Is DIR a process or a system?

[DaleC]

I know this is an over simplification but; from my understanding the term "DIR" originated from a group of divers wanting to create the safest system to use in the WKPP. Faced with a specific situation they employed a method of analysis, testing, refinement and retesting until they developed the optimal configuration of gear, techniques and approach to use. A team of divers using this system was said to be "doing it right" or DIR.
So my first question is: Is DIR the system that was developed or the method of developing the system? If it is the system, what do you call the process of developing the system?

Second question: If it is a tangible system; Does someone own the term or system DIR? If GUE and UTD both claim to be DIR is DIR a static system that some person(s) has the rights to or could a third, fourth... agency open up and claim to be DIR as well (as long as they adopted the same system)? And, if no one owns the system, could the next agency change the system and still call it DIR?

Third question: I've heard reference to DIR-OW where some configuration changes are allowed. If I dove that way would I say I am DIR or DIR-OW or not really DIR (DIR lite)? How do I account (in discussion) for the fact that I'm DIR for OW but not for the WKPP?
I guess this gets back to the question of whether DIR is an approach or a defined system.

Now a question that might sound like a troll but isn't. I'm just trying to clarify how the term is applied in my own mind.

If DIR resulted from a group of divers utilizing a process to solve the WKPP problem, and if it has been modified to address OW; could a group of solo divers (I know that's an oxymoron) utilize the same process to develop DIR solo? Yes, it would violate one of the chief tenets of WKPP DIR philosophy but is DIR inseparable from its roots or could divers use a simular process to develop a way of "doing it right" solo?
Again, back to the main point: Did the originators of DIR think they were "doing it right" by the way they approached the problem or did they think their solution was "doing it right"?
-------------
Lamont,
I'm posting this here in good faith because I'm interested in a DIR response. If you think it is not appropriate though, you can move it to a more appropriate sub forum.

Dale.

 

[johnkendall]

I know this is an over simplification but; from my understanding the term "DIR" originated from a group of divers wanting to create the safest system to use in the WKKP. Faced with a specific situation they employed a method of analysis, testing, refinement and retesting until they developed the optimal configuration of gear, techniques and approach to use. A team of divers using this system was said to be "doing it right" or DIR.
So my first question is: Is DIR the system that was developed or the method of developing the system? If it is the system, what do you call the process of developing the system?

Second question: If it is a tangible system; Does someone own the term or system DIR? If GUE and UTD both claim to be DIR is DIR a static system that some person(s) has the rights to or could a third, fourth... agency open up and claim to be DIR as well (as long as they adopted the same system)? And, if no one owns the system, could the next agency change the system and still call it DIR?

Third question: I've heard reference to DIR-OW where some configuration changes are allowed. If I dove that way would I say I am DIR or DIR-OW or not really DIR (DIR lite)? How do I account (in discussion) for the fact that I'm DIR for OW but not for the WKKP?
I guess this gets back to the question of whether DIR is an approach or a defined system.

Now a question that might sound like a troll but isn't. I'm just trying to clarify how the term is applied in my own mind.

If DIR resulted from a group of divers utilizing a process to solve the WKKP problem, and if it has been modified to address OW; could a group of solo divers (I know that's an oxymoron) utilize the same process to develop DIR solo? Yes, it would violate one of the chief tenets of WKKP DIR philosophy but is DIR inseparable from its roots or could divers use a simular process to develop a way of "doing it right" solo?
Again, back to the main point: Did the originators of DIR think they were "doing it right" by the way they approached the problem or did they think their solution was "doing it right"?
-------------
Lamont,
I'm posting this here in good faith because I'm interested in a DIR response. If you think it is not appropriate though, you can move it to a more appropriate sub forum.

Dale.

Ok, I'll try and answer this for you.

DIR is a term coined to discribe the system of diving used by the WKPP. I don't believe that there is any ownership of the term in most of the world, but there is a copyright in europe.

Anyone could come up with anything and call it "DIR", for example your "DIR-solo", however it wouldn't be accepted as being "DIR" by those who use the term currently.

This is one of the reasons that GUE have moved away from the term "DIR".

Similarly there is no "DIR-OW" system, the system is designed from the top down, and so is the same system regardless of where you are diving it. That doesn't mean however that I'm going to do a 20' reef dive in double 104s and 5 stages, but it does mean that I'm not going to change the basic and fundamental elements of the system.

I'm sure this thread is going to run a while

HTH

John

 

[Tortuga68]

Process: a systematic series of actions directed to some end

System: an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of... principles & doctrines

I'd say they both describe the DIR methodology of standardisation

I don't think it is or should be "owned" by anyone - and it's evolutionary anyway

(it) is the same system regardless of where you are diving it. That doesn't mean however that I'm going to do a 20' reef dive in doubles... but it does mean that I'm not going to change the basic and fundamental elements of the system

Isn't that changing the system, as far as redundancy goes?

If you're following a system, are the basic elements more important than the more refined elements, which become optional?

opcorn

 

[b1gcountry]

I remember JJ saying (in Quest maybe?) that one of the unfortunate side-effects of DIR becoming popular worldwide is that different regions have adopted their own little deviations and subtleties to their implementation. He saw this as a bad thing. One of his arguments was that it is no longer standardized, but it also sounded like he really wanted control to be from High Springs, and flow down from there.

You mentioned a system flowing down from an idea. DIR is a specific solution to a problem. It has been successful, but a different solution could have been equally successful. The solution is not the problem, it just sprung from it.

Tom

 

[MonkSeal]

Isn't that changing the system, as far as redundancy goes?

No, because for 20' reef dive surface is close enough to become redundant gas source

 

[TSandM]

First, as John Kendall says, there is no ownership or copyright on the name "DIR" in the US. Therefore, anyone is free to use it to describe any kind of diving they do. It may or may not have any resemblance to what GUE teaches, or what the WKPP does.

Second, there are a lot of people who have looked at the system and decided to adopt some parts of it but not others. Some of those adaptations remain fairly close to the spirit of the original, and others don't, but none of it is truly "DIR", which is a holistic system in which the utility of many parts depends on the presence of others.

The UTD approach is one of those which, in my opinion (and mine alone), differs in details that do not affect the core values of the DIR idea. UTD still teaches a team-oriented diving style, using the exact same equipment configuration, strong personal skills, and standard gases. The particular choice of gases is different, and Ratio Deco is more highly utilized, but the system is still very strongly DIR at its core.

Both GUE and UTD start with a philosophy that is the same in OW as it is deep in a cave or a wreck. There are no compromises for "DIR OW". DIR in a single tank is the same as DIR in doubles, except you don't have two valves.

The process of testing and refining gear and procedures is, I believe, common to any committed diver or group of divers, and there's nothing "DIR" about it.

 

[RJP]

Is DIR a process or a system?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Of course the DIR answer is that in order to ensure the safety of all the angels and a succesful dance mission the angels should take a team approach to the dance. It's important that each angel on the team has recieved proper, rigorous dance training. DIR angels typical train and dance only with other DIR angels, though the open-minded angels will dance with non-DIR angels, even occasionally taking recreational dancers under their wing. Usually not long before these recreational dancers come to realize that the "Learn to Dance Today" approach they took when they got their original dance card at their LDS (Local Dance Studio) has not adequately prepared them for the rigors of team dancing.

Each team of two angels (or perhaps three, but no more) will determine a team leader and decide on each angel's role during the pre-dance briefing. Each angel, identically configured, would have a primary pin (secured in a such a way to not impede deployment of the holy long hose) and a back-up pin (clipped off in the left pocket of their heavenly dry suit).

The dance itself will have been fastidiously planned; this is known as "dance planning" in DIR circles. Proper "dance management" is important, and unfortunately not even touched on by PADI (Professional Angelic Dance Instructors). The length of the dance is often determined using the rule of thirds (dance is turned once 1/3 of the angels have fallen off the pin) This can be calculated ahead of time by using each angels SAC rate (Sacred Air Consumption) and taking into consideration any necessary adjustments for dissimilar dance volumes for each angel on the team. Also keep in mind that the music for the dance should always be comprised of one of two "standard dance mixes" choosing the mix that is appropriate to the specific dance plan.

Another critical consideration - especially for angels - is proper wing size. DIR angels typically "dance doubles" (though they might do "a singles dance" while on vacation in the Caribbean) so DIR angels often have several different wings, selecting the proper wing size for the dance environment and configuration. They will secure their wings in the manner specified in "St Jarrod's First Letter to the Hogarthians" chapter II, verses 3-12.

The steps for the dance are very specific and can be difficult to master, especially some of the backward steps. Proper dance shoes are important; with some shoes you can't effectively perform certain steps, or you risk kicking up dust on the head of the pin. This is one of any number of emergencies that DIR angels prepare for, but with the proper training and gear configuration this shouldn't be a problem. If however any angel on the team has a problem during the dance, keep the cardinal rule in mind: any angel can thumb any dance, at any time, for any reason. And remember, approaching dancing this way not only makes it safer, but a lot more fun!

This is neither a "system" nor a "process" but rather a holy-istic approach that the angels call DIR - Dancing It Right...

 

[lamont]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

---

 

[DaleC]

I'm looking at the glass as half full on that one RJP and believing you are laughing with me and not at me. One hell of a post either way though

I guess I'm just trying to clarify what the term means. Partly because DIR is sometimes used to describe the system and sometimes used to describe the approach.

I understand the holistic, non divisable aspect of DIR, that you can't parcel it out. To dive the WKPP (and other such scenarios) DIR you have to adopt that whole system. But, what if a simular group of individuals, approached OW rec diving (for example) using the same methodology as the WKPP divers did. Is it more DIR to transplant the cave diving solution to OW than to address the new enviroment in it's own right and, if a different system developed would it be DIR or is the term only meant to be applied to the system developed for the WKPP?

John made a point that is interesting (GUE moving away from the term DIR). "doing it right" seems like a verb more than a noun to me. In the sticky above [What is DIR] I wonder if the reporter was refering to the system developed as "doing it right" or the way the divers were approaching the problem. Using the term seems to spawn a lot of controversy and confusion too. Saying one is GUE or UTD compliant (for example) makes more sense as they are agencies with set protocols and procedures and you are either compliant or not. I wonder, in retrospect, if the founders would have chosen a different term to describe their system if they had forseen it progressing out of the WKPP (Or did John already answer this one from the GUE prospective)?

Well that's enough navel gazing for me, I'm beginning to see angels in the lint.

 

[danvolker]

I'm looking at the glass as half full on that one RJP and believing you are laughing with me and not at me. One hell of a post either way though

I guess I'm just trying to clarify what the term means. Partly because DIR is sometimes used to describe the system and sometimes used to describe the approach.

I understand the holistic, non divisable aspect of DIR, that you can't parcel it out. To dive the WKKP (and other such scenarios) DIR you have to adopt that whole system. But, what if a simular group of individuals, approached OW rec diving (for example) using the same methodology as the WKKP divers did. Is it more DIR to transplant the cave diving solution to OW than to address the new enviroment in it's own right and, if a different system developed would it be DIR or is the term only meant to be applied to the system developed for the WKKP?

John made a point that is interesting (GUE moving away from the term DIR). "doing it right" seems like a verb more than a noun to me. In the sticky above [What is DIR] I wonder if the reporter was refering to the system developed as "doing it right" or the way the divers were approaching the problem. Using the term seems to spawn a lot of controversy and confusion too. Saying one is GUE or UTD compliant (for example) makes more sense as they are agencies with set protocols and procedures and you are either compliant or not. I wonder, in retrospect, if the founders would have chosen a different term to describe their system if they had forseen it progressing out of the WKKP (Or did John already answer this one from the GUE prospective)?

Well that's enough navel gazing for me, I'm beginning to see angels in the lint.

When we brought DIR to the Internet ( tech list, Cavers list, and rec.scuba ) the idea George Irvine and myself had was to get what we saw as "traditional bad ideas", replaced by a new way of thinking, and a better gear system. The plan was to get divers to try a DIR idea or gear piece, and then to try more.

The idea was to begin a "process of becoming".
As far as the original intent, I am very happy with how DIR has evolved and grown.
And I would add, that getting divers to begin this path, is itself an important objective. Considering how many people we have touched in this way, I think this may have become the most important legacy that George will have left on diving.

As far as trying to achieve some sort of DIR perfection, my own thought is that this is an entirely separate concept, and more of a goal that ties in with a group's hopes and dreams of diving optimally to reach some higher level of adventure. This was what is was for the WKPP....and this same mindset has now spread all over the planet, to groups with their own big adventures, with good reason to optimize.


Regards,
Dan Volker