R
redacted
Guest
Some people seem to really need that sense of security whether it is deserved or not.
Why waste money on training!?
- Thread starter Wannabedivebum
- 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
Some people seem to really need that sense of security whether it is deserved or not.
I solely dive twin 12s because I live in a one bedroom flat in London. I do not have the space, nor the money to keep a single set in test, O2 cleaned, and serviced when it will only be used a handful of times a year. If I'm out on a hardboat or rib, I'll get 2 dives easy out of my twinset. If it's inland, I may get as much as 6 dives out of it, depending on what I'm doing.
Yeah, they can be overkill, but it keeps my skills in my kit current, keeps my wallet happy, and keeps my girlfriend happy. She's not to fond of it when my dive kit starts taking over the flat.
I don't think I'm being 'macho' or doing it because it's the 'in thing' to do. Most everyone I know who dives twins, dive them for a similar reason.
DevonDiver
N/A
Nope...Edward is correct. It's quite an 'image' thing in the UK.
Rich Keller
Contributor
I can not find the book at the moment but I think the name was "The New Science of Skin & Scuba Diving". This was not a short book and covered everything you could think of for that time, including things they no longer teach today.
The continues feed mask you are referring to is just a simple surface supplied mask that just about anyone could use with little or no training. The US Navy version was the Desco "Jack Brown Mask" that is still in production to this day. DESCO Masks The training he had from using surface supplied equipment & rebreathers would have more then prepared him to use scuba.
DaleC
Contributor
You would not believe the number of conversations I have had with people regarding proper weighting and balanced rigs, something I am quite familiar with because I dive often with no BC. People over weight and have non-ditchable weight regardless and many of them have far more formal training than me.
I suspect it has less to do with availability of information and more to do with the mindset that "it will never happen to me".
I have always assumed everything will happen to me, and I engage in almost all my activities solo, so that is how I govern my approach. I have had many "holy **** moments but because of my methodology they don't overwhelm, just like formal education scenarios. However, those are just moments. If you are the type of person who needs that to impress the seriousness of the situation upon oneself it's rather late in the game for a wake up call.
As a self learner I subscribe to a model Thal once called the "Cone of Safety" or what old school penetration divers would understand as progressive penetration (though not to be confused with the actual act of p. p.). This is an upright cone, wide at the top, narrow at the bottom and relative safe diving is contained within. The narrowing is determined by increasing depth, overhead penetration or task loading. The deep/further/more complex you go, the less options you have for safety.
I push my boundaries by making one step outside the cone, in what ever area I am improving/learning. This allows me the experience yet I am one step away from the safe methodology I know. If something goes amiss, I step back into the cone. In this way I progressively expand my boundaries.
So, the notion of strapping on doubles, going deep, in an unfamiliar suit and incurring deco is something I would not do. Though I know many fast track zero to heroes that would and shops only too keen to cater to them. My model is slow and methodical. I control the pace and fully integrate the results before proceeding.
This is not to say I don't believe in formal education. I do when there is a paradigm shift needed in my thinking/knowledge base or the leap is too great for me to manage on my own. But, I believe this is different for everyone. I am very adept at understanding some concepts but struggle with others. I have no problem understanding basic air deco (and all that comes with it) but would probably take a course to understand accelerated deco/trimix. I have no problem understanding simple penetrations like caverns (and all that go with it) but would probably take a cave course if I wanted to go beyond one room/deeper.
This is because the step from within the cone of safety model is not gradual. It is a complete separation and a new model needs to be constructed. It is the same as going from a non diver to diver. In this case a course was useful because there was such a paradigm shift that it wold be hard to manage on ones own (though many have). But once inside that paradigm, I have found many of the accompanying courses not as necessary as I can now gradually incorporate the same material from a position of knowing.
But that's just me. I recognise there is a difference between educating an individual and educating a group. I am only concerned with educating me. Those in the dive industry are interested in educating the masses. I understand that the "rules" for the individual are not the same as the "rules" for the masses, but at the same time, don't accept those "rules" for myself. I am not the lowest common denominator nor am I a good follower - though I am a very good student.
Tammy mentioned: Why reinvent the wheel? I agree. My method of learning has been used for centuries by many people, in many walks of life. Self learning/exploration is a basic trait in mankind. Why try to eliminate this trait and create a new model that lacks this characteristic? It has brought us to this point, which seems pretty advanced to me.
I suspect it has less to do with availability of information and more to do with the mindset that "it will never happen to me".
I have always assumed everything will happen to me, and I engage in almost all my activities solo, so that is how I govern my approach. I have had many "holy **** moments but because of my methodology they don't overwhelm, just like formal education scenarios. However, those are just moments. If you are the type of person who needs that to impress the seriousness of the situation upon oneself it's rather late in the game for a wake up call.
As a self learner I subscribe to a model Thal once called the "Cone of Safety" or what old school penetration divers would understand as progressive penetration (though not to be confused with the actual act of p. p.). This is an upright cone, wide at the top, narrow at the bottom and relative safe diving is contained within. The narrowing is determined by increasing depth, overhead penetration or task loading. The deep/further/more complex you go, the less options you have for safety.
I push my boundaries by making one step outside the cone, in what ever area I am improving/learning. This allows me the experience yet I am one step away from the safe methodology I know. If something goes amiss, I step back into the cone. In this way I progressively expand my boundaries.
So, the notion of strapping on doubles, going deep, in an unfamiliar suit and incurring deco is something I would not do. Though I know many fast track zero to heroes that would and shops only too keen to cater to them. My model is slow and methodical. I control the pace and fully integrate the results before proceeding.
This is not to say I don't believe in formal education. I do when there is a paradigm shift needed in my thinking/knowledge base or the leap is too great for me to manage on my own. But, I believe this is different for everyone. I am very adept at understanding some concepts but struggle with others. I have no problem understanding basic air deco (and all that comes with it) but would probably take a course to understand accelerated deco/trimix. I have no problem understanding simple penetrations like caverns (and all that go with it) but would probably take a cave course if I wanted to go beyond one room/deeper.
This is because the step from within the cone of safety model is not gradual. It is a complete separation and a new model needs to be constructed. It is the same as going from a non diver to diver. In this case a course was useful because there was such a paradigm shift that it wold be hard to manage on ones own (though many have). But once inside that paradigm, I have found many of the accompanying courses not as necessary as I can now gradually incorporate the same material from a position of knowing.
But that's just me. I recognise there is a difference between educating an individual and educating a group. I am only concerned with educating me. Those in the dive industry are interested in educating the masses. I understand that the "rules" for the individual are not the same as the "rules" for the masses, but at the same time, don't accept those "rules" for myself. I am not the lowest common denominator nor am I a good follower - though I am a very good student.
Tammy mentioned: Why reinvent the wheel? I agree. My method of learning has been used for centuries by many people, in many walks of life. Self learning/exploration is a basic trait in mankind. Why try to eliminate this trait and create a new model that lacks this characteristic? It has brought us to this point, which seems pretty advanced to me.
Last edited:
ams511
Contributor
I do not see it in Florida. As a matter of fact if I walked onto a dive boat with doubles they would say no unless it was prearranged or a tech charter.
---------- Post added February 21st, 2014 at 08:31 AM ----------
I have this book and it is not the one I am thinking of. The one I am thinking of was a small paperback published by Aqualung. I think it had maybe 60 pages or so.
SanDiegoSidemount
Contributor
It's been fun to see this thread transform from a sarcastic slam on an irresponsibly published internet article -- "Deco is easy, anyone can do it!" -- to a lively discussion on self-learning vs formal training.
I would like to point out that there's no need for anyone to get defensive here. There are all types of self-learners, just as there are all types of instructors. Some are amazing, and some are not.
The self-learners here on SB are likely the cream of the crop, as are the instructors who actively post here.
So it may be helpful to recognize that we are mostly discussing the aptitude of "the other 99%" that are not here on SB, not you personally. Just the fact that you are here on SB means we're probably not talking about you.
---------- Post added February 21st, 2014 at 09:56 AM ----------
Honest questions: I'm curious about the type of dive profiles you do. Do you and your buddies consider yourselves tech divers, or are you just doing recreational dives with an extra gas supply? Did you train one another, self-learn, or take courses before you strapped on the doubles rig? What types of gas management do you practice when doing multiple dives off the same pair of tanks?
Tech-reational diving seems to be a growing trend, and you seem like you might fit this profile. There isn't that much formal instruction out there that fits this specific niche, so I'm curious how you got there.
I would like to point out that there's no need for anyone to get defensive here. There are all types of self-learners, just as there are all types of instructors. Some are amazing, and some are not.
The self-learners here on SB are likely the cream of the crop, as are the instructors who actively post here.
So it may be helpful to recognize that we are mostly discussing the aptitude of "the other 99%" that are not here on SB, not you personally. Just the fact that you are here on SB means we're probably not talking about you.
---------- Post added February 21st, 2014 at 09:56 AM ----------
Honest questions: I'm curious about the type of dive profiles you do. Do you and your buddies consider yourselves tech divers, or are you just doing recreational dives with an extra gas supply? Did you train one another, self-learn, or take courses before you strapped on the doubles rig? What types of gas management do you practice when doing multiple dives off the same pair of tanks?
Tech-reational diving seems to be a growing trend, and you seem like you might fit this profile. There isn't that much formal instruction out there that fits this specific niche, so I'm curious how you got there.
Most of my sea dives are in the 25-30m range, with the occasional dive to 35m. I consider myself to be a strictly recreational diver at the moment, and will probably head down the technical route in a couple of years time. If conditions warrant it, we may decide to do 10 or so minutes of deco. Normally on a 30m dive, we plan for a 30 minute bottom time on 32%, but if we have good vis, find something interesting, or are just enjoying ourselves, we don't really hesitate to stay down a little bit longer (yes it's all discussed and planned out that if we're enjoying ourselves we'll do a bit of deco). All of the deco plans are planned out ahead of time just in case using decompression planning software and written in my wetnotes.
Most of the dives I'm doing are fairly square profiles, with about a 5-7 metre difference between the top of the wreck and the seabed. All dives are done using minimum gas calculations, and I'm always on the surface with at least a 100 bar from the deeper dives. More often than not, the second dive is around 12-15m in depth, with a minimum gas reserve of 50 bar.
Training wise, I took the GUE doubles primer before I bought my twinset. Others I know did an intro to tech course, self-taught, had mentors, but generally speaking, with a few exceptions, we're all hog-rigged. My jump to twins wasn't a massive jump. I was already in a single tank wing, hog-rigged. Slightly bigger wing, second first stage, and another cylinder on my back were the only physical changes. I found it easy to trim out, and valve drills, while new, weren't particularly tough to do. My biggest challenge was anticipating the buoyancy swing once the gas dropped below 100 bar.
I don't consider what I do to be 'tech-reational' is you will. It's for the most part UK club diving. Deco is introduced in sports diver in BSAC, pretty early on in SAA, not too sure about ScotSAC though. Outside of PADI, the diving culture in the UK (and Europe) is quite different than what you get in the states. Not all of it is good, and not all of it I agree with, but hey ho. The weather here can be unpredictable, and we may not get in the sea as often as we like. But when we do, we fully take advantage of it. If that means a bit of deco, then it means a bit of deco. BSAC sports diver is my 'deco ticket' (which besides ADP [accelerated decompression procedures] is the only BSAC course I have taken), but a lot of what I know is self study if you will and figuring out what worked for me. Deco for Divers is a great resource for expanding on decompression theory and putting it into language that divers can understand, explains gradient factors and the differences between different bubble models, etc. Fundies has quite a bit of decompression theory as well. I've read the US navy manuals, I'm taking GUE Rec 3 this summer, and have already read over the materials for that course, which again will qualify me for trimix and 15 minutes of deco, up to 40m.
When planning any dives where there may be deco involved, we make sure to plan for a lost gas scenario and start our ascent before we hit minimum gas. We plan for how much gas we would need to make it to the surface on one set of cylinders. It's all basic stuff, same as we would plan for a minimum deco dive.
But then there are other days when I feel like doing a 90+ minute dive at 12m, and it's nice to have the gas to do it...
At the end of the day, I consider myself a diver. No fancy name in front of it, just a diver. I like to get out there and have fun, explore wrecks, document and survey them, and just have a good time.
Rich Keller
Contributor
Similar threads
- Locked
