what do the standards say?

[Superlyte27]

Does TDI not have depth limitatations at Intro to Cave? Does TDI not have limitations on going through a restriction at Intro to cave. I don't know. I've never read the standards.

[Kelly Jessop]

I no longer teach however I highly doubt the standards have changed in this regard. Since Mike is an over head instructor (cave) he can teach AN & DP in an over head. You were certified as Intro Cave so all is good, no violations.

I think the thought maybe that where there may have been no standard violation since it was not a cave class, but an ethical issue when you have an intro diver well below 100', passing restrictions (where you can't swim side by side), and using a stages. This same class could have been taught in open water and done the same skills without violating the restrictions of the overhead,but taking an intro level student into this level of overhead is problematic. Remember January 5th, 2005? Cavern diver taken into Hendleys for a deep class, got onto the wrong line coming out, and died as a result.

[Aotus]

here are the TDI standards for Adv Nitrox: https://www.tdisdi.com/wp-content/up...trox_Diver.pdf

it has guidelines for OW only.

From reading the NACD training violation threads, it seems in that case the concern is about the limits on the cave agency at the level of Intro to Cave. If I am correct in my reading of the general consensus there, your situation is no different. But, as others have said, there appears to be a gray area owing to the poorly defined limitations on the discretion of the instructor. Either an Intro cave diver CAN go to 150' with a ANDP teacher, or they cannot. The cave card says no, the instructor says yes, so.... That said, after watching the video of the restriction and reading about the depth, I am content in my decision not to undergo ANDP training before full cave.

[Jack Hammer]

...snip

That said, after watching the video of the restriction and reading about the depth, I am content in my decision not to undergo ANDP training before full cave.

Uh... Dude, you do realize that AN/DP can be taught in OW and not in an overhead? I think it's a great class to take before full cave and will help start your understanding of deco much better than a typical full cave course will.


Sent via

[Aotus]

Uh... Dude, you do realize that AN/DP can be taught in OW and not in an overhead? I think it's a great class to take before full cave and will help start your understanding of deco much better than a typical full cave course will.

I am aware. Anyway, I am full cave now, let's not let this thread turn into another debate about timing those classes, that's pretty well argued by both sides elsewhere.

[nakatomi]

I am aware. Anyway, I am full cave now, let's not let this thread turn into another debate about timing those classes, that's pretty well argued by both sides elsewhere.

The NACD requires the student to have deco training before doing Apprentice or Full Cave, if decompression is either planned or possible to even occur in class.
Your cave class with doing deco on backgas would have been a standards violation with the NACD.

[Aotus]

The NACD requires the student to have deco training before doing Apprentice or Full Cave, if decompression is either planned or possible to even occur in class.
Your cave class with doing deco on backgas would have been a standards violation with the NACD.

And IF I were 12 when I took my cave training it would also be a violation of standards. IF I were training under that agency my course would obviously have been different. Lots of "IF"s, but as it happens, deco training was not required with the agencies by which I am certified.

[cerich]

of course *i* think it was appropriate. if this violates standards, then i think standards need to be changed.

Was LOG simply a location with the depth the instructor wanted for AN/DP and absolutely otherwise within the limits of your certification level? If yes, then no foul. If no...was he teaching AN/DP and a cave class that includes the extra skill/experience to handle the additional factors that made the dive beyond your level of certification in the cave environment? If yes...most likely not a foul. If no, most likely a foul.

[nakatomi]

Was LOG simply a location with the depth the instructor wanted for AN/DP and absolutely otherwise within the limits of your certification level? If yes, then no foul. If no...was he teaching AN/DP and a cave class that includes the extra skill/experience to handle the additional factors that made the dive beyond your level of certification in the cave environment? If yes...most likely not a foul. If no, most likely a foul.

So let me ask you this. Where is the difference between full cave and intro to cave in the LOG scenario, assuming that sixths are adhered to?
My iANTD intro to cave card has a 130' limit, as has my IANTD technical cave card.
Where is the difference?
In case someone mentions the corkscrew restriction. This is a minor restriction and allowed both in Intro and in Apprentice/Full/Technical Cave.

[Aotus]

So let me ask you this. Where is the difference between full cave and intro to cave in the LOG scenario, assuming that sixths are adhered to?
My iANTD intro to cave card has a 130' limit, as has my IANTD technical cave card.
Where is the difference?
In case someone mentions the corkscrew restriction. This is a minor restriction and allowed both in Intro and in Apprentice/Full/Technical Cave.

Does anyone have a TDI intro card handy? This old post says there are NO RESTRICTIONS allowed for intro - no distinction between major or minor. Then, that makes the class at LOG, with a minor restriction, sound like either beyond training limits or inclusive of cave training. As Cerich says, how the class was defined might then be the deciding factor.

Link: http://www.cavediver.net/forum/showt...itations...?s=