Limits of standardization.

[DaleC]

There are some interesting tradeoffs. I wish more of the thinking process behind those tradeoffs was public, so that we can all understand them better. Also, clearly, there are limitations to how much can or should be standardized, which I don't perceive as a bad thing... everything has limitations, and IMHO asking about limitations should be a part of a learning process in any domain. The purpose of the OP was to explore them, not to criticize any particular system. I found all the posts in this thread educational, thank you for sharing.

This is true and the sign of a thinking diver, and I think you will find in your course that the thinking behind the ideas is pretty well covered. I did not get an "accept this just because we say so" vibe. I also believe there should be more reasoned discussion about the why. That was the reason Guy offered the course we just took.

It's also hard to talk about standardization as a whole because there are so many variables. It's better to just take one thing at a time and understand the pros/cons/necessity/personal choice about them. When you do that with a few things you can extrapolate for some other items. Sometimes the instructor might not actually answer the question but rather, make you think.

This happened when I asked why we couldn't have a right hip D ring if we don't carry a canlight. I mean, come on, I have a D ring on my crotch for the scooter I don't use either. Why not the hip? Guy said: knowing what you know about the importance of donating a reg, you tell me what the problem might be. It got me really thinking about the interplay of things and I came up with an answer that even made sense to me. And because I came up with it I couldn't argue that it was being "imposed" upon me by someone else. Clever monkey.

It also helps to keep the big picture in mind. Standardization is not about what's best for an individual, it's about what's best for a group. So there is a sense of "group think" involved but you shouldn't let yourself succumb to "group think" without knowing the why behind it.

 

[ScubaInChicago]

This being the DIR forum, you also have to look at UTD who is the current "user" of the term, and they have embraced both sidemount and rebreather diving fully and that is quite interesting because it is a huge deviation of the original standard.

I think the TOS frown on "trolling".

 

[nadwidny]

This being the DIR forum, you also have to look at UTD who is the current "user" of the term, and they have embraced both sidemount and rebreather diving fully and that is quite interesting because it is a huge deviation of the original standard. We're going to see something big break in the next couple of years, and it will be very interesting regarding acceptable gear configurations.

Only George and JJ can define DIR. Nobody else. Not me, not you, not AG. And since George isn't involved anymore, and JJ has moved on, then we just have to accept that the term "DIR" is stagnant (like Hogarthian). There will be no more changes to DIR unless JJ and George say so, just evolutions.

Outside of the RB80 and the fridge there is no DIR rebereather, but there evolutions like GUE adopting the JJ CCR and UTD adopting whatever stupid ass contraption they have come up with. There is no DIR sidemount but GUE may have something in the works and AG has his sidemount system. None of those are DIR. Grandchildren and bastard grandchildren perhaps, but not DIR.

 

[SillyQuestions]

to be fair, there's more to gas management in the DIR would than thirds.

Yes I'm aware.

To name a few, deco, minimum gas, your lost gas, team lost gas, working phases of the dive, flow, scooters, stages and I could go on...

But I over simplified for a forum, my bad.

A turn pressure is a turn pressure. Turn pressures should be calculated before hand.

The MOD issue is more interesting. I've never used more than 3 gases for deco, a bottom gas and a travel stage. Open water. I think on that dive I could of learnt quite quickly the imperial MODs, but it would have added an unnecessary level of complication to the dive.

I propose an amendment to rule 1.

Rule 1. (A) Don't dive with Americans, unless you're American.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tbone1004]

Brian et al, I'm aware they are the only ones who can officially change the term in many peoples minds, and no I am not trolling, though I do have very strong thoughts about wanting to have this forum renamed since there are more GUE discussions than there are UTD discussions in here, and GUE has decided not to use the term anymore. UTD has embraced the term and is promoting it, so while AG doesn't have the power to "change" the original usage or meanings of the term DIR, he has certainly run around changing the term to fit UTD's agenda, which is fine that was his choice and GUE has stopped using the term so it's his to run with.

GUE is currently working on a sidemount course, it isn't a "may" it is ongoing. If the term is truly stagnant, which if you think it is stagnant, then you should probably move on to whatever the current and evolving standard is because it is evolving for a reason, then this forum needs to be renamed accordingly. By stating the "Grandchildren" or even the "children" of DIR, you really have to pick a side and stick with it, the original system is dated and the fact that both JJ and AG are adapting it means that there is a need to change from 20 years ago and you have to pick whatever side you feel is best. I don't side with either because of the solo diving vs. dive team mentality, but just about everything else they do I agree with, but I will stick with JJ and GUE and follow their grouping because I like that style better, you can choose your own, but don't stick with the original group, the standards are continually evolving, let them evolve, they are doing it for a reason.
There's no better name for it that I know of currently, but it is unfair to have as many GUE discussions in here including this one when they are adamant about not using the term anymore.

"However, as with all great movements, comes inevitable corruption and fragmentation. Today, DIR has spread to every corner of the globe, with self-appointed DIR groups emerging in dozens of different countries. Given their physical separation, their lack of centralized direction, their own specific agendas, beliefs, power struggles and constraints, these satellite groups cannot help but to promote a version of DIR that is uniquely their own. This version of "DIR" will likely have little resemblance to the original. This will be the case, however well-intentioned, however devoted to the founding principles of DIR, these satellites may be. — Jarrod Jablonski"

 

[ScubaInChicago]

Brian et al, I'm aware they are the only ones who can officially change the term in many peoples minds, and no I am not trolling, though I do have very strong thoughts about wanting to have this forum renamed since there are more GUE discussions than there are UTD discussions in here, and GUE has decided not to use the term anymore. UTD has embraced the term and is promoting it, so while AG doesn't have the power to "change" the original usage or meanings of the term DIR, he has certainly run around changing the term to fit UTD's agenda, which is fine that was his choice and GUE has stopped using the term so it's his to run with.

GUE is currently working on a sidemount course, it isn't a "may" it is ongoing. If the term is truly stagnant, which if you think it is stagnant, then you should probably move on to whatever the current and evolving standard is because it is evolving for a reason, then this forum needs to be renamed accordingly. By stating the "Grandchildren" or even the "children" of DIR, you really have to pick a side and stick with it, the original system is dated and the fact that both JJ and AG are adapting it means that there is a need to change from 20 years ago and you have to pick whatever side you feel is best. I don't side with either because of the solo diving vs. dive team mentality, but just about everything else they do I agree with, but I will stick with JJ and GUE and follow their grouping because I like that style better, you can choose your own, but don't stick with the original group, the standards are continually evolving, let them evolve, they are doing it for a reason.
There's no better name for it that I know of currently, but it is unfair to have as many GUE discussions in here including this one when they are adamant about not using the term anymore.

There are also too many people who read these threads and self appoint themselves as DIR/GUE experts. I would recommend taking a course beyond Fundamentals before claiming to know everything!

 

[PfcAJ]

There are also too many people who read these threads and self appoint themselves as DIR/GUE experts. I would recommend taking a course beyond Fundamentals before claiming to know everything!

Even taking fundamentals would help in this case.

 

[tbone1004]

never said I was an expert on either, don't claim to be, all I was claiming is the following

GUE used the term extensively, they no longer do. They have since started changing some things from the last "update" which is the fundamentals book, and regardless of being a DIR diver or not, I think it is one of the better reads for getting started in this style of diving. They are evolving, it's a good thing, it likely won't ever be anything drastic like endorsing solo diving, but I think sidemount and computer use will be getting a bit more attention than they did when the book was published.

UTD still uses the term, and they are certainly very different than what the book indicates which is part of what prompted the division, especially on sidemount/rebreathers and going away from the "hogarthian" system by eliminating all unnecessary failure points.

The reason that GUE went away from the term DIR is because it was being adapted to fit the individual locations and it was being taken out of context, see the JJ quote above, I would have liked to see GUE keep the term DIR and have the other groups using the term change to Doing What Works, or something similar, but they didn't, so GUE abandoned it. In terms of standardization I believe in DWW over DIR, I don't believe that DIR truly works in all situations all the time, so there are things that can be adapted to the specific tasks at hand and I think they should be, but the current set of standards works pretty darn good for most of the situations out there without much if any adaptation which is what the thread was originally about.

 

[DaleC]

I may be speaking out of term here because I don't know all that much about the in depth reasoning behind many decisions re. standardization but I think you are mistaking the motivation between what you call DIR and DWW.

My take is that GUE highly values the pros of standardization and chooses to keep them intact, for as long as they remain pros doing the dives they do. On the other hand, some agencies allow for variation long before it is needed, even at the rec level, thus abandoning the pros that standardization allows too early without any tangible benefit in return (other than allowing for personal preference).

So for rec diving GUE divers would be BM OC, for simple tech they would be BM OC, for cave they would be BM OC... until the dives they were doing could not be done BM OC. At that point they would retool and look at SM OC or RB.

Conversely, other agencies might allow BM OC, SM OC and RB all at the rec level, where one could reasonably argue SM OC and RB provide no value when measured against the loss of standardization they represent within the team. Seriously looking at the Z system UTD uses shows how far from the mark mixing those configurations can go when attempting to achieve pseudo standardization.

So, it's not a matter of never deviating from standardization, but rather at what point in the spectrum it is done.

I stand to be corrected if wrong.

 

[eelnoraa]

I am a rec level trained GUE diver, so I can't speak for GUE as a whole. My personal take is that standardization is first about a diver's mind set, training, and expected behavior under water. With those sorted out, I think the "standard" equipment choice comes very natural. Why would you want to be different than your teammate??

As for GUE choice of equipment config, I really haven't seen any reason it wouldn't work for the dives I am doing. I however have seen more than a few times where non standardized equipment/training cause issues.