Is DIR a process or a system?

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!

I hope this isn't off topic (in my mind it falls in line with the OP). Whether it is a system or a process or system, I like the philosophical idea behind DIR and am actually looking to take the fundamentals class this year to learn more about it. Where I am having a challenge is in two areas. First, as was mentioned by the OP, why does it seem like those who are DIR divers that I have encountered (or at least portray themselves to be) seem to look down upon those who chose not to follow their interpretation of DIR. If I don't do it their way, then I am wrong. Secondly, what makes a product a DIR or non-DIR product? Why Halcyon and not DSS or Dive Rite. I ask this question because I saw a thread where Dive Rite responded to a question regarding reels in the DIR forum and someone "slayed" them for speaking in a DIR forum when they are not even a DIR vendor. I it is a process or system, then why look down upon vendors who offer similar products that can meet the requirements of the system. I ask this because I ahve seen it on a few DIR threads, and it perplexes me.


In the early and mid 90's, George and JJ and several other WKPP members would constantly be calling Dive rite, Scuba pro, and each of the major manufacturers, trying to get them to make the products that WKPP guys were slapping together in their garages.

The attempts to get the big guys to make diving safer, fell on deaf ears.

Even dive rite ignored WKPP.

Robert Carmichael, a WKPP diver that happened to own Brownies 3rd Lung, happened to have a great little operation for developing new , "one off" type pieces of dive gear. Carmichael followed the "WKPP spec" on a backplate, and on what were requested for wings....the WKPP divers loved this, and Carmichale was hammered with requests....he decided to put a name on the gear, which became Halcyon....the only company that would make DIR spec'd gear.
After a decade, a larger market appeared, and Dive rite and others decided that the money was right, to get into the DIR gear offerings....but this was not because it was the "Right thing to do", or because of quality or safety...it was profit and market driven..this was NOT the case with Halcyon.
For years, Carmichael ate up any poetential profit, by always trying to take ideas of team members, to improve on the Halcyon gear. ***versus the typical manufacturer, who get tooled up to make a new product, and then uses "marketing to enforce that this is what everyone wants" for the next 5 to 10 years( forget quality and function)***

To me, there really is a difference, and halcyon should get seen as a different animal.

Regards,
DanV
 
Prior to Halcyon, purchaing a backplate and wing involved (1) buing a DiveRite wing and backplate, (2) going to a truck parts store and getting an inner tube to place around the wing to properly protect it, (3) shortening the length of the super long deflator hose, (4) throwing away the two piece webbing and rethreading with a single piece of webbing you purchased yourself, (5) properly bending the D-rings and installing an inflator retainer, and then taking the backplate to a seamster who you haven't priviously pissed off with the thick webbing we use and having them sew on a properly sized crotch strap.

When Halcyon came along, you just ordered a backplate and wing. That earned a lot of customer loyalty with many of us. Also, Halcyon is the only manufacter where if you order a DIR piece of equipment, backplate, wing, etc. it will be DIR compliant. Most of the others, unless things have changed, offer personal preference differences that make the equipment not DIR. Nothing wrong with that, just a potential trap for the newbies that don't know exactly what to order.

I truly don't care if you dive DIR or not. If you are doing stupid things on more demanding dives that greatly increases your risk of fatality and my risk of getting to continue diving the site, well then I will lookd down on you. Also, those that pretend to understand DIR but who butcher it with personal preference garbage because they don't actually understand it are not looked upon favorably either.
 
why does it seem like those who are DIR divers that I have encountered (or at least portray themselves to be) seem to look down upon those who chose not to follow their interpretation of DIR. If I don't do it their way, then I am wrong.

Keep in mind that there is a relatively high percentage of @-holes in every walk of life. Accordingly, there's no reason to expect the percentage of @-holes in the DIR community to differ appreciably from the overall prevalence of @-holes in the general population.

:D

PS: note that I'm very much a "pro-DIR" diver
 
Last edited:
Secondly, what makes a product a DIR or non-DIR product? Why Halcyon and not DSS or Dive Rite. I ask this question because I saw a thread where Dive Rite responded to a question regarding reels in the DIR forum and someone "slayed" them for speaking in a DIR forum when they are not even a DIR vendor. If it is a holy-istic approach, then why look down upon vendors who offer similar products that can meet the requirements of the system. I ask this because I ahve seen it on a few DIR threads, and it perplexes me.

That is an easy explanation: the "top handle" reels can not meet the requirements of the system nor can they be modified to meet the requirements of the system, therefore they are not DIR. Some of Dive Rite's gear can be modified to suit, like the back plates, harness webbing, and whatnot...but a lot of Dive Rite's gear just simply can't ever fit the DIR requirements. Some can be used without modification, and some doesn't need any modification at all.

Halcyon ships some wings with big plastic knobbers on the butt dump...which are not DIR (supposedly for CE marking, but my Agir wing from Europe does not come with a big plastic knobber and is CE marked)...but even if you get one of these it is easily modified to be DIR. In my shopping experience (even though I have very little H gear), they make tons of gear to meet the DIR requirements. H does make some non-DIR gear such as the RB wing (due to tech diving market demand).

Speaking of Agir...I love the wing I bought, but it came with a 16" long inflator hose...WAY too long for me. So, I bought a "Dive Rite" inflator hose (many hoses made by the same manufacturer and resold) that was 12" and the perfect length per the DIR requirements.

Most DSS gear meets (or can be modified to meet) the DIR requirements...I love my DSS gear and those items I own are 100% compliant. But again, as RTodd said, you have to know what you're ordering...you can't get the comfort harness and meet the DIR requirements without replacing it.

Some OxyCheq gear can be used, some can't.

And many other peoples' gear can be used, but if you're a noob buying gear without having Fundies first...you'll probably buy the wrong thing and have to re-purchase something.
 
I'll take a shot at this with the way DIR ( for ocean) came to us in South florida
....I had been spearfishing the Hole in the Wall with Frank hammett for years, along with dozens of little known barges and wrecks between 112 feet deep, and 175 feet deep, mostly from Juno to Fort Pierce. I dove with the serious hunters that liked Frank hammett's trips, and the level of adventure his trips represented ( in stark contrast to the typical charter boats that would cater to novices, and ruin diving for advanced divers).
So I met George diving on the HydroAtlantic, on a day with lots of Greys running, and huge walls of fish. George was way more techy than the other hunters ( double tanks), but beyond that, he was just a really good diver, and he fit in well diving with any of my normal hunting groups. We tended toward buddy diving even before George, as we were diving in places with lots of big bulls that would come in while you were trying to pull your grouper out of a hole, and it was wise to have a buddy there to persuade the bulls not to "help" you pull the grouper out of the hole :-) We also had a great many small relatively unknown and undived wrecks we would hit, often sitting in big currents, and typically with plenty of entanglement challenges....and covered with big fish. Buddy based spearfishing just made sense here, and it made the stories more fun after the dives.
After a year or so, George dissappeared from the weekly dives----and we did not see him again for almost a year...then one weekend, he was back, wearing new gear...backplate and wings, long hose, and even though in doubles, he was remarkably streamlined and fast in the water.
We did one of the deeper wrecks, looking for fish, and inside the inner compartments, George blew our minds with the "way" he was doing things none of us could do. He was motionless and effortless in places some of us could not even get into, and even though all of us were great in big currents, we could see he had something that was a huge advantage over the rest of us....and we all wanted these secrets...we could all see the value in being able to do what George was doing..how we could get fish that would have been out of reach before, how we could be safer without effort, much less prone to getting tangled up, and how we could have even bigger adventure dives, with far less effort.
George told us about the cave diving with Parker Turner, and we heard about Scheck, and we basically came to realize there was a kind of diving going on in North Florida that was MUCH harder than what we were doing in the ocean...but that these guys who were doing it, had evolved skills ( skills we could learn) ...that could make each of us MUCH BETTER in the ocean. We could see how the gear George was using was superior for what we were trying to do..and it only made sense to try this stuff...we saw how dramatically it had amped up George's game, and we wanted to see what it could do for us. George would say he began the cave diving, to make himself way better for deep ocean diving, but in time, he came to like the deep cave as much as the high challenge ocean diving. But let me repeat this again....
George said he was doing the technical cave diving with Parker, in order to be better at the challenging ocean dives we did, and to enjoy them more....So the DIR we were ultimately to put out over years to follow, was VERY MUCH about diving in the ocean...

George would go up to Wakulla and miss a few weekends doing big cave dives, then he would be back sharing new ideas and new gear set ups.

Bottom line, the whole DIR beginning for us, was about giving you some tools to do the coolest dives you could find, safer, and better. We had some pretty outrageous dives in depths less than 140 feet...so it is not fair to say this was specifically a technical diving development....those of us that liked the really deep shipwrecks and reefs in the 220 to 280 foot range, knew we would be stupid not to use George's ideas....but many of the group that just did dives like the Hole in the Wall, the Rolls off of Juno, and some of Franks secret spots, liked this new development for the advantages it gave us.

Of course, this is not reading about an idea, and intellectualizing about it's value....
....this was you seeing a huge change for the better , and wanting this, and more. This was all hands on, see how it works, ask the whys, and then adopt it after you are certain this is hot stuff.

For the more general question of how would DIR evolve that you suggested, I think that if it was just Grand Cayman style "bath tub diving", protected by divemasters, then there would have been zero development for DIR. It needs to be in a place where you have big currents, big challenges with potential entanglements and divers trying to push the "recreational envelope". Ideas such as the long hose and 2 or 3 man buddy teams should have "co-evolved", whereever real challenges like we have exist. Whereever you have big currents, and you also want to maximize bottomtime ( minimize wasting air), the backplate and wing set up is going to be superior for it's low drag. It was amazing to me how many of the cave diving skills, had spectacular application to our more challenging south Florida dives. As soon as you find you are in a place where true buddy diving makes the adventure safer and better, then it is fairly obvious that it is better if all buddies have close to identical gear, so in the case of a failure, fixing the issue is far simpler from the familiarity.

As other posters have mentioned, a typical scuba diver is going out on a charter boat, and diving where little if any challenge exists... and where mistake after mistake are commonplace for these dive groups, and yet the fatality rate is incredibly low. DIR ideas will require more challenge to make their advantage worthwhile to most divers.

Sorry if this went on too long :-)
Regards,
Dan

Excellent post Dan, thanks for the historical background. You could make an interesting comparision here between DIR and convergent evolution. As I understand it, placed in a similar environment, evolution will follow a similar path (I am sure someone will add about 50 pages to this but in a nutshell this is how I understand it) and you will come up with similar answers to similar problem. In this case, extreme diving is extreme diving, depth and pressure are depth and pressure and water is water. Of course there are differences between a 200' ocean dive in current near a wreck with entanglement hazards and a virtual overhead, and a cave with flow and a hard overhead but the similarities are what has driven the adoption of DIR principles in both locations. Convergent evolution. My understanding is also that most evolutionary adaptation occurs on the margins as opposed in the center where evolutionary pressures for change are the most extreme. Sound familar?

In short, if diving had never pressed the edge of the envelope and never touched the "margins" the pressure for the adoption of something like DIR would have been far less. The beauty of DIR is that as both a system and a process, it will continually evolve to adapt to these pressures in a way that continues to look at the risk factors, benefits and costs.

I only wish that you guys had thrown around a different name for DIR,........it would have made things a little easier.........:D On the other hand, it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.........

Thanks again for taking the time to give us some more history. Really interesting stuff for us who came to the game later.

Guy
 
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?


There are names for the methodology you describe. Two of them are PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, Act) and RCT (Rapid Cycle Testing). Searching the term "Performance Improvement" will get you quite a reading list (though some sources are likely to be off topic :smile: )
Dan
 
More of a life style in my opinion. I find the concept carries over to everyday things.

Now I carry a back up cell phone in my pocket with another number and area code. Just in case main phone goes down I can switch over quick to the back up.
 
More of a life style in my opinion. I find the concept carries over to everyday things.

You know, it's funny that I've been a DIR guy my whole life. Long before ever put a reg in my mouth I'd always had a penchant for "doing it right" especially at work. Nothing bugs me more than when someone willingly does something "the wrong way" when there is a known and/or generally accepted "right way" to do it.

Now I've got non-divers at work using the term "DIR" as a general business term when discussing things like market research study design, developmental process for an ad campaign, or pretty much anything where rigor of thought or process is important. Just the other day I was walking out of the office when I heard one guy asking another if it was feasible to cut a particular corner on a big project we're working on. They didn't know I was walking by (much less see me smiling) as I heard the second guy not only answer the question, but also provide the reason for his answer, when he simply said "DIR, baby. DIR."

"Their transition to the Dark Side is complete..."

emperor1.gif
 
Now I carry a back up cell phone in my pocket with another number and area code. Just in case main phone goes down I can switch over quick to the back up.

Make sure the second phone is from a secondary provider on a different network. if both phones rely on a single single provider/network then you still have a single point of failure, and are still at risk...

Actually I made this comment not to be a smarta$$ but to make a point. As I research the DIR ideology, I am a big proponent of it and am looking forward to taking the Fudies class later this year. The big challenge is not so much the people who look down on me but when I ask "why," I cant get any justification as to why something is done the way it is. Just that it is the DIR way or just because. I can only speak for myself, but the more I can understand why, the easier it is to follow the methodology...Although a lot of it does speak for itself.

Having said that, I do appreciate all of hte insight from those who have provided feedback on this thread and the OP for asking the question. It has helped me get a better grasp on the DIR philosophy and answered some of hte "why" questions.
 
Make sure the second phone is from a secondary provider on a different network. if both phones rely on a single single provider/network then you still have a single point of failure, and are still at risk...

Actually I made this comment not to be a smarta$$ but to make a point. As I research the DIR ideology, I am a big proponent of it and am looking forward to taking the Fudies class later this year. The big challenge is not so much the people who look down on me but when I ask "why," I cant get any justification as to why something is done the way it is. Just that it is the DIR way or just because. I can only speak for myself, but the more I can understand why, the easier it is to follow the methodology...Although a lot of it does speak for itself.

Having said that, I do appreciate all of hte insight from those who have provided feedback on this thread and the OP for asking the question. It has helped me get a better grasp on the DIR philosophy and answered some of hte "why" questions.

I can tell you if you were talking to someone like JJ or George, or any of the originals, the "Why" was a huge part of DIR.
I would go so far as to say that if you are not getting a good "why" answer, then the DIR person you are asking may not really be DIR....

Dan V
 

Back
Top Bottom