[And]

Imported post

Hi Steve

I must admit I'm a little confused. You are a rebreather diver and on a recent post have stated that you are buying an Inspiration. And now you want to know about DIR. I don't know why exactly and so I shall just attempt to answer your main points.

Well, here goes.

Quote[/b] ]but (and there’s always a but) there does seam to be an attitude of, “it is done this way and only this way" now I firmly believe there is more than 1 way to do something correctly, and if there is an intolerance to respect individual opinions, is that person better staying away from dir?

Yes, you are better staying away. DIR is a system, has been developed over thousands of dives from simple reef and wreck dives to extreme deep cave dives. It is primarily developed by GUE and so individual opinion, to a large extent does go out of the window. Whilst some may balk at such a policy, I find it a lot more comforting to know that this has already been tried and tested and that it is the most successful method found rather than wondering if I'm doing it the best and most efficient way. To be honest, I've never had to ask why a particular kit config is used, it always made perfect sense. If you read JJ's book, and other resources on the web the whys are given and are, to a large extent, undisputable (IMHO of course

)

Quote[/b] ]was chatting with a dir diver, who told me that my double bladder wing was a big nono, as I had always thought it as a good redundancy I asked him to explain why, basically he told me I have sufficient redundancy with a normal wing and a drysute, and that it was just an extra bit of kit " to go wrong",

Essentially that is correct. Depending how you have the bladder setup you may have another LP hose and inflator which may go wrong. There are other reasons also, perhaps the main one being that if you have both inflators hooked up and one goes runaway, how do you know which one? You will have to unhook both, dumping from both bladders at once and, if wearing a drysuit, will have to concentrate on dumping that too. Its just more work than is necessary and therefore not DIR (DIR=Less work, less stress, more enjoyment) Properly weighted you should be able to swim your gear up without buoyancy.

Quote[/b] ]so unless someone could give me some very good reasons why not, I would stick with my own dsmb deployment arrangement

This has been covered before. Look under spools in the equipment section. A spool doesn't cause friction burns and doesn't jam. I don't find it frightening, its quite fun. I find reels frightening because they can jam without warning. Jamming at max dive depth can be a nightmare.

Quote[/b] ]now i can understand the argument for having everyone wearing the same kit configuration, especially when the buddy principle is so high in its teaching, but to what extent? just how tolerant is dir? Does it have something to offer the strong minded individual or is it sheep only? (a bit heavy there lol) the course looks to really get to grips with your basic skills, which can only be a good thing, so please tell me my paranoia is out of line

DIR is intolerant. Thats the truth. The kit is defined, the gasses are defined, the procedures are defined. It is precisely because of this that it is so successful in the technical diving world. I think of myself as a stong minded individual. Started my own business from scratch and have run it successfully for 5 years. 'Sheep' as you put it, don't do that. I've never met a weak minded DIR diver. DIR Fundamentals is all about basic skills, and is taught totally differently than any other agency. The whole premise for DIR is that fact that this wasn't available from any other agency and the WKPP were getting divers who couldn't dive, yet had the C-Cards. DIR is about diving, pure and simple, totally 100%. Some accuse DIR of fanaticism, I just call it focus.

Hope that helps

Andy

 

[And]

Imported post

I'm sorry, I thought I was responding to SteveW, not asking for my post to be pulled apart and then get called loads of names and as usual very little constructive discussion.

Mark, I would have expanded on some of your post but not now.

Matt, you turn up and with only five posts proceed to start a Divernet type post picking apart my post and quoting out of context, not giving any facts but just vitriolic opinion designed to wind up anyone who dives DIR.

Quote[/b] ]
Now to the point, I apologise for the lengthy preamble. My ARSE* config is the result of experience.  It is based on what I find works and what does not work.  There is no false comfort factor.  I know exactly why I do things a particular way and I know why I do not use the alternatives.

Whenever I talk to the people who routinely do what I aspire to, what becomes blatently obvious is their techniques evolve from practical experience, not from what is written on the web or preached from a soapbox.

The concern I have about DIR is that some people adopt it for no other reason than a vocal and vociferous tech diver says they should.  They are discouraged from asking is there a better way, they are discouraged from experimentation (in the shallows).  Frankly I think they are missing out on a very important learning experience.


IMVHO the only original DIR concept is the cult nature.  Accolytes must conform to the commandments and follow the one true way in order to secure their place as DIR.  The heathen masses are not worthy, they are pagan Strokes and must be cast out as pariah.

Quite right.  Sheep have a mind of their own and need hearding in the right direction.  DIR wannabes are more like ducklings, blindly following the first thing they see. (Ok that was a cheap shot ;-).

The problems come when such people believe they are right when they clearly or arguably are not.

Admittedly they appear to be the only teaching agency that think denigrating the student is a valid aid to learning.

Give it a few years and there probably will be a host of G-Card carrying, Halcyon kitted muppets queing for the boats down at Portland.

I beg to differ.  Proportions of DIR seem to be concerned with branding, marketing and meglomania.

Oh yes it always helps to get this off my chest once in a while.  Replying to a post like yours helps remind me why I dislike DIR as a holistic diving system.  

IMHO you need to take active steps to combat the brain washing.  Regular practice of basic debating skills in a safe environment is absolutely essential  

That was successful. You know nothing of me, and by your response bugger all about DIR. I've debated DIR with better people than you who don't need to take cheap shots. And if YD is now full of people who think the above is well thought out then 'Welcome to the New Divernet!!'

This thread and all others are over for me.

Andy

 

[And]

Imported post

Hi

Phil, I really don't care whether you, Matt or anyone else dive DIR or not and I'm not about to try to convince you that it is 'the one true way'.

Steve asked a question and I answered it. I've then been quoted out of context twice and insulted. If DIR was being slagged then fine, but when called brainwashed by someone who's only been here for 5 minutes pisses me off quite frankly. I, like others are here voluntarily, not to score points but to talk about diving. Why stay to be called names? What benefit is it to me?

If he wants to debate then let him but he won't be able to, because then he'll have to be objective and these types of people gain their highly overrated opinion of themselves by calling names in order to persuade their opponent to retract. Its just a troll and should be regarded as such. I'm amazed you find it interesting and well thought out. Dream on.

You are right, everyones entitled to an opinion, and should be respected for it. Please point me to that part of matts post, because I missed it.

Andy

 

[And]

Imported post

<font color='#0000FF'><span style='color:blue'>Hi

Quote[/b] ]Please correct me if I am wrong but it appears that DIR is dictated by one man, possibly two.  The development can only be a result of their personal experiences.  I am sure that their experience is extensive for an individual but it will never encompass the variation encountered on the hundreds of thousands of dives made every year.  GUE are clearly focused on one particular type of diving.  The kit and practices are optimised for what they do.  When the environmental problems are different so called DIR is inevitably a compromise.

IMHO the whole thing is an anachronism.  GUE will not accept compromise (good) but they expect everyone else to (bad).

Firstly, DIR has developed from techniques used by many divers, including Bill Hogarth, Parker Turner, George Irvine, Bill Gavin, Jarrod Jablonski and others. George got into cave diving by way of wanting to do more wreck penetration. When he tried cave diving he realised that he still had a lot to learn. A similar story was given by AndrewG, who dives with the SCRET team out of Seattle, Deep Wreck divers. AndrewG is the GUE Training Director. As well as extensive cave diving GUE, the exploration arm have dived the Brittanic as well as other deep ocean dives successfully. I suggest you have a more extensive look at the GUE website. There is no compromise, as otherwise how would it be a holistic system ? I personally immediately saw the benefits of DIR, same kit, same gasses, same dive planning, all put together in a system. I am a BSAC diver and really see it as an extension to the plan the dive, dive the plan policy. In terms of kit config I really do see the benefit of having the same basic rig no matter whether I am on a 15 mtr red sea dive, a 50 mtr wreck dive, or a 19,000 feet rebreather cave dive. Everything to hand and the same response to the same problems.  My point about DIR not being relevant to Steve is because he is committed to getting an inspiration. Kit config: out of the window, the inspiration is not DIR for a number of reasons. Gas planning and deco: again, irrelevant to an inspiration user. Most of the time they dive solo (see Mark Chases recent trip report thread) and the inspiration delivers gas at a prescribed pp02 whereas DIR including rebreather use uses different mixes. Other stuff such as fitness and buoyancy type stuff is relevant for all diving and so I took it as read that Steve would be applying those principles to his own diving. When reading Steves post and then your points it appears you have not considered Steves questions at all but simply picked out sentences from my post and attacked them.

Quote[/b] ]What the most successful method is, is a matter of opinion which in turn is based on personal experience.  For instance when swimming up a long incline at a shallow angle, having your wing inflate to hand and being able to dump without changing position is highly desirable.  When your diving a deep square profile in tidal conditions it really is not that important.  Inflate the wing on descent and occasionally dump to account for the gas your breathing on the bottom.  During the protracted vertical ascent when invariably one hand is full of reel or shot line you may want to get to your inflate/dump PDQ and it is more efficient if you can do it with either hand.  

In my experience, I have had boats drift over my DSMB during deco stops (half a dozen times), I have once or twice hit sudden down currents which required the wing to be inflated to maintain the ascent.  I rarely need to dump while horizontal or in a confined space.  So MY opinion is that the most efficient location for MY wing dump is on the centre line just below the chest.

Matt, where you choose to put your wing inflator is entirely up to you. I have seen an instructor?! in stoney failing to get down with a custom divers wing because they have trapped air in their wing simply because the inflator is wrapped under their arm. They get out and put more weight on??. My personal opinion is different to yours. The wings with the long inflator usually have shoulder dumps. A failure point. Using the left hand for buoyancy leaves your right hand free for reels, shotlines, whatever. I see nothing in your post which tells me the inflator in the traditional position over the shoulder is wrong. DIR divers descend and ascend horizontally and in a controlled manner. Your method of ascending seems to suggest a negatively buoyant ascent winching yourself up on an smb. Again this has little relevance to Steves post regarding a double bladder.

Quote[/b] ]The concern I have about DIR is that some people adopt it for no other reason than a vocal and vociferous tech diver says they should.  They are discouraged from asking is there a better way, they are discouraged from experimentation (in the shallows).  Frankly I think they are missing out on a very important learning experience.

I appreciate your concern but am indeed in possession of all my faculties and if someone should ask me to run in front of a bus then I shall most likely ask them to go first

I believe that we should learn from other peoples mistakes because we don't really have time to make them again ourselves and still progress. The amount of time and resources put into DIR is formidable and probably has not been done by anyone else. I spend my time in the shallows practicing the safety drills and buoyancy skills rather than different equipment configs. I came across DIR when researching rebreathers, and didn't hear about GI3 until much later. It is wrong for you to assume or imply that I choose this system simply because I was told too. I do not make any such assumptions about you, despite the fact that we have all been exposed to different peer groups and agencies since starting to dive. Yours seem to be more in the BSAC/IANTD type arena, Jack Ingle, Kevin Gurr et al

Quote[/b] ]
LMAO.  The irony is wonderful.  Have you ever tried to swim twins and stages up more than a few meters!!!  Swapping an LP hose on a dual bladder wing is a lot less work I guarantee you...But don't take my word for it, try it.

This also responds to Mark Chases similar comment. Let me ask you a question. Does a flooded drysuit make you and your undersuit less buoyant? The answer is no. I have dived with a flooded drysuit, actually on the fundamentals course.  Luckily it was in a 3mtr pool and it was the neckseal which had torn. There was no significant change in buoyancy whatsoever. I dive twin 12 lightweight fabers. They are slightly positive when empty. I wear a small weightbelt with 2kg in the sea. I am neutrally buoyant at 3 mtrs with 35 bar. Stages are aluminium and as such when full are 2kg ish negative. You are only swimming up the weight of the air in your cylinders, perhaps 6-8 kg which is easily doable.

As I understand it DIR calculate for a solution for when three problems occur. So, this might be a failed wing inflator, flooded drysuit, argon failure. Solution: Manually inflate wing. One other might be: Pulled inflator completely from wing, Drysuit zip fails, Argon failure. Solution: Swim it up (You could also attach LP inflate to drysuit and assist as air will be contained above zip).

Obviously these events are statistically insignificant and it is most likely that they would occur on the surface. This was never meant to open up a whole debate, it was just a quick response to Steves question, which also has little relevance bearing in mind that an inspiration does not have a double bladder. My own conclusion is that a double bladder causes more problems than it solves. I don't need to try it because others have and so I can save myself the time and expense and trust in their findings.

Quote[/b] ]Spools Vs reels is another point of contention.  I have seen a spool used successfully.  No question they can work very well.  I have also seen spools come out of pockets in a birds nest and others with the contents spilt across the wreck.  Recently I saw a guy tangled in his spool line after dropping it during the ascent, around 30m of slack line despooled to the bottom and the current blew him onto the line.  Personally I will stick with my Manta reel which can be locked and has a ratchet so such problems are not an issue.

When I said 'this has been done before' I obviously should have put it in capitals, because you have started debating it again. DIR supports the use of both reels and spools. Spools are used to deploy an SMB from a shallower depth. They have less components than a reel and so are less likely to fail. As far as birds nests go I have seen more reels than spools suffer from that particlar malady. A spool is also smaller and easier to stow. Reels are used on deeper drift dives and obviously during cave diving and wreck penetration. It really is not a big issue within DIR and I always struggle to understand why non DIR divers make such a big thing about it. Using a spool doesn't create slack line, I fail to see your point, however, I will not try to attack you because you have made a personal choice. It's a shame you cannot maintain the same conduct.

Quote[/b] ]Yet few of the notable tech divers outside GUE are DIR.  Pick up a back copy of 990 and try to find a DIR diver.  Ask the CDG what they think of DIR.  Try testing Military and Commercial opinion of DIR.  All these groups are accomplished in areas beyond recreational diving.  All use techniques developed from an experience base wider than two individuals.  None of them are DIR.

The techniques and practices that are included in the DIR package are neither original nor unique to DIR.  Even the dictatorial nature of DIR is not exclusive. The Military and Commercial worlds are just as rigid in their approach to risk management...Interestingly neither claim that one size fits all.

IMVHO the only original DIR concept is the cult nature.  Accolytes must conform to the commandments and follow the one true way in order to secure their place as DIR.  The heathen masses are not worthy, they are pagan Strokes and must be cast out as pariah.

Actually the CDG met up with Panos, the GUE standards guy when I was on my fundamentals course. They were going to discuss sidemounts and stuff. My belief is that they think very highly of GUE and WKPP. Duncan Price sometimes frequents the board and will clearly agree that the type of caving CDG do has little to do with diving, more a technique of underwater caving. I'm sorry Matt but I don't see commercial and military types talking favourably about ANY agency and I never said that they did. I also never said that DIR is completely original or unique as it has techniques taken from many areas. I find your comment about cults offensive and inflammatory. You will need to read some of my earlier posts before justifying those comments. Pathetic, quite frankly, and nothing to do with diving whatsoever.

Quote[/b] ]Quite right.  Sheep have a mind of their own and need hearding in the right direction.  DIR wannabes are more like ducklings, blindly following the first thing they see. (Ok that was a cheap shot ;-).

Again a cheap shot with no constructive discussion at all. This point was made when Steve asked what kind of people support DIR. Again, I have run my own business for a number of years and do not regard myself as a sheep. Being as my signature used to say DIR wannabee, I took your comment about ducklings particularly offensive. I only contribute to YD, not to any other forum, simply because it is a friendly board. I really don't see the need for these types of comment. It is reminiscent of Divernet and should be kept there.

Quote[/b] ]I can't think of many weak minded divers full stop.  Having a strong mind goes with the territory.  The problems come when such people believe they are right when they clearly or arguably are not.

Again, I have not said whether I believe I am right or not, I answered Steves questions in an attempt to help. We can all argue forever about some of this because in truth it all works and has worked, each side just believes that their way works better. Again it was in reference to Steves question and when expanded upon becomes irrelevant and out of context

Quote[/b] ]The focus on basic skills is laudable.  The use of video is an excellent idea.  That they teach totally differently is very debateable.  AIUI DIRF uses a combination of lectures and in water demonstrations to introduce and assess techniques which the student is encouraged to go away and practise...the same as every other agency.  Admittedly they appear to be the only teaching agency that think denigrating the student is a valid aid to learning.

And another cheap shot, as by your manner I doubt you have been on a course, then how would you know whether denigrating the student is on the agenda. DIRF is not taught by any other agency. Kneeling on the floor is taught. TDI, IANTD, and the other technical agencies do not teach a fundamentals course. The closest to it might be PADI precision buoyancy although that is so far away from DIRF. Again, what relevance has this to Steves questions. None, its only purpose is for you to have a rant. So very constructive.

Quote[/b] ]Unfortunately this is a problem with all qualification schemes, possibly because you can not control what happens after the qualification is awarded.  I doubt that GUE will be immune.  Give it a few years and there probably will be a host of G-Card carrying, Halcyon kitted muppets queing for the boats down at Portland.

We shall see. At the beginning of the year there were less GUE instructors than the previous year because the instructors are evelauted annualy. Standards are important to GUE and is their USP if you like.

Quote[/b] ]I beg to differ.  Proportions of DIR seem to be concerned with branding, marketing and meglomania.

Yes, I dive with Halcyon regs, Halcyon Fins, Halcyon cylinders (Oh no, its OMS who sells all that isn't it?) and don't forget my Halcyon drysuit. Get real. And again, megalomania. Pathetic. Please find something noninflammatory to say. Just one paragraph. It doesn't hurt. You might even like it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]
Hope that helps

Oh yes it always helps to get this off my chest once in a while.  Replying to a post like yours helps remind me why I dislike DIR as a holistic diving system.  

IMHO you need to take active steps to combat the brain washing.  Regular practice of basic debating skills in a safe environment is absolutely essential  

Regards
Matt

You know all this does is make me not want to help at all, which means of course we have a less balanced board, whereby anyone who tries to help gets flamed. IMHO it is you who needs to open that mind and start to look around. As Mark Chase says there is stuff out there that is relevant to your aspirationswhether you agree with it or not, I suggest you take his advice before coming along and trying to score points off me. I have more than enough debating skills to tackle these types of post. I just don't find it very enjoyable. This was a friendly board and this thread was started in a friendly manner. Leave your rants for divernet  

Andy</span>