Why is this not the standard?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I have some difficultly with any diver obsessed by what other divers think, or call their style of diving.

Call your style anything you want. Solo, Vintage, Team, whatever. Give it a nice catchy name. If you get a couple others to join you, you have a clique, and if LOTS of other divers join you, you have a movement.

Why not call your new style something like: people enjoying reasonable, fun, effective certification together. PERFECT Divers!

Then maybe you could get other to hate you too, and say you are putting them down by calling only yourselves PERFECT divers.

Why focus on what others call themselves? I just can't see the point
 
To a solo diver the over reliance on someone else to resolve ones issues can be seen as approaching diving all wrong.

This is also true for DIR divers.

DIR is fundamentally team diving. One diver wholly or very reliant on another diver DIR is not.
 
I agree with you Jim, and in the real world most of these discussion points are rather mute. But, on a discussion board we tend to beat these issues around and around. I don't know if it comes from others caring what a small group might think or a small group trying to change how others think.

The title of this thread is "Why is this not the standard". In another subforum there is a current thread titled "Why do we teach the flutter kick at all". And on and on... I respect everyones right to dive as they please but their style doesn't always reflect my choices and when threads pose topics in such a way as to suggest my choices are not valid I sometimes like to participate to provide a counter argument. If we keep it civil it's all good in my books because I believe better understanding all around comes from dialogue (even if it is sometimes frank).

Lynne made a correct point earlier when she stated the correct intention of DIR standardization, that it applies within the group and is not intended to be extended towards all forms or groups of diving. The primary group is the team, standardization is a key safety component for a team, especially when moving into the technical realm. The larger group is the organization (certifying agency) where in individuals can fit into a team without a total refit of skills/equipment. Standardization also allows the individual to move from rec to tech within that organization without the same refit issues.

All good stuff and hard to argue against; certainly I wouldn't attempt to do so because I essentially agree with it all (though perhaps not with some of the small details but what the hey). Trying to suggest that their form of standardization in anyway applies outside of those groups though is beyond the intentions of the founders and falls prey to disagreement from others (and rightly so).
 
...//...I respect everyones right to dive as they please but their style doesn't always reflect my choices and when threads pose topics in such a way as to suggest my choices are not valid I sometimes like to participate to provide a counter argument. ...//...

And I, for one, am glad that you do.

When I dive with new (to me) divers, I never know what skill or nugget of information I'm going to pick up. It is also quite nice to give back.

Dale, you have to steel yourself before diving with DIR practitioners. NOTHING you do will be of any value to them. Get past this and all will be well. DIR is a self-consistent system that largely removes the element of personal creativity. If they care at all, they only want you to see how you could improve by adopting their system.

I'm still "DIR friendly" and will remain so due to several wonderful DIR practitioners that I interact with. I emulate their skills but just can't swallow the whole doctrine. All or nothing, so I'm destined to remain nothing more than a good neighbor to them.

Don't fight it, they won't change. Celebrate your diving skills and know that such personal rewards have been attained by other means.

They are like bees. Efficient, organized, useful to have around, and even fun to watch. Just don't piss them off or you get the whole hive.
 
Well, my thread about "Why do we teach flutter kick?" had to do with the fact that a frog kick in reasonable trim is a useful kick in the vast majority of settings, whereas the full-leg flutter kick is an awful kick in a lot of settings, especially the ones I read about people getting certified in, like silty lakes and quarries (and of course Puget Sound).

I do think, after seven years of doing this and helping to teach, that "donate the primary" is a better strategy than fumbling for an octo, and the bungied backup (or even Air2) makes better sense than trying to secure a secondary regulator somewhere where it's visible and easily released, but doesn't come loose on its own.

There are a lot of things from the DIR system that I think would be really beneficial to the big mainstream of recreational divers. Emphasis on good buoyancy and trim, non-silting propulsion (and a spectrum of kicks for various purposes) and maneuverability in the water, practice and facility with emergency procedures, good dive planning and gas planning, and strong situational awareness are ALL widely applicable in diving. As I said, I like the "donate the primary" approach to gas-sharing as well. I like the emphasis on positioning for buddies and maintaining communication -- if you ARE going to dive with someone else, it makes no sense to pay no attention to them!

There are a lot of ways of diving. Some of them are controversial, and I think, no matter how positive you are about solo diving, you'd have to admit that it still falls outside the way diving is taught at the basic level by all agencies. Diving vintage makes buddy diving a little complicated, if you accept that one of the reasons for having a buddy is to donate gas in the event of a loss; I know you CAN buddy breathe with a double-hose regulator, but wouldn't you agree that simply donating a secondary reg is a whole lot easier, and less stress on the OOA diver?

We could go on . . . GUE has set up their equipment and procedures because everything makes sense to them, and those of us who find it makes sense for US, too, follow the guidelines. For those who don't find the arguments compelling, there are lots of other ways to dive. Every single equipment choice or setup, or choice of procedure or protocol can be argued, and what you decide to do depends on how much weight you give to various positive and negative aspects. We will never, not until the end of ScubaBoard, bring everyone here into consonance on how diving should be done, and I don't think it's worth trying :)
 
...//... For those who don't find the arguments compelling, there are lots of other ways to dive. Every single equipment choice or setup, or choice of procedure or protocol can be argued, and what you decide to do depends on how much weight you give to various positive and negative aspects. ...//...

Why I "liked" your post above...
 
I think you might be surprised by how much we agree upon Lynne as far as the efficacy of those points (and others) listed above go. As far as solo diving goes, I see it as a sub specialty of diving like wreck penetration, deep or cave diving. I wouldn't say those activities reflect diving as it is taught at the OW level by all agencies either and it isn't for everyone. Vintage diving with a modern diver is also very easy, if they know how to sling a pony (which most of my regular buddies do) - I also sling one if needs be. That simple solution may not occur to someone who comes from a perspective wherein their teammate carries their back up gas but it seems fairly straightforward to me.

When one simply opens their mind to the possibility that other forms of diving can be as valid as their own then the solutions that others have already found have a chance of making sense. If one clings to their own paradigm however, then a struggle exists because one concept seems to negate the other. They don't negate though; they co-exist.

I think in Medical terms (to use a loose analogy) I simply prefer to remain a GP instead of narrowing my focus and becoming a specialist. To a surgeon, most solutions are surgical, to a pharmacist most solutions are chemical. They have a hard time admitting their way is not the best because they are so committed to it. A GP has the benefit of being able to see many solutions, though they may not pursue them as far into the operating room as a specialist. That's the trade off I accept. I've come to realize that the vast majority of diving that I will do, because of age, finances or familial commitments, will probably not be of an extreme technical nature. So in the end, the DIR pathway would create more limitations to my diving than opportunities.

Added to my desire to remain a GP (figuratively speaking) I've also become intrigued by medicine as it is practiced in other times, regions and cultures. That doesn't make me a quack (though it might to the western oriented specialist) and I still retain the basic core components of good medical practice but it does allow me to move in and out of various groups with relative ease, respect and understanding.

Some may say they prefer to be a specialist, either because they truly enjoy the field they pursue or because they have fragile ego's that need to be seen as "something better" and that's alright with them. The odd thing about life is we all appear to get exactly what we seek. I'm happy, challenged and I think, pretty well liked on the local scene. Once in a while I do or see something "different" that makes all the mundane worthwhile. Except for fame and fortune, what else could one ask out of medicine.. er.. diving.
 
Most new divers are not General Practitioners at all. Not even close.

A GP has to study, and master a lot of areas, and different "specialty" fields in Medicine, before he is allowed to call himself or herself a GP. Heck, even a Nurse Practitioner, or a PA has to study a great many areas in serious depth. Otherwise they would be an extreme danger to everyone they treat.

Studying those other ares of medicine does not later limit that professional's (GP's, etc) choices, but rather gives them a much lager field of knowledge, or box of tools to draw from. They may not be qualified to do brain surgery, but they dam-sure studied both the brain, and surgical procedures somewhere along the way, and have a working knowledge of what is involved, even if they can not do it.

Learning other ways to dive is not going to make you a worse diver, or limit your choices to only what you most recently tried. I can still dive a 1970's single hose reg, J valve 72inch steel tank, with no BC or SPG, if I choose to. Or a BCD/safe second. Or a BP/W, long hose/bungied backup.

I am only limited but what I do NOT know how to do, or am not equipped for, and not by the tools and skills I have, but choose not to use today.
 
Good post, Dale. I'm a surgeon by temperament and training, which I'm sure impacts my decision to move toward a standardized and regimented system of diving.

I do appreciate the fun (and sometimes the utility) of exploring a variety of approaches to diving. I have done two CCR demos; I have played with sidemount, and I have monkey dived. I've done pool time on a double hose regulator. I don't think anyone can learn too much about diving!

But when we are considering the vast majority of divers, who don't take a ton of classes and who don't do a hundred dives a year, it's worth thinking about what is easily taught and most error-resistant.
 
Perhaps, though I shy away from that sort of role. There are benefits to thinking of boiling choices down to the commonest denominator but, as we are discussing, there are also drawbacks. Where as you instinctively seek standardization because you find it empowering I seek creative outlets for the same reason.

I also am conscious of the fact that statistics break down at the individual level. As soon as we think we have found the one right way to do something someone comes along and does the same thing successfully, differently. At that point we face a choice: to celebrate the fact that there is more than one way to do something or to quash the other perspective, to validate our own.

I'm also afraid, to bring the thread back around to the OP, that if one were thinking about novice divers and what was easiest taught and error resistant in today's diving culture, destination diving where most people use rental gear for 45 minute, moderate to mid range dives, the gear would not look like a HOG rig. It would probably be a jacket BC that is simple to adjust, an Al 80 and a detachable bungied octo on a swivel.

The HOG BP/W is not adjustable (which gear rental needs to be) and is modular (which rental gear doesn't need to be). Rear inflate wings won't face plant people if they are weighted correctly (so they don't over inflate the wing) but that requires a water session of weight adjustment for each vacation diver that many charters wouldn't want to do. A jacket is more forgiving in that regard, allowing divers to be over weighted without face planting.

For the novice vacation diver the long hose requires attention to detail when routing to avoid trapping (imagine that scenario being played out over and over again) and primary donation, which most occasional vacation divers would not be comfortable doing. A bungied octo solves the one problem I've always seen with the golden triangle concept (having the octo all over the place with a variety of effective or ineffective holders).

Remember, most divers today don't have personal experience with the gear they are using, don't do drills, most times don't even remember to do buddy checks and are diving unknown sites with unknown partners. Not the same people who have adopted the HOG rig as their choice of standardized gear. if one wanted to change the type of gear standard to today's diving one would first have to change the whole way the dive industry over promotes destination diving to novice divers. Waiting...
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/
http://cavediveflorida.com/Rum_House.htm

Back
Top Bottom