Mr Chattertons Self Reliance Article...

[lowviz]

...//... What completely ticks me off for the time being is that some people make it their religion and are so intensely radical about it, that they accept no other opinions, let alone alternatives and make it their goal to destroy fruitful discussions like this one. Quite honestly, are we not even allowed to think outside of this DIR-box without being told off? That's not right. ...//...

nakatomi, I strongly urge you to pursue the GUE route if team diving works for you. They could use a few more people with open minds...

 

[billgraham]

I think the situation John was talking about is one I've gone over in my mind a zillion times. I'm doing a deeper solo wreck dive, I come around a bulkhead at the end of my dive and get bum rushed by a panicked, OOA diver going for the reg in my mouth. When I was still diving OC for most of these dives, I ended up doing them in sidemount with a 7 foot hose for this reason. I still use a seven foot hose on my diluent tank with the sidemount CCR even in open water because that way perhaps I could keep the person from climbing on top of me to get my gas.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

I think the situation John was talking about is one I've gone over in my mind a zillion times. I'm doing a deeper solo wreck dive, I come around a bulkhead at the end of my dive and get bum rushed by a panicked, OOA diver going for the reg in my mouth. When I was still diving OC for most of these dives, I ended up doing them in sidemount with a 7 foot hose for this reason. I still use a seven foot hose on my diluent tank with the sidemount CCR even in open water because that way perhaps I could keep the person from climbing on top of me to get my gas.

No, that is NOT what he said.. I don't think we should try to twist or change his words... He never said someone was trying to take his primary regulator. Read what he wrote..


My secondary regulator is there for me, not you! If you try to take it from me, I will fight you for it, and I will win. That is my plan. There is no reason in the world for a deep diver to need gas from me on the bottom, much less jump me. Breathe your own damn gas, any gas, even the wrong gas, and return to the surface as quickly and safely as possible.

 

[boulderjohn]

But by all means, I actually like the concept behind DIR. Also I would love it if this concept was more open for adaption to all the changes we've seen in the diving world over the past decade.
Who knows, eventually it might happen?

GUE no longer uses the term DIR and thus has no say in any adaptation. UTD uses the term and has made some adaptations, but most GUE-trained DIR proponents deny their right to do so. Some die-hard purists insist that only George Irvine, who is no longer involved in any way, is the only person who can define DIR. So unless you accept UTD as the sole authority for the meaning of DIR, nothing is going to change.

 

[nakatomi]

GUE no longer uses the term DIR and thus has no say in any adaptation. UTD uses the term and has made some adaptations, but most GUE-trained DIR proponents deny their right to do so. Some die-hard purists insist that only George Irvine, who is no longer involved in any way, is the only person who can define DIR. So unless you accept UTD as the sole authority for the meaning of DIR, nothing is going to change.

Maybe that's the plan, to drop DIR, but they still use the term. The DIR book (Fundamentals of a better diving) is still required training material for all courses.
The equipment page makes references to the term DIR. There are even a couple of Georges articles left on their web site if you know where to find them.
But it doesn't really matter much if they use the actual term or not, they still embrace the core of DIR, more or less completely unchanged since the mid 90's .

So, maybe it's high time for Open-DIR? Open to new ideas, independent of manufacturer, Version 2.0 and beyond - a better DIR for the responsible diver of a new century. LOL

Some ideas for Open-DIR based on this thread:

- development of modern planning concepts
- updated gas management principles
- pluggable team diving concepts (be self-reliant *and* a good team player)
- ways to create safe teams based on random "buddies"
- concepts for standardization and integration of modern equipment
- making mixed teams safe and fun
- lots more fun topics...

nakatomi, I strongly urge you to pursue the GUE route if team diving works for you. They could use a few more people with open minds...

Well, they won't have me the way I'm configured and they offer no means to crossover, so I don't see it happening soon

Oliver

 

[DaleC]

I suggested DIR solo a few years back but that didn't take either

Why change GUE/UTD - I think they are happy with what they have. I don't need to make them dive "my" way.

 

[GShockey]

Maybe that's the plan, to drop DIR, but they still use the term. The DIR book (Fundamentals of a better diving) is still required training material for all courses.
The equipment page makes references to the term DIR. There are even a couple of Georges articles left on their web site if you know where to find them.
But it doesn't really matter much if they use the actual term or not, they still embrace the core of DIR, more or less completely unchanged since the mid 90's .

So, maybe it's high time for Open-DIR? Open to new ideas, independent of manufacturer, Version 2.0 and beyond - a better DIR for the responsible diver of a new century. LOL

Some ideas for Open-DIR based on this thread:

- development of modern planning concepts
- updated gas management principles
- pluggable team diving concepts (be self-reliant *and* a good team player)
- ways to create safe teams based on random "buddies"
- concepts for standardization and integration of modern equipment
- making mixed teams safe and fun
- lots more fun topics...



Well, they won't have me the way I'm configured and they offer no means to crossover, so I don't see it happening soon

Oliver

Please share with us the updated gas management principles, examples of modern planning concepts and I will make sure they get reviewed. Also, since you think we need to be "self reliant and a good team player" please let me know how our training does not accomplish this. I am also interested in how you envision creating a safe team based on random buddies and how we fall down on standardization and integration of modern equipment. Finally, I am interested in your vision of making mixed teams safe and fun.

Of course you could always just take a GUE class and see that all these topics are covered thoroughly...

It seems to me that everything you have learned about GUE has been self taught from documents and the internet. If this was deemed sufficient, we wouldn't need 4 days for a Fundamentals class or 6 days for a Tech I class.

You have just enough knowledge to talk about something without understanding it. I can do that with nuclear physics but I am pretty sure someone who actually understood the topic thoroughly or who had even taken a class in it would call me on it...

 

[nakatomi]

Please share with us the updated gas management principles, examples of modern planning concepts and I will make sure they get reviewed. Also, since you think we need to be "self reliant and a good team player" please let me know how our training does not accomplish this. I am also interested in how you envision creating a safe team based on random buddies and how we fall down on standardization and integration of modern equipment. Finally, I am interested in your vision of making mixed teams safe and fun.

What I suggested was that these ideas should be worked on and suggestions and strategies should be formulated. Many people will have input and ideas on what could be done.
I never argued that I had all or even a single answer to all these open questions.
And it should be manufacturer independant for quite obvious reasons.

Looking at it, UTD for example has already attempted to integrate or merge new technology into DIR. However many of us would probably not exactly agree with some details of it, take for example the switch block they are using for several systems. That might be more or less "DIR" but it doesn't look remotely right to me, or many others for that matter.

It's quite obvious that several technologies are gaining popularity and as of today, don't fit well into the classic system of DIR. Some of them do solve problems that DIR works around in different ways. Take rebreathers for example, that can be a solution for gas management tasks. On the other hand they were not simple or safe enough to be considered "right" back in the 90s when DIR was established. Maybe this has changed? Possibly there is a way to make rebreathers safe enough to be DIR? UTD certainly seems to think so.
Carrying the tanks on your side (done properly of course) where you have direct access to the valves and can fix regulator issues much easier, now that's a great benefit. Its' much quicker in shutdowns as well, losing a lot less gas in the process. And you can even feather your valve on/off for every breath to use your gas, working around a failure. On top of that this configuration solves redundancy issues, because any single failure will cost you half your gass at the maximum, creating very useful options for self-suffiancy.
Now look at the latest trend and combine rebreathers and side mount, where does that lead you?
Now to me all this definitely creates potential for doing something right.
On the other hand these technologies pose new challenges of which some are currently in a more or less unsolved state. Take the issue of gas sharing. Do we need a long hose? The self-reliant diver certainly doesn't need one, what about his buddy? What about the gas reserves, how much and whom for?
So there are reasons some of these technologies don't integrate well into DIR right now, but they can be worked on, or should they not?
So again, these are just thoughts, other people will have more thoughts and ideas. Standardizing gases come to mind, different decompression algorithms, planning, standard means of briefing/debriefing instead of the usual chaos often seen, definition of procedures and minimum requirements and standards for teams.
This is not all NEW of course, much of it is solved already, but it would be new for quite a few people. And putting everything together and making it all interconnect properly, that's the challenge we're facing. IMO.

Of course you could always just take a GUE class and see that all these topics are covered thoroughly...

It seems to me that everything you have learned about GUE has been self taught from documents and the internet. If this was deemed sufficient, we wouldn't need 4 days for a Fundamentals class or 6 days for a Tech I class.

You have just enough knowledge to talk about something without understanding it. I can do that with nuclear physics but I am pretty sure someone who actually understood the topic thoroughly or who had even taken a class in it would call me on it...

Guy, you and Dan Volker are the ones that is bringing GUE into the picture all the time, I'm not. And if you think there is something I do not understand about DIR, please tell me what it is.

Oliver

 

[lowviz]

...//...The reason I mention all of the above is that, just like Diving, Climbing is a Solitary Sport enjoyed in the company of others. ...//...

My impression is that GUE would see this statement as counter to their principles.

...//...Well, they won't have me the way I'm configured and they offer no means to crossover, so I don't see it happening soon ...//...

I'm pretty sure that they could reconfig you for the class rather easily without too much "new gear" expense. Your "solitary sport" observation aside, you still sound like a potential fit, you may want to give them a try.

...//... It seems to me that everything you have learned about GUE has been self taught from documents and the internet. If this was deemed sufficient, we wouldn't need 4 days for a Fundamentals class or 6 days for a Tech I class.

You have just enough knowledge to talk about something without understanding it. ...//...

Allow me a few comments, if you would. I see it as extremely important for the student to research a course or regimen before committing to it.

My internet understanding of GUE comes from this board, GUE's website, the documents, and all the Hogarthian material that I could find. I purchased the two 5th D-X DVD's: Intro to Tech and Technical DVD. I have had great discussions, in real life and online, with several practitioners that I admire. I do believe that I understand your concepts, nothing more.

I have come to understand that you require a limited gear selection for several defensible reasons, one being that doing so makes it possible for your instructors to get an entire class into trim and allow for your core drills. I also believe that just signing up and trying one's very best will not overcome lack of preparation or bad buoyancy control. And as for the pre-fundies mentoring issue, you see it as consistent with the team diving concept. Sometimes you just need to state the obvious, I also "didn't get it" for quite a while. The OP said volumes with "Solitary Sport enjoyed in the company of others". A person of this mind, such as myself, finds the mentoring concept to be extremely un-natural to the point of being a cop-out by the instructors. I no longer hold this view, due to internet learning.

All this front work can be called "self taught". If I missed something big with regard to your doctrine, then that is what GUE needs to better advertise.

...//...Of course you could always just take a GUE class and see that all these topics are covered thoroughly... ...//...

Indeed. And if I ever were to take fundies, you Mr. Shockey, would be one of my top two choices as an instructor. Right now, I'm pretty sure that it just isn't for me. And being a poor fit doesn't mean that I can't see a differing point of view as being perfectly valid for others. I enjoy discussions with informed and passionate people, but quickly tire of zealots. Well in all truth, the Rambo / Seal Team 6 thing was quite entertaining. (Dan)

 

[GShockey]

What I suggested was that these ideas should be worked on and suggestions and strategies should be formulated. Many people will have input and ideas on what could be done.
I never argued that I had all or even a single answer to all these open questions.
And it should be manufacturer independant for quite obvious reasons.

Looking at it, UTD for example has already attempted to integrate or merge new technology into DIR. However many of us would probably not exactly agree with some details of it, take for example the switch block they are using for several systems. That might be more or less "DIR" but it doesn't look remotely right to me, or many others for that matter.

It's quite obvious that several technologies are gaining popularity and as of today, don't fit well into the classic system of DIR. Some of them do solve problems that DIR works around in different ways. Take rebreathers for example, that can be a solution for gas management tasks. On the other hand they were not simple or safe enough to be considered "right" back in the 90s when DIR was established. Maybe this has changed? Possibly there is a way to make rebreathers safe enough to be DIR? UTD certainly seems to think so.
Carrying the tanks on your side (done properly of course) where you have direct access to the valves and can fix regulator issues much easier, now that's a great benefit. Its' much quicker in shutdowns as well, losing a lot less gas in the process. And you can even feather your valve on/off for every breath to use your gas, working around a failure. On top of that this configuration solves redundancy issues, because any single failure will cost you half your gass at the maximum, creating very useful options for self-suffiancy.
Now look at the latest trend and combine rebreathers and side mount, where does that lead you?
Now to me all this definitely creates potential for doing something right.
On the other hand these technologies pose new challenges of which some are currently in a more or less unsolved state. Take the issue of gas sharing. Do we need a long hose? The self-reliant diver certainly doesn't need one, what about his buddy? What about the gas reserves, how much and whom for?
So there are reasons some of these technologies don't integrate well into DIR right now, but they can be worked on, or should they not?
So again, these are just thoughts, other people will have more thoughts and ideas. Standardizing gases come to mind, different decompression algorithms, planning, standard means of briefing/debriefing instead of the usual chaos often seen, definition of procedures and minimum requirements and standards for teams.
This is not all NEW of course, much of it is solved already, but it would be new for quite a few people. And putting everything together and making it all interconnect properly, that's the challenge we're facing. IMO.



Guy, you and Dan Volker are the ones that is bringing GUE into the picture all the time, I'm not. And if you think there is something I do not understand about DIR, please tell me what it is.

Oliver

Oliver,

I do appreciate a reasoned conversation as much as the next one and logical answers to questions and no "trust me" responses was what initially perked my interest in GUE.

There is very little "new" technology in the diving world. There are attempts by many to mix and match different things, usually driven by manufacturers wanting to sell product. We are not a great market for them because a ss backplate doesn't wear out... We don't look for new equipment solutions to skills issues and instead adopt the skill and practise it to a high level. Equipment will break and leave you in the lurch: someone with a high degree of training in pretty much any martial art carries his self defence with him. It goes where ever he/she does. Guns run out of bullets, you can forget knives in your back pack, baseball bats...well are, they are just awkward...if you train yourself you are there and ready wherever you are. If you rely on equipment then you must accept it's limitations and fallibilities.

We are quite conservative in nature and strongly adhere to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. That being said we are constantly evaluating new technologies that hold promise to make our mission safer and maybe even easier. This evaluation takes place within the context of "what is this new thingamabob bringing to the party", "what does it do that we didn't do before", "how does this impact the safety of the team", "Is it a critical system and what would be the result of it's failing"... etc., etc., Not surprisingly, because very little truly "new" technology comes along, we haven't found a need to adopt much of it as new colours, more zippers, and other things are not of interest from the perspective of "what does this do that we were not able to do without it".

With respect to rebreathers, for some reason people think GUE doesn't use them when in fact GUE has used them for 15 years. If they are the tool for the job, we will use them. If they don't bring anything to the party, then we will not. From our perspective, they have a limited use and there are honestly not that many dives for regular divers (not counting significant exploration efforts, etc or specific use requirements) that can not be carried out more safely with open circuit. I am not interested in turning this into a RB thread but it would be useful for you to google search GUE and RB and look for a relatively recent article written by Jarrod about rebreathers.

With respect to sidemount diving, again a specific tool designed for a specific job that has seemed to have become the flavor of the week. I would encourage you to read an excellent article on sidemount from the GUE perspective in one of the most recent issues of Quest magazine. It was written by one of the most experience GUE cave divers so you may find it of value. For an industry that doesn't really change that much and doesn't have much truly "new", the latest interest in sidemount diving is a valuable thing for the manufacturing industry. I recently read something here about an advertised new sidemount system "optimized" for OW. I found that to be quite humorous considering the original rationale for sidemount.

With respect to your comments about manufacturing, there are several manufacturers who make quality gear that will meet the requisite standards for our diving and training. I don't really care who makes your wing or your backplate or your backup light as long as it meets the standards. Given a selection to choose from, I will choose the best. I regularly teach my students what to look for, and I don't promote anything. No GUE instructor does because it would be counter to what we are trying to teach: we want to teach you to fish, and not just buy you a fish. We want to show you how to evaluate your own equipment choices, not tell you what to buy.

Latests "trends" don't do much for me. Most of them are like fashion: they come and they go. I read this year that teal green was the latest colour but I am not going to go out and purchase new clothing based on this. Next year it might be peach... trends, like styles, really have nothing to do with "better" and are seldom if ever driven by safety, efficiency or the like. Occasionally this does happen, but rarely.

I would be happy to discuss the pros and cons for single isolation manifolds etc., but it has been beaten to death on the internet so I have better things to do than revisit this here. I would suggest though that a thorough and comprehensive discussion would be of value to you.

Many of your other comments regarding long hoses and gas donation are regularly discussed in our classes. My class room floor is always open to discussion. Many students come with preconceived ideas and we hash them out and examine them. This is some of the most valuable time in a class. Last weekend a technical instructor from another agency emailed me a long list of questions and I just finished answering them for her in writing. I believe you would find that we do not think we have all the answers and if you bring something of value to the table that is genuinely new and valuable, it will be considered at the very highest levels of GUE. There is also a "request for change" tab on our website that lets you directly forward new ideas and suggestions. All of these are looked at. You will probably find though that there is not much that we see that is actually "new" in the sense that you would be the first one to bring it up. However, if you think you have something, we are all ears.

I look forward to seeing your ideas.

Best,
Guy