DIR controversy?

[Wolverine]

you know wolverines are not far behind

Someone called???

 

[H2Andy]

:rofl:

 

[MikeFerrara]

lamont -

I was using the example of PADI and DIR OOG divers to illustrate that there is a clash between any two systems of diving, and actually it might be worse between a DIR diver and any other agency-affiliated diver because all other agencies have you wear a brightly colored backup in the golden triangle. If you were task loaded and a PADI diver came up to you, he may not get your attention right away, and he'll be looking for that bright yellow non-existant reg. I, as a PADI trained diver, could easily answer "it's the reg in my hand that I'm shoving in their face" as well, but that is in a perfect world where you're not already task-loaded. Just assume, for the sake of argument, that you could possibly not notice an OOG diver when answering this question. Also, I could just as easily answer that I would take my buddy's backup reg and not go after some "poor DIR diver's" primary. Also, if you cannot fathom ever being separated from your buddy, then I think you are failing to account for everything that could go wrong on a dive.`

Actually, a hogarthian configuration meets every PADI standard. When I was still teaching I taught students with a longer hose on the primary (though not all were 7 ft) and a shorter hose on a backup which was secured on a necklace. They, like you, were PADI trained divers yet were taught gas sharing in a very similar fashion as GUE trained divers...I can't say exactly the same because I was never a GUE instructor. PADI standards say nothing about coloror type and very little about location. PADI just doesn't state a preference as long as there is a second someplace on the front of your body. They don't state a preference on how the OOG diver gets it...you hand it to them...or they take it...mouth piece up or mouthpiece down or a behind the back twirly...it's all good. There's lots more about sharing gas that PADI doesn't mention that could really do you some good some day whether you're on a 40 ft reef or not.

Now the buddy seperations that you mention are another story and PADI just doesn't teach divers anything about how to stay together starting with the way they teach descents. They certainly never mention how two or three divers should be positioned in order that they can keep track of eachother.

EDIT: Bob - if OOG is only the result of a poorly thought out dive (as per the red head) then there would be no need for a secondary because you would just need to have a well thought out dive and then you would never need your secondary (or atleast your buddy wouldn't) - I was merely trying to illustrate that her point was as absurd as mine was.

But...you suggested that the long hose is an entanglement hazard (if I'm thinking back to the right post). It's not. A long hose properly stowed lays flat against the body and avoids that unsightly, drag inducing, entanglement hazard of a monster loop hanging out in space that so many divers are dragging around.

 

[minnesota01r6]

The point is that you train so that lost buddy becomes unlikely. You practice gas management so that OOG becomes unlikely. It then becomes really worthless to start with the idea that you've got an OOG DIR diver on their own stumbling across a bunch of divers with octos...

Its not that you'll never get separated, its not that you'll never run out of gas, its that you reduce the possibility of those things happening so that the possibility of all of them happening together on a single dive is not worth considering.

Again, this all started by someone proposing that the lack of uniform gear configuration was a flaw with the classically trained rec diver. I was merely trying to show that DIR has added to the non-uniformity, rather than taking away from it. If DIR divers only dive with other DIR divers, then everything is fine, but when they are on the same boat with rec divers then the same problems arise just like when a rec diver with an octo dives with another rec diver with a pony.

So, what have I learned from this discussion?

DIR is good because it raises the bar and challenges you to become a better diver

DIR is bad because it seems to breed overconfidence and an unwillingness to consider some possibilities that may be beyond our control.

This is the third time I will have said this in this thread: I would like to take the fundies course when I have the time and money. I am not trying to poke holes in the system. I think more training (whatever type) will always make you a better diver, but I will never be so confident in my training that I will dismiss a plausible emergency scenario as something that will never happen. There are 1,000 ways you could be OOG and without your buddy, but you refused to consider the possiblity, even calling the excercise "worthless." Why don't you talk to JJ and ask him if OOG without a buddy is a scenario that is so remote it is "worthless." - I would bet dollars to doughnuts he would say you need to have a plan for every contingency.

 

[JeffG]

So, what have I learned from this discussion?

Nothing

 

[minnesota01r6]

Mike - your 1st point - true, but I would suspect that a rec diver would be looking for a brightly colored octo if they have no exposure to hog setups, and if you were task loaded and didn't notice them, they would be most likely looking for your "octo" on your webbing and it wouldn't be there. I assume that you would offer your primary and switch to your backup during OOG drills with your students - is this kosher with PADI? I always thought you either buddy breathe off the primary or you offer the octo, not offer the primary and then breathe off the octo, but I could be wrong.

2nd point - again, this is in the context of what another poster said about never needing to do air shares or OOG - if that were the case, then all you would need is a short enough hose to go from reg to mouth. Anything longer than that would not meet the minimalist standard of DIR. (again, I was just trying to illustrate the absurdity of this comment)

I guess all the law school has gotten me WAY WAY WAY too used to the socratic method, and nobody here seems to grasp the concept. (case in point, JeffG)

 

[jonnythan]

"DIR is bad because it seems to breed overconfidence and an unwillingness to consider some possibilities that may be beyond our control."

I missed something. Explain this?

 

[TheRedHead]

again, this is in the context of what another poster said about never needing to do air shares or OOG - if that were the case, then all you would need is a short enough hose to go from reg to mouth. Anything longer than that would not meet the minimalist standard of DIR. (again, I was just trying to illustrate the absurdity of this comment)

No, I didn't say that at all. I said there is no excuse for a diver to go OOG except for a mechanical failure. I also talked about redundant systems and gas planning. I don't think you have groked this point. If you are OOG, then you should have a plan that involves your buddy, not someone else's buddy. And the first regulator a real OOG diver would grab is your primary one. Are you worried that you will stumble upon some strange DIR diver and not be able to find a regulator? This discussion is becoming absurd.

Furthermore, I'm not a DIR diver.

 

[JeffG]

(case in point, JeffG)

<snicker>

 

[Rick Inman]

Mike - your 1st point - true, but I would suspect that a rec diver would be looking for a brightly colored octo if they have no exposure to hog setups, ...

People keep saying that rec divers will go for the brightly colored octo in the triangle. But in reality, many PADI (and SSI and NAUI) shops peddle the "Air II" as a standard piece of equipment, and new students are taught to head for the primary. Actually, even an "octo" trained rec diver is likely to head for the primary as well in a OOG panic, making DIR OOG practices in reality more compatible across the board with other agencies.