ummmm. Who really cares is if they are called a DIR diver? Just like any any subject, go ahead and learn the good things and ignore the silly ones. Sure, you can't be 3/4's pregnant but you can follow 3/4's of a system. If it's the right 3/4's, who the hell cares if you call yourself a DIR diver, a KMA diver, a scuba diver or just a person breathing underwater and having fun? Or am I missing something? Do DIR divers get discounts at Walmart or something?
DIR and Solo Diving, Incompatible?
- Thread starter hockeyplay
- 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
detroit diver
Contributor
- Messages
- 3,410
- Reaction score
- 13
Zippsy:
Yes. So can you.
Depends on if they're having a sale that day...
OP
hockeyplay
Registered
Thanks. The advice I have gotten here has been great!
UWSojourner:
I don't believe that anyone who understands the DIR methodology would think that a longer hose, in and of itself, presents a problem.
While the equipment aspect of DIR is important, and is probably the element that causes the most controversy, lockstep adherance to particular items is not appropriate.
For example, when I dive in the Northeast U.S., I'm in a 55 lb BP&W, doubles, a drysuit, an argon system. I carry a can light, two backups and sometime a stage. I carry a lift bag, penetration line, jump spools, an extra mask and other accessories. Why? Because that's what I need for the dives I'm executing.
When I'm on Grand Cayman, I'm in an 18 lb BP&W, a 3mm wetsuit and a single tank with a STA. I drop the can light, the stage, the penetration reel and all but one jump spool (for the lift bag). Why? Because I only take what I need for the dive I'm executing.
If a diver needs a longer hose, then they should use it. I recall one friend of mine who was a candidate for an 8 ft. hose because of his height. Yet he still adhered to the DIR methodology and was able to progress through their training program with no problem.
Overall, I'd suggest that equipment is suitable for DIR because it serves to accomplish the DIR goals of maximum streamlining while minimizing risk of failure. If you look at the recommended equipment, you'll see that it satisfies those goals. That doesn't mean that other equipment isn't good or that it won't function well. It merely means that the other equipment probably doesn't accomplish the goals of DIR.
Arnaud
Contributor
Zippsy:
Why don't you take a DIRf and figure it out yourself?
lragsac
Guest
Arnaud:
Arnaud's got it right. The danger in picking and choosing elements of what is designed to be a holistic approach/philosophy to diving is that you will lose the seamless logic of the system. For example, you could be diving the gear config but if your trim and buoyancy suck you won't be of much use to your team when you need to do a controlled ascent together during an OOA, or while shooting a bag, or working with a reel. Or, your trim and buoyancy and ability to backwards kick may be excellent, but if your situational awareness is poor and your attention to the team nonexistent, you've completely missed the underlying paradigm that is DIR. It all goes together and if you water it down, it ain't DIR.
MHK
Guest
Zippsy:
Zippsy,
DIR is a holistic system for a reason. Each part is integrated, or ommitted, for a specific reason and the concept of consistency amongst the team is one of the primary tenants of DIR, I'd be curious what "silly" concepts you would ignore..
More often then not, those that look to parse the system don't fully understand the mindset and the approach that is equally associated with DIR just as much as the standardized gear configuration. Any attempts to divorce the two concepts speaks to a diver that may put the entire team in jeopardy. You speak to a "diver breathing underwater and having fun", many of us that have adopted the DIR approach have found that because of teh benefits associated with the system that we greatly increased our "fun" level while diving. We feel safer, more comfortable, more competent and more confident which leads to us having much more fun.
Regards
-hh
Contributor
- Messages
- 1,021
- Reaction score
- 250
Zippsy,
DIR is simply but one discrete example of the many possible Hogarthian philosophy-rooted based solution sets that can and do vary with differing dive objective inputs.
To dive in a team is not an absolute required by physics in order to make a regulator work. But under DIR, team-diving is a self-imposed objective (or if you prefer, "system design constraint"), chosen on the basis of its contribution for risk management. The specific solution configuration was built with this constraint as a contributing element.
In other words, if your objective is to dive solo, you can apply the Hogarthian philosophy, but you cannot apply the specific DIR logical subset of Hogarth.
What this means is that things like the concept of "consistency" is not a proprietary, "DIR-only" concept - - it is in fact pulled from the pool of pre-DIR risk management knowledge, applied from lessons learned in training repetitions and the value of what's often called "muscle memory" here.
Some people may advocate that those that look to parse the system don't fully understand the mindset. True, some people don't understand it, and they risk misapplying its constituent elements because they lose sight of the "big picture".
But some is not all. Others recognize that any "solution" is determined in no small part by the objectives, and when you change your objectives, the specific solution can change...and actually can be expected to change.
Continuing a step further, we can recognize that certain elements within a particular "solution" can potentially have multiple and equally acceptable specifics, and that the only reason to pick A over B or C is for the aforementioned value of standardization - - in other words, the value-added was the standardization more than what was chosen.
For an example of all of this, the Rec diver convention is for the regulator supply to come from the right side and for the BC control and gages to be on the diver's left...is there any good reason why they could not be flipped? Including for a left-handed diver? Afterall, people drive just as safely on the "wrong" side of the road in Great Britain, Cayman, Japan and Australia, amongst other places, so is there really proof that the USA's steering wheel on the left side of the car is any better than a wheel on the right...?
Finally, we know that claims such as "feeling safer" are completely subjective. Also watch out also for claims that one dive philosophy or another is somehow also able to make you better looking...oh, and super viagra, too
So is it useful to learn more about DIR? Sure. Because the more you learn, ultimately the more tools you have in your toolbox to choose your specific solutions from.
-hh
PS: Don't be intimidated by the term "Holistic". It just means that the entire system has been considered and balanced instead of just concentrating on individual components - - it is just straightforward System Engineering, complete with the trade-offs that always exist in any selection process.
DIR is simply but one discrete example of the many possible Hogarthian philosophy-rooted based solution sets that can and do vary with differing dive objective inputs.
To dive in a team is not an absolute required by physics in order to make a regulator work. But under DIR, team-diving is a self-imposed objective (or if you prefer, "system design constraint"), chosen on the basis of its contribution for risk management. The specific solution configuration was built with this constraint as a contributing element.
In other words, if your objective is to dive solo, you can apply the Hogarthian philosophy, but you cannot apply the specific DIR logical subset of Hogarth.
What this means is that things like the concept of "consistency" is not a proprietary, "DIR-only" concept - - it is in fact pulled from the pool of pre-DIR risk management knowledge, applied from lessons learned in training repetitions and the value of what's often called "muscle memory" here.
Some people may advocate that those that look to parse the system don't fully understand the mindset. True, some people don't understand it, and they risk misapplying its constituent elements because they lose sight of the "big picture".
But some is not all. Others recognize that any "solution" is determined in no small part by the objectives, and when you change your objectives, the specific solution can change...and actually can be expected to change.
Continuing a step further, we can recognize that certain elements within a particular "solution" can potentially have multiple and equally acceptable specifics, and that the only reason to pick A over B or C is for the aforementioned value of standardization - - in other words, the value-added was the standardization more than what was chosen.
For an example of all of this, the Rec diver convention is for the regulator supply to come from the right side and for the BC control and gages to be on the diver's left...is there any good reason why they could not be flipped? Including for a left-handed diver? Afterall, people drive just as safely on the "wrong" side of the road in Great Britain, Cayman, Japan and Australia, amongst other places, so is there really proof that the USA's steering wheel on the left side of the car is any better than a wheel on the right...?
Finally, we know that claims such as "feeling safer" are completely subjective. Also watch out also for claims that one dive philosophy or another is somehow also able to make you better looking...oh, and super viagra, too
So is it useful to learn more about DIR? Sure. Because the more you learn, ultimately the more tools you have in your toolbox to choose your specific solutions from.
-hh
PS: Don't be intimidated by the term "Holistic". It just means that the entire system has been considered and balanced instead of just concentrating on individual components - - it is just straightforward System Engineering, complete with the trade-offs that always exist in any selection process.
Fascinating.
Regardless, there is absolutely no reason why someone with 7 lifetime dives should consider themselves competant enough to dive solo, regardless of what terms they use to define it. I'm also willing to bet that the diver is not using appropriate equipment comprising, at a minimum, a fully redundant set of doubles (not a pony), redundant lift (not including one of those dual bladder jokes) and training in self rescue from a variety of situations.
Incidentally, I'm not saying that a diver should not solo dive. I'm a huge fan of Darwin and an absolute advocate of draining the shallow end of the gene pool. In fact, I'd encourage solo diving for some individuals and amoungst some groups.
Regardless, there is absolutely no reason why someone with 7 lifetime dives should consider themselves competant enough to dive solo, regardless of what terms they use to define it. I'm also willing to bet that the diver is not using appropriate equipment comprising, at a minimum, a fully redundant set of doubles (not a pony), redundant lift (not including one of those dual bladder jokes) and training in self rescue from a variety of situations.
Incidentally, I'm not saying that a diver should not solo dive. I'm a huge fan of Darwin and an absolute advocate of draining the shallow end of the gene pool. In fact, I'd encourage solo diving for some individuals and amoungst some groups.
Lane Zimmer
Registered
Northeastwrecks:
The only problem with this is that it works too slowly...
Similar threads
