DIR-F Changes

[runvus4]

I use a computer and do think that GUE/DIR proponents that totally beat down computer use for diving are somewhat luddite, but I do think that a lot is being made of the computer smart/computer dumb without any actual quotes/facts of what was taught in the class.

I would personally guess that since the DIRf course does not teach the GUE specific dive/deco theory a-la mental calculations that is supposed to be superior to computers, the instructors HAVE to let the students continue to dive and plan their dive with the deco theories and methodologies they currently know. If they don't offer a substitute, they can't very well make students to stop doing what they currently know how to do. Thus if the instructors have to let people use the computers, at least teach them to make the best thing out of a "bad" situation and the outcome is "computer smart".

I personally won't take it as any endorsement of computer use until I hear straight out that computer use is endorsed.

 

[O-ring]

GearHead once bubbled...


Good point. But I believe that the bar is still where it was. That is, we're all still reaching for the same bar. But passing the class is not the same as grasping the bar. There have been divers with hundreds of dives under their belt that can't perfectly master the skills in four dives, particularly if they haven't learned them before. It's just not realistic to expect perfection, so they don't. My understanding is that DIR-F is the gateway to other GUE classes - they introduce the skills, they drill you, they make sure you're capable. And yes, perfection is the ultimate goal, but not the definition of success in this class (my take).

I totally agree with you on the pre-DIRF experience being pretty much irrelevant...we had people from both sides of the spectrum in our class and everybody looked pretty bad .

FWIW, I don't remember computers ever being discouraged in our class. I dove with one in my DIRF and I don't remember anyone saying anything to me about it, but who knows...there is so damn much going on in a DIRF class, that I can't imagine having the ratio deco or whatever you want to call it thrown in on top of that. We didn't learn it in DIRF, and frankly, if we had, I would have been too tired to pay attention anyway .

Not that GUE is endorsing computers, per se, but I can understand them accepting them...they are used by an overwhelming majority of divers and I sorta like this "computer smart" idea if you choose to use one. Computer smart sure beats computer dumb any day..

 

[sheck33]

Maybe this is a better example of computer dumb versus smart.

Rescue class: Diver A has to rescue diver B. Diver A wears a computer. The rescue takes place from 40ft after a 10 min bottom time.

computer dumb: diver A is bringing up diver B, who has a serious health problem by now, and diver A stops at 15ft to do a 3 min 'safety stop' because his computer told him so. Meanwhile depriving the victim from oxygen for another 3 min or so.

computer smart: diver A realizes that the 'safety stop' mandated by his computer under these circumstances is a result of liability driven, ridiculous, conservatism built into computers by the manufacturers and he chooses to ignore his computer and gets the victim to the surface


and you know what, i didnt make this up, it actually happened on a rescue class.

need i say more...

 

[Braunbehrens]

runvus4 once bubbled...
I do think that a lot is being made of the computer smart/computer dumb without any actual quotes/facts of what was taught in the class.

I would personally guess that since the DIRf course does not teach the GUE specific dive/deco theory a-la mental calculations that is supposed to be superior to computers, the instructors HAVE to let the students continue to dive and plan their dive with the deco theories and methodologies they currently know. If they don't offer a substitute, they can't very well make students to stop doing what they currently know how to do. Thus if the instructors have to let people use the computers, at least teach them to make the best thing out of a "bad" situation and the outcome is "computer smart".

I personally won't take it as any endorsement of computer use until I hear straight out that computer use is endorsed.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

As for the bar being lowered and so on that other people have mentioned...I doubt it. DIR F has always been about showing you what you need to work on, and teaching you the basics.

For example, I can tell you that you should always put your seatbelt on before you put the key in the ignition. However, I'd have to sit in the care with you 20 times to make sure you've incorporated that into your driving routing. DIR-F is where they tell you and show you. The rest is up to you. I think the "fail" part is just for people who can't grasp it or are a complete disaster in the water. Not EVERYONE should scuba dive. Most people can, but not every single human on the planet.

Hey Mike, maybe you'd be happy as a GUE instructor. It sounds like your standards are high enough.

 

[GearHead]

O-ring once bubbled...

Not that GUE is endorsing computers, per se, but I can understand them accepting them...they are used by an overwhelming majority of divers and I sorta like this "computer smart" idea if you choose to use one. Computer smart sure beats computer dumb any day..

You know what, that's a great point. A good profile is a good profile, whether you're using a CPU or tables. And for the record, that's something Sonya said in class as well.

 

[Charlie99]

Braunbehrens once bubbled...
I think the "fail" part is just for people who can't grasp it or are a complete disaster in the water.

Hey Mike, maybe you'd be happy as a GUE instructor. It sounds like your standards are high enough.

I read Mike's post as a discussion of the problem of mass marketing tech instruction. The question is not whether Mike's standards are high enough for GUE, but whether the evolving GUE standards meet Mike's high bar.

I see GUE as having an identity crisis. Is it a tech agency or something for all divers? The computer issue just puts the spotlight on the question.

 

[SimonN]

Charlie99 once bubbled...
I see GUE as having an identity crisis. Is it a tech agency or something for all divers?

I don't. I see it is a tech agency evolving into an agency that also teaches in the recreational space and filling in a space that is missing i.e. real diving skills, not fish spotting.

The computer issue just puts the spotlight on the question.

I disagree (again). The sort of person that follows a dive computer blindly is also the sort of person who will screw up diving with tables. Muppets do as muppets do. The real issue of not diving with a computer is to get people to think about what they are doing.

Note: I am not DIR or particularily interested in joining 'the club', but am provisionally booked on to a fundamentals course this year.

 

[MikeFerrara]

GearHead once bubbled...


Good point. But I believe that the bar is still where it was. That is, we're all still reaching for the same bar. But passing the class is not the same as grasping the bar. There have been divers with hundreds of dives under their belt that can't perfectly master the skills in four dives, particularly if they haven't learned them before. It's just not realistic to expect perfection, so they don't. My understanding is that DIR-F is the gateway to other GUE classes - they introduce the skills, they drill you, they make sure you're capable. And yes, perfection is the ultimate goal, but not the definition of success in this class (my take).

Getting the card should mean that you have the bar for that level of training firmly in your hand. If it's a skills based class it isn't over until you have reached a predefined level of proficiency in those skills.

IME, if nobody can get it in four dives they need to do more dives or introduce less material. The fact is that if you can't do a precise ascent then your ascent will be less precise with your mask off or your eyes closed or while managing some other problem. I don't see the sense in going to the second thing that builds on the first before you have mastered the first.

How is this different than saying that new OW divers can't posibly master all this new stuff is 4 nights in the pool and 4 dives, giving them the card and sending them off to practice? That's exactly what has heppened to OW training. And this stuff is far newer to them.

IMO, any training needs to present realistic goals and requirements. The students need to know exactly what they are. Before it's over they need to get there.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Braunbehrens once bubbled...



Hey Mike, maybe you'd be happy as a GUE instructor. It sounds like your standards are high enough.

As an instructor it's an interesting thought. I think some of these guys have some really neat stuff and I've stolen my share of it. I haven't inventing anything.

However, even if I was free to follow Andrew around for a few months (which I'm not), I would be faced with the same students I am now. Having another instructor card in my pocket wouldn't change anything.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Charlie99 once bubbled...
I read Mike's post as a discussion of the problem of mass marketing tech instruction. The question is not whether Mike's standards are high enough for GUE, but whether the evolving GUE standards meet Mike's high bar.

That's just the problem. I can't have the bar where I would like it and pay the rent and sell enough gear to keep the manufacturers happy. I just can't sell it to enough people for enough money. If I was happy with the students I was putting out the world would be great place and I would stay in business.

I see GUE as having an identity crisis. Is it a tech agency or something for all divers? The computer issue just puts the spotlight on the question.

Good point. I don't think most divers want the high bar. If you want a lot of students the bar MUST come down. If your standards are going to be top notch you need to find the few who want to be top notch divers. Oh, and they'll have to be willing to pay for it. Hell if I could get $300 plus expenses for 4 dives with a student I would be halfway there. We have trouble getting $300 for a class that is MUCH longer, involves pool rental, travel, books, air fills and the use of my equipment. Do the math. Once you comprimise on time and cost you're forced to comprimise on content. Nobody, not even GUE can get around this.