Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
> 7 days is not enough.14 hours on the unit (9 pool,5 openwater) does not > make you adequatly prepared for the problems that the close circuit systems > have. - jt The basic problem is, it is economically impossible to construct a course that includes "enough" in-water time for divers to become "qualified". Such a course would cost more than a good rebreather. The best solution I can think of is to grant a "learner's permit" to people who pass the basic course. Certification would come only after the submission sufficient of logged dives after the course. The amount of time Tom suggests seems to me a reasonable amount of time to grant a learner's permit. The course would emphasize exactly how the rig works, and would also emphasize the fact that "qualification" does not come until many hours of diving after the course. The students who successfully complete the course would be issued a schedule of dive patterns to follow. (e.g., first 30 hours of open-water time at less than 30fsw, the next 20 hours at 30-60fsw, the next 20 hours at 60-100fsw, etc., all with a buddy on open circuit). Upon submission of proof of such experience, the agency would grant the certification. A big part of the ocurse would emphasize that if the student submits false logs, then the only person being cheated is the student. Rich > > On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, IANTD wrote: > > > John > > There are NO 4 day courses by IANTD on rebreathers > > > > On fully closed it is a 7 day course for a RB diver > > On Semi it is a 5 day course > > > > These course run 8 AM to pm each day ther is approximately 3 x3 = 9 > > hours of pool time and 3 to 5 hours of open water diving to qualify to > > dive the units to 130 feet no deco. Then there is a second module to do > > deco diving of equal diration once the diver has logged the prequisite > > time on the unit. > > > > You might learn something if you took one of these cpourses. Presently > > weare not conducting another one at HQ until mid oct and that one will > > be on the Halcyon passive semi closed in singapore. > > > > The CC is more complex and takes a lot of time and skill and yes a lot > > of what if training in case of electronic failures which are the > > greatest risk probability in CC systems. > > > > A good point is anyone wishing to evolve into RB's should list there > > reasons for doing so. They should list all the risk associated with > > these units then the benefit they feel they individually will gain, > > then corrective actions for failure points followed by a simple value > > rating as either yes/no or a 1-10 value system if at the end of this > > process they have a need for a RB then chose the one or as I have done > > the ones that best suit the needs of the diver. If there is not a real > > need or benefit they rreally do not have any business on a RB. It is > > far less forgiving and requires more discipline and self control to > > dive. In my case I do have a need and a benefit for a SC and a CC unit, > > and I have a high degree of experience on them combined with some close > > calls so I do respect them. > > > > RB's to me or like DPV's and fast boats they are quite good for many > > people and extremeley dangerpous for others. they require training then > > hours and hours of personal training in shallow water before doing > > major dives on them. They can and have bit many divers in the ass. > > Tom > > You wrote: > > > > > > rich,no one who takes one of those 4 day iantd/tdi/whatever agency > > >courses on "rebreather diving" will be trained right to deal with > > manually > > >controlling the functions of the rebreather that are normally > > controlled by > > >the computer.you of all people should realize that.on top of that,if > > the > > >computer cant be trusted then how can you expect to trust the > > electronic > > >output generated by the computer?at least with the mechanical > > rebreathers > > >(err, semi-closed) theres no fancy gadgetry or tomfoolery to mess > > with,and > > >as a result its safer. - jt > > > > > >On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Richard Pyle wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > anyone who ever ran windows 3.1 should be able to tell you that > > computers > > >> > crash fairly often.as a result i dont want to trust my life to a > > computer > > >> > system. - jt > > >> > > >> If a rebreather is designed right, and if the user is trained right, > > then > > >> computers on a fully-closed rebreather are a convenience, not a > > >> life-support system. If you don't believe me, as Farb. > > >> > > >> Rich > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, 2 Sep 1996 gmii@in*.co* wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > In reading this account of another electronic rebreather > > nightmare I am > > >> > > amazed at the sheer stupidity and arrogance of the "tech" > > "engineers" who come > > >> > > up with this crap. Clearly anything in the breathing loop of any > > rebreather is > > >> > > by definition at the same number of atmospheres as the diver - > > obviously whoever > > >> > > designed this is one dumb fuck. > > >> > > > > >> > > For you dumb fucks out there, that means that the chips are > > compressed, the > > >> > > batteries are compressed, and the besides the obvious chance to > > short circuit as > > >> > > they are squeezed, some components, like dry cell nicads, can > > not tollerate > > >> > > compression. It is no wonder , however, that the same crowd that > > went for square > > >> > > lights fell for this bogocity. > > >> > > > > >> > > Most computer chips are hermeticly sealed, which means that > > they may retain > > >> > > compression in their voids and explode when the pressure is > > lowered. I do not > > >> > > know much about rebreathers or computers, but I think NOVRAM > > chips have their > > >> > > own batteries, so that means the chip and the battery are being > > compromised. > > >> > > > > >> > > Trying to encase this crap in gell would not alleveiate any > > of these > > >> > > problems, and would add the problem of water wicking down the > > wires and causing > > >> > > the endless electonic mystery. > > >> > > > > >> > > Just like most dive equipment, these devices are clearly > > created by people who > > >> > > do not actually dive for people who need a magic carpet, and the > > only commercial > > >> > > use for a piece of shit like what is described here is for > > instructors to teach > > >> > > wannabees and strokes yet one more merrit badge specialty. > > >> > > > > >> > > But, what else is new? - G > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to > > `techdiver@terra.net'. > > >> > Send subscription/archive requests to > > `techdiver-request@terra.net'. > > >> > > > >> > > >> Richard Pyle > > >> deepreef@bi*.bi*.ha*.or* > > >> ******************************************************************* > > >> "WHATEVER happens to you when you willingly go underwater is > > >> COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY your own responsibility! If you cannot > > >> accept this responsibility, stay out of the water!" > > >> ******************************************************************* > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@terra.net'. > Send subscription/archive requests to `techdiver-request@terra.net'. > Richard Pyle deepreef@bi*.bi*.ha*.or* ******************************************************************* "WHATEVER happens to you when you willingly go underwater is COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY your own responsibility! If you cannot accept this responsibility, stay out of the water!" *******************************************************************
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]