Disadvantages of DIR ?

[RichLockyer]

Well ... um ... I do. Been doing it for nearly 40 years now.

Ditto. Well... 25 or 30 years.

And I plan to move to NeverNever land when I retire ...

If it hasn't been turned over to the IRS and the owner in jail <ducking>

 

[RichLockyer]

No thank you, SIR will be just fine

The Royal Court hereby recognizes thee as
Sir Dude, Keeper of The Devil's Own Advocates

 

[diverbrian]

Being told something in passing or shown and trying something once isn't always the same as being taught. We forget lots of things but we tend to remember things that were really taught.

IMO, this is what's wrong with a class that includes only a couple of hours in-water time and home study that's supposed to pass for classroom. It's like having the theory or realativity rattled off to you in 5 minutes. You hear it and if you're sharp enough you can recite it back but you don't understand the implications of the individual pieces therefor you can't apply it.

May as well just skip it for all the good it does you.

The Navy took great care to teach me the theory of relativity for some mysterious reason. It took more than five minutes to demonstrate where it had a practical application for what I was doing... measuring quantitative energy released when the binding engery required to hold two smaller nuclei together vs. the one large Uranium nucleus.

Back to the the topic....

I agree with Bob's assessment. While gear plays a part in being a DIR diver (which I am not), it plays a lesser part in being a SAFE diver.

A "standard" rec. rig can be very safe if dove conservatively. Heck, many "techies" dove rigs that I would consider unsafe for years and lived to tell the tale of dives on the Doria. How many years did it take before an alternate second stage became common practice instead of buddy breathing?

My point, diving is changing all of the time. What may be DIR today may not be in ten years. What is considered extremely safe today may be tomorrow's "cowboy".

At this time, what really matters? Exceptional buoyancy control, good situational/buddy awareness, NO DANGLIES (see previous), a calm head, and knowledge of some deco theory (no 60 ft./min ascents like the bad old days). Diving within the limits of the diver's training/experience is a must as well.

Most likely a diver with all of the above will be a "safe" diver (as has been pointed out, no diving is perfectly safe). That alone will not make them a DIR diver as I don't standardization of systems/gases mentioned. If the diver is operating in the above parameters, his/her gear may not be a BP/W with a bungee necklace back-up and he/she may plan his deco (safety stops) a little differently based on a slightly different deco model. That doesn't make them unsafe in my mind.

Just my 2 psi. If you don't like, you won't be inhaling.

 

[underwater daphne]

i wonder if dir divers eat fish and seafood?

 

[Soggy]

i wonder if dir divers eat fish and seafood?

Huh? What does DIR have to do with eating seafood?

I not only eat seafood, I sometimes catch it myself with a buddy, as a team. Nothing quite like fresh lobster or scallops.

 

[headhunter]

Huh? What does DIR have to do with eating seafood?

I not only eat seafood, I sometimes catch it myself with a buddy, as a team. Nothing quite like fresh lobster or scallops.

Would this seafood thing simply be a classic example of a non sequitur?

 

[boomx5]

i wonder if dir divers eat fish and seafood?

I don't like seafood much...but I do eat Swiss cheese.

 

[MSilvia]

I don't have a problem with the Is It DIR Yes/No, but rather that you characterized one small element of gear configuration as highly dangerous.

...they typically aren't doing higher risk overhead penetration dives, but are merely enjoying themselves as a recreation. That's a low risk exposure.

If a dive jumps from low risk to high for you just because of how your backup is configured, you have bigger problems than just your equipment configuration.

Good post -hh, thanks.

 

[Northeastwrecks]

I don't have a problem with the Is It DIR Yes/No, but rather that you characterized one small element of gear configuration as highly dangerous. The only thing missing was the:

"AND YOU WILL DIE!!!!!!!!!!"

....that frequently ends such claims.

I would agree that the comments that "you will die" are rather strident. Obviously, that's not the case.

However, I still prefer to know that the reg I'm getting is working when I get it. I would also prefer to not need to stay close to the other diver due to hose length restrictions.

If a dive jumps from low risk to high for you just because of how your backup is configured, you have bigger problems than just your equipment configuration.

I wouldn't say that the dive would jump to high risk just because of my buddy's configuration. However, it would be less enjoyable.

I'll happily acknowledge that I have a definite comfort level diving with buddies whose gear configurations, training and attitudes are similar to mine. As the complexity of the dive increases, there comes a point where I am not willing to dive with people with whom I have not trained and who do not have the same type of configuration as me. Not because "they are going to die" because their octo is stuffed into a retaining ball or dangling somewhere behind them, but because differences in training and gear configuration increase the possibility for errors at the same time that the margin for error is decreasing.

Some configurations create more issues for me than others. For example, I don't particularly care if someone elects to dive in bungeed wings or a tech BC with a 100 lb dual bladder bag. I care more if they are diving a short hose and octo configuration because I'm the one who might need the octo and I have a strong preference for a long hose configuration. I'd care still more (to the point of calling the dive) if they showed up in a H.U.B. (one rescue necessitated by that POS is more than enough for me).

 

[Lane Zimmer]

A little off topic question, but so true...

How many Scubaboard members does it takes to change a light bulb?

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed

14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently

7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs

1 to move it to the Lighting section

2 to argue then move it to the Electricals section

7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs

5 to flame the spell checkers

3 to correct spelling/grammar flames

6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid

2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"

15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct

19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum

11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum

36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty

7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs

4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's

3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group

13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"

5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy

4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

13 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"

1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over.