[Hobby]

Lordy, this could be fun.

We have had similar "debates" before here which have been interesting. Maybe worth a read.

Personally, I, like many others I beleive like much about the DIR system/philosophy. However, I liked many of those "factors" that constitute DIR and used them before it came along here.

I refer to things such as redundancy, minimalism for want of a better word, a greater understanding of kit/environment and, importantly, self-sufficiency.

I have been very lucky in many respects. I've been exposed (steady!) to many different divers, configs etc. such as CDG, military, Police divers and Commercial applications. I remember back to the early 80's when some people began to challenge the system (which here was really BSAC) in various ways, e.g. by advocating redundancy(ponies/independents etc.) over Octopus rigs, and demanding relevant training for those going into Over-Head environments etc.

At the time much of this was treated with derision, incident statistics however proved the need for better training etc. and slowly things began to change.

Many of these "improvements" were taken from looking at the afore-mentioned configs: in particular the CDG's use of proper redundancy, line work etc.

DIR came along, I don't know the exact mechanisms of it's introduction into the UK, but one can see how its adoption in the US mirrors that of here.

Here is a system developed the hard way; known to work in considerably more hostile conditions (caves really), so why cannot this be applied to open water use?

Further development also came about as "tech" diving development increased too. Much as "over here".

Recently, well, over the last couple of decades, UK diving has had a massive influx of US influence. PADI was certainly the major factor and in many ways (no offence intended here) much of it was not suitable for UK diving as it was.

Given the demand for better training etc. by a great proportion of divers, either trained the PADI or (revised BSAC) way, DIR makes great sense. It meets the need for diver training above teaching one to dive.

The problems: many people decry DIR because many of its components, as we've seen, are not new. So what? They never claimed they were. It appears to be the attitude of many that it's "Our way or the Wrong way" that gets peoples' goat.

This said, many of the people viewed as being near the top of the DIR advocacy/thinking do not appear to have this attitude; both here and in the US.

George Irvine's famous rants aside, many DIR people accept/do not claim that it is the "be all and end all" for all diving.

This is seen, as an acceptance by some, that a "true DIR" config would certainly not be best suited to some UK sump conditions.

It has to be said also, that there will be a proportion to whatever extent of DIR divers, possibly coming from recreational diving backgrounds, that know nothing of other configs/practices and indeed much of the development behind (not of) their own system.

Thankfully, many are keen to learn all they can, even in the face of those who may claim that it isn't "right".

Good, safe system, there isn't many. It's also more widely known now than others and is easier(?) to get info/instruction on than others, which again are very applicable to their individual requirements.

Attitude of "some" does leave much to be desired however, not because others may be different, but sadly because they are not aware. Many things are decried by supposed DIR divers, only on the basis of what they've picked up, not through actual experience/instruction.....but because it's not how we do it?

Hobby.