DIR- Generic Drinking the DIR koolaid

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Dive computers are not evil, replacing your brain with an electronics gadget, that's just being stupid.
Should I repeat the rants?

As a point of reference, FWIW I'm purely a recreational NDL diver. That being said, I dive with a conservative (Suunto) AI computer, a redundant Suunto computer, (and SPG), exclusively do multi-level dives, like to drag along a camera (hint, I can spend excessive time trying to set up a shot) and within at the limits I normally dive with my typical mix (EAN32) the computer is not a replacement for anything.

GUE (and I'm not conflating it to DIR) is structured to developing cave divers. None of that exists anywhere near where I live and even if it did, I have no desire to take on that risk profile. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of people that go down the GUE route remain recreational divers (and yes I took Fundies). What I do, always dive with a pony, prefer to dive solo and when I don't/can't I never rely upon a partner, This just doesn't fit into the GUE framework. Much of the underlying GUE philosophy just is irrelevant for me and I believe the majority of divers
 
@JohnN Full disclosure: My plan is to also stay recreational with my diving. I have no intention of cave diving. Ever. I may want to pop into the threshold of one of the larger caverns in Florida or Mexico but the whole tight overhead environment and risk associated with it is just not my bag. I think that GUE and the greater DIR path can (and should) be relevant to all divers' goals due to its stances on many polarizing diving issues. That being said, I also don't intend to ever dive solo and have no qualms about diving deep (which is, I think, where my greatest desire to train with GUE stems from).
 
this is not accurate ...
Well, there is certainly some truth to the assertion. I was told by a GUE instructor that JJ founded GUE partially so he could stop having to personally teach everyone who wanted to dive with him how to dive with him. Initially it was tech and cave only. Fundamentals was not a course that was taught in the early days, it was added to reduce the failure rate in the tech and cave courses. And was made mandatory some time later. Initial diver training wasn’t taught in the early days either, it was added much later.
 
Here’s JJ, on a JJ wearing a shearwater and you can bet your arse it’s not in gauge mode. DIR came out of the dark ages a long time ago.

I’ve yet to meet a GUE instructor or diver that will tell you not to use a computer. Infact, on my T1 and C1 classes I was the only person not using one.

They will however encourage you to learn to understand the relationship between time and depth. Pretty sure we can all agree that’s a not a bad thing to have grasp of... as for gauges and tables being “restrictive”.. learn to depth average and stop being a weenie.
 

Attachments

  • 9EE858C8-FB05-4D32-B411-5B32B746A4A4.jpeg
    9EE858C8-FB05-4D32-B411-5B32B746A4A4.jpeg
    71.9 KB · Views: 114
"DIR is for those who want it, not those who need it."
-Reinhard Buchaly, lead exploration diver of the EKPP
 
Should I repeat the rants?

Have you even read them? Nearly all of those rants, that are still relevant in 2018, are about replacing your brain with a gadget.

and within at the limits I normally dive with my typical mix (EAN32) the computer is not a replacement for anything.

That's great. A computer does not need to be a replacement, which means computers are not bad...How it is used is what makes it good or bad...Therefore, to say that computers are evil, is simply inaccurate. You can use a computer smart or use a computer stupid. Using a computer smart is good. Using a computer stupid is bad. That is entirely a function of yourself, not a function of a dive computer.

What I do, always dive with a pony, prefer to dive solo and when I don't/can't I never rely upon a partner, This just doesn't fit into the GUE framework. Much of the underlying GUE philosophy just is irrelevant for me and I believe the majority of divers
But apparently, still relevant enough that you feel you need to comment about it with inaccurate depictions. It's also inappropriate for you to be deciding what is relevant for other people.
 
Have you even read them?

I'll give you a one-time pass on the insult (whether intentional or not)

From Doing it Right Copyright 2006

A Baker's Dozen: Problems With Computer Diving
1. Dive computers tend to induce significant levels of diver dependence, and undermine the awareness essential to all diving, but particularly essential to divers just beginning decompression diving

2. Dive computers prohibit proper planning; they discourage divers from "studying" the impact of various mixtures and decompression choices.

3. Dive computers are of little educations benefit because they promote neither the questioning nor proper planning discussions

4. Dive computers often use algorithms that heavily pad decompression time; this sometimes results in odd and ridiculous levels of conservatism

5. Dive computers are expensive, and prevent divers with limited resources from purchasing truly useful equipment.

6. Dive computers significantly limit the likelihood that divers will track their residual nitrogen groups, leaving them less informed in the event of a computer failure

7. Dive computers do not allow for diving helium in any format but the bulkiest and most questionable. It is very likely that new helium based decompression computers will be inordinately conservative and suffer from all the limitations of air an Nitrox dive computers

8. Dive computers often generate longer decompressions than an astute, well-educated, experienced diver generates.

9. Dive computers often confuse matters by providing the diver with too much useless information, sometimes even obscuring depth and time in favor of blinking CNS and/or decompression limitations.

10. Some dive computers become very difficult to use if a decompression stop has been violated. Some computers will lock up completely, while others will just beep or generate erroneous and distracting information.

11. Dive computers do not allow the educated diver to properly modify his/her decompression profile to account for advances in knowledge, e.g., the use of deeper stops in a decompression profile

12. Dive computers do not offer divers much flexibility to generate profiles with varying conservatism. For example, the right mix would allow 100 minutes at 60 ft rather than 60 minutes at 60 ft, but a diver might prefer to done or the other or a hybrid of the two. Computers confuse this issue by not providing divers with the proper information.

13 Dive computer users often ignore table proficiency and therefore do not learn to read tables properly. When faced with a situation where they can't dive a computer (e.g. failure or loss) these divers are seriously handicapped.

And in the same section:
A digital bottom timer, when used in conjunction with dive tables and/or a personal computer decompression program is preferred over the use of a dive computer.

Really ???

And just so we're clear about the definition of 'rant'

rant
/rant/
verb
  1. 1.
    speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way.
 
. . .
GUE (and I'm not conflating it to DIR) is structured to developing cave divers. None of that exists anywhere near where I live and even if it did, I have no desire to take on that risk profile. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of people that go down the GUE route remain recreational divers (and yes I took Fundies). What I do, always dive with a pony, prefer to dive solo and when I don't/can't I never rely upon a partner, This just doesn't fit into the GUE framework. Much of the underlying GUE philosophy just is irrelevant for me and I believe the majority of divers

Did you know all that about yourself when you went into Fundies? Or did you only come to the realization afterwards, as you continued to develop your own diving style, that "much of the underlying GUE philosophy" was irrelevant for you? Just curious. The most important thing to bring to Fundies class is an open mind.

And I sure would like to believe GUE is not just "structured to developing cave divers." A main theme that I took away from my Fundies class (and also from JJ's book) was that many of the concepts that were developed in the context of cave diving could be more broadly applicable to any diving.

A really interesting survey would ask all those Fundies graduates, especially the ones who have not gone on to tech diving, how they typically conduct their dives.
 
Should I repeat the rants?

No. The Baker's Dozen was noted in post Nos. 95 and 100 above. But thanks for repeating the list.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/
http://cavediveflorida.com/Rum_House.htm

Back
Top Bottom