2 quick questions

[tbone1004]

If they go against the standards though, how are they considered DIR?

I didn't know it was on topic for 2010, but until now it hasn't been considered DIR.
I wasn't saying you can't be a decent buddy, but the guy filming is being babysat by the other buddies. Which is fine for you, but if your buddy has something go wrong, you may not notice it. If you are backing up watching two buddies, or even one buddy diving, you're focusing on each other. Not a problem. If you're filming anything else, be it wildlife, or anything but your buddy from the front, then it starts posing problems for the whole buddy situation.

So the pistol grip sigh thing: #7 on GUE's equipment list of "Prime Consideration"
Goodman Handle Light Head: Allows for hands-free diving while allowing the diver to easily direct the focused light beam.

Sidemount: isn't in place yet, and as of today, still violates DIR's redundancy concepts. I didn't say it was forbidden, but it's still not in accordance with the DIR policy. Will that change, probably, but it hasn't yet.

Photo: you just said it yourself it's distracting. If you have a 3man dive team, two are watching each other and the cameraman that's fine. In normal buddy diving situations, it's not following the DIR approach. Even with the 3man team, you have 2 following and the cameraman is not. Not saying it's not safe, and not saying it's a problem or bad, but you can't follow proper buddy protocols as the photographer. I bring a P&S on most dives, and we're usually aware of each other, but when taking pictures it does take a lot of focus, especially using SLR's, and I am not as aware of my buddy as I should be

 

[liuk3]

There's no such thing as a DIR rule book. Heck, there's no DIR specific rules, only individual dive agency standards at this point. Train and follow whomever you want or what system works for you. If you want to take underwater pictures, knock yourself out. Never heard of any dive agency which prohibited underwater photography. LOL. If you want to learn to dive SM, I'm sure there are a bunch of agencies you can follow.

 

[rjack321]

If they go against the standards though, how are they considered DIR?

I didn't know it was on topic for 2010, but until now it hasn't been considered DIR.
I wasn't saying you can't be a decent buddy, but the guy filming is being babysat by the other buddies. Which is fine for you, but if your buddy has something go wrong, you may not notice it. If you are backing up watching two buddies, or even one buddy diving, you're focusing on each other. Not a problem. If you're filming anything else, be it wildlife, or anything but your buddy from the front, then it starts posing problems for the whole buddy situation.

So the pistol grip sigh thing: #7 on GUE's equipment list of "Prime Consideration"
Goodman Handle Light Head: Allows for hands-free diving while allowing the diver to easily direct the focused light beam.

Sidemount: isn't in place yet, and as of today, still violates DIR's redundancy concepts. I didn't say it was forbidden, but it's still not in accordance with the DIR policy. Will that change, probably, but it hasn't yet.

Photo: you just said it yourself it's distracting. If you have a 3man dive team, two are watching each other and the cameraman that's fine. In normal buddy diving situations, it's not following the DIR approach. Even with the 3man team, you have 2 following and the cameraman is not. Not saying it's not safe, and not saying it's a problem or bad, but you can't follow proper buddy protocols as the photographer. I bring a P&S on most dives, and we're usually aware of each other, but when taking pictures it does take a lot of focus, especially using SLR's, and I am not as aware of my buddy as I should be

Are you asking questions or attempting to formulate DIR answers? What "standards" are you refering to? There is nothing about these issues here:
http://www.gue.com/files/Standards_and_Procedures/GUE_Standards_Version_51.pdf
or here
http://api.ning.com/files/f-*2rZsEs...AtnabZ7Q0QHNjVGVAOTFw/UTD_standards_v1_11.pdf
or any of the other smaller agencies or (e.g.) individual NACD instructors who would be considered DIR. Please post the "standards" you're referring to. This forum is for DIR answers so you might want to let people who know try to answer the OPs questions.

Not having/using a canister light is fine, in certain environments.
Cameras and video are done in "DIR" teams all the time. You do need to have your sheet together to make it work effectively because HD cameras are bulky and video lights compromise alot of things. But its done all the time.

 

[DiverLaura]

Sidemount has been a discussion in "DIR" land for a long time... In fact, i think there is something about a double or weighted backplate for decompression if memory serves me...

i'd never heard that photography/videography was not DIR. oh Crap! someone had better tell JJ and Casey to hide all those great videos like the chips hole one, and the wakulla connection...

 

[TSandM]

saxplayer, your posts show what I think is a not unusual misinterpretation of the whole team diving concept. Contrary to popular belief, we don't spend our whole dives looking at one another We DO learn not to get utterly task-focused, to the point of forgetting where we are, what is going on around us, or what is happening with our buddies.

Any DIR diver will admit that, when he is taking photographs, a part of his bandwidth is being used for that. And a lot of us try not to have more than one camera on a team, if the photography is serious. But it's also quite possible to have more than one photographer and do just fine with awareness. I remember a dive with my buddy a couple of years ago, where both of us had cameras. We'd find something interesting, and he would move in for a few shots, and I would watch him; then I'd move in to shoot, and he would watch me. Would I be quite as fast to respond to something as I would be if I weren't looking at my camera? Probably not. Were we very far away from one another? Never. Would problems have gotten solved adequately? I'm quite sure of it.

 

[Dr Wu]

If something isn't useful IN THE WATER, you don't take it for a DIR dive.

Unless Halcyon makes money off of it. Then it's ok.

 

[kyleharmon]

Unless Halcyon makes money off of it. Then it's ok.

Not necessarily true. The cinch does have a purpose underwater as seen this summer in Wakulla. Having a tool that makes it easier to switch from an RB-80 to a deco rig is a welcome thing. Especially being fatigued from the hours underwater, in a drysuit with thick undies/heaters, etc. Being under control and maintaining depth is a huge concern during these dives.


From a Halcyon post this summer:

"Our CEO dives the Cinch Quick-adjust at Wakulla: We all love & dive the Cinch, yet I felt almost reintroduced to it this wknd! As an escort diver I observed the team as they methodically got their bottles ready & slid back into their deco rigs. The Cinch makes gear don/doff SO easy & the hassle-free way Jarrod was able to manipulate his BC, while dangling under the habitat, was amazing. Even to this Halcyon diver!"

 

[Dr Wu]

Not necessarily true. The cinch does have a purpose underwater as seen this summer in Wakulla. Having a tool that makes it easier to switch from an RB-80 to a deco rig is a welcome thing.

What about:

A diver's harness should be rigged from one piece of webbing and should have no quick-release buckles or other failure points.

This is no longer true?


Was it ever true?

"Our CEO dives the Cinch Quick-adjust at Wakulla: We all love & dive the Cinch, yet I felt almost reintroduced to it this wknd! As an escort diver I observed the team as they methodically got their bottles ready & slid back into their deco rigs. The Cinch makes gear don/doff SO easy & the hassle-free way Jarrod was able to manipulate his BC, while dangling under the habitat, was amazing. Even to this Halcyon diver!"

I don't find it surprising the CEO of a company that makes a product, endorses that product.

 

[TSandM]

There are no quick-release buckles in a Cinch harness. The one-piece nature of the harness is preserved; it's just that the mounting points for D-rings and canister are no longer part of the one-piece harness.

I'm still on the fence about the Cinch. On the one hand, it does make getting into and out of a harness even easier . . . but on the other hand, getting into and out of a harness that's properly adjusted isn't hard, even in thick undergarments and with dry glove rings. But I've never tried to get out of an RB80, and I've never tried to get out of ANYTHING after five or six hours in it.

 

[kyleharmon]

What about:

A diver's harness should be rigged from one piece of webbing and should have no quick-release buckles or other failure points.

This is no longer true?


Was it ever true?

Sure its true. The cinch is still a continuous, one piece of webbing and does not have any quick release buckles. However, I can see an argument for additional failure points with the plastic adjustment on the plate.

In the end, I see it as a tool for a job. We can't become so blind and rigid in "rules" that we miss the big picture and benefits a piece of gear or change in standards could create. This goes for CCR, side mount, whatever. Gear, procedures, and dives will change over time.