DIR Class: The Truth Comes Out

[DeepScuba]

SeaJay.......

Ender has the point I was making.........That rule of 120 is OK for Rec diving, I thought they were teaching some kind of new funky DECO math.....the reason for my Tri-Mix question.

Odds are good they do the Deco schedules the same as we're taught in TDI. Run deco software, use a slate, make an overplan. Stick to it.

AS far as the rest of it goes. it's basically taught in a TDI class. Of course we do hovering valve shut-downs, breather the long hose, off the right post...and WHY it's done that way etc etc etc.

I guess it's nothing new........except maybe the slight "cockyness"..........RULE NO. 1, NEVER dive with a stroke.

Of course THEY define stroke.

Would I dive with an "unknown" on a tech dive?? NO. Would I dive with a "stroke" on a lazy Coz, 60ft drift dive.....sure, I'd also let him kill himself too, without drawing me into it. I'm #1 baby!

I have eyes, I watch my buddy, If the "new" buddy is gonna take me with him, I've already learned how to not let that happen......way back in Rescue class.


Hey I'm not ****ting on DIR,as I've said, I guess I'm somewhere's around 80% myself, with only a few "minor" exceptions.

The computer being one.

This 120 thing is no rocket science. It also limits you to a square dive profile...........lots of conservatism, that's great. Computers are far better at calculating the usual multi-level profiles.




Only a "Stroke" in my books, would chose to avoid an obvious superior calculating instrument (You DO have a slate or a mind for back-up don't you??) in favour of a potentially narc'd brain/faulty calc'd??



Don't you think?

In superior DIR thinking, the above statement would fall in line.

But of course, I've heard more than one, CLEARLY SUBJECTIVE point being trod out as FACT by these two fellows.

AS them about Off-Gassing of Helium vs. Nitrogen, and then reference that from Dr. Sawatzky's findings.

When they think they've got it 100% perfect and thought out entirely to the "N"th degree, is the time they get a wake-up call.

It'll be interesting to see, 5 or 10 years down the road, the changes in DIR thinking.......and there will be.

HEy the DO have a VERY GOOD, in fact ALMOST perfect system IMHO, that's why I follow it too!!!

BUT.........Nothings perfect forever.



Oh yes......we call them Bungied Wings Of Death

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Sorry SeaJay ... I wasn't trying to flame ya. I agree this is a great discussion and I'd like to keep it that way too.

Now, back to the good stuff ...

SeaJay once bubbled...

Here's the funny part... Most computers that I've seen on people's wrists and consoles are exactly that... Computers designed to show you a no decompression limit. Most of the ones I've seen specifically warn against using them for decompression. This includes the Uwatecs and the entire line of Suuntos which are so popular.

My point is that having these specific brands does not enable you to do any more than the Rule of 120 enables you to do.

I've owned a Suunto and an Oceanic ... so I can only talk with respect to my experience with those brands. Yes, they do display NDL at any given point during the dive. But there's other useful data available. These include ascent rate, average depth (on the Suunto but not the Oceanic), and ceiling depth and time limits (for when you do go into deco). You can adjust them to compensate for altitude (when diving mountain lakes). On Nitrox dives, they will tell you your exact PO2 level at any given depth.

I think this is all pretty good information. Yes, some of it you can figure out while diving ... and certainly you SHOULD understand the fundamentals behind all of these calculations. But in the end, it's just a tool .. helpful if you use it properly, just like any other.

If that was the case, then it proves that GUE is not allergic to computers... But it also proves that the computer was not relied opon as life support, but instead as a tool by which to plan the dive.

Or perhaps a bit of both ...

Actually, I was told recently by a DIR friend that GUE no longer teaches the rule of 120 in their DIR-F class due to liability issues ... and have instead moved it into their Tech 1 curriculum. That's both bad news and good news. The bad news is that it means they've decided to stop teaching something useful for purely legal reasons. The good news is that it means GUE has been so successful that they're now worth suing ... welcome to the reality of doing business in America ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[SeaJay]

True words.

The reason why you wear the "battery box" on your wrist (or console or whatever) is the same reason I do.

I'm not against them... Like you, I simply beleive that an understanding is superior to trusting the tool unconditionally.

...And in the long run, I believe that's what GUE is trying to teach by "discouraging the use of computers."

 

[DeepScuba]

SeaJay you are missing the point.........

The point is, as your DIR buddies themselves say, it's not the 1ATA understanding that counts........it's the 4 or 7ATA "Buzz" that's going to rule down there. (OK they wouldn't get a 7ATA buzz, they'd be on trimix, but they would get 4 or 4.5ATA buzz.....which is enough) The seemling simple task, that becomes very difficult under conditions......

the 120 "factor" is hardly superior thinking, it's grade 2 math for pete sake!

The simple point is, they DO call computer diving "Strok-ish". The simple fact is, computer diving more closely calculates your hypothetical nitrogen loading, a feat that "square" 120 factor diving cannot do.

Sure it's "safer", good for all, but the fact remains, computer diving more "dynamic" like your actual diving profile.

With all the nay-saying about the dislike of computers,....did these guy ever, in their "accident analysis" ever consider, that when the $hit hits the fan at 320ft, and you over stay your OVER-OVER plan, that you may use your computer as a LIFE SAVING REDUNDANT BACKUP to your diving slate????

Now lemme ask you this, now lemme aX you this, now lemme aX you this (Can you hear the Chris Rock rant??) Would you want one then????, would you want one then????

I'll give them this, like they themselves said, they didn't invent anything new, they just marketed it. You can get this training from almost any TDI instructor of the last several years.

That being said, I myself am never against added training from different people, and as such would welcome the opportunity to learn even more about my sport of choice.........

But I'm smart enough to avoid the BS baggage that inevitably comes with "Elite" training.

Discouraging the use of such a dynamic and useful tool, espicially since it wouldn't take up any more room on your wrist than a bottom timer ISN'T DIR, it's subjective opinion.....nothing more.

And the EXCUSE that it precudes you from being able to use your mind is stupid to the extreme.

You could be fitted 100% DIR, and if you didn't use your head, you'd be just as dumb.

We assume your can use your mind, just as we assume you can clear a Reg, without being RE-TAUGHT at every level.

Then TEACH the 120 factor, enforce it for quick and fairly accurate bottom times/nitrogen loading, but DO NOT disclude a very useful and non-intrusive tool for the sake of being "different".

I challenge the "too narrow" thinking.

 

[O-ring]

Do you use your computer for deco or just as a backup to tables?

 

[ScottyK]

SeaJay once bubbled...
I'm not against them... Like you, I simply beleive that an understanding is superior to trusting the tool unconditionally.

...And in the long run, I believe that's what GUE is trying to teach by "discouraging the use of computers."

Jen and I were looking through the DIR-F book last week, and it got us talking about the whole computer thing. One thing we both realized is that using the computers has allowed us to both forget a lot of the NDL table info. We both used to have most of it memorized. It was kind of a creepy feeling.

We decided to start studying the tables before we dive again. We are writing the pertinent info for that particular dive on our wrist slates, and keeping an eye on our watches. The computers are now being used as bottom timers and a back up safety reference.

 

[detroit diver]

In fact, they do teach a no-computer decompression schedule in the Tech 1 class. No slates, no overplans-the formula compensates for that.

DeepScuba once bubbled...
SeaJay.......

Ender has the point I was making.........That rule of 120 is OK for Rec diving, I thought they were teaching some kind of new funky DECO math.....the reason for my Tri-Mix question.

Odds are good they do the Deco schedules the same as we're taught in TDI. Run deco software, use a slate, make an overplan. Stick to it.

AS far as the rest of it goes. it's basically taught in a TDI class. Of course we do hovering valve shut-downs, breather the long hose, off the right post...and WHY it's done that way etc etc etc.

I guess it's nothing new........except maybe the slight "cockyness"..........RULE NO. 1, NEVER dive with a stroke.

Of course THEY define stroke.

Would I dive with an "unknown" on a tech dive?? NO. Would I dive with a "stroke" on a lazy Coz, 60ft drift dive.....sure, I'd also let him kill himself too, without drawing me into it. I'm #1 baby!

I have eyes, I watch my buddy, If the "new" buddy is gonna take me with him, I've already learned how to not let that happen......way back in Rescue class.


Hey I'm not ****ting on DIR,as I've said, I guess I'm somewhere's around 80% myself, with only a few "minor" exceptions.

The computer being one.

This 120 thing is no rocket science. It also limits you to a square dive profile...........lots of conservatism, that's great. Computers are far better at calculating the usual multi-level profiles.




Only a "Stroke" in my books, would chose to avoid an obvious superior calculating instrument (You DO have a slate or a mind for back-up don't you??) in favour of a potentially narc'd brain/faulty calc'd??



Don't you think?

In superior DIR thinking, the above statement would fall in line.

But of course, I've heard more than one, CLEARLY SUBJECTIVE point being trod out as FACT by these two fellows.

AS them about Off-Gassing of Helium vs. Nitrogen, and then reference that from Dr. Sawatzky's findings.

When they think they've got it 100% perfect and thought out entirely to the "N"th degree, is the time they get a wake-up call.

It'll be interesting to see, 5 or 10 years down the road, the changes in DIR thinking.......and there will be.

HEy the DO have a VERY GOOD, in fact ALMOST perfect system IMHO, that's why I follow it too!!!

BUT.........Nothings perfect forever.



Oh yes......we call them Bungied Wings Of Death

 

[DeepScuba]

O-ring:

I use the computer and Deco tables both ways, depending on the dive and what has or hasn't transpired.

GENERALLY SPEAKING:..........NOTE what I just said.......

The use is as follows......slate w/plan/overplan on it. I follow the plan, do my proper deepstops/stops/gas switches etc. it's BACKED UP with my computer..........I ALWAYS OPT for the more conservative "point of view" (Computer vs Slates).

I don't do deep air, I MAY dive stroke mix....tehe........I'd love to hear the DIR P.O.V. of that

Scotty:

Thanks for making my point. Is the computer the limitting factor?? Or was it lazy human nature???

If it 's the later, the DIR thing to do.......



WOULD NOT be to "Fudge" the fix by removing the computer, but should rather be to "FIX" the problem of human laziness to proper understanding/training.




NOW HOW DAMN DIR was that statement!!!!

Right from this Stroke!!! You see, I can sound perfectly DIR if I have to.........except it would require the current DIR thinking to be corrected.....which will only happen reluctantly and silently.

EGO'S Boys.....a scary thing.

DETROIT:

IN ALL SERIOUSNESS.......I would LOVE to learn the math behind that. It would truly be amazing.

Tri-mix diving with gas switches et al'

WoW.

I'll believe it when you post it!

(Formula that is)

No seriously, I call you on it, I learned something new yesterday VIA the DIR dudes (I'll test the effectivesness next dive), I need another learning lesson today.

Seriously. I'm always up to learning, I have an open mind, which allows me to adapt to change.

 

[dbulmer]

Seajay,
This is a superb thread!

Seajay,
You stated: And in the long run, I believe that's what GUE is trying to teach by "discouraging the use of computers."

Given your earlier explanations I find it odd that GUE would want to discourage the use of computers. A computer (when working) operates without ego, consistently and within a safety /operating margin - human operator failure tends to be more of a concern in flight management systems for example, yet pilots routinely learn to trust their computers.

Why would GUE want to perhaps discourage a device which within normal operating parameters removes human error? I grant that overreliance is not smart but their attitude seems a little luddite. (I concede I may not have understood their reasoning but at face value at least it does not appear to be a reasonable position.)

 

[detroit diver]

In all seriousness, take the Tech 1 class.

I did not take this class myself, but my dive buddies just got back from it. It's quite an amazing class. And yes, they do really teach you the formulas for non-computer deco-trimix w/ gas switches.

You can't learn this stuff from the 'net, and I wouldn't post it here if I did know it. As George Bush once said " Wouldn't be prudent". You can choose to believe it or not, but it's there, and it's real.

One other thing, if you've never taken a DIR class, how do you know you're 70/80/?? percent DIR? (In reality, you're either DIR, or you're not).

DeepScuba once bubbled...
.............
DETROIT:

IN ALL SERIOUSNESS.......I would LOVE to learn the math behind that. It would truly be amazing.

Tri-mix diving with gas switches et al'

WoW.

I'll believe it when you post it!

(Formula that is)

No seriously, I call you on it, I learned something new yesterday VIA the DIR dudes (I'll test the effectivesness next dive), I need another learning lesson today.

Seriously. I'm always up to learning, I have an open mind, which allows me to adapt to change.