Intro training seems to differ with agency and/or instructor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vicp

now I am hearing that I may need a SM Cave card to access some systems.

---

May I inquire as to where you're hearing such claims?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacLeod

TDI doesn't have a "double's endorsement" for Intro to Cave. I received my Intro training with Rich in 2012, all in sidemount, and I was trained that my turn pressure was 1/6th total gas supply when diving doubles (BM or SM). However, the older TDI Intro cards read: "Max depth 130 ft w/30 ft., no deco dives, no restrictions, reserve 2/3 air supply to exit, continuous guideline to exit, at least (3) batter powered lights per diver." So I can see where some people consider this a license to dive to thirds....
I believe that TDI has since corrected this, as the new cards state: "Penetration limited to 1/3 single cylinder or 1/6 doubles. Max depth 40M/130FT. No Deco. No restrictions. Maintain single continuous guideline to exit"
None of this is because the rules have changed, this is all because divers were using the single tank gas limits and applying it to doubles--and some instructors may have allowed this (I know mine did not).

---

Hey Al, with all due respect, we had this conversation at Wayne's swap meet last Fall when I showed you my card.

Not that the Intro limits matter to me anymore, I am curious whether one is certified to what is printed on the card or what is, or isn't in their publications or implied. I think that TDI did some scrambling, possibly with attorney prodding, to fall in line with the other agencies. I don't think that this was just divers using the single tank limits. TDI did put it on their cards (they must have proof-read them). Any self-respecting agency, especially a technical one, would be out of their minds to suggest cave diving, even at the intro level with a single gas source (tank). At least they do not have the useless apprentice cert, at least not yet - I do hope that does not change.

As I posted before, the path to full cave is a confusing mess that plays to diverse agendas, most of which do not result in the best products for the diver/consumer (and may actually be counter-productive to diver safety). It seems that the agencies' primary goals are self-survival (limiting liability and making money), the result of which may be the "crappy" training that many complain about. Kind of reminds me of the Public School educational system, at least here in my part of Florida - which is truly horrendous (I did teach in it for a while)!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LakeCountyDiver

May I inquire as to where you're hearing such claims?

---

Cenote Doggi in Mexico (have talked directly to Protec in Tulum) and have heard some rumblings/rumors about Ginnie (not sure at what level).

In any case, the agencies seem to falling all over themselves trying to come up with cave sidemount courses (advanced and otherwise). If they continue, I would not be surprised that they eventually convince cave operators to require this as a cert/card.

I have copies of the Standards for TDI going back to 2006. Under qualifications of graduates in the Intro course it said the following and it says exactly the same thing in the 2014 Standards.
"Penetration is limited to one-third (1/3) of a single diving cylinder or 1/6 if using double cylinders." My Intro card (2005) says the "reserve 2/3 air supply to exit" thing like others have said. But the problem seems to be the card, not the Standards. If you are really anal about what the card says, it also could mean no Nitrox, just air!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vicp

Hey Al, with all due respect, we had this conversation at Wayne's swap meet last Fall when I showed you my card.

Not that the Intro limits matter to me anymore, I am curious whether one is certified to what is printed on the card or what is, or isn't in their publications or implied. I think that TDI did some scrambling, possibly with attorney prodding, to fall in line with the other agencies. I don't think that this was just divers using the single tank limits. TDI did put it on their cards (they must have proof-read them). Any self-respecting agency, especially a technical one, would be out of their minds to suggest cave diving, even at the intro level with a single gas source (tank). At least they do not have the useless apprentice cert, at least not yet - I do hope that does not change.

As I posted before, the path to full cave is a confusing mess that plays to diverse agendas, most of which do not result in the best products for the diver/consumer (and may actually be counter-productive to diver safety). It seems that the agencies' primary goals are self-survival (limiting liability and making money), the result of which may be the "crappy" training that many complain about. Kind of reminds me of the Public School educational system, at least here in my part of Florida - which is truly horrendous (I did teach in it for a while)!

---

I remember the conversation, and we were discussing the change in TDI's cards. The TDI publication "Diving in Overhead Environments" also makes no mention of 1/6 gas usage--only the "rule of thirds" (I just checked). I was, however, taught to use sixths at Intro level by my instructor. I didn't stay at Intro level long enough for it to really matter to me....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tursiops

I have copies of the Standards for TDI going back to 2006. Under qualifications of graduates in the Intro course it said the following and it says exactly the same thing in the 2014 Standards.
"Penetration is limited to one-third (1/3) of a single diving cylinder or 1/6 if using double cylinders." My Intro card (2005) says the "reserve 2/3 air supply to exit" thing like others have said. But the problem seems to be the card, not the Standards. If you are really anal about what the card says, it also could mean no Nitrox, just air!

---

And I would have been surprised if it would have been different..
The Problem seems not only the Card but People overinterpreting what is stated on the Card to potentially what they had been taught, or even the instructor breaking the Standards if teaching thirds in 2 tank SM as the OP indicates that he had been taught this way..
It might be the already indicated "loose" Interpretation of SM being SINGLE tanks anyways.. However it should be clear to any instructor that 2 SM tanks in Cave daving can only be seen as Independent doubles and thus at intro Level sixths would have to apply..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacLeod

None of this is because the rules have changed, this is all because divers were using the single tank gas limits and applying it to doubles--and some instructors may have allowed this (I know mine did not).

---

And this is what has apparently happend to the OP and it seems Vicp as well.. The isntructors allowing it and Training it.. If they also applied Full Cave skill requirements to boyancy, trim etc..then this might even be ok (could be seen as an advanced Intro)..
Where Vicp is totally right is at the hipocracy of the single tanks third rule which I had mentioned earlier as well..


Lastly my IANTD Intro Card had stated no Limits at all on it.. Simply Intro to Cave Diver..
I was very well Aware of ist Limitations though without the necessity to stae anything on the Card about it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenwood_60

Regardless, I think in general cave diving should be done in sidemount. Simply because in general we're diving through dissolved layers of sedimentary rock. The passages are going to tend to be wider than tall.

---

I am not a geologist,but a fracture can occur to cause the formation of the cave,and these can be vertical as well as horizontal. There any many cave passages that have these vertical fissures,and where in some systems they don't run the length of the system,they can be fairly sensitive to contact. Ironically we will look at a bedding plane,and immediately associate it with sidemount access,and rebuke backmounters for trying,and causing damage while trying to fit. But the converse isn't held in as high regard. If there is tight fissure,where backmount makes more sense,we will see sidemounters access this,but hand prints and gouge marks are the end result. There is one system that before the commerical explosion of sidemount,it was fairly pristine. Now I see gouge marks that look like the Titanic rubbing against an iceberg,without a significant increase in traffic in this system. Maybe a re-evaluation of cave systems would be good. We don't think twice about declaring a system like Convict as sidemount only,and never do we hear a backmounter declare they are going to do it regardless of what someone says,but accept it as a sidemount only system. Perhaps we need to declare some areas as too sensitive for sidemounters and only accessed by backmounters? I know this statement has some already ready to hit the "reply with quote" tab,but think about it,if sidemounting it is truly causing excessive damage,do you really want to be there?

I did one system in north Georgia that was a vertical crack. I ended up with a single on my back, and a "stage" hanging under my belly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelly Jessop

I am not a geologist,but a fracture can occur to cause the formation of the cave,and these can be vertical as well as horizontal. There any many cave passages that have these vertical fissures,and where in some systems they don't run the length of the system,they can be fairly sensitive to contact. Ironically we will look at a bedding plane,and immediately associate it with sidemount access,and rebuke backmounters for trying,and causing damage while trying to fit. But the converse isn't held in as high regard. If there is tight fissure,where backmount makes more sense,we will see sidemounters access this,but hand prints and gouge marks are the end result. There is one system that before the commerical explosion of sidemount,it was fairly pristine. Now I see gouge marks that look like the Titanic rubbing against an iceberg,without a significant increase in traffic in this system. Maybe a re-evaluation of cave systems would be good. We don't think twice about declaring a system like Convict as sidemount only,and never do we hear a backmounter declare they are going to do it regardless of what someone says,but accept it as a sidemount only system. Perhaps we need to declare some areas as too sensitive for sidemounters and only accessed by backmounters? I know this statement has some already ready to hit the "reply with quote" tab,but think about it,if sidemounting it is truly causing excessive damage,do you really want to be there?

---

You make some valid points, but a sidemounter can turn sideways and get through a narrow fissure (think downstream Cow), but a backmounter can't turn sideways and get through a bedding plane. Plus, I'll bet there are a lot more bedding planes than fissures.

Overall--use the right tool for the right job. Unfortunately, I have forgotten how to backmount. Fortunately, I haven't had any narrow fissures to dive through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirrel Girl

You make some valid points, but a sidemounter can turn sideways and get through a narrow fissure.

---

You are right. Unfortunately I have seen so many people attempt to do this,and they have to touch the cave,and when they do return to horizontal,it is too soon,and more cave contact. Yes backmounters can turn sideways,this used to be standard when using a Predator scooter and going through the Lips at Devil's-wasn't pretty though :-)