Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Great post, Chuck. The problem is that you will never get rid of the current apparatus. As long as there are enough suckers to cough up the dough, these agencies will flourish. The only thing we can do is spread the word, vote with your feet and have a viable alternative, hopefully JJ's new agency can provide this. One problem though, I don' think that a Doing It Right agency would ever be a huge money-machine like PADI, because you would have to wash out too many customers. Plus how much side money can you make selling a simple hogarth backplate system? Not much. I believe that the current tech agencies goal is to run as many divers through as many courses they can get away with and then hope not enough of them croak to discourage fresh meat. Fortunately for these agencies, off the US coasts you really have to work to get out to technical depths. Most of the graduates get killed in wall dives in the Caribbean or European dives where not much fuss is made. An added bonus to this is that the equipment is rarely recoverable, keeping new sales stable. I notice that the Aggressor fleet is offering "technical" dives to 220ft on air. Wonder which agency is behind this one? Jim On 10/1/97 11:48 AM CHKBOONE@ao*.co* wrote: > >All, > > Every time I turn around there is another death up here in the technical >community. George likes to blame most of it on deep air and maybe he is >right, but I think it goes a little deeper. > When the tech agencies were first getting going everyone hopped the >quality of training would remain high and we could avoid the kind of >reputation the recreational world suffers from. It appears that just this >year we may well have approached their rate of casualties. > What the hell is going on here ? Business ! You can not mix business >with training for this kind of endeavor without a strong moral background >influence - such training as true technical diving requires a mentor / >student relationship. People are being trained to use the hardware of life >support systems by teaching them how to follow a set of procedures and they >are released into the wild without a true understanding and respect for the >actual complexity and scope of what is really required to survive this stuff >outside the training grounds. > The recreational industry can get away with teaching only methodology >because practiced techniques will usually get you out of situations >encountered within recreational limits - minimum brainers, if you will. > Also most of these people are actually "taken diving" by people who have >already done the hard part - site evaluation and dive planning so that there >is often little thinking required. > It seems that this same philosophy is being injected into the technical >world - teaching them to use the equipment to get themselves into situations >they are not actually qualified to get themselves out of alive because >technique and methodology is not enough. > These divers are taught how to plan gas consumption, deco stops, and >partial pressure limits but are not taught how to prepare applicable >contingency plans or to make a realistic evaluation of the environment, >conditions, and risk. People with no talent for the organizational, >academic, and expeditionary aspects of every single technical exposure are >brought into the fold to try their hand at the frontier without a clue about >what they are actually getting into or what their actual status is when >groping around at 250 feet and then being trapped under a virtual or actual >overhead. > Talent is the key word here ! I could never paint like Rembrandt (sp) >not because I will not work at it but because I just don't have the right >stuff. The same thing applies to technical diving - you either got it or >you ain't. Even if you do have a talent for such things it is a tremendous >amount of work just learn enough to be able to figure out what it is you need >to know to handle technical exposures on your own recognizance in reasonable >safety. You can not afford ignorance here and no amount of technique or >circus tricks ( the kind of thing that works for recreational diving) will >substitute for a deep understanding or at least a suspicion of what is >required to safely plan and execute such exposures for long. > Eventually you will be put to the test and if you have studied the wrong >things or if you can not manage the right things you will fail and there is >no make up test. The instructor fails his student when he does not insure >that he has studied and mastered the right things. Yes, there is an element >of Zen to this stuff - recreational diving is a sport, true technical diving >is a discipline. > > Three things need to be done about technical training in general. One is >that candidates need to be screened and those without the necessary diving >experience and the ability or talent to manage a small expedition safely >should be discouraged from venturing from the training grounds till they can. > Two is that training needs to focus strongly on a broad range of aspects of >primary and contingency planning rather than just technique. Three is that >some basics of pertinent peripheral disciplines need to be taught so divers >can make informed decisions about equipment suitability, preparation, and >maintenance. Examples might include some basics about the nature of metals >commonly encountered and some very basic engineering principles applicable to >the type of equipment we deal with / more on the nature of and dealing with >currents in open ocean environments / a little more depth on the physiology >of decompression - even if much of this is only theoretical it introduces the >issues at hand and arms the student to some extent against BS / crisis >management as complicated by time limitations and entrapment / contingency >planning beyond a bailout schedule / . . . . > Yes! All this would be time consuming but the student needs to learn it >anyway and is much better off if guided through it than picking it up in the >field from charlatans and gypsies - an education tainted by significant >omissions and handed down misconceptions. > > You can not just "train" people like circus animals to do this stuff the >way the recreational agencies do. A chimpanzee can follow the procedures >and escape most problems within recreational limits - that is why any idiot >off the street can scuba dive and put that stupid license plate on the front >of his car. Some people actually think of technical diving as just an >extension of recreational diving - Joel Dovenbarger is one of them. > >----------------------------------------- >Copied from AOL Scuba Forum : > >Subj: Re:Dive Fatalities >Date: 97-08-27 21:20:01 EDT >From: JDovenbarg >.. . . . . . . . . . . >>I have to admit that in the beginning I wanted to list the tech folks >>separately from other recreationals, but was over ruled by everyone in the >>know universe at that time. In hind sight they were right, tech diving is >>just another level of recreational diving. >--------------------------------------- > > Perhaps Joel is motivated by the politics of insurance in this case but >this idea is a dangerous one that has obviously spread and even if such >remarks are intended only to be meaningful with respect to insurance matters >they are not likely to be interpreted by the diving public as such if not >qualified when made. > > Because of the reliability of modern equipment and the lack of a real need >to plan dives from start to finish independently divers can work their way >through recreational training and lots of diving then enter the technical >arena having never had to manage a real emergency, never had to evaluate all >the aspects of a dive on their own, and never had to seriously take or share >responsibility for the safety of another being. Many have never even seen >the scales left behind by the dragon yet they are given the means to play >about the gates of hell - unarmed and unsuspecting. > > Is the day of the $99 trimix course coming? For God's sake get the >destructive elements of commerce, economics, and competition that has ruined >the credibility of recreational credentials out of the technical training >arena. There is no place for "modular" step by step programs on video here. > If a student's or instructor's lack of time to establish and maintain a >mentor relationship is accommodated in the case of a candidate who needs the >exposure and molding then how is the student going to ultimately approach the >diving itself once he is on his own ? > If an instructor is concerned with losing a student by telling him how >easy it is to get killed doing this, by concentrating heavily on accident >analysis as a teaching tool, or by making it too hard in general then he has >no business trying to prepare humans to survive entrapment in an alien >environment in what amounts to a fallible space suit. If it is too much for >the student then he should stay in the shallows. > > You can teach a man to drive a ship but if he is ever going to leave port >with reasonable expectations of returning he needs to be a seaman. > > I feel much better now ! > >Chuck > > > > >-- >Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. >Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
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]