YD Scuba Diving Forums banner

1 - 20 of 91 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
thougth it was time we had a new issue to chew over.

Whats the view on DIR...and I'm not just talking about kit and configuration, although I'm interested to hear thoughts on that too.  The whole package seems to be the bone of contention.  I hope this will shed some light on opinions around YD on this highly interesting subject.

I'm not gonna say too much yet, want to get the thing rolling. :argue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
Imported post

I'm of the opinion you should fully understand all the DIR concepts, and then make an informed decision what parts of it to use and what to ignore.

I would have grave reservations about diving with someone whose sole reason for doing something the DIR way was that it WAS the DIR way. Every piece of equipment I own is where it is because I decided it was where it should go, not because GI3 said it was where it should go.

I occasionally get mistaken for DIR diver by people who think they know all about it, but I can think of half a dozen stroke things off the top of my head which should instantly proclaim me as a card-carrying stroke..
 

·
Snap Happy
Joined
·
2,802 Posts
Imported post

I've just posted something similar elsewhere.

Before I move onto twins, wings and other things I would really like a view of DIR and any other systems / methodologies / philosophies out there.  And, as Dom have already said, then make an informed decision about my next purchases and kit config.

eg.  I Never intend to do cave diving so would a full DIR set-up be necessary?  Maybe a naive question but one that instantly spring to mind.

From what I've seen a lot of the DIR concepts seem to make sense but, with my level of ignorance, this doesn't mean much.

Are there similarly structured alternatives to DIR/DIS?
 

·
Resident Serbian Sniper
Joined
·
492 Posts
Imported post

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
Imported post

</span>
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Many things are decried by supposed DIR divers,only on the basis of what they've picked up,not through actual experience
<span =''>
Yep - how many times have I seen the following discussion:
DIR - "Bungee wings are stupid."
'Stroke' - "I use them and they aren't."
DIR - "Yes they are, because you can't orally inflate them."
'Stroke' - "Funny, that, I've done it on several occasions."
DIR - "..."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,914 Posts
Imported post

Say JP, that's one heck of a can of worms to open, I got a fair bit of stick on another forum for simply mentioning the initials "D-I-R" !
Myself - got my hoses rigged al la DIR, use manifolded twins and apeks regs BUT have a bungied (speelin?) OMS bladder so guess I'm a "stroke" really.

My philosophy (of which there are more things in heaven and earth than I've dreamed of, right Horatio?)is that if you like an idea/concept and it works for you then that's fine.
I learnt on theses boards about DIS (divng it simple), which seems a bit more flexible and a little more to my tastes
Chee-az
Steve
<a href="http://www.dis-uk.org/index1.html

PS" target="_blank">http://www.dis-uk.org/index1.html

PS</a> One of the most relevant comments I heard from someone on this topic was "How can one method be right for everyone?" That was from Graeme Bruce who may be a familiar name to some.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Imported post

wow! and all in a couple of hours! I thought I was just gonna get comments about expensive ditchable weight that doubles as a bright lamp and flappy wings!

As far as mentioning that three letter word (is it a word?)  I'm sure we are all big boys and girls here and judging by the craick that goes on noone will take their bat home for comments made.

I have read a lot on the subject in books and web sites and spoken at length with Izz from portland (on yet  another blown out 3 day trip to the south)..Although I confess to not having dived the rigs.  for that matter and I'll stick my head above the parapet here and admit to still diving a soft back pack (mark 1 transpac and wreck wing).  No particular reason for this, I just get on with my rig. Once it's FUBAR, I'll start fresh, but I'm one for spending money when I need to on kit.  That said I've dived twin 15's with staged 10 and been perfectly stable and comfortable although a little light on lift I have to admit.

As far as my 2p is worth:

Pro's of DIR as I see it.  Logical analysis of risk and solution.  this can be applied to all aspects of the method...including the health, team planning and building, and equipment aspect.  the steps taken can be justified in relation to this anaylsis.  However as already mentioned there is more than one way to skin (or drown) a cat.



Con's:  although the same can be said of all succesful training methodologies...single minded approaches, though succesful (just look at PADI) do lead to single minded students...as mentioned above, the 'managment' and guru's of DIR are at the front of the exploration world...they cannot afford to dimiss an idea, or they would not be there for long.  Similarly they have to evaluate all aspects of their endevour.  What is distilled out is what is promoted as the DIR menthod.  Unfortunatley this open minded element is I feel ignored in the teaching/promotion of the method.
To be in a position to pick and choose logically is I my opinion the best way forward.  
To dimiss Strokes (taken to mean non DIR in this case) is in my opinion fundamentally against the principles that led to the creation of DIR.

Consequences of this are the them and us camps that have existed in this sport for many years and is bourne out in all the general dive press despite their efforts to stop it.

To grossly over simplify here It is bringing to technical diving what PADI brought to recreational diving in the warm waters of this world(from whence it came). That is not to say that effective and adapted PADI teaching in these waters is not relevant, infact it did me for a few years without incident and is currently bringing my wife up to speed.

Both padi and DIR are thought out comprehensive methods of diving that address specific issues related to the type of diving to be undertaken.  Where padi cannot be expanded upon at a technical level...in theory the DIR method can be brought back to recreational and less technical disciplines...but is it totally neccessary?  No cos it was not designed for that.

few!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Imported post

Sorry to sound thick (i'm new to diving) but what's DIR, i'm enjoying reading the forums so i may be asking more daft questions later :p

(Edited by Andrew at 5:02 pm on Jan. 16, 2003)
 

·
Not as tall in real life
Joined
·
4,059 Posts
Imported post

Hi Andrew,

The only stupid question is the question that is never asked.

DIR is a holistic methodogy of diving and stands for "Do It Right" I am not a DIR affiendo so might misunderstand it but it is covers evrything such as kit configuration, attitude to diving, methods and health and fitness.  I believe te general idea is that the system needs to be treated as a whole.

Bob Cooper and Dave Willo seem to be pretty keyed up on DIR and I am sure they will be along to explain DIR correctly.

Cheers Guys,
Darren
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Imported post

nail on the head there I think Daz!  What do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,322 Posts
Imported post

Hello,
I like to read and use ideas about DIR but full DIR for me is too restrictive. Example most of my diving is done with a wetsuit and thus twin bladders are esentail for me, so I am a stroke? Also I have a Custom Divers adj. harness of which I found it very comfy, especially when have to don at the surface and many other things. In my opinion there is not only one way to do it right, it's only divers preference and also a lot of common sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,786 Posts
Imported post

I think part of the reason that D.I.R. is such an emotive subject is that the initials stand for 'Doing It Right' which would indicate that you are doing it wrong, this very implication alone is enough to put many people off the DIR approach or at least see the whole concept as elitist, which is extremely unfortunate as all the system is really trying to promote is safer diving through consistancy in equipment and training
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,914 Posts
Imported post

Good point on the semantics Dave, I think another bad element is the use of the derogative expression "Strokes" which someone suggested to me was intended to mean 'one who strokes his own' ie w*****
Not the best bit of PR I've ever heard
Chee-az
Steve
 

·
A short fat well off crap cave diver. Likes wrecks
Joined
·
15,343 Posts
Imported post

DIR was a design concept for a specific dive problem that got blown all out of proportion. The concept was to standardize all the kit and kit configuration for a group of cave divers. The concepts was that any diver could dive with another diver and be instantly not only awair but fulley in tune with his kit and confiuguration. This was later extended to diveing practicies.

All in all it worked well BUT a warm water clear water cave diver cant lay rules for a 50m open water mid chanel dive no can he. As a result some serious divers have had the serious hump over some of the cave orintated ideas laid down by DIR.

DIR is a good well thaught out system with a lot to offer but it is seriously lacking in various areas better suited to deep UK wreck diving.

DIR is ideal for your religious fanatic types who find purity through conformity with a strict set of rules. The stricter and more ardent the rules the better.

So your average Jahovers Whitness will make an excelent DIR candidate.

The rest of us will look at the system take what we feel is relevent and leave the rest.

There is a lot of good stuff in DIR. There is a lot of good stuff elsewhere better suited to the UK too.

IMHO

Mark Chase    
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,786 Posts
Imported post

"All in all it worked well" heheheh, I love it when you crack jokes Mark..

The Hogarthian system was initially developed and evolved from the greats like Sheck Exley and Bill Hogarth Main and more recently by the likes of Jarrod Jablonski and yes these guys dived caves but they also regularly dived open ocean and deep wrecks, deeper than you and I will ever go to Mark thats for sure and in much harsher conditions.

Do you seriously think that this system is lacking in its ability to cope with a poxy 50m dive in UK waters, I know blokes who do 45m regularly on a 15 and pony....

These guys are breaking world records for christ sake and they are doing it in caves and they are doing it in the depths of the oceans on wrecks that are outside of the reach of most people on the planet and yet it seems to be working as so far it has a 100% safety record....

I hope you are going to enlighten me with your explanations of what is wrong with a configuration and of a philosophy of every team member using the same mentality, the same equipment configurations, the same gas blends and decompression profiles, the same extended underwater communication capabilities, and above all a level of fitness and a team mentality that is designed to increase the safety of every person on that dive... Infact the whole system is designed with safety in mind, and until people who are fundamentally ignorant of the whole concept stop calling those who wish to use said system as religious fanatics or facists or Jehovahs Witness, then they will always be debate about the subject..

Mark I invite you to convince me of something better, I would like to hear your rationale behind the changes that you dictate and I will consider them and then we can debate them, who know's you might have something that the worlds greatest explorers and extreme divers have missed, but some how I doubt it

Best regards
Dave
 

·
Killed in the line of Duty. RIP.
Joined
·
173 Posts
Imported post

Oooh Dave. Naughty

Now to put my bit in, a super new wing, bullet proof, easly to inflate, uses its own recycled air (obtained from the surrounding water) has been put on the market. DIR divers will never use it why? 'cos its NOT DIR'
If I run 15 miles a day and am a fitness freak, should I exclude you from my dive 'cos your not in the same fitness league?
I personaly feel the ability to take the best of all systems, both training and equipment, including but not exclusive to DIR will make a better diver.
My organisation taught for 15 to 20 years that to brake and change grear at the same time was completely and utterly WRONG. ABS made for bad driving and power steering removed control from the driver.
Things change, we can heel and toe, left foot brake and even cross hands on the wheel. DIR is 'new' and may well adapt certain principals so dont "nail your colours too close to the mast" yet

BTW: Never did hear from you about the Otter suit, just as well it leaked again at 5 degrees
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
Imported post

"I hope you are going to enlighten me with your explanations of what is wrong with a configuration and of a philosophy of every team member using the same mentality"

If you're a diver who likes taking photos, your aim is to take good pictures. If your buddy isn't a photographer, you have two divers with different mentalities and goals on a dive.
Or if they ARE there to take pix too, then you have two people both busy lining up their cameras and not paying attention to each other. Bang goes the buddy system. Either way, they aren't DIR.

"the same equipment configurations"

My right shoulder D-ring doesn't have a backup torch in it. It has a small bottle of water I can drink whilst submerged - my throat is prone to drying out following a severe infection a year or so back.
That's non-DIR, and makes me a stroke.
THAT'S the problem with pure DIR.
I have a specific need that makes a pure DIR setup less appropriate than a non-DIR setup. DIR is a generic solution and therefore whilst being "pretty good for anyone" it can't ever be "Ideal for everyone". GI can mouth off about "DIR isn't for mutants" as much as he likes, I'm fairly sure I'm not handicapped or more freakish than the general population ;)
It's like clothing. A tailored suit will always fit better than one off the rack from M&S. Adapting DIR to fit your needs will make it better for you. It'll also make you non-DIR.
By being utterly rigid about "Totally DIR or total stroke" I have no choice but to opt for strokehood. Being DIR would be a liability, not a benefit.

"and above all a level of fitness"

Bang go 99% of my regular (BSAC) dive buddies


(Edited by Dominic at 11:15 am on Jan. 20, 2003)
 

·
Gone...and probably best forgotten
Joined
·
1,403 Posts
Imported post

Gotta butt in here chaps(esses)

I am a Jehovahs Witness yet not DIR.  In fact, strokier you could not get.  Perhaps not in kit, (which is relatively DIR, though, sadly, not as good as Dave is!) but in attitude i must admit i am a bit remiss!  Or lazy, whatever you want!

Fanatical, ardent, strict.  not something that has ever applied to me or my family.  Lets leave it at that eh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,557 Posts
Imported post

Andy, surely the whole point is that you *can't* be "relatively" DIR?  You is or you ain't, and if you ain't you get no "credit" for the bits you do get "right".

Why aim for a label anyway?  

As for 100% safety record - just how is that recorded?  I would be truly interested to know.  If Bill does a channel dive with Tommy, both DIR'd, and one of them gets bent after a fast ascent how does that make it onto the DIR figures?  A get-out clause I saw once (funny, if not necessarily true - I don't know?) is that if you do something wrong, like a fast ascent by accident, then you haven't followed DIR and you can't get included.  Hence 100% safety record!  Maybe Dave can clarify?
 
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
Top