Posted by Bill Johnson on May 10, 2001 at 10:16:40:
In Reply to: Re: OK, here we go again... posted by MHK on May 09, 2001 at 16:55:46:
Mike,
Below I have answered your questions, and then some.
MHK wrote: "When he's (Walker) with me, or when I'm with him we dive DIR period, end of sentance.."
That's great. And since agency doe not matter in your above statement, I am not quite sure why you made it.
MHK wrote: "This guy wants to dive wrecks 140' - 170' and found an IANTD class that he believes will teacj him how to do that on air.. "
Who cares what he believes. If he believes something that is not true, then that is his fault for not finding out what is correct. Besides that, I saw nothing written in this thread that indicated he thought IANTD's Deep Diver would be adequate training for the environments he wished to dive. Deep Diver was going to be the beginning of continuing diver education for him. He realized he was not qualified to do the dives he was planning, so he sought training, which is better than not seeking training at all. The only thing wrong with his thinking is that he thinks he can dive wrecks 140' – 170' without tri-mix and overhead environment training.
MHK wrote: "I'm telling you I could give a sh*t about what standards Tom is posting this week on his website, because IANTD's standards are moving targets,"
This is another example you posting crap, attempting to mislead readers on this BBS into thinking standards never change. You contradict yourself by earlier complaining that Tom needs to drop a c-card (i.e. change the standards) and then complain that he does. Every agency, that I know of, revises it's standards on a regular basis, usually annually. This is part of how the agency improves. IANTD issues their revised standards every June.
MHK wrote: " the instructors seem to make them (standards) up as they go along..."
Your above statement is pure conjecture! Come to me with some evidence, and then we will talk. I will be the first to pursue standards infractions.
MHK wrote: "and there is no one steering the ship over there…"
More conjecture!
MHK wrote and I answered:
1) Do you believe that ANY angency can properly teach someone to dive on 21% 02 and 79% N2???
Yes
2) If yes, How????????
Easy. I taught 5 open water students to dive in the pool last night on 21% O2 and 79% N2. It would not have been less difficult to teach them any other gas mix.
3) Do you acknowledge that until recently ( according to you) IANTD has revised the standards but they did in fact sell deep air to 180 ( or whatever the hell they called the class, advanced deep air or whatever)...
That depends on how you define recently. The 180' class you refer to was called Technical Deep Air. I do not know which year's standards it last appeared in, but I know it was eliminated sometime before 1997.
4) Do you believe a diver is safe on air deeper than 100'???? 130'????? 150'???? 180'?????
No. I don't breath air past 70', past that I breath nitrox as deep as 130'. >130' I breathe tri-mix.
Now that I have answered your questions, please post only FACTS about IANTD and stop posting crap just because you like GUE.
Bill