Survey Results: Should Rebreather Training Be Unit-Specific or Not?

Survey Answers From Rebreather Divers Who Are Not Rebreather Instructors or Instructor Trainers

“How many rebreather units are you certified to dive with?”

• Average: 1.6

“Currently, rebreather courses are unit-specific. You must select a rebreather unit before taking the course and take a new course to dive with a different rebreather. Indicate how much you agree with the following statement, from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree): ‘The industry should move to a systems (generic) approach to rebreather training instead of the current ISO unit-specific training.’”

• 1 (Totally Disagree): 20%
• 2: 22%
• 3: 16%
• 4: 19%
• 5 (Totally Agree): 23%

“Why do you believe that the industry should move to a systems (generic) approach to rebreather training instead of the current ISO unit-specific training?”

• Type of rebreather (SCR, mCCR, eCCR, …) makes the big difference, not the specific unit. Anything specific to the unit should be part of the user manual.
• Systems for experts, licenses almost never checked, rarely the cause for accidents
• majority of concepts/issues/risk dynamics are similar across units. I do believe that a generalized RB cert should be applicable to a *specified* set of several types of units that represent an overall similar design (e.g. eCCR).
• Most of the topics in rebreather training are repeated for each model.
• I think the current system is weighted towards training agencies selling training, and limits people’s abilities to dive different units which may be required for different tasks. e.g. a diver may end up diving a unit less well suited for a task simply because they do not have a rating on it. A simple example is diving a backmount rebreather in a cave when a sidemount rebreather would be better to use. I think once qualified on a type at 100m level, one should be able to crossover to another rebreather of the same type at the same rating with simply a “type rating” certificate. This may not even involve any in water time. Just familiarity with any peculiarities of the different unit.
• In order to simplify RB adoption by the end user.
• The premise that unit-specific is the only way is both inherently flawed due to the commonality of skills and procedures and also open to continued manipulation by equipment manufacturers who are using this as a protectionist means to keep units in the market. Due to the high cost of units, not many instructors can afford to purchase multiple units and so may continue to push a unit that potentially has flaws.
• Most of the concepts and skills in a rebreather course are similar and/or equivalent across rebreather models. A more standardized approach would be useful. That said, each model has its own peculiarities that can’t be ignored. I would prefer a more modular approach — standardized “basics of rebreather diving” + model-specific integration.
• They’re ultimately not super differentiated enough to merit the cost of training on each specific unit. Also, if you can deco dive or trimix dive on one unit. It’s not vastly different from a planning perspective.
• Most rebreathers are very similar. It isn’t reasonable to force an experienced diver to undertake a new course if he changes rebreather.
• Crossover should be made more affordable
• It would favor an instruction that is based on the concepts rather than how it is applied and facilitate understanding of similarly functioning units
• There is common knowledge across every rebreather platform, the system is essentially the same.
• After initial class I don’t think it matters.
• crossover between the units should be easier.
• Better ability to standardize procedures, protocols and training
• There are similarities between different units and understanding the common points is understanding what makes a rebreather a rebreather.
• To build a common ground for all CC users just like fundamentals is for OC ones
• Commonality of function/feature is primary. The specifics of whether a MAV is on my chest vs on the mouthpiece just isn’t a big deal.
• Would result in better training
• I prefer the GUE model to OC training. You do not need a blue H on your gear, but your gear must meet specific requirements. I feel this would be a good way to handle CCR training.
• If I want to switch from my current rebreather to a newer model, I have two options only: buy exactly the same rebreather (if it is still manufactured) or pay a couple thousand for a week of training on top of the cost of the unit. This doesn’t happen if I need a new OC regulator. It just adds to the overall perception that rebreathers are too expensive and it’s too hard to find an instructor for the unit you want to use.
• Generic on normomix — trimix as divers should be trained on using their own machine on dil air before attempting these courses. But that requires the industry to have good manals as some settings are quite difficult to find. Although many units use Shearwater, lowering the unit specific training requirement again.
• There are differences to set up, packing, and functionality that may not be apparent. There are mccr, eccr units.
• There are aspects that could be relaxed, for example, the instructor not being on the same unit, in much the same way that cave CCR can be taught by an instructor but does not have to be an instructor for his student’s unit, but must be qualified on that unit as a diver.
• The driving a car analogy…I can rent a car anywhere and not drive my car where it doesn’t make sense or is impossible (drive to Malta, Indonesia, Australia?)… I can’t rent a rebreather anywhere unless it’s exactly like the one I’m trained/certified on so I have to bring mine.
• Being trained/certified on a “type” of rebreather opens up revenue opportunities for dive facilities, rebreather manufacturers (rented the car, liked it, got that one next time around or in addition to the one I currently have) and instructors (can train more divers). Also training…MUCH more cost-effective for potential students… don’t have to travel maybe to be trained, saving costs and time, and can rent units to dive on while potentially saving to purchase one of their own and learn what unit best suits them before making that costly purchase. I’m a relatively new CCR diver (P2) with about 100 hours of “flight time”… love the unit but also noticed a couple of “tweaks” that other units have and wish I had an easier way to try those that basically work the same as mine (i.e. like renting a car/test driving before I buy).
• It makes it too difficult for students to switch to rebreathers. The logistical barrier to obtaining a certification is too great, and very expensive in smaller markets, e.g. Scandinavia. Current system makes it difficult to obtain a certification. I was certified on an XCCR and wanted to move to a Gemini sidemount rebreather. I had to fly to Dubai, as that was the only place I could find an instructor in an 8-month time frame. And I was unwilling to wait a full calendar year to pursue the certification at a closer location — which would still have required me to fly several hours.
• Sufficient overlap between various units to not require a full crossover course. Perhaps an online course with theory quiz would suffice to explain nuances.
• You are locked into a specific brand/unit, and depending on your location, it can cost thousands of dollars and time dedicated just to travel somewhere to get training and certification on a 10K rebreather unit. We are pricing ourselves out of business.
• It‘s important to know how a system works e.g. eCCR or mCCR. The different between manufacturers can be done with a short instruction.
• A focus on the theory and systems utilized to accomplish safe usage would provide better education and value than strict unit-specific instruction.
• The basic technology is the same for the various units. I think a 1-day unit introduction would suffice to allow safe operation of the unit. After that, it comes down to training and practice. Obviously, this is individual-specific. I would also say that the requirement for crossover training for more advanced levels, such as helitrox or CCR mixed gas, is even more ridiculous.
• If rebreathers were manufactured from a more standardized design and configuration standpoint, this would make sense to do so so that trainees can have a better grasp of critical concepts. The Tesla analogy is a good example.
• Most rebreathers work in the same basic idea.
• When a diver chooses to learn to dive with a Rebreather, he hardly has the knowledge to consciously choose his unit. This way, learning in a generic way to dive with Rebreathers (respecting their type) allows the basic skills to work in the future for any unit.
• Principles are very similar from unit to unit. CCR training in terms of theory is already generic, therefore practice should be focused on discerning how all CCRs work. Skills are transferable.
• Similar to driving a car, using a scooter…
• The core skills are the same. Just individual unit execution is different.
• This would make it easier to move from unit to unit.
• All ccrs are basically the same.
• There is little conceptual difference between manufacturers, only variation in functional implementation.
• Basics are all the same, it’s only how the unit operates that is different. With well-written manuals, the diver can figure these differences out on there own. It’s no different than getting your unit and then heavily modifying it; no recertification is needed for that. A diver could turn an eCCR into a mCCR with easily obtained parts.
• Because much of the theory of rebreather diving is the same regardless of unit.
• It makes sense. Why multiple crossover classes for very similar units
• I believe in a hybrid, start generic, end specific. This way, you can learn also how to help others and understand different units. I am working on getting my rebreather instructor certification, and having unit-specific courses makes it hard to get training.
• It seems that approximately half of rebreather instruction encompasses basics applicable to nearly all rebreathers. The other half tends to apply to the specifics of the unit you’re learning on.
• Many rebreather skills are common across all units, or at least across all mCCR or eCCR units. That being said, a systems approach to rebreather training should also come with greater standardization of various configurations, as the presence and/or placement of things like counterlungs, ADVs, and other differences are quite broad between different manufacturers, or even configurations of the same rebreather. In a diving setup where human factors play even more of a role in survival, minor differences in units can lead to major incidents if the proper crossover training isn’t done. I believe that a “type rating” type system for rebreathers that covered multiple units per type would be the best choice, but there would have to be an agreed-upon set of standards for each type before this can become reasonable or safe.
• I believe that a student will learn more from a good instructor than from a unit-based instructor. We have an excellent tech instructor who I credit with our being good divers. Unfortunately, he was certified to instruct on a unit we did not like. We were forced to use an instructor for the unit we chose who was not as good as our primary instructor and, in fact, was not knowledgeable about our normal dive conditions. We are deep, cold water, Great Lakes shipwreck divers. We had to use a warm water instructor not used to those conditions. We would have learned more in our conditions, with our instructor even being on a different unit.
• Beyond initial training (MOD1 or equiv), practices, SOPs, etc are very standardized. Frequently, divers of different units dive together; it’s important that we both know the same practices for a diluent flush, even if the MAV buttons or lung dumps are in different places.
• Read the manual for the rebreather and operate the thing this isn’t rocket science.
• More focus on Systems based training likely improves the outcome understanding or why a skill or knowledge is needed. That said, many cross-over options are already available, which is effectively a mandated option for type-specific knowledge.
• On a dive boat, not everyone dives with a regular buddy using the same equipment setup. If 2 random divers have no knowledge of each other’s equipment or what the equipment can and can’t do, you’re not much use to each other.
  Most rebreathers have a similar design. And how to operate it shares the same way.
• We do not teach open-water skills as a unit-specific certification beyond very general type ratings (back-mount vs. sidemount is a great example of the differentiation). Rebreather training, as I experienced, was ‘half-way’ between unit-specific and generic. TDI’s material was generic, but then KISS supplied their own training requirements on top of the TDI generic training. I feel this approach aligns closer to what is needed for a ‘generic’ systems model. Cover all the generic and system-level skills/techniques, then a smaller sub-set of information specific to the exact model/configuration the student is diving. An example would be MAV usage: “In general, the training says there will be a control to manually add diluent; in your case, there is a button here, and you also can manually add gas by….”
• Many concepts are the same for major rebreather groupings, even though component details may vary. Cost is currently a major factor limiting the expansion of rebreather use, which ultimately affects the availability of services at many dive locations (e.g. air fills and sorb). Provided a student is properly drilled on their model of choice with instructor oversight then that should be more than adequate.
• Similarities in types of rebreathers.
• A generic approach would introduce more people to the benefits of rebreather diving.

“Why do you believe that the industry should not move to a systems (generic) approach to rebreather training instead of the current ISO unit-specific training?”

• We already struggle to create a standard system in OC diving. We disagree on so many things between agencies. Too many larger-than-life people are involved with massive egos in the rebreather industry.
• Some units have their own peculiarities, which could be life-threatening if the diver wasn’t aware of them.
• Skill levels are already too low when people leave training. A skill and knowledge refresher when doing a crossover is highly beneficial, particularly for those who don’t think they need it
• Eventually, CCRs will reach a dominant design, and this will work itself out. Training will ultimately become standardized.
• Fortunately/unfortunately, every unit is different, having its own peculiarities. To build the muscle memory needed for managing the unit’s peculiarities in a safe way requires unit-specific training.
• Trainees underwater need to be able to look at procedures while they’re performed by a trainer running a unit that is “functionally identical” to theirs; imagine a trainer on a GUE JJ teaching DIL wash to someone running a standard JJ.
• Having a unit-specific instructor facilitates additional info gained through significant time on that particular unit. Learn from your instructor’s mistakes (or his instructor’s). For example, getting the right height on a chest-mount RB for best WOB. Likely numerous examples for sidemount units.
• Unit-specific training is required for learning the idiosyncrasies of each unit, particularly in the build and maintenance aspect. This helps prepare new divers for common “issues” and identify problems that are difficult to diagnose but have the chance of being life-threatening.
• Proper showing of skills doesn’t work if your instructor dives a JJ while you have a Kiss. I‘ve seen that in a course.
• Systems can be complex and are less standardized than most rec or tec setups.
• Some units are very specific.
• I believe I would not agree with the system that would be implemented if a majority of the industry agreed with it. In diving, as in politics, groups of people are stupid. Tribalism/group thinking forms, and people get distracted by the shiny thing and soon believe the propaganda from those with a vested interest vs the facts in front of their faces.
• Basic operation is identical, but a machine has some specifics that you can only learn when following unit-specific training. A generic approach can be done once beyond the unit-specific training on diluent air.
• I don’t think it wise to be taught by an instructor who is not familiar with your chosen unit in a deep way. There are many tips and tricks that you’d then have to learn yourself or pickup from other divers, opportunities that may not be available and potentially impacting safety. Another important part of a course is maintenance. I don’t think it is necessary for instructors to be on the same unit, but they must be qualified to teach the unit
• Only initial reason I can think of is if, as a new student, you have difficulty with some aspect of the unit you’re training on, your instructor can show you on his/her unit the same skill/execution/component and how to address/adjust. Back to the car analogy, you do drive the same vehicle with your instructor not two individual/different cars. Maybe we get initially certified on the same unit as the instructor for training purposes, BUT our certification allows us to rent/buy ANY other unit of the same type (e.g. I’m checked out on P2, but I could rent or buy a chOptima straight away (would need to read manual and/ or go for a “test dive” with my “dealer” to have specific “features” pointed out but would otherwise be capable to dive the unit).
• As is, the operation of different rebreather models is somewhat different, and I believe many people would be hesitant to put in the needed effort to self train on a new unit. I think many would just take it to 20m on the first dive. Also, the care and maintenance of different models is also quite difficult. Certification is not just learning to dive the unit. It is equally about learning to maintain the unit.
• Every unit is different. In order to make sure people don’t kill themselves, you need to make sure they fully know how to work with the unit they dive.
• I do believe that different units require different levels of training. I don’t know many divers who can actively maintain regular practice on multiple units. The few that truly are consistent are the exception, not the rule. Many divers lack sufficient training and experience anyway.
• Type/category are generally the same. However, manufacturers take different approaches in operations; it’s clearly a liability concern.
• All changes are driven by market conditions and money. Current market freedom dissuades manufacturers from agreeing on standardized systems and designs. The larger manufacturers should initiate a systems approach with standards organizations so newer or smaller ones can compete safely and avoid the situation where there are too many units that are too unique for this change. Either the industry polices itself or governments, unfortunately, will dictate control and standards.
• There are some major differences between a Poseidon Mark VI and an AP Inspiration that can create difficulties regarding deco software and setup.
• There is a counterpoint to the idea of generalist teaching: The more specific the training, the greater the awareness of the particularities of each unit.
• Just the design difference between CCR and how to set it up, to a minimum a one cross over would do.
• There a specifics to units that require training on that unit. Especially at air dil/air dil deco on first unit. I couldn’t imagine my first training being generic and not unit-specific.
• Higher costs (in order to offset liability insurance).
• Current rebreather units on the market are too nuanced and unique. Be it through proprietary controls, differences in scrubber configuration and packing, or being side-mount vs back-mount.
• The answer is somewhere in the middle, I believe. Most of the theory can be generic, as well as dive planning etc. However, units vary significantly, be it back/side/chest-mount, mCCR/eCCR, position of counter lungs, onboard dil vs. dilout, etc. Because of this, I believe a unit-specific practical certification accompanied by a generic theory certification makes the most sense.
• Because the things that are different between all the physical units are typically the things that will kill you the fastest. E.g., where the counterlung dump valve is located, how to do a dil flush, etc. Those require unit-specific training and I don’t think a student can be relied upon to self-teach those things.
• I think you have to know the one you are diving pretty good. That’s why I believe in starting generic and finishing specific.
• The only thing is maybe the very first CCR course, which might be more tricky because you don’t have experience with the unit.
• Best to understand the operation of each specific unit.
• Correct packing of scrubbers and understanding gas flow or control system.
• Substantial idiosyncrasies exist between devices. Unit-specific training provides better preparation.
• Each rebreather’s characteristics is different. WOB, how to purge, type of electronics, etc.
• Everyone new to rebreather diving should be trained on just one unit first. Once a level of experience and proficiency has been obtained, other unit certifications can be obtained with shorter and shorter certification training per unit.
• I believe initial training should be with an instructor who dives the unit you are learning. This is important to learn the ins and outs of unit assembly, maintenance, and care, plus to learn initial unit-specific stuff like clearing the loop.
• Maybe different unit has different design. So we need to learn with the unit special design.
• I feel like eCCR training needs to be more rigorous than mCCR training due to the additional failure modes inherent in eCCRs. A very generic approach could also lead to instructors that do not have some specific knowledge that would be needed to communicate and demonstrate during some failure situations (eg. ‘blinking light’ backup displays only present on certain models and configurations of rebreathers). We do see this same ‘issue’ with open-water divers, ex. air2 inflators.
• Differences in units mean different procedures.
• Some people may take the route of training on a simplistic setup and then immediately switch to something unfamiliar with no training oversight. A long time ago, I qualified for state proficiency on a smaller motorcycle because it was easier and less likelihood of a misstep under watchful eyes, than on my bigger bike. While I had been riding for a long time and was used to bigger bikes, I knew some riders who took the same path and were totally unprepared when they switched to the intended bigger bike (some states have switched to size-based testing). Based upon some of the complexities of differences in rebreather units, not all individuals should switch units without proper guidance on their use. As sport divers many of us are not as proficient as we think we are, including one or two instructors I have encountered over the years. Having said that, I do agree an instructor should not have to wear the same unit as the student, provided proper repetitive drills are performed by the student under monitoring.
• The different systems require a complete understanding of the mechanism involved. Incorrect setup of a system would be dangerous to say the least.