Is Side Mount the new DIR??? Building resentment towards us as a group...

[AJ]

From personal experience GUE divers in particular are often more open and easy to talk to, but they are exeptionally hard to convince to take part in a normal rec dive.

Sorry, but his makes me curious. Are they hard to get to dive with non GUE divers or are they sticking to the GUE way of diving although they are diving with divers from other agencies?

To me it's a big difference. I dive the GUE way all the time, but I dive with everybody who dives safe. No exception on agency or other (gear) criteria. As far as I know, other GUE divers do the same.

 

[boulderjohn]

His response was that weight on the shoulders is weight on the shoulders.

The difference is as described by NetDoc with his cart. When I dive backmount fom the shore, I have to walk around on the shore for at least some distance with the tanks on my back, both before and after diving. THat distance can be considerable in some cases. With sidemount, I walk the tanks down to the water's edge one at a time, and I frequently have them clipped off in the water, and I put them on while in the water. There is thus never any weight on the shoulders.

With a helmet even more than with the sidemount gear you are immediately identifiable as someone not doing everything the way everybody else does.

I know some really excellent cave divers who wear helmets.

The only people I know using that term have gotten the boot from GUE and have started doing their own thing

The other day I was diving single tank off a boat, and I was paired with a Russian tourist who spoke very little English. He asked me about my gear, and said it looked like DIR to him. In the ensuing conversation, he said that where he usually dives in Russia, the divers there use the term DIR to describe their approach quite freely and quite frequently.

So what are you supposed to call it now than? There are lots of people that didn't get the memo over here.
And what do you call strokes now?

Since when is UTD DIR?

Why is there any need to use either term?

 

[boulderjohn]

Since when is UTD DIR?

I was one of the first UTD students, and I as with UTD for several years. They referred to their approach as DIR from the start, the term was used regularly, and the people who were part of my training group still use the term.

 

[Bennno]

They referred to their approach as DIR from the start, the term was used regularly, and the people who were part of my training group still use the term.

I've heard that they're calling that awful Z-sidemount system DIR... but it isn't.

 

[boulderjohn]

I've heard that they're calling that awful Z-sidemount system DIR... but it isn't.

Here's your problem--who is to say it is not DIR?

In a past thread a few years ago I mentioned that there is no Pope of DIR. Who is to say what is DIR and what isn't? In another thread, some people said that until George Irvine said something different, DIR was only what he said it was; it could never be changed without his consent. Since he is no longer involved, that becomes problematic for making any changes.

 

[Bennno]

Here's your problem--who is to say it is not DIR?

How about not having an bajillion extra failure points due to poor gear design?

 

[PfcAJ]

Here's your problem--who is to say it is not DIR?

In a past thread a few years ago I mentioned that there is no Pope of DIR. Who is to say what is DIR and what isn't? In another thread, some people said that until George Irvine said something different, DIR was only what he said it was; it could never be changed without his consent. Since he is no longer involved, that becomes problematic for making any changes.

Probably the group that coined the term and developed the procedures

 

[decompression]

Here's your problem--who is to say it is not DIR?

In a past thread a few years ago I mentioned that there is no Pope of DIR. Who is to say what is DIR and what isn't? In another thread, some people said that until George Irvine said something different, DIR was only what he said it was; it could never be changed without his consent. Since he is no longer involved, that becomes problematic for making any changes.

And that I why I wish the term would disappear.....

 

[Razorista]

Sorry, but his makes me curious. Are they hard to get to dive with non GUE divers or are they sticking to the GUE way of diving although they are diving with divers from other agencies?

To me it's a big difference. I dive the GUE way all the time, but I dive with everybody who dives safe. No exception on agency or other (gear) criteria. As far as I know, other GUE divers do the same.

In my opinion many GUE divers do not mention DIR or GUE on sports dives much.
Most of the time nobody will even know they are GUE trained, except for other GUE divers in the group.

With other tec oriented agencies that is sometimes different in my opinion.
Many of those stay DIR divers even for normal lake dives to 15meters, even when only sports divers are with them.

 

[DevonDiver]

Here's your problem--who is to say it is not DIR?

Forgetting the term 'DIR', as it's non-functionary... UTD do have stated principles. There's room for discussion on whether their solution meets, or violates, their principles.
I think when training agencies diversify into other business functions, such as retail and equipment manufacture, there can easily be conflicts of interest occurring.
The question I ask myself is did they really adopt this solution because it was the best answer to meet their principles, or because it created a relatively captive market for (very expensive) sales.

Here are UTD's principles, as they state on their site:

UTD'S 10 Covenants

1. Unified Team Diving – The team is your backup – gas, equipment and brain.
2. The Thinking Team – No team member relies on another person or piece of equipment to make the “sole” decisions. No “trust me” dives.
3. Rock Bottom Gas Management – Every diver carries enough gas to bring two divers to the next available gas source, either the surface, a deco bottle, or stage bottle.
4. Standard Gas – Dive the desired PPO2 at the target average depth and keep the equivalent narcosis depth to 100’/30m or less. NO DEEP AIR.
5. Consistent Modular Equipment Configuration – An equipment configuration that is consistent, scalable and interchangable within the team for all types of diving and diving environments.
6. Minimalist Approach – Only take what you need for the dive.
7. Holistic – All components of the system are thought out, work together and have a solid reason behind their use and placement.
8. Streamlined and Accessible Equipment Configuration – All components can be stowed, yet are convenient to access.
9. Situational Awareness – Manage the environment, equipment and team, giving equal attention to each, never becoming fixated or inflexible. Head up, eyes open, and brain on.
10. The Proper Training and Experience for the Dive – Have the appropriate training to ensure consistent protocols and skills for the dive and understand the potential hazards. This will ensure the correct starting point to build experience.

In addition, they state:

• Equipment Configuration – Each diver is equipped with a minimal, standardized, consistent, scalable and interchangeable approach to their configuration, essentially the UTD “Unified System.” This allows for rapid and effective response to any problem or emergency, as each team member knows exactly how everyone’s gear is configured.

In relation to their principles, here is their sidemount solution: