascent right? If 2 diver pitch in to deploy a bag one should take the reel or spool and the other handles the bag.

I can't even imagine where they get this stuff.

Summary...
There is more.
I might skim it a little more and present a few more points later but it's clear that now you can progress through the whole system including instructor and tech levels without ever demonstrating good technique or even an understanding of what it is.

IMO, this course and it's requirements are a clear demonstration that these people just don't get it.

 

[fins wake]

Oh, and it doesn't have anything to do with the text but we've already been seeing the fresh crop of soon to be tec rec instructor doing bounce dives in the quarries to get their 25 staged decompression dives to qualify to teach the class.

Are we? Any proof?

If you get an experienced technical diver and instructor who has picked up the DSAT class to take advantage of the strong PADI marketing you might get a passable class.

Which is the road I've seen many good instructors take. IANTD as well as TDI.

Although it's hard to imagine a good technical diver and instructor doing that.

Why?

Why would it be any more strange that a dual certified TDI/IANTD-instructor would add yet another agency to the list? This already happens. In fact, it's pretty standard. The only difference being the specific additional requirements of DSAT.

This just seems like another biased, black-and-white anti-PADI rant. Especially considering the lack of any substantial evidence for the above view. And the considerable evidence for the opposite view.

But I'm guessing they'll get a bunch or resorts to have tec rec deep DM's to guid this new crop of tech divers and most will manage to survive as long as they don't try any real technical diving.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions. And that's what the above is. An opinion. And not necessarily the most unbiased one I've ever come across.

IMO, instead of developing technical courses they should go back and have a look at what's missing from their OW materials that will make it hard to find one of their divers who is prepared to go into technical diving to start with.

Actually, they exist. As for the anti-PADI OW slant, more opinions. Five-a-penny ...

I might skim it a little more and present a few more points later but it's clear that now you can progress through the whole system including instructor and tech levels without ever demonstrating good technique or even an understanding of what it is.

Anyone can quote the manuals, Mike, but have you actually done the TecDeep course? My personal experience of the course is that you cannot progress to TecDeep, let alone instructor levels, without demonstrating exceptionally good technique. Incidentally, the course comprises quite a lot of physiology and decompression theory. This is in addition to the purely technical bits in the manual.

Of course, I can't criticize Mike (whom I think is a good poster in the main) and sit on the fence. So, where do I stand?

Well, I think Joe and others are entirely right. It's the instructor more than anything that makes the tech course worthwhile. As such, the DSAT instructor will have a useful tool in the manual, but more tools and aids are needed, as they are for instructors in all agencies.

I wouldn't look at the agency without taking the instructor into context. The tek instruktor needs to do these types of dives regularly and in a non-student setting. I know what I want from an instructor, and every single agency (from TDI to GUE) has an instructor I'd like to train with.

Then again, every single agency (including GUE, they're not excempt by any means) has instructors I'd rather not train with.

I find the anti-PADI propaganda a bit distasteful. The TecDeep instructors I've personally come across there regularly dive trimix to great depths and are all TDI/IANTD or both as well. There is no reason - apart from the obvious marketing reasons from rival agency spokespeople, whether official or merely "semi-official" - to avoid PADI:s courses.

For my own part, I've found that the very best instructors keep an open mind to other agencies, and crib the best bits and add to their own tuition. I find this a very useful rule ...

If I were DorsetBoy, I'd talk personally to all the relevant instructors, whether TDI, IANTD, DSAT, GUE, ANDI or whatever and then decide.

Deciding from the written opinions of a few on an Internet board, however persuasive, is not a good idea. In my book, it doesn't belong in the DNA of a serious tek diver at all ... It's just a start, a debating point with your future instructor. That's all.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Oh, and it doesn't have anything to do with the text but we've already been seeing the fresh crop of soon to be tec rec instructor doing bounce dives in the quarries to get their 25 staged decompression dives to qualify to teach the class.

Are we? Any proof?

Only that I am an eye witness. I didn't take any video or anything but I can produce other eye witnesses.

If you get an experienced technical diver and instructor who has picked up the DSAT class to take advantage of the strong PADI marketing you might get a passable class.

Which is the road I've seen many good instructors take. IANTD as well as TDI.

Although it's hard to imagine a good technical diver and instructor doing that.

Why?

Because I can't imagine a good technical diver teaching the material.

Why would it be any more strange that a dual certified TDI/IANTD-instructor would add yet another agency to the list? This already happens. In fact, it's pretty standard. The only difference being the specific additional requirements of DSAT.

Which additional requirements?

This just seems like another biased, black-and-white anti-PADI rant. Especially considering the lack of any substantial evidence for the above view. And the considerable evidence for the opposite view.

I don't know why. I addresses specific point of concern right out of the text and the instructor outline. Do you have a specific argument to my statement or is it that you don't like to hear anything bad about PADI?

But I'm guessing they'll get a bunch or resorts to have tec rec deep DM's to guid this new crop of tech divers and most will manage to survive as long as they don't try any real technical diving.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions. And that's what the above is. An opinion. And not necessarily the most unbiased one I've ever come across.

IMO, instead of developing technical courses they should go back and have a look at what's missing from their OW materials that will make it hard to find one of their divers who is prepared to go into technical diving to start with.

Actually, they exist. As for the anti-PADI OW slant, more opinions. Five-a-penny ...

I might skim it a little more and present a few more points later but it's clear that now you can progress through the whole system including instructor and tech levels without ever demonstrating good technique or even an understanding of what it is.

Anyone can quote the manuals, Mike, but have you actually done the TecDeep course? My personal experience of the course is that you cannot progress to TecDeep, let alone instructor levels, without demonstrating exceptionally good technique. Incidentally, the course comprises quite a lot of physiology and decompression theory. This is in addition to the purely technical bits in the manual.

Of course I haven't done the course but I did evaluate it in deciding whether or not I wanted to teach it and I don't. Maybe any one can quote the manual but not every one can compare the manual and the standards to other similar courses. I can and I did for the benefite of who ever is interested.

My experience is that you can become an instructor without demonstrating good technique as I've seen it done many times.

Where is the phisiology and decompression theory in the course materials? I have the material in front of me now. I'll turn streight to the page and review it.

Of course, I can't criticize Mike (whom I think is a good poster in the main) and sit on the fence. So, where do I stand?

Well, I think Joe and others are entirely right. It's the instructor more than anything that makes the tech course worthwhile. As such, the DSAT instructor will have a useful tool in the manual, but more tools and aids are needed, as they are for instructors in all agencies.

I wouldn't look at the agency without taking the instructor into context. The tek instruktor needs to do these types of dives regularly and in a non-student setting. I know what I want from an instructor, and every single agency (from TDI to GUE) has an instructor I'd like to train with.

Then again, every single agency (including GUE, they're not excempt by any means) has instructors I'd rather not train with.

I find the anti-PADI propaganda a bit distasteful. The TecDeep instructors I've personally come across there regularly dive trimix to great depths and are all TDI/IANTD or both as well. There is no reason - apart from the obvious marketing reasons from rival agency spokespeople, whether official or merely "semi-official" - to avoid PADI:s courses.

It's not really propaganda since I refernced spcifics in the materials. Do you care to debate the context of those materials? I would find them hard to defend.

For my own part, I've found that the very best instructors keep an open mind to other agencies, and crib the best bits and add to their own tuition. I find this a very useful rule ...

If I were DorsetBoy, I'd talk personally to all the relevant instructors, whether TDI, IANTD, DSAT, GUE, ANDI or whatever and then decide.

Deciding from the written opinions of a few on an Internet board, however persuasive, is not a good idea. In my book, it doesn't belong in the DNA of a serious tek diver at all ... It's just a start, a debating point with your future instructor. That's all.

As with other courses an instructor can teach a good class inspite of the standards. However in this case it would be hard since the instructor will have to directly contradict material in the text and add a considerable amount of material in order to teach a good class.

I did keep an open mind which is how I came to spend a considerable sum on the materials including the instructor outline and course standards. After reading them in total and talking to the folks at PADI I formed an opinion and you've read it here.

 

[SoCalAngel]

The DSAT text contains little or no physiology, little or no decompression theory and leavs the student to blindly follow their computer for the most part. They do this with no discussion of any of the issues that concern a diver when selecting gasses or decompression stratagies. These subjects are every bit as vital to a technical diver as skills in the water.


I beleive that most of the theory and physiology stuff is covered in the PADI "Encyclopedia". I am not sure if there are references to this other text in the tec/deep manuel, but I know of several instructors that use it as well when teaching the tec/deep course.

To bring up a point that's often argued by Michael Kane, the DSAT text tells divers that they can learn to manage narcosis but never tells them how to do that. Nor do they present any evidence that it can indeed be done at all. As I mentioned above they leave out all physiological aspects like the effects of CO2 on narcosis or for that matter oxtox or the potential effects of a dense gas on CO2 build up.


I personally beleive that to be able to combat narcosis, you must be a functioning alcoholic Think about this, if you can drink and function - dance, work, think, problem solve, (hopefully you don't do this, but many do...) or drive while impaired from alcohol, you'll probably do well while sober, but narced at depth. All the texts I've read said narcosis is like being drunk..so what do you think of my theory? Silly, I know...but I do beleive it!

Back to the tec/deep course, it is all in the instructor. Any (worth his/her salt) instructor is going to teach not only the text, but what you actually need to know. I do know many people try to do "shortcuts" to acheiving minimum levels of experience, but there is learning value in bounce dives, isn't there? Don't you still have to practice switching of gasses, watching for Oxygen toxicity and nitrogen narcosis, as well as other skills. Just because your practice isn't ocean, doesn't mean it's not legitimate.

Again, I'm looking for a strong instructor that will teach me more than the basics, so my choice wouldn't be a newbie tech instructor..other people may just want to add the c-card to their wallet and don't give a rat's a** about who teaches them.

Laurel
__________________
Live to Dive and Dive to Live!
o o o o o o
o o o o
o o
. .
U
Laurel

 

[fins wake]

Which additional requirements?

I could be insidious and say, you tell me, you've evaluated the material ... :satanlook

But let's not flame each other. I'll respond.

Using pre- and postrequisites, the instructor must be among other things, be a certified TecDeep diver himself, i.e. pass the actual course. This has historically not always been the case for technical cross-over programs, as you (should) well know. Also, to complete the final exam. This written exam has so far proven to be quite the equalizer ... very few instructors have passed it, at least in Northern Europe.

Of course I haven't done the course

. Ah. Of course not ...

but I did evaluate it in deciding whether or not I wanted to teach it and I don't.

That's fair enough. Personally, I do have some problems with the evaluation, however. Let's take the following examples:

I mentioned this before but it's a biggie. They teach to get as much air into the bag as possible while holding onto something with your legs or with other divers holding you down.

Well, it's actually an option on page 128. This is not how I was trained on the course, however. I agree the pictures and text on page 128 of the manual is a slam-dunk for rival agencies. The sooner they change this for the next edition, the better. But as I stated, I wasn't trained this way.

I guess that's why they don't need to teach a reverse kick.

Again, we practised this.

Maybe any one can quote the manual but not every one can compare the manual and the standards to other similar courses.

Perhaps not. Luckily, both IANTD and GUE release their standards on their web pages.

My experience is that you can become an instructor without demonstrating good technique as I've seen it done many times.

Okay, fair enough. I haven't. Not for TecDeep Instructors. The ones I've dived with have been excellent.

Where is the phisiology and decompression theory in the course materials?

Now, this is a very important remark. This is the one area where it's obvious the TecDeep Diver manual is not enough on its own. We used IANTD material in addition. We were also encouraged to do our own reading-up on the subject. I believe all technical divers should do this.

It's not really propaganda since I refernced spcifics in the materials. Do you care to debate the context of those materials? I would find them hard to defend.

Seriously, this might be a cultural issue. European divers are generally a bit more cynical and a bit less "trust-me" on most matters educational. If there are silly bits in the material, it's quite common for instructors to point these out and then debate them. Since most DSAT TecDeep instructors have a TDI/IANTD background, this is very easily done. For the record, I'm very positively inclined to TDI and IANTD and discourage noone from their courses. Or from ANDI, GUE or Nauitec.

However in this case it would be hard since the instructor will have to directly contradict material in the text and add a considerable amount of material in order to teach a good class.

Yeah, exactly! Personally I wouldn't do any form of technical course with an instructor who doesn't do it exactly as you outlined. You should have seen the material I was given for my NSS-CDS Cavern course ...

Of course, the instructor quoted in your example would not have to contradict all or even most of the material in the TecDeep Manual. Only some of it.

Then again, have you ever seen a dive manual of any sorts where everything is gospel and nothing needs any form of contradiction or addition? I haven't. But maybe this is a cultural thing ...

After reading them in total and talking to the folks at PADI I formed an opinion and you've read it here.

That's fine. I'm merely providing a 2nd opinion, that's all. And I still think it would be helpful taking the course before commenting with authority on all issues.

is it that you don't like to hear anything bad about PADI?

Gosh, not only do I hear bad things about them, I've seen quite a few things that I disagree with. Except I've seen similar problems with all other agencies, including NAUI, BSAC and various national CMAS organizations. I've even dived with a few DIR-F guys that weren't up to scratch, except that is admittedly a bit more unusual and standards have been tightened since.

It's just that comments like

The book may appear well planned and easy to navigate but I think it's mostly full of sheep dip.

and

this course and it's requirements are a clear demonstration that these people just don't get it.

are very, how shall I put it, neo-irvinian in nature, and not really conductive to reasoned argument. That rather gives a feeling of "PADI-bashing, same, same but different".

Respectfully yours
Fins

 

[theskull]

. . . and I believe Mike F is a PADI instructor. Must cause a huge self-image problem.

An additional point, though: Instructors can only become instructors without demonstrating good technique (trim, OOA technique, finning, etc.) if they are certified by sub-standard instructor trainers/course directors. This can and will happen in every agency unfortunately, and since PADI is the largest it will be observed more often in their ranks. In my own experience, I had to demonstrate these skills to high standards just to gain the PADI DiveMaster rating.

Whether or not these skills are specifically written into the standards of a given course, a good instructor will be exhibiting these skills by habit. Any students not sharp enough to pick up good diving habits by example will definitely be further coached on them by a good and conscientious instructor. (Having read many of Mike's previous "brief" posts, I would fully expect that Mike is one of these good and conscientious instructors; he must have been trained by someone whom was also a good instructor; and he must have also personally taught many high-quality PADI courses.)

Why the bashing?? It is stated over and over on this and other boards that the instructor IS the course and the agency is just a detail. Ditto for the course manual.

theskull

 

[fins wake]

. . . and I believe Mike F is a PADI instructor. Must cause a huge self-image problem.

For the record, and although I disagree with the thrust of his argument in this particular thread, I believe Mike has huge integrity. I understand that he has opted no longer to teach for PADI (please correct me if I'm wrong, Mike), which to me is a measure of his integrity. I therefore see no problem whatsoever with his self-image, and instead laud his courage in following through on his convictions. This is worthy of great respect! :35:

An additional point, though: Instructors can only become instructors without demonstrating good technique (trim, OOA technique, finning, etc.) if they are certified by sub-standard instructor trainers/course directors. This can and will happen in every agency unfortunately, and since PADI is the largest it will be observed more often in their ranks.

Good points.

(Having read many of Mike's previous "brief" posts, I would fully expect that Mike is one of these good and conscientious instructors;

So do I. In fact, I believe he's probably an excellent instructor, judged by his commitment and keen attention to detail. I disagreed with the post, but have all respect for the poster.

It is stated over and over on this and other boards that the instructor IS the course and the agency is just a detail.

Agree entirely.

Ditto for the course manual.

Admittedly an important detail, though, and I can see how people are irritated by any and all perceived errors and omissions. But I agree with the general thrust of your argument, Skull.

 

[MikeFerrara]

. . . and I believe Mike F is a PADI instructor. Must cause a huge self-image problem.

It has infact done exactly that. As of the first of this year I did not renew my PADI membership. I just don't seem to agree with them on enough things.

An additional point, though: Instructors can only become instructors without demonstrating good technique (trim, OOA technique, finning, etc.) if they are certified by sub-standard instructor trainers/course directors. This can and will happen in every agency unfortunately, and since PADI is the largest it will be observed more often in their ranks. In my own experience, I had to demonstrate these skills to high standards just to gain the PADI DiveMaster rating.

Whether or not these skills are specifically written into the standards of a given course, a good instructor will be exhibiting these skills by habit. Any students not sharp enough to pick up good diving habits by example will definitely be further coached on them by a good and conscientious instructor. (Having read many of Mike's previous "brief" posts, I would fully expect that Mike is one of these good and conscientious instructors; he must have been trained by someone whom was also a good instructor; and he must have also personally taught many high-quality PADI courses.)

Why the bashing?? It is stated over and over on this and other boards that the instructor IS the course and the agency is just a detail. Ditto for the course manual.

theskull

First off for the record, my recreational training and recreational instructor training sucked. I picked things up the hard way in the biginning and even in my early teaching days. I didn't run into a good instructor until I was well into my technical training.

I agree that an instructor an teach a good class regardless of standards. I think that more needs to be specifically written into the standards otherwise there isn't any way to know if it'll be taught or not.

Never in any PADI class is it required by standards for a student to demonstrate horizontal trim or a simple frog kick. The instructor may teach it and the student may learn it but it is not required. It would seem to me that these skills at least rate a mention. This argument holds for every class they have including tech and instructor training.