Nitrox workshop dings - Divers Alert Network

Rubicon Foundation Archive (http://rubicon-foundation.org)IV. Nitrox Training Curriculum DiscussionM. Lang: Fair enough.D. Rutkowski: Requiring the dives is a great thing, that's where the dive shop makes its money.If you run a dive shop, you need to make money. Take them out to blow nitrox bubbles.E. Betts: ANDI chose to require two dives for enriched air certification. We've broken thecourse down into two parts. A part two program is actually a hands-on practical applicationin which the student is required to analyze gas, handle cylinders, sign out cylinders and mixvalidation books, and sign off a checklist affirming the contents of the cylinder. These arepractical applications. We never felt it appropriate for somebody to have a certification cardthat says Nitrox Diver and they've never analyzed gas, signed out a cylinder or ever actuallybreathed the gas. It just seemed to be an oxymoron. Bret's point is well taken that there is nodifference in diving air or nitrox and that's true. ANDI would not have made the choice torequire diving because there is a difference breathing under water. The problem is that thepractical application needs to be driven home. The student needs practice in gas handling,gas analysis and proper protocols that are of a practical application nature as opposed to atheoretical nature. It was never possible with a classroom of 18 or 20 people to let eachperson analyze gas in the classroom. Consequently, you were turning them loose withoutthem ever handling an analyzer or handling cylinders or a mix validation book. We decidedthat we needed a part two practical application. That was the justification for the dives thatANDI required when others said that's an absurdity.B. Gilliam: I should have noted when I made my original comments that about 90 percent ofTDI people do the recommended dives, it's just that it's not a requirement. The evolution ofthe people coming in to take the programs is not so much as a matter of curiosity like it wasin the early '90's. These divers are coming in to take courses and simultaneously investingseveral hundred dollars in a nitrox dive computer. Their intent is specifically to participate innitrox when they go dive with the Aggressor Fleet. We know this because it's filled out onthe forms returned to us that divers are doing the dives. In many cases, they're doing a lotmore than two. We have divers who go out directly from that nitrox class and make 24 divesa week on a liveaboard. The issue is not that they're not getting the practical exposure to it,they are.J. Hardy: I'd like to note that when we switched from nitrox being the sole territory of technicaldiving to general recreational diving, there was a significant simplification of the nitroxcurriculum. We're seeing that curriculum simplified even more as we go along. Part of thatis because the manufacturers are responding with better nitrox dive computers that are easierto use and do their jobs very well. It's kind of naive to think that divers are going to continueto use these laborious tables that we have in our books, but we all have them. This is notrocket science and these nitrox dive computers are getting extremely capable at doing whatthey do.M. Wells: In this case, I'll be NOAA retired and my comments go from the 70's up through1995 and Dave Dinsmore can add on to this. I also want to defend Bret's point of view andsound like Ed Thalmann if I can get that tone in my voice when I say "applies to NOAA andonly NOAA." Training for NOAA working level divers in the use of nitrox did notnecessarily involve actually breathing in and breathing out nitrox. It was a published list ofthings that were required. To address Ed Betts' concern, it most certainly did require lots ofgas analysis. I would also express my very strong opinion that any time taken away from127