DIR- Generic Drinking the DIR koolaid

[guyharrisonphoto]

@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 crucial, to me. Drinking the Kool-Aid as to diving computers can really be a disadvantage for rec diving. Some tech concepts that do not necessarily translate well to recreational diving, and the disdain for diving a computer is one of those.

If you are going to stay within recreational limits/no deco diving, pretty much everything "DIR" says about computers in those old rants is just dead wrong, or there would, literally, be hundreds of thousands of bent divers every year--which is just not going on in the real world.

The combination of nitrox and multi-level computer diving has been the best development in decades for diving safety, convenience, and, yes, longer and safer bottom times. The real-time NDL calculations shows you exactly the information you need during your dive. With adjustable conservatism you can dial extra safety margins if you desire. You can do this, even without fully understanding the computer algorithm (as all modern algorithms are equally safe in NDL diving). Such people are disdained in this very thread as "stupid" "lazy" or "ignorant"--but guess what: they dive very well and very safely, thank you.

If you personally want to acquire more knowledge about deco theory (even if you stay a non-deco diver), you can select computers with known algorithms that tie into the deco literature and to deco planning software, and adjust conservatism using gradient factors for even more control over your personal choices. You have more knowledge over what the computer is telling you, and more ability to make it tell the information you want to see. But, this is just a personal option. It makes you a more informed diver, but not necessarily a safer one than your buddy who is just diving their computer.

Bottom line, I am just as safe diving my computer on NDL dives as any tech diver doing the same dives with tables and bottom timers, and, since many dives are multi-level, I will get more bottom time to boot.

If you are going to go tech or deco diving, then entirely different concepts apply about how to use (or not use) computers.

So, keep learning. With your attitude you will become an accomplished diver. But, beware the people who claim all the answers and disdain others, especially as you are starting out. Lots of these people follow rigid rules needed for the highly dangerous tech diving world, that are not necessarily best for recreational diving. Keep your feet in the real world or your own diving. Diving physiology is fascinating. Learning the details of dive computer operation is interesting. Diving is a lifetime of personal, intellectual, technical and exploration joy. Don't make it a stressful chore or elitist thing, you will be much happier.

 

[Lorenzoid]

@guyharrisonphoto , I think you're looking at it from purely a statistical risk perspective, when it's more about a desire to improve one's abilities and knowledge, whatever they may currently be. It's amazing to me that the masses who get OW certified in 2-day courses during a vacation in Honduras or Thailand or wherever are not, for the most part, getting bent or running out of air, but they aren't. That diving the GUE way might increase the safety margins of already statistically "safe enough" divers is just icing on the cake. The point is that however skilled, however safe a diver one might be, there is room to take it even further if one wants to. Relying on a computer may be safe enough, statistically speaking, but is it fair to refer to someone who wants to not rely on a computer as being at a "disadvantage"?

Not everyone enjoys striving for continual self improvement. I get that. I suppose some see it as diminishing returns.

 

[seeker242]

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

A lot of that is still true though.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,9,10, 13 are all VERY relevant.

And ALL but one of them, that are still relevant, are about replacing your brain with a gadget. This is not a function of a computer, if a person does that, it's their fault, not the computers fault.

If JJ thinks computers are evil, then why does he wear one when he goes diving? Because the idea that they are evil is flat out nonsense.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Not everyone enjoys striving for continual self improvement. I get that. I suppose some see it as diminishing returns.

I think as an instructor who plans on opening up a dive op in the Greek islands, that fact will be one of my biggest challenge! People just want to float underwater for a while and look at stuff. They don't care about their SAC, trim, finning efficiency. They just enjoy the underwater yoga session and feeling great after the dive. The boat ride is nice too.

And ALL but one of them, that are still relevant, are about replacing your brain with a gadget. This is not a function of a computer, if a person does that, it's their fault, not the computers fault..

I don't think anyone advocates that. People who insist on doing so, are not going to listen to JJ or anyone else.[/user]

 

[EireDiver606]

@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.

True

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.

agreed. But first people should know how to use bottom timers. 100%. Because if they take that computer away from you... it dies...you’re left there with your tail between your legs underwater.

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

@guyharrisonphoto , I think you're looking at it from purely a statistical risk perspective, when it's more about a desire to improve one's abilities and knowledge, whatever they may currently be. It's amazing to me that the masses who get OW certified in 2-day courses during a vacation in Honduras or Thailand or wherever are not, for the most part, getting bent or running out of air, but they aren't. That diving the GUE way might increase the safety margins of already statistically "safe enough" divers is just icing on the cake. The point is that however skilled, however safe a diver one might be, there is room to take it even further if one wants to. Relying on a computer may be safe enough, statistically speaking, but is it fair to refer to someone who wants to not rely on a computer as being at a "disadvantage"?

Not everyone enjoys striving for continual self improvement. I get that. I suppose some see it as diminishing returns.

I get you. Everyone who knows me on here knows I fall into the "always learning" camp. But, to tell a new diver they should not trust or even use a computer is just wrong in my view. There is no objective basis for such advice, and in fact it is contrary to objective reality. There is no reason to be amazed that OW divers are not getting bent, this indisputable fact is also indisputable proof that OW dive training is good, and in reality computer diving is an important reason for this excellent safety record.

So, to the OP, get your computer and dive dive dive! Get AOW, Nitrox, Rescue (an excellent PADI course) and Fundies but don't wait on these to begin getting in the water even for "trust your computer" dives--perfectly safe to do this. Once you have this foundation you should not need any more training for recreational diving, have superb skills, excellent buddy protocol, and be trained for emergencies. You will also meet advanced divers and shops who will become friends and mentors for future diving. You will understand your computer and be able to use it to the best effect with intelligence. All of these are great things.

As for having an "advantage" over table/bottom timer diving, the advantage is in increased bottom time and real-time tracking of your nitrogen loading. Going to a reef bottom at 120 feet, and then working your way shallow pausing as you feel like it at different depths with continuous NDL updating, will vividly show the advantage computer diving gives over table estimated profiles.

 

[Ryan Mcshane]

True

agreed. But first people should know how to use bottom timers. 100%. Because if they take that computer away from you... it dies...you’re left there with your tail between your legs underwater.

What about the other two?

Computers dying isn’t a reason to learn to use a timer, what if your timer dies?

 

[Lorenzoid]

I get you. Everyone who knows me on here knows I fall into the "always learning" camp. But, to tell a new diver they should not trust or even use a computer is just wrong in my view. . . .

Maybe it's splitting hairs, and maybe the ambiguity is even intentional, but just to reiterate what has been said above, GUE doesn't explicitly "tell a new diver they should not trust or even use a computer." They tell the student the drawbacks of "computer diving"--relying on a computer to dictate their dives. The student can take away from that what the student wishes.

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

True, and the GUE folks I dive with on rec dives all "dive their computers" and not tables, so maybe I am exaggerating things.

I like this thread but will take a break now because my new DIVE SCOOTER JUST ARRIVED!!! Going to set it up to dive this weekend!

 

[PullYourselfTogetherMan]

Its really tempting to want to buy a wrist-mount depth guage and use my dive watch as a bottom timer. Its cheaper than a computer and its obviously recommended by GUE to use tables over computer. I'm still going to get a computer eventually. I just want to pull the pin on that grenade after I feel 100% proficient with tables and deco. I see and understand both sides of the argument. If you've read the Dune franchise then the argument against reliance upon "thinking machines" makes total sense: computers have the potential of taking a vital part away from the thinking diver. Note: have the potential, not the guarantee. Its for this reason that I think more organizations should push for students using the tables and guages and then buying computer way later after proficiency is gained.