Incorrect or Inappropriate CCR Protocols

[Randy Thornton]

Why do we see so many CCR instructors and divers use incorrect or inefficient protocols on the units they dive?


Sometimes when I watch divers perform a specific skill, responses, or protocols, I have to stop, scratch my head and wonder “Why are they doing it that way?” Often, it may just be an inefficient approach to a specific skill and sometimes it is a downright dangerous approach to unit prep, unit configurations, and individual diver responses to unit failures and emergency scenarios.


To me, the most telling insight about this phenomenon is that these incorrect and inefficient protocols often exist both with inexperienced and experienced divers and instructors alike. As a CCR Instructor Trainer Evaluator, I’ve had the opportunity to work with a lot of ITs, instructors and students, and I’ve come to the conclusion, that many if not most of us, tend to fall back to our original CCR training protocols whether they are appropriate or not for the unit we are currently diving.


Most CCR instructors can trace their original CCR experience back to one or two CCR units which were available back in the “old days” – 10-15 years ago J As with all CCR units, the protocols with these units were “unit specific” and were developed over time to optimize the diving experience of those specific units. Now fast forward to 15 years later, and we have ITs and instructors who are teaching on vastly different units but still teaching the same protocols. Lest you think that this is unique to “old salts” who have been teaching CCR for many years, we see the same problem exist with younger CCR instructors who teach on multiple CCR units. It is a time-consuming process to internalize all of the nuances of a specific unit. Mastering multiple CCRs, remaining proficient on them, remaining up to date on them and having time to mentor former students after the course is taught on their specific unit, is a Herculean task that is well beyond the abilities and time constraints of most instructors.


The problem is further compounded by manufacturers who naturally seek out “experienced CCR instructors” when they launch a new product. These same instructors and ITs tend to be sought out by competing manufacturers over the years and many times are handed “instructor or IT status simply after a short visit to the manufacturer’s headquarters or even worse, after a long weekend with the designer. Consequently, without sufficient time on the unit to fully understand the nuances, they fall back to the same “tried and true” practices that have served them well in years past on other units, whether they are appropriate or not.


Another complicating factor with adopting inappropriate CCR protocols is when newly certified CCR divers, in their attempt to further their knowledge base, adopt practices or configurations they see on the dive boat or read about on the internet. Experienced dive buddies, diving on other units, may give well intentioned advice, but is often times inappropriate, due to unit specific peculiarities. There is no “one size fits all” when it comes to CCRs. Every unit has specific protocols unique to that unit.


I my opinion, many crossover classes are too short to fully gain an understanding on a new unit. I have witnessed way too many “let’s just go diving for a couple of days” type approach to crossover training because the instructor or IT felt that the student already knew the fundamental skills and wouldn’t require a rigorous class. This just perpetuates bad habits. As the saying goes, “Garbage in, garbage out!”


And lastly, just because something works well in open circuit, does not mean that it is the safest or most efficient methodology for CCR. Many OC practices transfer directly over to CCR. Others, overly complicate CCR operation and negate many of the benefits of diving CCR. Again, there is NO “one size fits all” when it comes to CCR.


Here are my suggestions to ensure that divers are getting appropriate CCR training and experience:


1. Choose an instructor that specializes in a specific unit. IMHO, there is an inverse relationship between the number of different units an instructor is teaching on and the quality of the instruction. The more units the instructor is teaching on, the more likely he or she is to lump all protocols into generic responses that may not be appropriate or optimal.

2. Before changing factory equipment configurations, put 100 hours on the unit so that you more fully understand why the unit was designed the way it is and can objectively make informed decisions about potential modifications.

3. Remember that skills, protocols and configurations on different units are rarely exactly the same. This is why manufacturers and training agencies require unit specific training at the “mod 1” level.

4. When doing a crossover from one unit to another, ensure that ALL of the skills are covered during the crossover and that you have sufficient time to practice them, in depth, while being critiqued by the instructor.

5. When moving to a new unit, embrace the unit and dive it exclusively until you know it inside and out. Using the unit occasionally or only when necessary, will rarely enable you to master the nuances of the unit

6. Don’t try to force a square peg in a round hole. Protocols unique to open circuit, sidemount, twin set, or whatever, do not necessarily lend themselves well to all CCR diving. Use what is appropriate, where it is appropriate.

7. Keep an open mind. We can all learn something from each other. That said, perform critical analysis and experiment in benign environments before adopting something new on that deep 100-meter cave dive!

 

[tbone1004]

@Randy Thornton so here's a dumb question from a newbie.

If I take the "important" bits in terms of diving, i.e. everything that actually attaches to the canister, and then swap canisters around, is there any practical differences in diving the unit?
I.e. I have bmcl's, the same mav's, same adv, same BOV, etc. and attach it to an O2ptima, JJ, Defender, X-CCR, Hammerhead, etc. what is the actual difference in diving them? You obviously have the most experience with the Hammerhead/Defender/X-CCR, but from what I've seen/heard/experienced, it's the lungs/loop assembly that make the differences. I didn't include the Meg because there are some funky things due to flowing backwards from everyone else, but if you reversed the flow direction it would be the same.

From many of the instructors I've talked to, the nuances are really in how the loop assembly is set up so whether you have a Defender now and go to an X-CCR, do you actually need a full blown crossover if the only thing you're changing is the electronics? None of the other manufacturers seemed to think so when they upgraded electronics, so what do you do if someone buys a Defender or has a Hammerhead and wants an X-CCR? What do you teach them if the loop is all the same?
Genuine questions since the post was left intentionally vague on specifics.

 

[cathal]

Why do we see so many CCR instructors and divers use incorrect or inefficient protocols on the units they dive?


Sometimes when I watch divers perform a specific skill, responses, or protocols, I have to stop, scratch my head and wonder “Why are they doing it that way?” Often, it may just be an inefficient approach to a specific skill and sometimes it is a downright dangerous approach to unit prep, unit configurations, and individual diver responses to unit failures and emergency scenarios.


To me, the most telling insight about this phenomenon is that these incorrect and inefficient protocols often exist both with inexperienced and experienced divers and instructors alike. As a CCR Instructor Trainer Evaluator, I’ve had the opportunity to work with a lot of ITs, instructors and students, and I’ve come to the conclusion, that many if not most of us, tend to fall back to our original CCR training protocols whether they are appropriate or not for the unit we are currently diving.


Most CCR instructors can trace their original CCR experience back to one or two CCR units which were available back in the “old days” – 10-15 years ago J As with all CCR units, the protocols with these units were “unit specific” and were developed over time to optimize the diving experience of those specific units. Now fast forward to 15 years later, and we have ITs and instructors who are teaching on vastly different units but still teaching the same protocols. Lest you think that this is unique to “old salts” who have been teaching CCR for many years, we see the same problem exist with younger CCR instructors who teach on multiple CCR units. It is a time-consuming process to internalize all of the nuances of a specific unit. Mastering multiple CCRs, remaining proficient on them, remaining up to date on them and having time to mentor former students after the course is taught on their specific unit, is a Herculean task that is well beyond the abilities and time constraints of most instructors.


The problem is further compounded by manufacturers who naturally seek out “experienced CCR instructors” when they launch a new product. These same instructors and ITs tend to be sought out by competing manufacturers over the years and many times are handed “instructor or IT status simply after a short visit to the manufacturer’s headquarters or even worse, after a long weekend with the designer. Consequently, without sufficient time on the unit to fully understand the nuances, they fall back to the same “tried and true” practices that have served them well in years past on other units, whether they are appropriate or not.


Another complicating factor with adopting inappropriate CCR protocols is when newly certified CCR divers, in their attempt to further their knowledge base, adopt practices or configurations they see on the dive boat or read about on the internet. Experienced dive buddies, diving on other units, may give well intentioned advice, but is often times inappropriate, due to unit specific peculiarities. There is no “one size fits all” when it comes to CCRs. Every unit has specific protocols unique to that unit.


I my opinion, many crossover classes are too short to fully gain an understanding on a new unit. I have witnessed way too many “let’s just go diving for a couple of days” type approach to crossover training because the instructor or IT felt that the student already knew the fundamental skills and wouldn’t require a rigorous class. This just perpetuates bad habits. As the saying goes, “Garbage in, garbage out!”


And lastly, just because something works well in open circuit, does not mean that it is the safest or most efficient methodology for CCR. Many OC practices transfer directly over to CCR. Others, overly complicate CCR operation and negate many of the benefits of diving CCR. Again, there is NO “one size fits all” when it comes to CCR.

Can I suggest your observations while most welcome are directed at the wrong audience. Every issue you listed above is an industry quality control problem. External independent Instructors and I.T's are required where they do not rely on unit sales as a source of income. Can you imagine the state the airline industry would be in if the CAA was also responsible for airline sales.

 

[Randy Thornton]

@Randy Thornton so here's a dumb question from a newbie.

If I take the "important" bits in terms of diving, i.e. everything that actually attaches to the canister, and then swap canisters around, is there any practical differences in diving the unit?
I.e. I have bmcl's, the same mav's, same adv, same BOV, etc. and attach it to an O2ptima, JJ, Defender, X-CCR, Hammerhead, etc. what is the actual difference in diving them? You obviously have the most experience with the Hammerhead/Defender/X-CCR, but from what I've seen/heard/experienced, it's the lungs/loop assembly that make the differences. I didn't include the Meg because there are some funky things due to flowing backwards from everyone else, but if you reversed the flow direction it would be the same.

From many of the instructors I've talked to, the nuances are really in how the loop assembly is set up so whether you have a Defender now and go to an X-CCR, do you actually need a full blown crossover if the only thing you're changing is the electronics? None of the other manufacturers seemed to think so when they upgraded electronics, so what do you do if someone buys a Defender or has a Hammerhead and wants an X-CCR? What do you teach them if the loop is all the same?
Genuine questions since the post was left intentionally vague on specifics.

This is a great question and really only one that can be answered specifically on a case by case basis after discussion between the manufacturer, student and the instructor (and in some cases the training agency). In the case you have referenced which is crossing over from a HH, Defender and X-CCR (between one of the 3), I would think that an electronics workshop of the new electronics would probably be sufficient. That said, it would be subject to the instructor feeling confident in the student's abilities. If he/she is an unknown, the instructor may require a verification dive at the least. This only works because the 3 units are extremely similar. If however, the student was going from OTCLs to BMCLs as well as electronics, it might require more in water time to ensure proficiency.

 

[Randy Thornton]

Can I suggest your observations while most welcome are directed at the wrong audience. Every issue you listed above is an industry quality control problem. External independent Instructors and I.T's are required where they do not rely on unit sales as a source of income. Can you imagine the state the airline industry would be in if the CAA was also responsible for airline sales.

Agreed. It's a catch 22. However, as an industry, if we were to follow the same business model as the airline industry, we would make what is already an expensive hobby into a price prohibitive activity. I'm afraid that no one would be able to afford the significant cost increase this would force on the manufacturers.

 

[cathal]

Agreed. It's a catch 22. However, as an industry, if we were to follow the same business model as the airline industry, we would make what is already an expensive hobby into a price prohibitive activity. I'm afraid that no one would be able to afford the significant cost increase this would force on the manufacturers.

It may well be price prohibitive in the short term although I do not understand how so, but from an industry perspective at least it would be sustainable in the long term which would be reassuring to all stakeholders.

 

[Bobjr]

Why do we see so many CCR instructors and divers use incorrect or inefficient protocols on the units they dive?


Sometimes when I watch divers perform a specific skill, responses, or protocols, I have to stop, scratch my head and wonder “Why are they doing it that way?” Often, it may just be an inefficient approach to a specific skill and sometimes it is a downright dangerous approach to unit prep, unit configurations, and individual diver responses to unit failures and emergency scenarios.


To me, the most telling insight about this phenomenon is that these incorrect and inefficient protocols often exist both with inexperienced and experienced divers and instructors alike. As a CCR Instructor Trainer Evaluator, I’ve had the opportunity to work with a lot of ITs, instructors and students, and I’ve come to the conclusion, that many if not most of us, tend to fall back to our original CCR training protocols whether they are appropriate or not for the unit we are currently diving.


Most CCR instructors can trace their original CCR experience back to one or two CCR units which were available back in the “old days” – 10-15 years ago J As with all CCR units, the protocols with these units were “unit specific” and were developed over time to optimize the diving experience of those specific units. Now fast forward to 15 years later, and we have ITs and instructors who are teaching on vastly different units but still teaching the same protocols. Lest you think that this is unique to “old salts” who have been teaching CCR for many years, we see the same problem exist with younger CCR instructors who teach on multiple CCR units. It is a time-consuming process to internalize all of the nuances of a specific unit. Mastering multiple CCRs, remaining proficient on them, remaining up to date on them and having time to mentor former students after the course is taught on their specific unit, is a Herculean task that is well beyond the abilities and time constraints of most instructors.


The problem is further compounded by manufacturers who naturally seek out “experienced CCR instructors” when they launch a new product. These same instructors and ITs tend to be sought out by competing manufacturers over the years and many times are handed “instructor or IT status simply after a short visit to the manufacturer’s headquarters or even worse, after a long weekend with the designer. Consequently, without sufficient time on the unit to fully understand the nuances, they fall back to the same “tried and true” practices that have served them well in years past on other units, whether they are appropriate or not.


Another complicating factor with adopting inappropriate CCR protocols is when newly certified CCR divers, in their attempt to further their knowledge base, adopt practices or configurations they see on the dive boat or read about on the internet. Experienced dive buddies, diving on other units, may give well intentioned advice, but is often times inappropriate, due to unit specific peculiarities. There is no “one size fits all” when it comes to CCRs. Every unit has specific protocols unique to that unit.


I my opinion, many crossover classes are too short to fully gain an understanding on a new unit. I have witnessed way too many “let’s just go diving for a couple of days” type approach to crossover training because the instructor or IT felt that the student already knew the fundamental skills and wouldn’t require a rigorous class. This just perpetuates bad habits. As the saying goes, “Garbage in, garbage out!”


And lastly, just because something works well in open circuit, does not mean that it is the safest or most efficient methodology for CCR. Many OC practices transfer directly over to CCR. Others, overly complicate CCR operation and negate many of the benefits of diving CCR. Again, there is NO “one size fits all” when it comes to CCR.


Here are my suggestions to ensure that divers are getting appropriate CCR training and experience:


1. Choose an instructor that specializes in a specific unit. IMHO, there is an inverse relationship between the number of different units an instructor is teaching on and the quality of the instruction. The more units the instructor is teaching on, the more likely he or she is to lump all protocols into generic responses that may not be appropriate or optimal.

2. Before changing factory equipment configurations, put 100 hours on the unit so that you more fully understand why the unit was designed the way it is and can objectively make informed decisions about potential modifications.

3. Remember that skills, protocols and configurations on different units are rarely exactly the same. This is why manufacturers and training agencies require unit specific training at the “mod 1” level.

4. When doing a crossover from one unit to another, ensure that ALL of the skills are covered during the crossover and that you have sufficient time to practice them, in depth, while being critiqued by the instructor.

5. When moving to a new unit, embrace the unit and dive it exclusively until you know it inside and out. Using the unit occasionally or only when necessary, will rarely enable you to master the nuances of the unit

6. Don’t try to force a square peg in a round hole. Protocols unique to open circuit, sidemount, twin set, or whatever, do not necessarily lend themselves well to all CCR diving. Use what is appropriate, where it is appropriate.

7. Keep an open mind. We can all learn something from each other. That said, perform critical analysis and experiment in benign environments before adopting something new on that deep 100-meter cave dive!

Cross overs are a massive con. Ccr is simply a tube, two flexible bags and loop with some electronics. To say that you need another course to swap units I am afraid to say is just the $$$$ talking.

What the industry needs is proper instruction where people actually learn key skills (like trim and buoyancy) so they become capable ccr divers and then can dive any units with a 1-day orientation.

 

[tbone1004]

@Bobjr I'd argue an actual manual from the manufacturers on the so-called nuances of their unit would be ideal. It ensures that @Randy Thornton 's discussion of people going elsewhere to validate their nuances would get referenced back to the specific unit in question

 

[Randy Thornton]

Cross overs are a massive con. Ccr is simply a tube, two flexible bags and loop with some electronics. To say that you need another course to swap units I am afraid to say is just the $$$$ talking.

What the industry needs is proper instruction where people actually learn key skills (like trim and buoyancy) so they become capable ccr divers and then can dive any units with a 1-day orientation.

Bob, although I understand your frustration at the thought of having to spend more money in an arena where you have already spent significant money, I feel strongly that your comment is a gross oversimplification of what is involved in crossing over from one unit to another. The "one day, wonder crossover courses" are exactly what helps perpetuate misinformation, poor skill performance, misapplication of skills, poorly understood protocols and lack of appreciation for critical safety procedures.

Can you imagine for a minute, getting on an airplane with a pilot who had just that morning gone through a one day familiarization course on his new airplane? Surely, all airplanes are the same - two wings, fuselage, tail piece, motor and propeller! What could possibly go wrong? I can make the same comparison in multiple other endeavors - medicine, law, engineering, education, music, etc. etc.

IMHO, saving a few bucks in not worth risking your life over and is not fair to the rest of your team. I've seen way too many incidents and fatalities that were due to insufficient and or inappropriate training. At some point, people just need to wake up and except the fact that certain things in life require effort and commitment. If that costs a few bucks along the way, that is part of the equation.

 

[Bobjr]

Bob, although I understand your frustration at the thought of having to spend more money in an arena where you have already spent significant money, I feel strongly that your comment is a gross oversimplification of what is involved in crossing over from one unit to another. The "one day, wonder crossover courses" are exactly what helps perpetuate misinformation, poor skill performance, misapplication of skills, poorly understood protocols and lack of appreciation for critical safety procedures.

Can you imagine for a minute, getting on an airplane with a pilot who had just that morning gone through a one day familiarization course on his new airplane? Surely, all airplanes are the same - two wings, fuselage, tail piece, motor and propeller! What could possibly go wrong? I can make the same comparison in multiple other endeavors - medicine, law, engineering, education, music, etc. etc.

IMHO, saving a few bucks in not worth risking your life over and is not fair to the rest of your team. I've seen way too many incidents and fatalities that were due to insufficient and or inappropriate training. At some point, people just need to wake up and except the fact that certain things in life require effort and commitment. If that costs a few bucks along the way, that is part of the equation.

Sorry Randy - respectfully - I don’t buy it. CCRs are not airplanes. They are more like push bikes. Once you’ve ridden one you can ride any. You just need to make sure you know where and how the brakes/gears work and not take a road bike on a downhill mountain bike route. Even so in the airplane industry a crossover is not a complete requalification.

What you say about skills is true - but they need to be taught and then mastered through practise in any basic course and not badly taught Ineffectively in a crossover.

 

[tbone1004]

Can you imagine for a minute, getting on an airplane with a pilot who had just that morning gone through a one day familiarization course on his new airplane? Surely, all airplanes are the same - two wings, fuselage, tail piece, motor and propeller! What could possibly go wrong? I can make the same comparison in multiple other endeavors - medicine, law, engineering, education, music, etc. etc.

bad reference with airplanes btw because the airplane reference actually proves @Bobjr 's point since aircraft are grouped into type ratings not specific aircraft licenses. If you were trained on a Cessna, you can go hop into a comparable Beechcraft and head on your way. No multi-day crossovers, no minimum flight/hour requirements because the planes are similar enough. You then get endorsements for things like multi-engine, seaplane, tail-dragger, etc. but even those are a lot shorter than any sort of dive training and many of them can be quite literally as simple as an administrative endorsement. I.e. you hop in a tail dragger with retractable wheels and a 250hp motor, go for 3 takeoff/landings with a CFI and boom you have a tailwheel, complex, and high performance cranked out. Obviously dependent on your skill and incredibly simplified, but demonstrate skills properly and get a sign-off.

So for rebreathers they could be classed essentially as mCCR/hCCR and eCCR and then you'd get endorsements for things like bov/dsv/bmcl/sidemount etc.
Sure in big airliners they have much smaller groupings of type-ratings, over 6ish tons weight, but the difference in flying something like a MD-80 vs. an A380 is a bit more involved than going from a Meg to a Sidekick. I personally think that's a much more reasonable type of training progression, but it obviously doesn't benefit the industry or instructors.

 

[Randy Thornton]

bad reference with airplanes btw because the airplane reference actually proves @Bobjr 's point since aircraft are grouped into type ratings not specific aircraft licenses. If you were trained on a Cessna, you can go hop into a comparable Beechcraft and head on your way. No multi-day crossovers, no minimum flight/hour requirements because the planes are similar enough. You then get endorsements for things like multi-engine, seaplane, tail-dragger, etc. but even those are a lot shorter than any sort of dive training and many of them can be quite literally as simple as an administrative endorsement. I.e. you hop in a tail dragger with retractable wheels and a 250hp motor, go for 3 takeoff/landings with a CFI and boom you have a tailwheel, complex, and high performance cranked out. Obviously dependent on your skill and incredibly simplified, but demonstrate skills properly and get a sign-off.

So for rebreathers, a "type rating" would be classed essentially as mCCR/hCCR and eCCR and then you'd get endorsements for things like bov/dsv/bmcl/sidemount etc.
Sure in big airliners they have much smaller groupings of type-ratings but the difference in flying something like a MD-80 vs. an A380 is a bit more involved than going from a Meg to a Sidekick. I personally think that's a much more reasonable type of training progression, but it obviously doesn't benefit the industry or instructors.

Guys, believe me when I say that the crossover requirement is not about "benefiting the instructors". It's about keeping divers safe. I literally have never been involved with or overheard a discussion between instructors or manufacturers where there was ever any kind of discussion about "earning more money" for instructors by doing crossovers. It really is about keeping people safe. Without the opportunity to demonstrate procedures that are unique to the new unit and have the student take the opportunity to demonstrate mastery of the skills under the watchful eye of the instructor, how can we possibly ensure that people are proficient on a unit before we just turn them loose? Believe it or not, MANY students misrepresent experience, training and abilities to instructors in an effort to short cut the system. It's almost to the point where I literally have no interest in what they claim is past experience, because I know either they are lying about it, or truly don't realize what areas they have deficiencies in. As CCR instructors, we should be the last line of defense to ensure that people have all of the tools they need in order to safely use the new unit.

It would be awesome if somehow people could just magically buy a unit and be instantly proficient on it without any further training, but it's just not realistic.

 

[tbone1004]

@Randy Thornton the point was against the reference for the aircraft which was not accurate at all. Type ratings are air-frame specific sure, but to bring a CCR up to a plane that can go 700mph with hundreds of passengers on board is a bit of a stretch. It's much more like small aircraft where you can bounce around in similar kinds of planes easily. Not really any different than an automotive license.

So here's a question. If you're complaining about student and instructor volatility, the "nuances" of certain units, and people asking around for opinions, why don't you just write a proper manual on how to dive your rebreathers? There isn't a single useful user manual for any of the units out there on these so called nuances, no manual out there on how to actually perform skills in the water from any agency or any manufacturer. If you want it done a certain way for your units, why not publish how you as the manufacturer want it done and then make the training agencies enforce it?

 

[plazma]

@Randy Thornton the point was against the reference for the aircraft which was not accurate at all. Type ratings are air-frame specific sure, but to bring a CCR up to a plane that can go 700mph with hundreds of passengers on board is a bit of a stretch. It's much more like small aircraft where you can bounce around in similar kinds of planes easily. Not really any different than an automotive license.

So here's a question. If you're complaining about student and instructor volatility, the "nuances" of certain units, and people asking around for opinions, why don't you just write a proper manual on how to dive your rebreathers? There isn't a single useful user manual for any of the units out there on these so called nuances, no manual out there on how to actually perform skills in the water from any agency or any manufacturer. If you want it done a certain way for your units, why not publish how you as the manufacturer want it done and then make the training agencies enforce it?

As above. The manuals suck.

And when some new rebreather diver asks about unclear thing in the forums you get mixed answer and many say you should have learned it during the course.

With so much new stuff on a course a lot is forgotten. You really need a good manual and simple checklists for future reference.

 

[tbone1004]

As above. The manuals suck.

And when some new rebreather diver asks about unclear thing in the forums you get mixed answer and many say you should have learned it during the course.

With so much new stuff on a course a lot is forgotten. You really need a good manual and simple checklists for future reference.

I think all the manufacturers have good checklists, so do the agencies, but again they're all pretty unit agnostic.
Did you put everything together?
Is the unit airtight?
Does it add O2 and read O2 the way it is supposed to?
Does everything else work?

Not a whole lot that can really be "unit specific" in the checklists, which is fine, you don't need that for assembly. The "nuances" though are never documented and that's a major source of frustration because there is nothing you can "look back on" that is actually written by the manufacturer, outlining everything the way it is supposed to be done. Your only recourse is to harass your instructor and even that is compromised data because each instructor teaches slightly different

 

[Randy Thornton]

@Randy Thornton the point was against the reference for the aircraft which was not accurate at all. Type ratings are air-frame specific sure, but to bring a CCR up to a plane that can go 700mph with hundreds of passengers on board is a bit of a stretch. It's much more like small aircraft where you can bounce around in similar kinds of planes easily. Not really any different than an automotive license.

So here's a question. If you're complaining about student and instructor volatility, the "nuances" of certain units, and people asking around for opinions, why don't you just write a proper manual on how to dive your rebreathers? There isn't a single useful user manual for any of the units out there on these so called nuances, no manual out there on how to actually perform skills in the water from any agency or any manufacturer. If you want it done a certain way for your units, why not publish how you as the manufacturer want it done and then make the training agencies enforce it?

Good point! I don't disagree. At SubGravity our manuals are a work in progress and can certainly include more detail on skills. That said, we have included many of the most important ones, however, reading and doing are always two separate things! Otherwise, I could probably play basketball in the NBA by just reading the manual!
If you have a moment, please feel free to take a look at these two manuals and give us some feedback. We truly would be interested in your opinions.

https://ccr.sub-gravity.com/wp-cont...Gravity-Defender-CCR-User-Manual-V1.1_WEB.pdf

https://ccr.sub-gravity.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SubGravity-SG-1-User-Manual-V2.10.pdf

 

[Randy Thornton]

As above. The manuals suck.

And when some new rebreather diver asks about unclear thing in the forums you get mixed answer and many say you should have learned it during the course.

With so much new stuff on a course a lot is forgotten. You really need a good manual and simple checklists for future reference.

Please see my response to Tbone above.

 

[tbone1004]

@Randy Thornton same thing as the Liberty, it is missing the section on how you get from Chapter 4-assembly to Chapter 5-breakdown and cleaning.
Obviously there is a huge difference in reading and doing, and that manual lays out the basics of how to do a dil-flush which is a start.

The goal of those manuals should be that a competent operator should be able to do nothing but read that manual and perform all of the skills to your satisfaction. A competent operator in this case is someone who has passed mod 1. The instructor in the crossover courses should theoretically be doing nothing but play calling and validating. I'm trained on a Meg and am a competent diver. If you hand me a Defender in this case since that was the manual you linked, everything skill should be outlined to a point that upon reading the manual, with you watching, I should be able to fully assemble the rebreather properly, hop in the water and you throw me whatever skills you want and I perform them the way the manual is written, then breakdown and clean.

You should not be "teaching" anything, only correcting. It should take no more than 1 day.
~2 hours for assembly and review of any weird quirks of the unit. I.e. on a Meg x-over going over that the loop flow is backwards but the adds are still in the same spot and that you shouldn't be afraid to crush the inhale hose for an O2 flush. Nothing particularly special about any of the units you sell which is ideal so 2 hours on one of yours if crossing over from any other "normal" unit should be more than enough. 5 hours to dive max. Including getting dressed, site briefing, dive briefing, getting out of your suits etc. 2 hour breakdown/clean/review. 9 hour day, completely reasonable.
The key is that all of the skills that you describe as having "nuances" need to be outlined with all of said nuances so the student can adequately prepare for that course and anyone who has taken it can refer back to it and you as an instructor can be assured that the skills are outlined properly.

As the owner of the units you obviously have the advantage of being able to decide exactly how you want your unit to be used so you get to write out exactly what you want in what order. If the instructors don't like it, well they don't really get a choice now do they since it's your unit, you make the rules.

 

[Randy Thornton]

@Randy Thornton same thing as the Liberty, it is missing the section on how you get from Chapter 4-assembly to Chapter 5-breakdown and cleaning.
Obviously there is a huge difference in reading and doing, and that manual lays out the basics of how to do a dil-flush which is a start.

The goal of those manuals should be that a competent operator should be able to do nothing but read that manual and perform all of the skills to your satisfaction. A competent operator in this case is someone who has passed mod 1. The instructor in the crossover courses should theoretically be doing nothing but play calling and validating. I'm trained on a Meg and am a competent diver. If you hand me a Defender in this case since that was the manual you linked, everything skill should be outlined to a point that upon reading the manual, with you watching, I should be able to fully assemble the rebreather properly, hop in the water and you throw me whatever skills you want and I perform them the way the manual is written, then breakdown and clean.

You should not be "teaching" anything, only correcting. It should take no more than 1 day.
~2 hours for assembly and review of any weird quirks of the unit. I.e. on a Meg x-over going over that the loop flow is backwards but the adds are still in the same spot and that you shouldn't be afraid to crush the inhale hose for an O2 flush. Nothing particularly special about any of the units you sell which is ideal so 2 hours on one of yours if crossing over from any other "normal" unit should be more than enough. 5 hours to dive max. Including getting dressed, site briefing, dive briefing, getting out of your suits etc. 2 hour breakdown/clean/review. 9 hour day, completely reasonable.
The key is that all of the skills that you describe as having "nuances" need to be outlined with all of said nuances so the student can adequately prepare for that course and anyone who has taken it can refer back to it and you as an instructor can be assured that the skills are outlined properly.

As the owner of the units you obviously have the advantage of being able to decide exactly how you want your unit to be used so you get to write out exactly what you want in what order. If the instructors don't like it, well they don't really get a choice now do they since it's your unit, you make the rules.

Perhaps you missed the bits on pages 68-77 in the appendix. I suspect that much of what you are looking for, can be found there, but I get your point. Unfortunately, it is very rare that students come to our classes fully prepared to just be evaluated. Perhaps that is the fault of the manual (I'm not saying that it can't be improved upon), but I also think that most students who show up for a crossover have found that the class brought them a wealth of new knowledge and helped them to learn new skills or refine rusty skills. Part of this is probably due to poor initial training, but part of it is also due to the fact that students who don't regularly practice skills, tend to forget procedures and at the very least are quite rusty at performing them. I literally can't think of a single student who has complained to me about one of my crossover classes after the fact. If they had complained, I would have gladly refunded their money and still make this offer to anyone today. Come and take the crossover class. If you feel that it wasn't worth your money or time, the class is on me!

 

[tbone1004]

@Randy Thornton I was looking at the "3 H's" when I wrote that post.

Unfortunately what you're syaing about them coming back and learning more is really just a function of poor initial training. Pete Murray outlined this well when he did his SF2 crossover due to poor initial training from Add Helium. The crossover course should quite literally be a skills evaluation, taken from the manual, of a particular rebreather to ensure you are able to perform the basic skills as outlined by the combination of manufacturer and training agency.
If they are learning anything new that is a fault of the training agencies, if they refine rusty skills it is on the diver, but that is not what a crossover course is supposed to do. Anything you "fix" is a function of poor initial training and they would have been saying that even if they hadn't changed units because as a good instructor, you are making them perform skills to your standard which is clearly higher than their initial instructor.
By definition, a crossover is supposed to cross over existing skills to a new piece of equipment, not teach new skills, just transfer them to a new piece of equipment. As the skills on a comparably equipped rebreather *i.e. a Defender and X-CCR* there should be no reason to take a crossover course on those. If I have a MOD1 card for the Defender and I for whatever reason chose to purchase an X-CCR, you should include the C-Card for the X-CCR in the box with the rebreather and a copy of the manual, or vice versa because as you mentioned above, the X-CCR is just an electronics upgrade and there is no crossover required. Agree?
If I went to you now as a Meg diver, who was trained properly, a crossover should take no more than a day. Your unit is derived from a Meg so assembly and packing the scrubber is basically identical. Yours has a bov and bmcl's, but I can just as easily buy those from you today for my meg with no xover training and be in compliance, so assuming I was taught properly, and assuming your manual includes all of the "nuances" of how to dive that unit *of which I'm not sure since I can buy a shrimp and your bmcl's if I wanted to which would net a functionally identical rebreather*, what do I get out of the crossover aside from warm fuzzies?
If I came from a revo, sidekick, SF2/RB80 etc. then sure there are things that you are actually going to learn since the units are quite different due to the integrated counterlungs, but assuming the diver was trained properly, what are you really going to teach them? Again, genuine question since you brought up nuances.

Is your manual detailed enough in the way the skills are outlined that you are confident that someone like a Paul Heinerth, Ted McCoy, etc. who are not trained on your units but are obviously damned good divers and instructors perform those skills to your standard? Are those skills detailed enough that someone that took your class 12 months ago could go back over that manual and ensure that they are performing those skills exactly as you taught them? Does the manual include EVERY skill that you require your students to perform during their initial and crossover training and outline them in enough detail to satisfy the above questions? If it does not, you should write the manual to answer those questions to your satisfaction. If anything it ultimately saves both you and the rest of your instructor corp a considerable amount of time answering questions. More importantly it does ensure that your instructor corps are teaching those skills exactly as you have outlined them and allows you to conduct quality control. Gopros are cheap, require them to include a video of them performing all of those skills with their renewal application. Stick those videos in their folder and if you have an issue, you can always go back to them having submitted video evidence of them performing to your standards. Every instructor should have a gopro, and every instructor can and arguably should take a day out of their schedule to record themselves practicing skills and drills.