JeffG
Contributor
We can always find something to debateTanked Monkey:
a retreat from DIR
- Thread starter H2Andy
- Start date
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
Tanked Monkey
Contributor
JeffG:We can always find something to debate
You say potato, I say potato. Err . . . they look the same when I type it . . . but you know what I'm saying.
Jasonmh:
Thanks for the invite. Unfortunately, July is no good for me. Ill be in Florida the entire of month of June. Ill have to be working in July. :frown:
Where are the classes usually at in NM?
NWGratefulDiver:
Very well said!
Tanked Monkey:
yup, tomato !
.
MonkSeal
Contributor
1 litreJeffG:
Dive-aholic:Thanks for the invite. Unfortunately, July is no good for me. I’ll be in Florida the entire of month of June. I’ll have to be working in July. :frown:
Where are the classes usually at in NM?
[\QUOTE]
Bummer. Works does always seem to get in the way
In Albuquerque, for the classrooom/pool work, then Santa Rosa for the checkout dives.
The nice thing about it is that most fundies classes are in the 400-500 range, this one is going to be $300. The instructor travels here, and was talking about possibly coming back every 6-9 months, as long as there is interest, so he might be back this winter. I know that it is not exactly a dream location, but for anyone who is close it is a good deal. If anyone else is interested PM me.
Thanks.
Well this thread has been an interesting one, long and interesting!
Still anytime that I see the great debate of DIR vs. HOG vs. the world I see the same standard set of responses as to why things are done a certain way. Responses citing streamlining, team continuity, entanglement, emergency procedures, etc, etc etc.
So I decided to look back at the development of these configurations, the reasons and the mind set behind them. Now firstly I am not against DIR. I do not dive by their definition DIR because my equipment has been configured to match the diving that I do. I have a consistency in the basic set that allows flexibility for the different environments, depths and conditions I dive under. I have achieved this set up by experimentation. Trying something, working and practicing with it. My equipment has evolved. It will continue to evolve as new equipment and diving systems becomes available. I have had many students who having taken DIR classes come to me for training. I don't jump all over them for their configuration or philosophies and they don't walk away calling me an instroketer. It's all about respect and understanding the reasons behind why things are done in specific ways. All I ask of any student is that they think and can cite a logical reason for doing something. Experience and the particular diving environment will prove right or wrong.
Let’s take a trip into history here.
The controversial back plate system, is it new? NO it is not. The current system as we see it today was developed by William Hogarth. The DIR system grew out of this. Before this all divers were using a BP and single strap systems as part of their normal diving set up. I started diving wearing such a system. A BP strapped to a single 72 with a J valve single hose reg. We didn't even have spg at that time few divers did. We calculated our dives based on depth and breathing rate, time or air supply ended the dive. A basic dive class included learning how decompression was done. All divers knew how to share air using a double hose or single hose by buddy breathing; there was no alternate air sources. The wet suits required a diver to have strong arms and legs just to be able to move in the material they were made of. Our BC's if we had one was nothing more than a Mae West and usually had a CO2 cartridge. (I never used bleach bottles) All of this was just a short 30 years ago. It is through experimentation and new design concepts that the systems we use today have been developed. The philosophies and theories of diving have also developed by quite often a process of trial and error. Today this continues on.
Busting a few overstated myths:
Streamlining: Once a diver has their buoyancy and trim set and all their equipment has been stowed in an accessible tight to the body location, a divers streamlining at best is only able to reduce the drag coefficient. The diver is still attempting to move mass through the water column. The placement of an item as small as a spg, be it on the hip d-ring or the shoulder or crotch d-ring really has very little impact on further reducing this drag coefficient. Truth is that as long as the diver has reduced their frontal surface area they can only achieve a minimal drag coefficient provided their equipment is logically placed and stowed. Additional ways for the diver to counter the water resistance is in how they move. A diver needs to move at comfortable pace, in a deliberate purposeful manner. Their equipment needs to be secure close to the body.
Entanglement: This argument has been worn thin. Taking a look at the diver at any level wearing any equipment, shape, and size you have an entanglement risk. The long hose coming across the chest of both DIR and HOG divers is no different or any more of an entanglement risk then that of a standard gear setup of any dive with a secured alternate coming off their right side within the body’s triangle. All of these configurations can still cause an entanglement. The instrument console coming down the left side or clipped off to a hip d-ring or shoulder d-ring can still be an entanglement risk. In short all of our equipment regardless of set up used is an entanglement risk. So how is it we minimize this risk? Well first we make sure we stow our gear in accessible locations (streamline) then we develop awareness. It is through awareness that we actually prevent or reduce the risk of entanglement. I don't care if a diver is diving 100% HOG or DIR or standard config. If there is something that can get caught up on your equipment and you are close enough for it to do so then it will. Awareness of your equipment, its placement, your environment and body position will cause that which reduces entanglement risks.
Team Continuity: Ok this is an important one. It is one that the solo divers argue against citing self sufficiency. DIR promotes team diving always. HOG divers go both ways. The truth here is all dives really need to be looked at with an element of self reliance. A diver should prepare at all levels for the contingency of what if I am alone. You see a diver who prepares with no reliance, total self sufficiency for any and all dives is truly taking care of them selves. Having a buddy is now only a convenience and yes perhaps more enjoyable. After all, the only true emergency is not having air to breathe everything else is an inconvenience. A dive should be looked at as a solo responsibility and then conducted as a social event. Should you decide to team dive then factors of the other diver’s certification, training and experience should be looked at. The other divers self sufficiency preparedness needs to be determined and adjusted for if they are lacking (you become more stringent of your limitations). Most importantly you dive with someone who has a compatible acceptable attitude.
The basic thing here is divers need to think about their diving and their gear and do what works for them. While systems have declared a well thought out evolution of getting to where they are, divers can still find loops in the thinking. Experimentation causes this process of evolution to occur. The process causes change and change causes conflict. There is not a one system suitable for all types of diving solution.
Still anytime that I see the great debate of DIR vs. HOG vs. the world I see the same standard set of responses as to why things are done a certain way. Responses citing streamlining, team continuity, entanglement, emergency procedures, etc, etc etc.
So I decided to look back at the development of these configurations, the reasons and the mind set behind them. Now firstly I am not against DIR. I do not dive by their definition DIR because my equipment has been configured to match the diving that I do. I have a consistency in the basic set that allows flexibility for the different environments, depths and conditions I dive under. I have achieved this set up by experimentation. Trying something, working and practicing with it. My equipment has evolved. It will continue to evolve as new equipment and diving systems becomes available. I have had many students who having taken DIR classes come to me for training. I don't jump all over them for their configuration or philosophies and they don't walk away calling me an instroketer. It's all about respect and understanding the reasons behind why things are done in specific ways. All I ask of any student is that they think and can cite a logical reason for doing something. Experience and the particular diving environment will prove right or wrong.
Let’s take a trip into history here.
The controversial back plate system, is it new? NO it is not. The current system as we see it today was developed by William Hogarth. The DIR system grew out of this. Before this all divers were using a BP and single strap systems as part of their normal diving set up. I started diving wearing such a system. A BP strapped to a single 72 with a J valve single hose reg. We didn't even have spg at that time few divers did. We calculated our dives based on depth and breathing rate, time or air supply ended the dive. A basic dive class included learning how decompression was done. All divers knew how to share air using a double hose or single hose by buddy breathing; there was no alternate air sources. The wet suits required a diver to have strong arms and legs just to be able to move in the material they were made of. Our BC's if we had one was nothing more than a Mae West and usually had a CO2 cartridge. (I never used bleach bottles) All of this was just a short 30 years ago. It is through experimentation and new design concepts that the systems we use today have been developed. The philosophies and theories of diving have also developed by quite often a process of trial and error. Today this continues on.
Busting a few overstated myths:
Streamlining: Once a diver has their buoyancy and trim set and all their equipment has been stowed in an accessible tight to the body location, a divers streamlining at best is only able to reduce the drag coefficient. The diver is still attempting to move mass through the water column. The placement of an item as small as a spg, be it on the hip d-ring or the shoulder or crotch d-ring really has very little impact on further reducing this drag coefficient. Truth is that as long as the diver has reduced their frontal surface area they can only achieve a minimal drag coefficient provided their equipment is logically placed and stowed. Additional ways for the diver to counter the water resistance is in how they move. A diver needs to move at comfortable pace, in a deliberate purposeful manner. Their equipment needs to be secure close to the body.
Entanglement: This argument has been worn thin. Taking a look at the diver at any level wearing any equipment, shape, and size you have an entanglement risk. The long hose coming across the chest of both DIR and HOG divers is no different or any more of an entanglement risk then that of a standard gear setup of any dive with a secured alternate coming off their right side within the body’s triangle. All of these configurations can still cause an entanglement. The instrument console coming down the left side or clipped off to a hip d-ring or shoulder d-ring can still be an entanglement risk. In short all of our equipment regardless of set up used is an entanglement risk. So how is it we minimize this risk? Well first we make sure we stow our gear in accessible locations (streamline) then we develop awareness. It is through awareness that we actually prevent or reduce the risk of entanglement. I don't care if a diver is diving 100% HOG or DIR or standard config. If there is something that can get caught up on your equipment and you are close enough for it to do so then it will. Awareness of your equipment, its placement, your environment and body position will cause that which reduces entanglement risks.
Team Continuity: Ok this is an important one. It is one that the solo divers argue against citing self sufficiency. DIR promotes team diving always. HOG divers go both ways. The truth here is all dives really need to be looked at with an element of self reliance. A diver should prepare at all levels for the contingency of what if I am alone. You see a diver who prepares with no reliance, total self sufficiency for any and all dives is truly taking care of them selves. Having a buddy is now only a convenience and yes perhaps more enjoyable. After all, the only true emergency is not having air to breathe everything else is an inconvenience. A dive should be looked at as a solo responsibility and then conducted as a social event. Should you decide to team dive then factors of the other diver’s certification, training and experience should be looked at. The other divers self sufficiency preparedness needs to be determined and adjusted for if they are lacking (you become more stringent of your limitations). Most importantly you dive with someone who has a compatible acceptable attitude.
The basic thing here is divers need to think about their diving and their gear and do what works for them. While systems have declared a well thought out evolution of getting to where they are, divers can still find loops in the thinking. Experimentation causes this process of evolution to occur. The process causes change and change causes conflict. There is not a one system suitable for all types of diving solution.
- Messages
- 3,138
- Reaction score
- 4
GDI:
I most certainly do not!
:rofl: LOL
in_cavediver
Contributor
Looking back through the thread and reading GDI's notes brought me to a realization about divers and attitudes toward gear configurations and how they view DIR-ness.
In your first group, you have the relatiively new divers (at least to the tec/cave) who find the DIR system and embrace it. Essentially thier first exposure to a hogarthian team system is the DIR system. These divers are quite devoted and invested into DIR because its the system that they were first trained with. It also likely has evolved to meet their expanding diving needs.
A second group is those divers who have already progressed significantly into Cave or Tec or both with agencies other than GUE. These divers have evolved an equipment and team philosophy that differs from the DIR system. These divers look at the DIR system not as a holistic approach to all of their diving needs but as a collection of possible optimizations to add to thier tried and proven system. They seek not to embrace DIR holistically and replace thier tried and true methods but to find the best possible solution to problems they may encontered in their diving. They have already been there and done that so to speak and expect hard and sound reasoning for changes that is applicable to thier diving.
A third group is those who have progressed through significant training with other agencies and through optimizations have embraced the holisitic DIR philosphy as thier optimal solution for diving. These individuals have done it other ways and understand first hand why they made the DIR choices. This group also has some of the best reasoned responses to DIR questions due to that firsthand knowledge.
For completeness, the last group is everyone else who dives and doesn't fit into the first three groups.
From those classifications, most of the DIR/Anti-DIR debate seems to come from the interaction of the first and second groups. Perhaps just thinking about the why behind some of the questions posed by others may help contain some of the inflammatory rhetoric. It definitely would help some of the DIR internet image to contain the argumentive name calling (from both sides). I mean after all, we all pretty much are looking for the same thing - The best way to be able to go dive and have fun no matter which group above we may fit into.
In your first group, you have the relatiively new divers (at least to the tec/cave) who find the DIR system and embrace it. Essentially thier first exposure to a hogarthian team system is the DIR system. These divers are quite devoted and invested into DIR because its the system that they were first trained with. It also likely has evolved to meet their expanding diving needs.
A second group is those divers who have already progressed significantly into Cave or Tec or both with agencies other than GUE. These divers have evolved an equipment and team philosophy that differs from the DIR system. These divers look at the DIR system not as a holistic approach to all of their diving needs but as a collection of possible optimizations to add to thier tried and proven system. They seek not to embrace DIR holistically and replace thier tried and true methods but to find the best possible solution to problems they may encontered in their diving. They have already been there and done that so to speak and expect hard and sound reasoning for changes that is applicable to thier diving.
A third group is those who have progressed through significant training with other agencies and through optimizations have embraced the holisitic DIR philosphy as thier optimal solution for diving. These individuals have done it other ways and understand first hand why they made the DIR choices. This group also has some of the best reasoned responses to DIR questions due to that firsthand knowledge.
For completeness, the last group is everyone else who dives and doesn't fit into the first three groups.
From those classifications, most of the DIR/Anti-DIR debate seems to come from the interaction of the first and second groups. Perhaps just thinking about the why behind some of the questions posed by others may help contain some of the inflammatory rhetoric. It definitely would help some of the DIR internet image to contain the argumentive name calling (from both sides). I mean after all, we all pretty much are looking for the same thing - The best way to be able to go dive and have fun no matter which group above we may fit into.
Similar threads
DIR- Generic
How to choose bolt snap sizes?
