Thanks, rotating pairs of divers would be a good way to get good use of available time. An advantage would be a less experienced diver could tag along with a more experienced and learn the ropes so to speak. I can see how a project would be enjoyable with a large group of buddies run by an experienced supervising diver. We would sometimes bring along a friend when we worked on private jobs and they’d tag along once the dive didn’t include deco. Divers have different aims and motivations to dive, some like the company of other like minded people and others prefer to do their own thing.
Attitudes Toward DIR Divers
- Thread starter Zach The Diver
- 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
I'll take a crack at some of the recent replies.
Ken, I believe you're absolutely correct, and Eric, no, it's not that, at least as far as the OW recreational diving context. So many times I have seen negative comments about the prospect of "team" diving on plain ol' rec dives, and what I don't think they appreciate is that for OW rec dives "team" diving IS essentially just the buddy system that all the other agencies promote.
In tech and cave contexts, sure, team members may be assigned specific duties, but in the OW rec context, yes, it really is little more than the buddy system that should be familiar to all of us. I took Fundies in a single-tank configuration with other rec-only divers, and I can say that what I was taught about being a "teammate" was in fact essentially what I recall being mentioned in my PADI OW course. One difference, though, is that while such other agencies teach the buddy system, when the newly minted OW diver goes out on their first dive they discover how loosely adhered to the buddy system is in reality; they discover that out in the real world, people who took the same class they did--indeed, sometimes instructors--blow off some of the aspects that steinbil listed in his post. The difference is that GUE makes it clear in the Fundies class that this buddy system that GUE calls "team" diving is a big deal--a pillar of the system--and isn't something to be casual about out in the real world. (IF the diver goes on to tech or cave, then the buddy procedures taught in those courses build on what was taught in Fundies.) That goes to your other point:
GUE does unfortunately give that impression in some marketing materials, and in the opening chapter of that darned Jablonski book, the Fundamentals of Better Diving, he explicitly asserts that other agencies' training falls short. But even if every instructor with every other agency taught the buddy system just as it is taught in Fundies, the problem remains of the disconnect between what is taught in class and what the newly minted OW diver sees out in the real world.
I'll take your word for it, though I haven't seen an instance of this myself. I'm curious exactly what you witnessed when you saw a GUE diver who "could not get into and under water by him/herself without a team to help them...." Do you mean they were improperly weighted, or were they just taking a long time to get something done, and someone else offerered help? As steinbil mentioned, we do try to help each other when we see someone struggling with something. That doesn't mean the person could not do it without help, but rather that helping them may be expeditious for everyone. My wife would take forever to get her fins off, so I or someone else often help her with that. That is exactly the sort of little thing a teammate is hoped to do. There is an aspect of general helpfulness that my GUE instructors have tried to instill. But all in all, I would agree with you if you said that a good buddy would do that regardless of which agency taught them.
Fair enough. Anyone who is bothered by the Hogarthian rig or anything else about the system would be silly to try to force themselves to dive with those who are not bothered by the DIR equipment configuration and choose to dive that way. But for those who choose to use the DIR equipment configuration and be good buddies to each other, I agree with steinbil that knowing what is where on their rig and knowing they were trained to do X when Y happens, etc., frees your mind to just relax and enjoy the dive. I have dived with buddies who used other equipment and who knew nothing about DIR, and I will say I felt I had to be a bit more vigilant. It is possible some such buddies were more skilled divers than I, but that did not change how I felt; I could not control how I felt, because there were variables I did not know. I feel more relaxed when I know more of the variables.
As for your last sentence, has anyone here argued there is only one right way to dive? What usually draws me into these discussions is when someone's comment evidences they are mistaken about some aspect of how we "team divers" dive. (I find the term "DIR" uncomfortable, and I don't speak for GUE, so let me simply call myself a team diver.) Team diving in the rec-only context or profile is really little more than the buddy system by another name, where the diver adheres to all its bullet points and views it as central to the dive.
I would argue that while there is not "only one right way to dive," there are only two ways that the buddy system should apply: (1) strictly, as the agencies promote it in their OW courses, or (2) not at all (i.e., proper solo diving). Applying the buddy system half-heartedly is not as safe as either (1) or (2).
Ken, I believe you're absolutely correct, and Eric, no, it's not that, at least as far as the OW recreational diving context. So many times I have seen negative comments about the prospect of "team" diving on plain ol' rec dives, and what I don't think they appreciate is that for OW rec dives "team" diving IS essentially just the buddy system that all the other agencies promote.
In tech and cave contexts, sure, team members may be assigned specific duties, but in the OW rec context, yes, it really is little more than the buddy system that should be familiar to all of us. I took Fundies in a single-tank configuration with other rec-only divers, and I can say that what I was taught about being a "teammate" was in fact essentially what I recall being mentioned in my PADI OW course. One difference, though, is that while such other agencies teach the buddy system, when the newly minted OW diver goes out on their first dive they discover how loosely adhered to the buddy system is in reality; they discover that out in the real world, people who took the same class they did--indeed, sometimes instructors--blow off some of the aspects that steinbil listed in his post. The difference is that GUE makes it clear in the Fundies class that this buddy system that GUE calls "team" diving is a big deal--a pillar of the system--and isn't something to be casual about out in the real world. (IF the diver goes on to tech or cave, then the buddy procedures taught in those courses build on what was taught in Fundies.) That goes to your other point:
GUE does unfortunately give that impression in some marketing materials, and in the opening chapter of that darned Jablonski book, the Fundamentals of Better Diving, he explicitly asserts that other agencies' training falls short. But even if every instructor with every other agency taught the buddy system just as it is taught in Fundies, the problem remains of the disconnect between what is taught in class and what the newly minted OW diver sees out in the real world.
I'll take your word for it, though I haven't seen an instance of this myself. I'm curious exactly what you witnessed when you saw a GUE diver who "could not get into and under water by him/herself without a team to help them...." Do you mean they were improperly weighted, or were they just taking a long time to get something done, and someone else offerered help? As steinbil mentioned, we do try to help each other when we see someone struggling with something. That doesn't mean the person could not do it without help, but rather that helping them may be expeditious for everyone. My wife would take forever to get her fins off, so I or someone else often help her with that. That is exactly the sort of little thing a teammate is hoped to do. There is an aspect of general helpfulness that my GUE instructors have tried to instill. But all in all, I would agree with you if you said that a good buddy would do that regardless of which agency taught them.
Fair enough. Anyone who is bothered by the Hogarthian rig or anything else about the system would be silly to try to force themselves to dive with those who are not bothered by the DIR equipment configuration and choose to dive that way. But for those who choose to use the DIR equipment configuration and be good buddies to each other, I agree with steinbil that knowing what is where on their rig and knowing they were trained to do X when Y happens, etc., frees your mind to just relax and enjoy the dive. I have dived with buddies who used other equipment and who knew nothing about DIR, and I will say I felt I had to be a bit more vigilant. It is possible some such buddies were more skilled divers than I, but that did not change how I felt; I could not control how I felt, because there were variables I did not know. I feel more relaxed when I know more of the variables.
As for your last sentence, has anyone here argued there is only one right way to dive? What usually draws me into these discussions is when someone's comment evidences they are mistaken about some aspect of how we "team divers" dive. (I find the term "DIR" uncomfortable, and I don't speak for GUE, so let me simply call myself a team diver.) Team diving in the rec-only context or profile is really little more than the buddy system by another name, where the diver adheres to all its bullet points and views it as central to the dive.
I would argue that while there is not "only one right way to dive," there are only two ways that the buddy system should apply: (1) strictly, as the agencies promote it in their OW courses, or (2) not at all (i.e., proper solo diving). Applying the buddy system half-heartedly is not as safe as either (1) or (2).
@Lorenzoid
Can't say I disagree with most of your response. Diving in a group where each member knows the equipment and skill level of the others is definitely enjoyable. Most of my dives are with a group larger than 2. We don't call ourselves a "Team" because that apparently is a GUE term used only by GUE trained divers. I have been given several responses at to what is and is not "Team Diving" and they tend to conflict, but no real definition that distinguishes it from Buddy diving as taught with other agencies.
I don't dislike the GUE/DIR philosophy, I dislike the attitude that it is the only right way to dive.
@steinbil
Team Diving is taught by GUE and therefore the reference used. You still have not defined Team diving as it is different than the Buddy system for recreational diving. You did give examples of poor quality students but I have seen poor quality students from most agencies, numbers are lower, but percentages are similar.
Shoulder and Neck injuries/disabilities prevent me from using GUE "standard equipment" and therefore have not take a GUE class. However, my primary LDS is a GUE centric shop and therefore I dive with several GUE divers. I understand the philosophy and don't disagree. However, it is not the only correct way to dive.
Clarification on the individuals that I witnessed. Without the team to repeat the acronyms, they could not review equipment, definitely could not recognize equipment that was not "standard". This is after stating they had over 100 dives. Too much of a good thing can be bad it appears. So, it is easy to discredit an agency for poor quality students when the agency is large and those students are everywhere. My point is that all agencies have poor results and GUE is no different. The number is smaller, but the percentage is likely the same. In these cases it was not poor instruction, but the inability to maintain skills by individuals.
Can't say I disagree with most of your response. Diving in a group where each member knows the equipment and skill level of the others is definitely enjoyable. Most of my dives are with a group larger than 2. We don't call ourselves a "Team" because that apparently is a GUE term used only by GUE trained divers. I have been given several responses at to what is and is not "Team Diving" and they tend to conflict, but no real definition that distinguishes it from Buddy diving as taught with other agencies.
I don't dislike the GUE/DIR philosophy, I dislike the attitude that it is the only right way to dive.
@steinbil
Team Diving is taught by GUE and therefore the reference used. You still have not defined Team diving as it is different than the Buddy system for recreational diving. You did give examples of poor quality students but I have seen poor quality students from most agencies, numbers are lower, but percentages are similar.
Shoulder and Neck injuries/disabilities prevent me from using GUE "standard equipment" and therefore have not take a GUE class. However, my primary LDS is a GUE centric shop and therefore I dive with several GUE divers. I understand the philosophy and don't disagree. However, it is not the only correct way to dive.
Clarification on the individuals that I witnessed. Without the team to repeat the acronyms, they could not review equipment, definitely could not recognize equipment that was not "standard". This is after stating they had over 100 dives. Too much of a good thing can be bad it appears. So, it is easy to discredit an agency for poor quality students when the agency is large and those students are everywhere. My point is that all agencies have poor results and GUE is no different. The number is smaller, but the percentage is likely the same. In these cases it was not poor instruction, but the inability to maintain skills by individuals.
When we're doing 2-person dives, I don't think the word "team" ever comes up. If some other diver on the boat or at the shore dive site were to ask me about the person I'm diving with, I doubt I'd refer to him as "my teammate"; I'd just say "my buddy."
As far as the seemingly conflicting responses as to what "team diving" means, my main point was that some of it depends on the context. Tech and cave dives involve more specific tasks, and there are things that teammates or buddies or whatever one wishes to call them are expected to do that have no real equivalent in the OW rec context. Also, tech and cave dives are often done as a team of three divers, and I can see how "team" makes just as much if not more sense than referring to three "buddies." Or, I suppose, one could refer to a "buddy team." The terminology isn't the most important thing here.
Come to think of it, in my Fundies class I do recall my instructor saying "buddy" rather than "teammate" on at least one occasion. I was excited about the dive, and I had swum ahead of my buddy, and I guess the instructor chose to avoid sounding too pedantic in later telling me I should look back more often to keep track of where my buddy is. After all, we were two rec divers, taking Fundies simply to improve our rec diving, and to all the world we were buddies. Sure, we were in the process of learning what GUE means when they say you dive as a team, but c'mon, we referred to each other as our buddy. The terminology we use in referring to those we're diving with is not as important as learning the skills involved.
If someone takes that position, I'm right there with you.
Sure, I'll take a swing at it.
Here is my perspective:
In GUE diving, the unified team is more than a group of individuals sharing the same ocean; it is a group that acts with the team’s interest in mind and shares a common goal for the dive. GUE’s team diving approach relies on shared mental models and a common body of knowledge comprised of training, a standardized equipment configuration, shared standard operating procedures (SOPs), and community practices.
Some of the tenets are:
- Standardized Equipment Configuration
The GUE-standardized equipment setup provides a foundation for the SOPS in the team. This configuration enables divers to apply SOPs uniformly, whether handling routine, abnormal, or emergency situations. It also allows the team to spot issues with another team member’s equipment during pre-dive checks or while underwater.
- Standard Operating Procedures and Community Practices
SOPs and community practices form the backbone of GUE team diving. By aligning around proven methods and procedures, GUE divers create a shared mental model of how each dive will proceed and how various scenarios will be managed. For example, if I have an issue, say I start getting bubbles on my left post, when I shut it down, I know exactly how my teammate will troubleshoot the issue and what signals they’re going to give me underwater related to the status of the failure, and we all know what that means for the diver.
Standardized gas choices ensure that everyone knows the operational limits and is familiar with procedural safeguards. Everyone knows that all gases need to be analyzed on the day of the dive. This allows us to exercise challenger safety and say, "No, you need to go analyze that before going on this dive" if needed, but more importantly, it means we don’t have to challenge each other
because it is expected behavior.
- Unified Communication and Clear Role Assignments
Effective communication and well-defined roles streamline team operations. A standardized lexicon and hand signals allow for clear, concise exchanges underwater. For instance, if one diver signals “stop” with a fist, followed by a line entanglement gesture, the team immediately understands the situation and what is expected, allowing the issue to be resolved without additional drama. Roles are also predefined; when a diver is assigned as Captain, the expectations are clear. If we agree to travel wing-on-wing until hitting the wall and then transition to single file, everyone knows what is expected. If we're getting ready to do a tech dive, and our brief review of the deco plan is 2's and 10. Then we all know what that means.
- Focus on Human Factors and Just Culture
There is an increasing emphasis on post-dive debriefing, incident reporting, and working to improve the team as a whole.
- Difference from Recreational Buddy Diving
Unlike the "same ocean" buddy system often found in recreational diving, where divers must establish shared expectations on an ad hoc basis. Typical recreational agencies provide a significant amount of flexibility in what instructors teach leading to misaligned expectations of how the dive will proceed.
@crofrog
Thanks for attempting, but other than standard configuration your definition is not much different than my NAUI training. A buddy is not someone diving in the same ocean and I was not taught that, we have a role in each other's safety. #5 is just marketing against other agencies.
I can agree that standard equipment makes checks easier, but does not negate the fact that checks need to be completed for each dive. I find that seeing other configurations adds to my curiosity as to why it is done differently.
Again, my reference is only recreational diving. I fully understand the need for more structure for technical diving. Still won't buy that there is only one way to dive even with technical diving.
Thanks for attempting, but other than standard configuration your definition is not much different than my NAUI training. A buddy is not someone diving in the same ocean and I was not taught that, we have a role in each other's safety. #5 is just marketing against other agencies.
I can agree that standard equipment makes checks easier, but does not negate the fact that checks need to be completed for each dive. I find that seeing other configurations adds to my curiosity as to why it is done differently.
Again, my reference is only recreational diving. I fully understand the need for more structure for technical diving. Still won't buy that there is only one way to dive even with technical diving.
I believe you believe that. You asked what the differences are, that’s my perspective of the difference of what team diving is. I’m answering it from the perspective of a cave 1, tech 1 diver. That has dived recreationally with people trained in other agencies.
You don’t know what to check for if you don’t understand what to check for. I find that it removes efficiency and safety.
If you’ve not engaged in technical training and technical diving, I’m not sure you can fully understand it. You can only understand your impressions of it.
Cool.
@KenE and @crofrog, if GUE wanted to turn off rec-only divers from dipping their toes into GUE through a Fundies course, @crofrog's list of team diving tenets might do the trick.
It's a great list, really well articulated, and in the tech and cave realm it would be wise to take all team diving tenets with the deadly seriousness they deserve, but maybe in the context of likely fairly benign rec dives it gives the impression this team diving stuff is more complicated than it really is? Much of it does apply in the rec context, but I could imagine GUE wording it in a more approachable way.
Diving can be fun, even while adhering to GUE's team diving philosophy. Indeed, apparently even while diving with Jarrod himself, as our dear departed TS&M reported in this memorable post: My day with Jarrod, or how I was right all along . . .
I’d posit that having dived both ways that it’s way more fun. In my local area I’ve got a group of technical and cave trained GUE and UTD buddies and in that same friends group we have a group of recreational only divers.
Once you actually dive with a DIR team and see how simple it all is in the real world it just makes the diving so simple and drama free.
ginti
Contributor
Because there isn't any difference between the two concept.
There is a lot to say about this topic, from standardization to training, but the main difference is about how the two agencies reach the goal, not about the core concept. The core concept of team diving with GUE is very similar to the buddy system of PADI when they are done like the two agencies want.
Not sure who told you that (haven't read the whole thread). The GUE approach is not even right in all situations. And when it's "right", definitely it isn't the only one.
Most of the GUE divers I met are absolutely not as extreme as described here. And most non-GUE divers I met have never treated me differently because my tech training is only with GUE.
Similar threads
