Mr Chattertons Self Reliance Article...

[nakatomi]

Wouldn't the proper assumption be, that they had not buddied with each other before, and that they planned to dive this dive together--in a team fashion, so they were attempting to get on the same page.....
When the pilot jumps into the cockpit of a 747 and begins running down a checklist of things before taking off--I would not want him to stop doing this, because it indicated a lack of belief in the plane or the mechanics. I would not see a down side to the pilot going through the checklist.

Speaking of "assumptions", how's this for an analogy:

1. The pilot of the 747 sitting in the cockpit and going through a checklist for his lawnmower before takeoff?

2. Dan Volker discussing advanced diving topics that are clearly not within the scope of his dive training?

If you disagree, please enlighten us on the benefit of OOA sharing techniques for these two divers.


---------- Post added February 18th, 2013 at 05:02 PM ----------

Oliver,
you are and lecter are wrong about this. The buoyancy and trim that is seen today by well skilled tech divers, came largely from the cave diving world where learning techniques that would not stir up silt, were more critical.

Well, isn't that exactly what I wrote? You're making it sound like you said it

Many cave groups were out there, and the skills began to spread.... However, where the skills and proficiency were never mandated, you wont have an expectation of a high level of this skill being commonly used.

Very True.

I don't think think that frogkick or several other of the cave diving techniques, were commonly used by the NE wreck community in the 80's or early to mid nineties.
And if I am dead wrong about all this, then why are these skills so absent in most of the diving population today, and this to the degree that most divers find a course like Fundies to be extremely difficult to pass?

Well, if you read the two books, there are many specifics in there about cave techniques being brought to wreck diving by cave divers. I'm not saying that other events and people in the later 90s did not have a great impact on wreck diving, they sure did.
But again, this is about the early 90s and the specific dives John Chatterton was talking about. And again, there were cave divers on those teams, with well documented skills. That should sort of help regarding your original assumption, that John Chatterton and the other divers on the boat might have had "issues" with their technique and their skills.

Oliver

 

[danvolker]

Speaking of "assumptions", how's this for an analogy:


2. Dan Volker discussing advanced diving topics that are clearly not within the scope of his dive training?

If you disagree, please enlighten us on the benefit of OOA sharing techniques for these two divers.

Oliver

I don't know if you are really saying you don't think I have tech training and experience, or if you are just trying to be as rude as possible, without getting a moderator to delete your comment. In any event, George Irvine, Director of the WKPP for many years in the 90's, personally mentored me for deep ocean technical diving. I did a great deal of 280 foot level exploration diving with him and Bill Mee.

As to your comments about the 2 divers, your comments show that you have zero knowledge of DIR or GUE ideas on how to plan a dive with another diver, or how to begin diving with a person you have never dived with before. The problem illustrated is your lack of understanding, NOT any problem between the 2 divers--at least not in the sense of the pure diving issues that would seem to be important to you.... If they are both good divers, then each should be competent solo on this if it is a deep dive, and this discussion just adds to the planning process ( each diver does need to plan elements of the dive ahead of time). I do not think that if this was a technical depth dive, that this is the right place to create a team expectation--but from your viewpoint, that would be irrellevant anyway. If they were DIR based divers, a better plan would have been to do exactly this on an 80 to 100 foot dive, and to experience the level of team and skills training each other has. From that baseline, they would have a much better planning potential for a real tech dive, and minutes prior to getting in the water for the tech dive, the planning issues discussed could have been far more practical for the dive planned. This may in fact have been your point....

 

[TSandM]

I think he's trying to say that, since it's inconceivable that a sidemount diver would run out of gas (since no single failure can do it), it's unnecessary for two sidemount divers to discuss how to go about sharing gas.

I'll bet the guy who recently died in Calimba would have loved to share gas with somebody.

I do think I'd be eyeing a pair a bit askance, if they were preparing to do a 200 foot plus dive as a buddy pair, and they had obviously never dived with one another before and were not similarly trained. That says a lot about risk acceptance to me, and I think I'd want to be on the other end of the wreck . . .

 

[nakatomi]

I don't know if you are really saying you don't think I have tech training and experience, or if you are just trying to be as rude as possible, without getting a moderator to delete your comment.

I said no such thing Dan, don't start twisting words. I said you are talking about things that are clearly beyond the scope of your training, see below for an explanation.

As to your comments about the 2 divers, your comments show that you have zero knowledge of DIR or GUE ideas on how to plan a dive with another diver

Maybe that's because this example is about SIDE MOUNT divers and principles that come with SIDE MOUNT diving. And SIDE MOUNT diving is beyond the scope of GUE and DIR.

Now, the point of all this is not to belittle you or to be rude, but to show you what the entire point of this whole discussion is.
These two divers in the example are most likely self-reliant.
Why? They have no manifold but two fully redundant sources of gas.
Does that ring a bell? Scroll back a few pages if you like or bring in Guy Shockey again. Or maybe George?

But whatever you do, please don't try to make this a DIR/GUE issue again. Let's stay on topic and maybe talk about the benefits of self-reliance and way to achieve self-reliance.

Oliver

 

[danvolker]

Speaking of "assumptions".... that John Chatterton and the other divers on the boat might have had "issues" with their technique and their skills.

Oliver

I suggested this because of the video for the doria and the sub video...in both, you can see a silt cloud being formed by Chatterton as he moves along. It was just an observation.
When Bob sherwood shoots a video in a wreck, he does not silt because he is shooting video....and as you may know, I have shot many videos inside of shipwrecks, and I don't silt either...... In the scope of what we are talking about, it is not so much the part about whether Chatterton "could" have created no silt cloud back then....I think he probably could have avoided this had it been important to him.....And this is the issue I am addressing--back around 1990, tech divers just did not think much about flutter kicking or dragging themselves along the floor of a wreck.....the silting part was not really top of mind awareness--the exploration itself was top of mind back then.
When the cave diving ideas had been digesting in the gestalt of wreck diving for another 5 or 6 years after 1990, there were many more wreck divers really paying attention to ways they could avoid silting in a penetration, and techniques started getting modified. I think the sub video and the Doria video are evidence of this as well--not that Chyatterton could not have done this without silting, just that it had little importance to him or others in 1991.

 

[nakatomi]

I'll bet the guy who recently died in Calimba would have loved to share gas with somebody.

Yes, very true. In this case solo diving surely didn't work out well, which is very sad. Needless to say the double fatality of the team in 2004 didn't do any better.

Oliver

 

[danvolker]

Maybe that's because this example is about SIDE MOUNT divers and principles that come with SIDE MOUNT diving. And SIDE MOUNT diving is beyond the scope of GUE and DIR.


Oliver

Oliver, a huge part of DIR is about common sense ideas--things that will help in both recreational or technical environments. Much of DIR...Most of DIR, came from outside of the WKPP.

The idea of discussing what you will do if this or that occurs on a recreational dive--or a tech dive--is DIR....

 

[nakatomi]

Oliver, a huge part of DIR is about common sense ideas--things that will help in both recreational or technical environments. Much of DIR...Most of DIR, came from outside of the WKPP.

The idea of discussing what you will do if this or that occurs on a recreational dive--or a tech dive--is DIR....

Well why don't you open a new thread if you want to discuss this, Dan?

Solo diving is clearly not DIR, side mount diving is not DIR, rebreathers are not DIR.
But this is just the way many, if not most, technical divers choose to dive nowadays - in a fashion that is not DIR.

So by all means, let us dive the way we like, DIR or not DIR, and let's have the dogmatic discussions elsewhere please?

Oliver

 

[nimoh]

Oliver, a huge part of DIR is about common sense ideas--things that will help in both recreational or technical environments. Much of DIR...Most of DIR, came from outside of the WKPP.

The idea of discussing what you will do if this or that occurs on a recreational dive--or a tech dive--is DIR....

I believe on several occasions, GUE as an organization has evaluated the use of sidemount and came to the conlusion that there wasn't enough benefit to introduce it as a standard configuration. I recently read an article by a GUE instructor on the topic. So, I wouldn't go so far as to say that sidemount is "beyond the scope of GUE" even though it is not currently used.

 

[danvolker]

Well why don't you open a new thread if you want to discuss this, Dan?

Solo diving is clearly not DIR, side mount diving is not DIR, rebreathers are not DIR.
But this is just the way many, if not most, technical divers choose to dive nowadays - in a fashion that is not DIR.

So by all means, let us dive the way we like, DIR or not DIR, and let's have the dogmatic discussions elsewhere please?

Oliver

So you really want to tell me that something is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of DIR, and then get "pisssy" that I explain how that something was "within the scope of DIR" ?
I think it is pretty clear, that you would just like me to be silent, and let you and a few others say anything you like.

You can like that idea all you want, and you can like the idea of your winning the lottery as well.