Lets see what happens with this statement

[Snowbear]

I think the example given on how not letting the passengers to drive is not a fitting one. From what I understand buddy/teammat is not a passenger. He/she is a driver too with his/her own car. It's more like following/being follwed by another car. You don't let other one drive your car but still keep a contact with them.

In keeping with the driver analogy, it's probably more like a pair of motorcyclists cruising together. Experienced riders can ride side by side on one lane or staggered one back a bit and in the other half of the lane. Periferal vision and experience and hand signals between familiar buddies are all that's usually needed to communicate intentions. No-one's really "leading," but they are a team and riding together. Though they have a common destination, each is driving his or her own bike while keeping an eye on the buddy rider.....

 

[nauidiver2004]

Or to carry this analogy train another step further than it should have gone... Diving should be like formation flying. Each diver is a pilot. Whether there are two planes or 12 it doesn't matter. Before leaving the ground there is a briefing. There is a plan. There is an objective. There is a charted course. And above all there is a squadron leader. It doesn't matter what distractions you see along the way - You don't break formation. Formation flying doesn't work when the players 'do their own thing'. Course-changes, speed, heading, and altitude are determined by the squadron leader. You can radio the leader and make suggestions (Lets go look in that patch of kelp) or report a problem (Captain, there is a Great Saltwater Beaver closing on your 4-O-clock), but the leader always directs the activity. If divers want to change rolls durring the dive, that's fine, but no two people can be the leader at the same time. Divers who don't keep continual peripheral buddy contact are usually a case of two people both trying to be the leader at the same time. It's selfish diving when you are only a team player when the team is doing what you want. I like the team concept. It implies a higher committment. "Buddy" just sounds too much like "Sure, I'll help you out if I happen to be around and it's not too inconvenient, of course." In the water you have to act like a dog even if topside you are more like a cat (it's just an alalogy - I don't have either and have no species-bias, so please don't go there).

-Ben

Ben,
I liked that. It made a lot of sense to me. Thanks.

Ken

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

The original statement is an obvious plug for DIR diving

Having read previous posts by the person who started the thread, I have a really hard time believing that ... he's not hardly what you'd call a promoter of DIR.

The "you obviously know nothing about DIR" is a bit of a cliche answer from DIR divers when other divers simply do not agree with the methodology.

One does not have to agree with any topic to comment on it from an informed perspective. Your comments, and the terms you chose to represent what you refer to as "the methodology" suggest either an intent to misinform or someone speaking out of ignorance. You may think you know something about DIR ... but your words suggest otherwise.

I've had virtual conversations with many DIR divers on this board for many years including GUE/DIR instructors, I know enough to comment and recognize the not so subtle plug.

So you've learned everything you know about DIR through Internet chat. Well, that I can certainly believe ...

This is why I think the conversation should remain in the DIR section. If I were to post a "let's see what happens with this statement" in the DIR thread - say about the common sense practice and use of a pony bottle, I would quickly be labeled as a troll.

I don't see that the topic is in any way unique to DIR. Every major agency promotes buddy diving. Some even make an attempt to teach buddy skills. I think the original post was an attempt to promote conversation around the different approaches that various training agencies ... and those who were taught by them ... view the topic, which is totally appropriate for this forum ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Scubaguy62]

that's buddy diving. team diving done right is more like having a wingman. he doesn't try to fly your plane, you don't have to constantly watch him, but he's always got your back.

This is a great subject. I haven't read every post, but I believe this analogy is quite a good example. However, along those lines, I believe a better examle is this: A dive team is much like the relationship between a Capt. and his/her F.O. Both know the aircraft, both know the normal and emergency procedures, both have been equally trained, and likely, both have been flying together for some time. In short, they both use C.R.M., or cockpit resource management. These resources asides from the aircraft systems, include each other. When a Capt. knows and trusts the abilities of his/her F.O., and vice-versa, a symbiotic relationship exists which accomplishes more than if both try to do the same thing. And here's the kicker, they need not have the same flying experience to be a successful team.

When a buddy team acts in much the same fashion, there is no need to give up fun. Both will know what to do, how and when to do it; both will know what to expect from the dive, and if they plan the dive and then dive the plan, asides from contingencies not planned, the dive will always be an enjoyable experience.

Just my .02 psi.

 

[matt_unique]

.....One does not have to agree with any topic to comment on it from an informed perspective. Your comments, and the terms you chose to represent what you refer to as "the methodology" suggest either an intent to misinform or someone speaking out of ignorance. You may think you know something about DIR ... but your words suggest otherwise.....

As I mentioned earlier, it's only those who agree with DIR who seem to "know" anything about it. It's a lot like religion....if you don't follow my doctrine you're going to hell because mine is the only "real" one. Ha ha...yeah...that's how it works...go nuts.

--Matt

 

[Rick Inman]

As I mentioned earlier, it's only those who agree with DIR who seem to "know" anything about it. It's a lot like religion....if you don't follow my doctrine you're going to hell because mine is the only "real" one. Ha ha...yeah...that's how it works...go nuts.

--Matt

How very existential of you.

Actually, NWGratefulDiver has earned the right to say what he did. Now, correct me if on wrong on any of these statements, Bob, but:

Bob has taken the DIR course, but is a NAUI instructor.

Bob works (or worked?) at a DIR shop, but teaches NAUI courses.

Bob dives regularly for pleasure with divers from all certifications, with all kinds of different gear configurations.

Bob enjoys diving with DIR divers, but doesn't dive 100% DIR himself, even though he has taken the class.

I believe that Bob is suggesting that he qualifies to comment on the DIR system because he understands it, has taken the course, but did not necessarily "drink the koolaid". But many who are uneducated in the DIR system (except what they read on the internet) and are lacking in enough facts to intelligently comment, often attempt to do so.

And BTW, I've been guilty of this myself.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Yes Rick, that is all correct ... but what I was trying to say is that DIR discussions don't translate well over the Internet. It's really not a source of information on which you should base your "knowledge", because you cannot develop any context around which to determine what's factual and what's opinion.

And anyone who thinks DIR teaches "buddy reliance" clearly doesn't understand that approach to diving. Now, if you wanted to say "buddy reliability", I might see your point ... but those are two very different things.

Matt, if you were to follow some of the posts I've put on this board over the past three and a half years, you'd know that there have been times when I was critical of both DIR and GUE's approach to teaching it. In fact, there was a time when I thought just like you. That was, in part, because a lot of my information was coming from the same sources yours did.

You don't have to take a class to start understanding the methodology ... but you do, really, need some real-world interaction with DIR divers. Do a few dives with some folks who are DIR trained ... drop the antipathy long enough to really think about the experience ... and if you're as serious a diver as I think you are, I suspect your perspective will change, even if you remain determined that it's really not for you.

I'm not knocking you for disagreeing with their approach to diving ... that really ain't my style. I dive with an awful lot of folks who aren't interested in it, and some of them are very, very good divers.

But one can only make judgments about your knowledge based on what you write ... and the statement you made earlier really rather misses the point.

And I still don't see that the topic is all that DIR-related, except for the fact that they take a very buddy-oriented approach to diving. On the other hand, so do all the major agencies ... at least in theory ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[TSandM]

Completely avoiding the idea of whether this discussion is DIR-baiting, or DIR-plugging, or not DIR-related at all . . .

The original quotation:

The comment that "They were there when I last looked", indicates that buddy
contact was not a constant condition of the dive. To be effective buddy
contact between two divers must be a continuous, ongoing condition of the
dive. Buddy contact that is "checked" every few minutes is, at best, poor.
Unfortunately, this interrupted and non-continuous method of "buddy-diving"
is more common than many divers would like to admit. It is difficult to
criticize the survivor of poor diving practices in cases such as this
because his position is one of "a lost friend". This less-than-optimum
buddy-system is an error of omission which is common among most sport
divers. In short, "human error" is probably more to blame than negligence.

It reminds me of a fatality we had at the Edmonds Underwater Park about a month ago. A fit young woman died in ten feet of water, and nobody knew why. She and her buddies were swimming out in the park, which is shallow and pretty safe, but given to poor visibility. At some point, her buddies looked back and she wasn't there. Whatever happened, and we may never know, she was eventually found dead.

Whatever difficulty she ran into might not have been amenable to any assistance from her buddies. But if it was, the time delay between when they realized she was missing and when she was found was lethal.

I would prefer to remain in continuous contact with my buddy (buddies), whether it be visual, or by light signals, or because I'm holding a bungee cord attached to my buddy If something goes horribly wrong, I don't want it to take much time for someone to find me. One has about four minutes of lack of oxygen before irreversible brain damage sets in.

One can make extensive and somewhat valid arguments about carrying spare air sources and being self-reliant, but if one's own physiology fails for some reason, the underwater environment is not a forgiving one.

 

[matt_unique]

...And anyone who thinks DIR teaches "buddy reliance" clearly doesn't understand that approach to diving. Now, if you wanted to say "buddy reliability", I might see your point ... but those are two very different things....

The priciple problem is in perception. What has been described to me as "team diving" by DIR divers is what I view as buddy reliance in some cases.

I am open to a good idea or a correction of information from any source. Taking a specific example, DIR divers have said to me they do not take 2 of everything on a deco dive. For example, lift bag and reel. A giant octopus pulls me away from a wreck and I need to make an ascent and deco without the benefit of a mooring line. I would shoot a bag and use the line as a reference and the bag as a communication device topside. If my reel jams as the bag is ascending to the surface I let it go and pull out my backup reel/bag. DIR divers have said to me the "team concept" would negate the need for 2 of everything, including reel/bag, since "your buddy would be right there with his bag/reel" (insert any other piece of gear). Even if my buddy is right there beside me I would still consider this approach as buddy reliance. Those who practice it would certainly not describe it as such. The fact that I view this as buddy reliance, and do not agree with it, certainly has no reflection on my comprehension of elements of DIR.

If a DIR expert can comment to say "the DIR divers you heard from were misinformed, we do take 2 reels, 2 lift bags, 2 lights, 2 cutting devices, etc." then I will be the first to say I stand corrected and will need to research more. If not, it just means the DIR concept is not for me and not because I don't understand it.

--Matt

 

[Rec Diver]

I would prefer to remain in continuous contact with my buddy (buddies), whether it be visual, or by light signals, or because I'm holding a bungee cord attached to my buddy If something goes horribly wrong, I don't want it to take much time for someone to find me. One has about four minutes of lack of oxygen before irreversible brain damage sets in.

I firmly believe that without being self reliant you not only increase risk to yourself, you also add risk to your buddy (buddies). My reasoning is that if you can not help yourself, how could you possibly help anyone else?