DIR Feedback

[neil]

First of all, let me state that I believe the disire to go inside things U/W on scuba is pathological. Be that as it may:

The thing that burns me the most is the attitude from SOME (I said SOME) DIR advocates that when I teach people to dive I'm lying to them and/or not teaching them the things they need to know to dive safely. Because I teach NAUI or PADI courses. This is so insulting. To imply that I don't teach equipment standardization, trim, neutral bouyancy, dive planning and buddy procedures is just such crap, I can't stand it. Frankly, I don't know how to rebut such accusations. As Pete points out, nobody seems to come up with hard facts to prove ANYTHING on either side of the issue. The issue being that DIR is the best way to dive ever.

Well, that's my peeve.

Neil

 

[Rick Murchison]

Originally posted by Lost Yooper
It's called The Lost Yooper bad mouthing Gilliam and Mount for advocating stupidity for sole purpose of stuffing money in their pockets without regards to the safety of their students.

Mike

I do believe that is the most ridiculous statement I have read on this entire board. Patently untrue, indefensible, unsubstantiated, irresponsible, totally unsupportable, with not one shred of evidence to back it up. You want to express your opinion, fine. But when you accuse someone of "advocating stupidity for [the] sole purpose of stuffing money in their pockets without regards to the safety of their students" you have just left the realm of reality, to say nothing of supportable argument.
It is, however, an excellent example of a typical "DIR" statement.
Rick

 

[Lost Yooper]

Glad ya liked it Rick. IMO, any agency that advocates, teaches, or otherwise accepts the use of deep air isn't putting their student's safety first. We've had this discussion plenty of times where I presented the facts and viable theories of the dangers of deep air. Any organization that supports deep air diving is either ignorant of the dangers (NOT!) or care more about supplying the demand (money). It is not to their finacial benefit to discredit deep air, because in doing so would be to admit they were decieving their students for years (ie admitting they were wrong).

If you (and others) want to continue to support deep air and the agencies that teach it, then go right ahead. Rest assured that anytime I get the chance to discredit any agency or director of an agency that supports such nonsense, I'll do so. I'll do so with hope that anyone who reads my posts, and may be thinking about taking an ever foolish deep air course, will think twice before doing so. The only thing that you (and others like you) who support deep air, and the training organizations (TDI, IANTD, PADI Tech, NAUI Tech, ANDI, etc) that support it are doing is creating an atmophere in the diving community that premotes deep air as safe and acceptable -- when it is NOT. ...and people on here say I take a leap of faith .

For obvious reasons, deep air is not DIR. It makes me incredibaly upset to see such icons as Mount and Gilliam ignore the obvious dangers of deep air and continue to allow it in their organizations so they can supply the demand. It makes me sad to see people buying into it and idolize these type of guys. GUE is the only agency with the guts to do what is right, and if that means taking a financial hit by not offering deep air, then so be it. I respect that.

Careful Rick. The deep-air-is-bad arguement supports itself.

Mike

Neil, a good, well educated instructor makes good students. Unfortunately, most training organizations as a whole do not place the standards high enough for many critical aspects of diving. Often, when people such as myself take a poke at an agency, they/I forget to use a disclaimer stating that a good instructor who's willing to put forth the additional effort can make all the difference in the world. For that, I apologize.

 

[Lost Yooper]

Originally posted by Campana
While this discussion is very interesting, I wonder if we could discuss some specifics along with, or instead of, whether we agree with the attitude of some DIR divers. These are really different topics. I think that the discussion of DIR diving can be divided up into three or more areas. The most discussed, and least interesting topic to me at this point, is the attitude of some DIR devotees. This has been pounded to death Second is the DIR philosophy of diving. Not the "don't dive with strokes" philosophy, but the philosophy of why different things are done. This is usually not discussed much. Third, and most interesting to me, is a discussion of actual, specific, DIR practices and equipment.

I am NOT a DIR diver. I don't even know what all they say, even though I have ordered the fundamentals book and will shortly know more about it than I do now.

I do want to try to shift gears, though and tell some long hose stories.

I use the long hose almost all the time. This includes while assisting OW classes as a Divemaster. The instructor I assist was reluctant to let me use it in class, until he breathed off my long hose once. Now, he points out the hose, instructs the students on how to receive air from me, and generally is favorable. The students almost always remark on what a good idea it is, along with the necklaced regulator, which they really like after they pull their own nasty yellow octo out of the mud a few times, because none of those octo retainers seem to really work that well.

Other than in training, the only time I have donated the long hose is on several dives in Cozumel. My air consumption is fairly good, and on several dives, I have offered my long hose to someone on a deeper dive so they could complete the necessary safe ascent without anxiety. It is really no big deal, just helping a buddy or newbie complete his or her safety stop. The long hose is excellent in this situation. It gives them some space and makes the dive safer.

It goes without saying that the long hose is necessary in caves because you can't dive side by side in a cave sometimes. I am pointing out here that it is desirable even when not necessary.

I don't see any reason to ever NOT use a long hose. It's not any more difficult to deal with than a short one, once you are used to it. To me, it doesn't reduce regulator performance noticeably. I just like it all the time.

Exception: every once in a while, I want to dive without all the hassles of the elaborate equipment. I call this my "doing it minimalist" or DIM diving. I want to put on my transpac, the lightest tank I have, no drysuit or wetsuit, and just jump in and pretend to be Mike Nelson for one dive. I do that a few times a year.

Anyway, gotta go diving now (Woops, solo).

What'dya think?

Campana,

I wanted to come back to your post because I think that a switching of gears would be a great idea. There's a lot more that can be discussed here.

When I go on vacation to the warm waters of Florida or where ever, I absolutely love the minimalist diving you're talking about. Just a single tank, one valve, no drysuit, hood, thick gloves, etc. It's like paradise.

Mike

 

[Uncle Pug]

Originally posted by neil

Well, that's my peeve.
Neil

I understand Neil...

And I agree that the bashing that goes on is detrimental.

I would challenge you to take a DIRF class just to broaden your horizons and to give you a better understanding of the differences in the training.

I would also advise you to do so covertly as many instructors have been fired by their shops for fraternizing with the *enemy.*

It would be really refreshing to hear from someone on this board who has experience with both PADI/NAUI/SSI/Ect. instructing and GUE training.

My Best to you Neil...

 

[Lost Yooper]

UP,

FWIW (probably not much), DIR was introduced to me by a PADI/TDI instructor that chose to teach against the grain of his certifying agencies. This is occuring a lot more often nowadays.

Take care.

Mike

 

[Uncle Pug]

Originally posted by Lost Yooper
UP,

FWIW (probably not much), DIR was introduced to me by a PADI/TDI instructor that chose to teach against the grain of his certifying agencies. This is occuring a lot more often nowadays.

Take care.

Mike

Thanks Mike... it would be interesting to hear from him (her?) or any other cross dressing instructor to get their perspective...
Can you persuade him/her to post here to scubaboard?

Are there any other instructors already on this board lurking who have both DIR and non-DIR training and would care to give us your insights??

You can sign in under a pseudonymn if you need to stay in the closet

 

[Rick Murchison]

Originally posted by Lost Yooper

If you (and others) want to continue to support deep air and the agencies that teach it, then go right ahead.

Where'd you get the idea I "support deep air?" I didn't say anything about deep air. I said that you made a ridiculous statement when you accused Mount and Gilliam of "advocating stupidity" out of avarice "without regard to the safety of their students." That remains ridiculous.
Gilliam teaches air down to 55M (180'), deeper than I believe is safe for me, but then he's been doing it safely for many years. Mount, as far as my research has been able to uncover, doesn't offer any air courses that advocate its use below 130' (40M), and that *is* within what I consider safe on air.
Rick

 

[bradymsu]

What does GUE's DIRF class consist of? Is it an overview of the Hogarthian style or is it the introductory class for technical diving? I'd be interested in taking it if it is about DIR style because I suspect it would give me some new ideas and I'd learn something, but I don't want to pay big money for a repeat of technical training I've already had in a different form. I'd also want the freedom to know that I could go into the class and dive with a gear configuartion that is "modified-DIR" and the instructor isn't going to come down on me heavily for using dive computers or refusing to go back to placing the long hose across my chest.

From what I have read about DIR (which is quite a bit) it doesn't differ all that much from IANTD except that DIR advocates essentially one gear configuartion and IANTD believes "Each of us will evolve to a personal best configuation." On issues such as stress mangement, dive planning, proper use of lines, gas management, use of Trimix and Nitrox, risk minimization, skill maintenance and diving with a compatible buddy and personal health, IANTD and GUE teach the same thing. It's like the difference between British English and American English.

I'd also encourage GUE trained divers to try an IANTD course with a non-DIR instructor. You too could learn something helpful and explore configuration alternatives you haven't tried yet. No IANTD instructor will ever encourage a student to dive with a non-DIR configuration if the student isn't comfortable with it.

 

[large_diver]

Brady:

The DIRF class is not really meant to be a technical diving course. While is could certainly be a springboard into GUEs tech or caving courses, I think the purpose is to really ground people in the principles of DIR diving. As a result, it is appropriate for anyone (rec or tec) looking to learn more about DIR.

Here is the course outline from the GUE site:
http://www.gue.com/classroom/standards/gue_rec_student.pdf

As to flexibility on gear configurations -- I think this depends on the specific instructor. Of course, part of the course is a constructive discussion of each student's gear config......but the feedback I've heard from folks I know who have taken GUE courses say this is a very constructive conversation, not simply "anything but the DIR config sucks".

Campana -- I agree with your point. I was hoping this thread would stick more to gear and technique discussions and not personality conflicts......perhaps that is too much to hope for in a DIR thread ;-)

-LD