Attitudes Toward DIR Divers

[steinbil]

One, all dives are solo dives.

No a team is composed of components and the weakest link can be any component on that team. The weakest member of the team will always define the safety of the team. Loss of individual accountability for personal safety is loss of safety.

Just saying that trusting in others on a dive is not a vouch safe for you being safe. Always comes back to whether you make the correct choices and your competence when the "what if" happens.

I hear this line of thinking a lot, but I think it is flawed for one simple reason: It wrongly implies/assumes that Team Divers are less self-sufficient and/or less accountable for their own safety.

My experience with Team Diving, and my training say otherwise. If you are not competent and accountable for your own safety, you can't be a good Team Diver. On the contrary, you need to be proficient and competent enough that you can take care of yourself AND contribute to the team. And in that case a team just provides more resources, more chances to catch mistakes, more efficiency in complex tasks, more chances to learn and improve and more fun.

It's true that the weakest member of the team can compromise the safety of the team, which is why one of the most important tenets of team diving is that the dive should always be planned to the level of the least experienced/competent member. That way you keep all of the benefits and added safety a team brings.

A dive 'team' is a group of solo divers in the same ocean

This is exactly the sentiment I disagree with. A dive team is MORE THAN a group of solo divers. A dive team is a group of team members - and each team member is self sufficient, competent and responsible for their own safety, IN ADDITION TO providing support to the rest of the team.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I won't argue that a team is better than an individual when a team is needed. However, there are many tasks and hobbies that do not require teams. For a large project a team is needed, but I don't need a team to take a piss. Just identifying the extremes. Some believe that diving does not require a team, I believe that some diving does and some diving doesn't. To argue one way or another is significantly dependent on the dive plan.

"Team" just means at least two divers. If you do "buddy diving," you're a team as far as DIR would be concerned. If you don't do buddy diving, but rather are into diving solo, the whole discussion of teams doesn't apply to you. If you want to dive solo, nobody is telling you not to.

Incidentally, it has been brought up before that some divers who adhere to DIR when they're diving with other divers who adhere to DIR have been rumored to quietly dive solo now and then. If that's what you mean by "some diving does and some diving doesn't" require a team, there may be more divers who agree with you than you might expect.

 

[Nick_Radov]

The other agencies still teach basic air to 130’ (140’ in an emergency) and other tech agencies teach air to 150’ with deco (TDI AN/DP)
Many people have no problem taking air past 100’.
Just sayin’

Whatever. The deep air issue has already been beat to death in multiple discussions over decades. I'm not going to take the time to explain once again why it's a stupid and unnecessary practice regardless of what some agencies do.

The main point is that it's clear that eventually rebreathers will be the main tool for dives much beyond recreational depths (however you want to define that limit). While my buddies and I still do some open-circuit tech diving it's obviously unsustainable.

32% to 100’ and mix beyond that seems a little over the top to me. That is still GUE’s stance is it not?
I can’t even get 32% where I live, does that mean I should stay out of the water?

I don't speak for GUE. If you want to know their stance on a particular issue then I recommend you contact them directly and ask. They're usually willing to answer questions.

Their official standards for training dives don't dictate any particular gas mix. There are hard limits on PPO2 and equivalent narcotic depth (END). In practice using the standard gasses usually makes logistics and dive planning easier, and allows for quite a bit of flexibility when plans change. But if you and your teammates want to use air for a shallow dive then go ahead, no one cares.

 

[Wallowa]

Nick,

Caught my attention! I assume when you said: "While....I still do some open-circuit tech diving it's obviously unsustainable." that you were referring to what is loosely considered a Tech Dive? Overhead, decompression, "deep', contaminated, etc. Why "unsustainable" or is this only referring to true high risk 'tech' dives? What constitutes a 'recreational depth' limit I agree is way open for discussion and differing opinions/practices. I do believe that setting a depth limit for diving open circuit air diving [or any gas or gear combo] should be left to the individual and not dictate as a sacrosanct by any group or organization. Diving will always be a high 'at risk' activity but assumption of that risk should the purview of the individual who will be at risk. Nanny state notwithstanding diving is and should be a freedom of choice activity. Hey life is an adventure and diving is a high adventure!

Or so it seems to me....

DSO

 

[Wibble]

It goes without saying that standardisation is very important in team diving.

However... When standardisation becomes a bureaucratic fetish it's probably gone too far. The classic nowadays is mixed groups of CCR and OC divers; they're not the same. Similarly different rebreathers and ways of hanging cylinders off you: all left v. lean-left-rich-right.

What matters is there's sufficient gas for the dive for each person -- or a bloody good reason for teem bailout -- that the gas choices are compatible with everyone and that you decide on timings and separation plans.

Alas that may be anathema to some people.

 

[crofrog]

"The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. The term is based on a Latin expression which presumed that black swans did not exist."

Examples? If you dive long enough you will at some point be startled/surprised by the expected and unplanned for; not if but when. The outcome is event and reaction dependent. Funny as much as we train our responses to emergencies will always remain uncertain but again the more diving experiences you have will shift the odds in your favor of making the correct responses. No guarantees only 'probabilities'.

I know what a black swan is, I even got to meet Taleb

A "Black Swan" describes highly improbable, unforeseen events that have massive, far-reaching consequences. An example could be Parker Tuner's death when the entrance collapsed.

What are some examples you have of potential black swans?

 

[Nick_Radov]

Nick,

Caught my attention! I assume when you said: "While....I still do some open-circuit tech diving it's obviously unsustainable." that you were referring to what is loosely considered a Tech Dive? Overhead, decompression, "deep', contaminated, etc. Why "unsustainable" or is this only referring to true high risk 'tech' dives?

Unsustainable due to helium price and availability. The days of the National Helium Reserve being sold off at below market prices are long gone and will never return. The precise definition of a "Tech Dive" is unimportant in this context and I don't want another argument about semantics. Take it however you like.

What constitutes a 'recreational depth' limit I agree is way open for discussion and differing opinions/practices. I do believe that setting a depth limit for diving open circuit air diving [or any gas or gear combo] should be left to the individual and not dictate as a sacrosanct by any group or organization.

No. This is a decision for the integrated team, not the individual. If you don't accept that fundamental point then further discussions about the fine points of gas selection or gear configuration or dive planning or whatever else are a waste of time.

Diving will always be a high 'at risk' activity but assumption of that risk should the purview of the individual who will be at risk.

No. The point of DIR is to take the risk out of diving while still keeping it a fun and productive activity. The riskiest part of our tech dives is driving to the dive site.

Nanny state notwithstanding diving is and should be a freedom of choice activity.

Relax, none of us are lobbying for more nanny state laws to restrict diving. But if divers keep doing stupid things and getting themselves killed in easily preventable incidents then politicians are likely to take notice and impose more laws on us or prohibit diving at certain sites. As a community we should try to avoid that. Our choices have consequences beyond the individual.

 

[flymolo]

The inherent problem with teams is you will find some members depend highly on the team instead of improving their own skills.

This is not team diving

some divers who adhere to DIR when they're diving with other divers who adhere to DIR have been rumored to quietly dive solo now and then

I definitely fall into this category. I view diving solo as a compromise on safety so I try and scale my diving accordingly.

 

[Wallowa]

Well, good on you talking to Taleb, brilliant guy.

My sea stories [ATINS] are way too long to post: Antidotal one; was of unforeseen event threatening the lives of 16 divers working on 8, 30 meter bottom transects in 30-40 fsw in a cove on north coast of CA. A massive set of two swells each 12-14ft in height suddenly came into the cove without a hint of warning which was until then only had a 2 ft sea. The surge scoured/tumbled divers UW twice on shore and then back off shore at over 4-5+ mph...tangles of transect lines and gear balled around divers and one small diver lost her mouthpiece when swept ashore and was tumbled past one of my largest divers who had wedged himself between two boulders. He grabbed her BCD and quickly placed his octopus next to her mouth which she gladly accepted. Will mention she continue to "blow bubbles" when her mouthpiece and reg was ripped from her and that she remain calm through out the events. She would have regained her own reg but was doing the right thing and preventing a potential AGE by exhaling. With passing of the troughs AGE was the greatest threat to the divers in such shallow water. Extensive, task loaded training and self-reliance skills without a doubt kept them safe. Will add the two 'team' divers on the transects were separated by 30 meters. These so called "sneaker" swells were very anomalous and had capsized a large government survey vessel just off shore of us. In 30 years of diving that coast I have never experience such a set of swells. Black Swan enough?

Begs the question. Why did you want me to relate Black Swan events? There are these possible answers I guess; you have never experience such an unexpected event, you do not believe they occur in diving or you don't believe I have experienced them. Every diver that dives long enough with get caught completely 'off-guard' in a situation that could or did end in dire consequences. Not if but when.

DSO

 

[flymolo]

Well, good on you talking to Taleb, brilliant guy.

My sea stories [ATINS] are way too long to post: Antidotal one; was of unforeseen event threatening the lives of 16 divers working on 8, 30 meter bottom transects in 30-40 fsw in a cove on north coast of CA. A massive set of two swells each 12-14ft in height suddenly came into the cove without a hint of warning which was until then only had a 2 ft sea. The surge scoured/tumbled divers UW twice on shore and then back off shore at over 4-5+ mph...tangles of transect lines and gear balled around divers and one small diver lost her mouthpiece when swept ashore and was tumbled past one of my largest divers who had wedged himself between two boulders. He grabbed her BCD and quickly placed his octopus next to her mouth which she gladly accepted. Will mention she continue to "blow bubbles" when her mouthpiece and reg was ripped from her and that she remain calm through out the events. She would have regained her own reg but was doing the right thing and preventing a potential AGE by exhaling. With passing of the troughs AGE was the greatest threat to the divers in such shallow water. Extensive, task loaded training and self-reliance skills without a doubt kept them safe. Will add the two 'team' divers on the transects were separated by 30 meters. These so called "sneaker" swells were very anomalous and had capsized a large government survey vessel just off shore of us. In 30 years of diving that coast I have never experience such a set of swells. Black Swan enough?

Begs the question. Why did you want me to relate Black Swan events? There are these possible answers I guess; you have never experience such an unexpected event, you do not believe they occur in diving or you don't believe I have experienced them. Every diver that dives long enough with get caught completely 'off-guard' in a situation that could or did end in dire consequences. Not if but when.

DSO

That's crazy. How does that relate to the conversation on team diving?