Why is this not the standard?

[Jim Lapenta]

But each is issued the same BASIC kit. Uniform, boots, insignia, pack, etc. Then as the needs of the team are identified each member begins to take their place in the team with the specialized gear the team needs. GUE,UTD, etc. from my point of view allows for individuality in a number of areas. What I see is though, that the team needs to fully understand and know about those nuances. If I'm wrong correct me please someone, but if I am diving with a team and I have my shears in my right pocket because that is where they always are, the team needs to know that. I don't think I will be forced to put them in the left. Now I may take a little ribbing if my wing says HOG instead of Halcyon, and my harness does not have the blue letter that falls between "g" and "i" on it but from what I see I will still be allowed to dive with the team.

I am currently about 90% finished with an article on using the BPW or similar setups like the Zeagle Express Tech for basic OW training. I hope that it will be published in our next quarterly newsletter for SEI. If for some reason they choose not to it will be available on my website in my new blog. It is very basic and admittedly my own views but it addresses more than few of drrich2's concerns. As well as some of the myths that surround the set up.

I am writing not from a technical perspective per se, but to educate our leadership on the BASICS of the set up and why it is suitable for OW students and, as ElGaucho noted, a great option for independent instructors. Four BPW set ups, with the harness webbing properly managed, can replace as many as 20 BC's if that instructor wanted to make sure they had at least four of each size from small to XL. And there are no issues with struggling for a proper fit on in-between sizes than so many divers seem to fall into.

They are not hard to set up, they are not much different than the setup used early on other than the addition of a bladder. Mike Nelson used a pack and harness. A BPW is just a variation of that. Where I see the issue for some of our instructors is the lack of understanding on their part as to just what it is. It is not tech gear, it is not unsafe, it does not try to drown you by pushing you face first in the water, and is no more difficult to get in or out of if properly adjusted. And with the set up gaining in popularity and more people using resources like scubaboard to explore their options, a shop or instructor that refuses to train in them is making a less than intelligent decision.

 

[gypsyjim]

Everything I've read indicates he would strongly disagree with your word substitution. I hope I'm wrong :

Mine was not a correction, but merely an alternate possibility, based on my own observations.

 

[Them]

But each is issued the same BASIC kit. Uniform, boots, insignia, pack, etc. Then as the needs of the team are identified each member begins to take their place in the team with the specialized gear the team needs. GUE,UTD, etc. from my point of view allows for individuality in a number of areas. What I see is though, that the team needs to fully understand and know about those nuances.

Agreed, with the caveat that choice of life support system may not map to "basic gear"...

Taking an infantry unit... Everyone has a rifle. Rifles are basic gear for infantry soldiers. But not every soldier is issued the same type of rifle. In the NATO world most are issued 5.56x45mm (m16 style) weapons, a few are issued 7.62x51 (m14 style) weapons. Same team, but ammo, accessories, operating procedures, maintenance requirements, etc. are not interchangeable. It's a pain for everyone but team efficiency is improved so they do it anyway.

Your last sentence is a big one as far as I can tell. Given a reality of limited training, standardization may be an acceptable compromise in itself even if team efficiency suffers compared to a non-standardized team. I suspect we don't want to turn scuba into something like flying where getting the equivalent of OW certified requires an average of 65 hours of one-on-one training in open water plus a bunch of classroom time (and $10 grand or so). If we had that, however, the focus on standardization would be misplaced.

Sounds like it will be a good article.

Mine was not a correction, but merely an alternate possibility, based on my own observations.

Understood. I was trying to capture that by using the neutral word, "substitution" but I should have been clearer.

I still think Jarrod would disagree with you.

 

[gypsyjim]

I still think Jarrod would disagree with you.

He has the right to. We have very different goals in our diving, and even if we did not, there should always be room to discuss and disagree, otherwise nothing new would ever happen as everyone would always be marching to the same boring tune, like happy little goose steppers.

I am pretty sure Jarrod had disagreements with others too. From what I have read and heard his own thinking has evolved and changed over time, so he may even find occasions when he would disagree with some of his own earlier words. But then I may be putting words in his mouth, and have no right to do that.

If, on the other hand I were ever in a situation where I was diving with a Jarrod, or another very committed team diver, I would willingly accept the rules they wish to dive/play by, as the dive standard of THAT dive scenario, or chose to dive with others if their rules did not seem in my best interest.
Always willing to listen, learn and adapt what seems to work best when I see it demonstrated.

---------- Post Merged at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 01:16 PM ----------

Also THEM, a fighting unit has some pretty significant standards, even if some arm armed with alternate weaponry. A traditional "volunteer" or militia unit of old had every odd bit of guns the local farmer or shop keeper might have available to him, and had no standardized caliber, which made resupplying quite an issue.

Regular military units, may have a selection of weapons available to them besides the basic issue rifle, to address combat situations, but these are also pretty standardized.

 

[TSandM]

You know, I think any of us who has adopted a gear setup and a set of procedures probably thinks that the way they are diving is the best way . . . for THEM. Otherwise, they'd change something!

Jarrod's sentence, which I don't think was ambiguous at all, says that people who haven't been involved with the DIR way of diving may think that, since the system requires a high degree of standardization, the implication is that people who adopt the system think all other ways of doing things are wrong. I'm sure there are some people who feel that way. But the vast majority of us just think the way we do things is the best way for US, and a good way for other people at least to take a look at.

Some people object to standardization in principle, because they don't want to be "told what to do". Other people like it, because it suits their temperament or because they have operated in other fields where standardization has been valuable.

There's lots of room in the ocean. Yes, Jarrod espouses the DIR approach to diving -- wouldn't you think he would, since he helped create it? Yes, his book pushes the system -- and again, is that surprising? But there is nothing in that book that says that the whole rest of the diving world is wrong.

 

[lowviz]

...//...Some people object to standardization in principle, because they don't want to be "told what to do". Other people like it, because it suits their temperament or because they have operated in other fields where standardization has been valuable. ...//....

And some people see standarization as being quite valuable, unless overdone, when it then becomes bull-headed resistance to change. Then you need to invoke something like following recommendations unless the recommendations don't make sense.

 

[Them]

Hi Hi

He has the right to.

True and never contested. However, having a right to do something, and it being right to do that thing, are totally unrelated propositions.

Also THEM, a fighting unit has some pretty significant standards, even if some arm armed with alternate weaponry.

Yes, that is my point. This has nothing to do with ragtag militias.

People who have a choice, and care about results, often choose diversity even if it means more training or other costs. There is a reason for that fact.

Jarrod's sentence, which I don't think was ambiguous at all,...

I don't think Jarrod's sentences were ambiguous either. We just disagree about what they meant.

Some people object to standardization in principle, because they don't want to be "told what to do". Other people like it, because it suits their temperament or because they have operated in other fields where standardization has been valuable.

I'm not sure if you are expressing you own view or trying to paraphrase Jarrod. If the later you missed something relevant. He asserted that other divers didn't understand. That means the foreseen objection is from ignorance, not principle. That's an important and revealing choice of words on his part. It preemptively dismisses objections.

In any case I disagree with you both. Not, I want to emphasize, about methods necessarily, but the justifications for his preferences, and receptiveness to diversity.

Professionally I am, among other things, a standards expert with 20 years experience creating, utilizing, amending, and in general understanding standards and standardization. I can defend my opinions without resorting to straw men and ad hominem fallacies even! :beer:

 

[TSandM]

Tension between DIR and non-DIR divers is because non-DIR divers don't understand a central axiom of DIR. If they understood they would agree.

No, if they understood, they might disagree, but there would be no tension.

"This is because some see the insistence on uniformity as an indictment of practices that do not abide by DIR principles." TRANSLATION: The only reason they don't understand is unwillingness to accept that someone else knows a better way.

I have no idea how you get your translation out of that sentence. The sentence says that others see the insistence on uniformity as an indictment. The implication is that it is not an indictment, and that if they understood it, they would realize that. It does not in any way imply that someone who understood that it was not an indictment would then agree with it, or decide it's better. It just means they'd stop thinking that "Doing it Right" means everybody else is doing it WRONG. (And we have THAT discussion ad nauseum here.)

And I have not resorted to ad hominem fallacies or straw men. I am simply trying to understand how you can derive the meaning you have found in what I see as some pretty simple sentences.

DIR isn't for everybody, no matter how profoundly I might wish it It doesn't even work for all diving situations (sidemount cave). But it's a pretty darned good, widely applicable approach to diving, and I hate to see people discarding it or deriding it for the wrong reasons.

 

[lowviz]

Beautiful post, Lynne.

-put me in the "Loyal Opposition" column until you guys get fundies and sidemount figured out.

 

[gypsyjim]

Beautiful post, Lynne.

-put me in the "Loyal Oppeosition" column until you guys get fundies and sidemount figured out.

I enjoy reading Lynn's post in a similar way as I do Bob's and Jim Lapenta's.
A lot of thought goes into each of their posts, even if they disagree with your position.