DIR- Generic Drinking the DIR koolaid

[EireDiver606]

People take things too literally.
GUE promotes learning deco theory and procedures manually and thoroughly and promotes bottom timers for their dives. They promote the “thinking diver” mentality instead of the idiot who looks at their dc and does whatever it tells them. Then the dc is using you, not the other way around.

They explain the disadvantages of computers but this does not mean they discourage the use of computers. Far from it.

Basically, if you have your **** together, use a computer. If not p, why use a computer when you don’t understand how the computer gets its information in the first place. After you know how to execute dives with bottom timers and little bit of planning, then you can use a computer because at that point it’s not depending on it because you understand it already.
I use a bottom timer and have a computer on my wrist as a backup.

A few weeks ago, a lady got quite upset after a 30m dive because her computer went into gauge mode and she couldn’t get it back to NDL mode. She was furious. To me, because she hadn’t the slightest notion of her NDL and was clearly weakened by the experience, she should not be using a computer. It creates stupid dependency. Take away that computer when people have only ever depended on it and not learnt the proper way leads to fatalities apparently and fits underwater. If a computer fails, you should know your time and plan.

The real computer is between your ears. A dc is only a tool to use after you full understand and are independent from dcs.

 

[rjack321]

@EireDiver606 nobody likes to be told they are "dependent" on their computer. But the reality is that many divers are. To be fair, many GUE divers are slavishly dependent on their gauge + pre-established plans and many UTD divers are likewise excessively adherent (e.g. despite modern science to the contrary) to the RD rules they were taught.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

If you aren't doing the dives you'll never really learn it.
​

I'm not talking about doing the dives. But without the academic understanding, I'll never understand why my Shearwater is doing what it is. I.e., I should be able to go on planned profiles and understanding why I have X amount of time before I hit NDL or if past that, why my dive computer with a specific deco schedule. I'm sure that most are not interested in that depth of understanding, but I am.

See the ad nauseum number of threads on ratio deco. Plans break.

Yup. And people should have contingencies on that. That doesn't need to include RD.

Yea well some of those boulderjohn incidents:
1) wasn't GUE training - it was the bastard stepchild UTD
2) one incident was at altitude which they dismissed as irrelevant (based on erroneous UTD propaganda that is easily refuted with 15mins of actual dive planning and research)
2) one serious hit was after a ridiculously aggressive dive and they were warned beforehand (at least once by me here on SB that the way they were diving was outside the bounds of what they should be)
3) their instructor was (and still is) an idiot who is no longer teaching.

Fair enough (but man, you just made me laugh)

Over 10 years as an open circuit tech diver (mostly in gauge mode) provides - for me - the foundations to do this, not a class. You have to do the dives, you aren't going to intuitively know your obligations (plus or minus an axe width) without the experience over time and dives.

There is developing a feel for what you expect. But you lack the understanding why.

I used to shoot so prolifically (with a medium format camera), that I almost didn't need a spotmeter, as I had the experience of the results that I had seen previously from the lab. So I get that. And I already develop a feel of looking at my dive time and depth and I have an idea of how much NDL time I have. But that doesn't mean I have an understanding of the workings of the algorithm. That's what I want. I hope I am finally making that clear. If not, I give up.​

 

[JohnN]

So speaking of critical thinking...

If you check the date on when these "rants" were written you might notice they are "old". Put on your wayback machine and go find a diverite niktek He or a one of the cochran pucks from that era. Wonder why there are no "just get a nikek he computer and never worry about it again" threads on SB? Yea because they sucked and haven't been on the market in a decade.

Last time I looked, the rants are still in Doing it Right. My copy shows a first publication copyright of 2000. My first computer was a Suunto Mosquito, of that era, as was the Stinger. For what they were, quite capable computers for recreational diving.

So do you ever dive below 100' without helium?

 

[rjack321]

I'm not talking about doing the dives. But without the academic understanding, I'll never understand why my Shearwater is doing what it is. I.e., I should be able to go on planned profiles and understanding why I have X amount of time before I hit NDL or if past that, why my dive computer with a specific deco schedule. I'm sure that most are not interested in that depth of understanding, but I am.

snipped the middle

I used to shoot so prolifically (with a medium format camera), that I almost didn't need a spotmeter, as I had the experience of the results that I had seen previously from the lab. So I get that. And I already develop a feel of looking at my dive time and depth and I have an idea of how much NDL time I have. But that doesn't mean I have an understanding of the workings of the algorithm. That's what I want. I hope I am finally making that clear. If not, I give up.

So you don't know why 5 mins more BT at 120ft is different (and by roughly how much) vs 5 more mins at 180ft? And why if you had only done 10mins of BT vs 240mins of BT those extra 5 mins are not equal? The math isn't all that hard, and within certain ranges can be extrapolated to linear relationships, which is what RD does. Erik Baker's old understanding M-values paper is still totally valid and is pretty much the definitive applied paper explaining the wizard behind the curtain.
http://www.dive-tech.co.uk/resources/mvalues.pdf

​

There is developing a feel for what you expect. But you lack the understanding why.

​

Me? I know exactly what variables are at play for 5 more mins on 10/50 diluent at 180ft is different than 5 more mins at 120ft on OC 21/35. The why is in Erik's paper.
​

 

[rjack321]

Last time I looked, the rants are still in Doing it Right. My copy shows a first publication copyright of 2000. My first computer was a Suunto Mosquito, of that era, as was the Stinger. For what they were, quite capable computers for recreational diving.

You realize that in 2000, GUE-F didn't even exist? There was no GUE recreational program at all, you went straight into Tech1 or Cave1 (and usually failed on the first try)

My GUE-F instructor in 2003 (or 4?) used a stinger in gauge mode. Back then I had a vyper, which I used in gauge mode for probably 6 or 7 years. All the way through Tech1, Cave1, Cave2.

So do you ever dive below 100' without helium?

​

About 110 is my max in warm waters. 100 in cold and/or dark. If its cold, dark, strong currents, with deco etc I start thinking about adding helium around 80ft. My go to mix in the 80 to 130 range is 25/25 but would consider 30/30 if I knew the floor was <110ft (like in Ginnie Springs), but we don't have any wrecks in that precise 30/30 range and there's a temptation to push it a bit depthwise on 30/30 which is ameliorated on 25/25. If its in the 125+ft range I would switch to 21/35. But I don't do many OC trimix dives anymore.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

http://www.dive-tech.co.uk/resources/mvalues.pdf​

You misread so much of what I wrote, this is proving pointless. Thanks for the link. I've seen it before but haven't dug into it. I'll make that a priority.

 

[rjack321]

You misread so much of what I wrote, this is proving pointless. Thanks for the link. I've seen it before but haven't dug into it. I'll make that a priority.

So if that is new to you, do you mind posting what was on your TDI AN/DP reading list?

Baker's paper was published in 1998 (in the now defunct Immersed magazine) and has been on GUE reading lists and available in student packets since the early 2000s.

His companion paper is here: http://tecvault.t101.ro/Clearing up the confusion about the deepstops.pdf

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

So if that is new to you, do you mind posting what was on your TDI AN/DP reading list?

Baker's paper was published in 1998 (in the now defunct Immersed magazine) and has been on GUE reading lists and available in student packets since the early 2000s.

His companion paper is here: http://tecvault.t101.ro/Clearing up the confusion about the deepstops.pdf

Uh, it isn't new, I have seen it before, just haven't dug into it. Thanks for the second link. That one is new.

 

[seeker242]

Last time I looked, the rants are still in Doing it Right.

Dive computers are not evil, replacing your brain with an electronics gadget, that's just being stupid.