Why Recreational Triox ??

[Genesis]

I took the AOW w/ nitrox class from PADI, and then took the DIR-F class from GUE. If you haven't taken the Fundy class, then you really shouldn't be making statements that it "makes a lot less sense". It is quite a remarkable class, and I highly recommend it to ALL divers-including instructors who think they are the best divers in the world. They are the ones most humbled.

You need to remember something-these classes are not for everyone. They are only for those that wish attain a higher level of diving skill thru GUE. If you don't like their methods-don't take their classes. It's actually quite simple.

That is quite an amazingly arrogant statement DD. Indeed, it is precisely that kind of statement ("GUE as the one true source") that leads to the exact problem that a lot of people have with GUE-the-agency.

GUE doesn't want to waste their time on divers that have not taken the Fundy class because those types can't do even the most basic of requirements.

That's even more arrogant of a statement, if that's possible. First, if you take a class and can't hack it, you fail. Period, end of discussion, full-stop. That GUE is perfectly happy to fail people in their courses is well-known and understood.

Second, the DIR-F "as a cert class" is relatively new. Formerly you could even take Tech1 or Cave1 without DIR-F! Indeed, DIR-F started as a "skill builder" for OW folks, and then turned into a "gateway".

For some people, that probably is good. For others it clearly is not. If you would fail Triox you'd probably also fail DIR-F and have to take it more than once. So instead of taking two classes (Triox twice) you now have to take THREE (DIR-F twice and THEN Triox), and if you PASS DIR-F then you end up spending more besides.

That's why it's a prerequisite to the Triox class. The Triox class is the first half of the Tech 1 class. For some of us with time constraints, it's the only way to take the Tech 1 class.

Which is fine and well, but the "must have the gateway" argument does not give any credence to someone with significant other experience. Essentially all other agencies do - you can take OW and AOW from PADI, and then take Rescue from NAUI or SSI, for example. You can take Cavern and Intro from NSS-CDS, and then take "Real Cave" (whether its called Apprentice/full or just "Cave") from NACD or TDI.

If GUE wants to do it this way "just because" that's fine, but to argue that its the only way that you'd be able to pass Triox (or Tech 1 for that matter) is to take DIR-F is a gross insult to all those who had Tech 1 (or Cave 1) cards BEFORE DIR-F even existed!

 

[MikeFerrara]

Around here, Nitrox is about $10/tank (commercial fills.) Trimix @ $.30/cf (which is what Fill Express charges, and about half the "going rate" at most other shops) is $24.00/tank (at Fill Express) to close to $50/tank at many other "establishments."

Of course if you have your own fill station then it can be cheaper, but only marginally, since you need to either (1) use a stick and compress the resulting mix at least in part (e.g. blend Helium and Air, and PP in the O2) through your compressor, or (2) own a booster. A booster will cost you at least what the compressor will, PLUS you need a fairly serious shop air source (yet more money) to drive it, and the booster cost then has to be amortized as well.

I still say that $24 for 80 cu ft of trimix is absolutley outragouse. This where having my own fill station pays off BIG TIME.

In that same tank for 30/30 you need about 24 cu ft of helium. I get killed on the cost of helium and I don't have a booster so I throw some away. In the end I pay about $.3/cu ft for the helium that I actually can use. In this case I have a wopping $7.2 invested in helium. I need to add about 15 cu ft of O2 and I pay about $0.11/ cu ft for usable O2 for a total of $1.65.

So my cost is $8.85 plus the air I pump on top. if you continuouse blend the cost goes down and they probably pay less than me anyway. Every one does.

I couldn't ever get a mark up like that on anything when I was in the dive business. LOL

 

[Genesis]

I still say that $24 for 80 cu ft of trimix is absolutley outragouse. This where having my own fill station pays off BIG TIME.

In that same tank for 30/30 you need about 24 cu ft of helium. I get killed on the cost of helium and I don't have a booster so I throw some away. In the end I pay about $.3/cu ft for the helium that I actually can use. In this case I have a wopping $7.2 invested in helium. I need to add about 15 cu ft of O2 and I pay about $0.11/ cu ft for usable O2 for a total of $1.65.

So my cost is $8.85 plus the air I pump on top. if you continuouse blend the cost goes down and they probably pay less than me anyway. Every one does.

I couldn't ever get a mark up like that on anything when I was in the dive business. LOL

Yep. Its a hell of a mark-up. That much is established

But its really not that much worse, percentage-wise, than Nitrox. The NUMBERS are larger but the percentages really aren't much worse. $10 for a tank of Nitrox that has $0.50 worth of O2 in it, plus the air top?!

 

[detroit diver]

Some call it arrogant. I call it reality. I've seen it first hand. In more than one Fundy class. The ones who come in with the biggest cojones are the one who are affected most. They are very set in their ways, and have the toughest time adjusting to the most basic of skill requirements. The ones straight out of OW class are more willing to be taught the skills, because they have not been exposed to everything else beforehand.

As for my "more arrogant" statement, it was just a natural progression of failure that drove GUE to require the class. For a Tech 1 class, or Cave 1 class, they found that they were teaching students basics for the first part of the class, and not teaching what the student paid for. It was a waste of time and money for the student as the majority of them could not pass the Tech or Cave class. GUE doesn't want people to fail-regardless of all the wrong internet drivel that we read about. But they don't want to waste their time either-or waste the instructors time. They will not compromise on their standards. Why do we require a bachelors degree before we allow people into graduate school? You need to prove yourself before you move on. GUE just formalized the process to make the certification a requirement.

Your statement "If you would fail Triox you'd probably also fail DIR-F and have to take it more than once." is just so full of sh*t that it doesn't even justfy an answer. You know NOTHING about either class. Zero. Nada. Zilch. So the rest of your comment is useless also.

Your cross agency arguements are worthless when speaking about GUE. Their standards are just simply higher.

I don't think anyone with a Tech 1 or Cave 1 class will be insulted. They either took the DIR-F class, or were given the equivalent in the first part of their Tech or Cave class. And frankly, why do you care who was or wasn't insulted? If they really cared-you'd be hearing about it.

That is quite an amazingly arrogant statement DD. Indeed, it is precisely that kind of statement ("GUE as the one true source") that leads to the exact problem that a lot of people have with GUE-the-agency.



That's even more arrogant of a statement, if that's possible. First, if you take a class and can't hack it, you fail. Period, end of discussion, full-stop. That GUE is perfectly happy to fail people in their courses is well-known and understood.

Second, the DIR-F "as a cert class" is relatively new. Formerly you could even take Tech1 or Cave1 without DIR-F! Indeed, DIR-F started as a "skill builder" for OW folks, and then turned into a "gateway".

For some people, that probably is good. For others it clearly is not. If you would fail Triox you'd probably also fail DIR-F and have to take it more than once. So instead of taking two classes (Triox twice) you now have to take THREE (DIR-F twice and THEN Triox), and if you PASS DIR-F then you end up spending more besides.


Which is fine and well, but the "must have the gateway" argument does not give any credence to someone with significant other experience. Essentially all other agencies do - you can take OW and AOW from PADI, and then take Rescue from NAUI or SSI, for example. You can take Cavern and Intro from NSS-CDS, and then take "Real Cave" (whether its called Apprentice/full or just "Cave") from NACD or TDI.

If GUE wants to do it this way "just because" that's fine, but to argue that its the only way that you'd be able to pass Triox (or Tech 1 for that matter) is to take DIR-F is a gross insult to all those who had Tech 1 (or Cave 1) cards BEFORE DIR-F even existed!

 

[reubencahn]

That is quite an amazingly arrogant statement DD. Indeed, it is precisely that kind of statement ("GUE as the one true source") that leads to the exact problem that a lot of people have with GUE-the-agency.



That's even more arrogant of a statement, if that's possible. First, if you take a class and can't hack it, you fail. Period, end of discussion, full-stop. That GUE is perfectly happy to fail people in their courses is well-known and understood.

Second, the DIR-F "as a cert class" is relatively new. Formerly you could even take Tech1 or Cave1 without DIR-F! Indeed, DIR-F started as a "skill builder" for OW folks, and then turned into a "gateway".

For some people, that probably is good. For others it clearly is not. If you would fail Triox you'd probably also fail DIR-F and have to take it more than once. So instead of taking two classes (Triox twice) you now have to take THREE (DIR-F twice and THEN Triox), and if you PASS DIR-F then you end up spending more besides.


Which is fine and well, but the "must have the gateway" argument does not give any credence to someone with significant other experience. Essentially all other agencies do - you can take OW and AOW from PADI, and then take Rescue from NAUI or SSI, for example. You can take Cavern and Intro from NSS-CDS, and then take "Real Cave" (whether its called Apprentice/full or just "Cave") from NACD or TDI.

If GUE wants to do it this way "just because" that's fine, but to argue that its the only way that you'd be able to pass Triox (or Tech 1 for that matter) is to take DIR-F is a gross insult to all those who had Tech 1 (or Cave 1) cards BEFORE DIR-F even existed!

I've refrained from getting into this before but I think you're off base here. Let me give my experience to explain why.

I took the DIR-F class with four other people. One was a NAUI instructor, I think a course director, with extensive deep diving and technical experience, one was a long time diver who had completed technical training with IANTD, two were PADI divemasters. I am a 16 year openwater diver with no other certs except TDI Nitrox. I have no other certs because when I looked at other divers who had plenty of them, I believed I was a much better more competent diver. I had done a lot of dives and nothing I had seen dissuaded me from that point of view. I think everyone in the class agreed that they learned a tremendous amount. Everyone agreed that they fell way short of the skills and understanding demonstrated by the GUE instructor. Everyone agreed that they had been introduced to skills or a level of performance that would allow them to radically improve their diving.

The instructor himself told us that he had been an experience technical diver doing very deep mixed gas dives on wrecks when he was introduced to GUE, yet he took himself back to square one and worked his way through the GUE courses without hesitation or regret.

I don't think any of the class members or the instructor are aberrations. Again and again people say or write that, despite their prior extensive diving experience, GUE training took their diving to a different level. Now maybe this wouldn't be true for you. I don't know. But I do think it's fair to say that the consensus view is that even for those with a great deal of experience, GUE training is of significant value. So I think you are off base when you say that GUE is wasting people's time and money making them take DIR-F.

Incidentally, I understood that DIR-F developed as a diving skills seminar so that those taking tech I and cave I would all be on the same page and became a requirement because it wasn't fair to those who were prepared for, had set time aside and paid for those classes to have the instructor(s) sidetracked trying to get someone else up to speed on fundamental skills.

 

[-hh]

Do you ever read anything, or just post at will? Re what MHK has said, time and time again.

I personally find most of Mike's posts poorly organized (a few Paragraph breaks would go a long ways). Fortunately, his last post was finally reasonably clear on at least one point.

I'll try an phrase it in my own way (if I may, MHK-correct me if I'm wrong).

If it's an easy, warm water dive with a fixed bottom, you can probably get away with using EAN32 at 100 ft or above. Below 100ft, the benefits of mix begin to outweigh other options.

Yes, and Mike also said that 100fsw was also his cross-over for cold/difficult dives.

Have you considered these two statements togther?

I have, and unless there's a typo in one of the above, what he's saying is that the cross-over is always 100fsw, because variations in water temp and difficulty doesn't make any difference.

So 100fsw is his criteria - fine.

If you don't like that, cool. No one cares. Everone has their own choices.

Sure. But I also have just as much of a right to express my opinon as the next guy.

Here, I recognize that these standards is slightly more conservative than mine, and because I am honestly willing to consider amending my own position, I asked that which I know is important for my own consideration.

Now consider how I perceive my treatment: instead of getting a civil, straight answer, I get ignored, told that I'm wrong, that I must consider the entire class, etc, plus many gratuitous and uncalled personal digs which I have strived to do my best to ignore.

But seeing as though you refuse to consider mix anyway...

What? Sorry, but that is flat-out wrong.



-hh

 

[MikeS]

Mike,

Proper ascent rate strategies, proper team diving protocols, lift bag shooting, rescuing a toxing and unconscious diver, basic decompression strategies are discussed [ but bear in mind this is an otherwise NDL class] are just but a few of the concepts we discuss.

In this context it sounds like a good class. I’ve been considering taking advanced nitrox and stage deco for the skills, despite the fact that at least for now, I’m not interested in deco and certainly have no desire to go into a cave. I think that classes such as this will fill a gap between “vacation diver” training and decompression/penetration training.

Mike

 

[Genesis]

Some call it arrogant. I call it reality. I've seen it first hand. In more than one Fundy class. The ones who come in with the biggest cojones are the one who are affected most.

Ok, so you're not "just a diver who took a Fundy class" (or any other class). You're a GUE/DIR partisan.

Cool enough - but now that we have that out of the way, why don't you tell us all exactly from what position you speak? See, we know where MHK comes from; he has the cojones to identify himself as a GUE instructor, and take the slings and arrows that might come as a consequence (and also the accolades!)

As for my "more arrogant" statement, it was just a natural progression of failure that drove GUE to require the class. For a Tech 1 class, or Cave 1 class, they found that they were teaching students basics for the first part of the class, and not teaching what the student paid for.

Qualify this statement please. Who are you (in real life) and what qualifies you to make this statement?

It was a waste of time and money for the student as the majority of them could not pass the Tech or Cave class.

Again, qualify this statement please. GUE was offering Tech and Cave classes for quite a long time before DIR-F was dreamed up by JJ. Until -F came along I heard nobody carping about the failure rate in the Tech and Cave classes.

-or waste the instructors time.

If I am purchasing training, and not certification, then exactly how is it a waste of the instructor's time to teach (even if I fail)? I didn't buy a card, I bought training.

Or so GUE represents.

They will not compromise on their standards.

Good, but not relavent to the point at hand, and you still haven't qualified your statements.
[/quote]
Your statement "If you would fail Triox you'd probably also fail DIR-F and have to take it more than once." is just so full of sh*t that it doesn't even justfy an answer. [/quote]
I have the syllabus to both available to me, as does anyone else. Hurling insults is both against board policy and does not advance the debate.

Your cross agency arguements are worthless when speaking about GUE. Their standards are just simply higher.

Not under debate; what is under debate is the value of this class as it stands and the basis for it.

Please provide your qualifications to make the above statements which you attribute as facts related to GUE. Your publically-available information does not indicate that you are part of GUE; as an example, how is it that you have "attended" multiple DIR-Fs (unless, of course, you failed a few times before passing personally!)

Anecdotal claims from others do not qualify as "evidence", particularly when coupled with insults rather than debate.

 

[Genesis]

I've refrained from getting into this before but I think you're off base here. Let me give my experience to explain why.
.....
I don't think any of the class members or the instructor are aberrations. Again and again people say or write that, despite their prior extensive diving experience, GUE training took their diving to a different level. Now maybe this wouldn't be true for you. I don't know. But I do think it's fair to say that the consensus view is that even for those with a great deal of experience, GUE training is of significant value. So I think you are off base when you say that GUE is wasting people's time and money making them take DIR-F.

Incidentally, I understood that DIR-F developed as a diving skills seminar so that those taking tech I and cave I would all be on the same page and became a requirement because it wasn't fair to those who were prepared for, had set time aside and paid for those classes to have the instructor(s) sidetracked trying to get someone else up to speed on fundamental skills.

DIR-style diving is different. Its not just gear or diving skills - its a "holistic system" (according to the loudest of the partisans and from personal observation.) Its a "take it or leave it" system in terms of the whole, but that doesn't mean that part of it aren't valid for those who choose to partake of it.

I'm not arguing that GUE's training is worthless; quite to the contrary. I've only heard a few negative reports, but with a very small instructor base, that isn't terribly difficult to do. The real test will be as the base expands.

However, that's not the point under discussion. Triox is, as MHK has said, really a "deep recreational diving" course. The fundamental (sorry) skills involved in diving safely while deep or, for that matter, in many other environments, are more-or-less what DIR-F is about.

I understand the desire to "split apart" this set of skills from Tech1/Cave1 for both marketing and profit reasons. Certainly, if you can sell two courses its better than one, right? Ditto for splitting Triox off from Tech1; if selling two courses is good, then selling three courses is FAR better.

But that doesn't mean that the people who hold the older Tech1 cards got shortchanged. Indeed, they got more for the same money. That's axiomatic, provided that (1) they passed, and (2) the standards have not been lowered.

The problem here isn't the skill set.

Its the arrogance and outright insults hurled at anyone who dares raise a question, or who postulates that perhaps the emporer didn't bother getting dressed this morning.

 

[reubencahn]

[
Its the arrogance and outright insults hurled at anyone who dares raise a question, or who postulates that perhaps the emporer didn't bother getting dressed this morning.[/QUOTE]


I think you would be hard pressed to say my response to you was arrogant or that I've hurled insults at anyone.

As to GUE's marketing, I'll accept, arguendo, that they just want to market two classes instead of one. Does it matter? I learned all I possibly could in the hours devoted to the class--which were many more than advertised. There's no way I could have gotten more without more time and training. So if I have to pay for another class to get more GUE training, I'm fine with that. It seems fair to pay the instructor's time and knowledge. And I'm getting more than my money's worth.