Zen and the Art of Scuba by Uncle Pug
DIR-F Changes
- Thread starter GearHead
- 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
We used the wheel
If I had the wisdom and insight on life that UP has shown here on this board I would have one stress free life.
I have never met UP but I bet he has a smile on his face all the time.
chrpai
Contributor
Who ever said I bought a computer to replace my tables? Besides I don't push NDLs and try to get back into the water 15 minutes after my last dive. I have other ways of preplanning my needed SI's for desired profiles. It just can't be done at the last second during the SI which would be dumb to try to do anyways.
I love how all the rec.scuba ****'s try to come in here and stir stuff up.
Braunbehrens
Guest
- Messages
- 514
- Reaction score
- 0
The history of the DIR F course might help us understand things a little better.
First, there was just Tech 1. However, most people would fail Tech 1, and have to come back after some skills practice and redo the dives. Eventually, it was decided that Tech 1 should be split into two parts. The first part would be where the students are shown the skills and told which skills still need practice, and the second part would then start from a more solid foundation.
This first part of Tech 1 got split off and was called Fundamentals. So at least historically, the aim of dir F is NOT to have you master the skills, but to have you understand how to execute them properly and which skills you need to work on.
This is probably why dir F was always a no pass no fail class, it was just "showing you the ropes". This is also the reason why you didn't get a card for DIR F.
Things are changing a little, with lots of people benefitting from DIR F without any intention of taking Tech 1. However, I think the basic format of the class has not changed. There is not enough time in that class to teach, practice and test a set of skills this advanced. If that is what you want, then proceed to rec triox or tech 1 or cave 1.
From discussions with Sonya and other people at the source of this, I am more convinced than ever that DIR means not using a computer.
I don't wish to cause anyone any problems, so let's limit our discussion to what makes sense in diving and what doesn't, not what someone may or may not have said, and how they may or may not have said it.
Computers rot your brain, as UP would say, and that's that. If you haven't figured out how to dive without one, you can do some stuff to improve your profile, but you're still better off learning how to dive without it (and no, I'm not talking "the wheel").
dad6b
Guest
argggh, here we go again... Would you please to taking everything so personally?!
When I said "you" in "you didn't make a very wise purchase" I was specifically speaking about you, Chris Painter. The "you" in "If you're going to get a computer to replace your tables you should..." was not specifically you Chris. It was a generic person that might think about getting a computer as a replacement for their tables.
That said, how do you plan your SIs? If you're not using you computer to help why didn't you get a bottom timer? It would have been cheaper.
Sorry, I didn't realize this was your forum...
Drew A. Dunn
bwerb
Hoser/English Translator, eh
Total direction change here...perhaps this should be a new thread...
Since CRYB...when/how should OW/rec students be introduced to "on the fly" planning?
Should they simply stick to tables of various types or decoplanning software to really understand their dives and profiles or alternately should they just learn the shortcuts and mental planning removed from any in-depth analysis of tables and deco theory.
What would you say is the best way to teach this step to remove any type of computer use/dependance from the diving equation?
Since CRYB...when/how should OW/rec students be introduced to "on the fly" planning?
Should they simply stick to tables of various types or decoplanning software to really understand their dives and profiles or alternately should they just learn the shortcuts and mental planning removed from any in-depth analysis of tables and deco theory.
What would you say is the best way to teach this step to remove any type of computer use/dependance from the diving equation?
just a dumb diver! The computer played as much a part in him doing his safety stop as tables would have. Both request them.
A computer is an analytical tool. It is nothing more or less. Would you feel that a doctor who spurns MRIs in favor of manual manipulation of the injury is just a "Computer smart doctor"? Or the mechanic who scans the ALDL of a car for error codes is just a "computer dumb mechanic"? Are either throwing away their years of training in favor of the computer? I don't think so! Can the technology assist them in making quick and accurate decisions? Of course!!!
If DIR-F re-enforces (or even introduces) the fine art of dive planning, then GREAT!!! I am all for it. But don't blame computers (or dive fins, or whatever) for insufficient or faulty training. Computers are not a panacea and neither are they the source of these problem. As a group, divers are way too hesitant to invest time and money into additional training. They are happier just throwing gear at training issues.
BTW, Braunbehrens...
That was a very insightful post. It does help to understand the history of a class. Thanks!!!
A computer is an analytical tool. It is nothing more or less. Would you feel that a doctor who spurns MRIs in favor of manual manipulation of the injury is just a "Computer smart doctor"? Or the mechanic who scans the ALDL of a car for error codes is just a "computer dumb mechanic"? Are either throwing away their years of training in favor of the computer? I don't think so! Can the technology assist them in making quick and accurate decisions? Of course!!!
If DIR-F re-enforces (or even introduces) the fine art of dive planning, then GREAT!!! I am all for it. But don't blame computers (or dive fins, or whatever) for insufficient or faulty training. Computers are not a panacea and neither are they the source of these problem. As a group, divers are way too hesitant to invest time and money into additional training. They are happier just throwing gear at training issues.
BTW, Braunbehrens...
That was a very insightful post. It does help to understand the history of a class. Thanks!!!
Most should never venture to attempt this. Few in this sport are committed to invest the time, money, effort and discipline needed to effect this type of diving safely. But that's just my humble opinion!
This has been really fun with the card issue and all. However, since I don't know GUE's reasoning or plans (JJ didn't check with me on this, LOL) we should recognize the possibility that they haven't lost it yet. IMO, the danger of presure from shops, instructors and the market is always a very real concern. Even though I have nothing to do with GUE and likely never will, and in fact don't agree with them about everything, I would really like to see them stick to their guns. If they get sucked into the same crap as everyone else in this business I won't cut them a bit of slack though because as I understand it part of their very reason for being is to provide an alternative.
Similar threads
