Read JJ's book - What's all the fuss about?

[TSandM]

Somewhere in there needs to be the "adopting configurations and procedures without thought, because somebody has already done the thinking for you." (The mindless DIR lemming argument)

 

[DIR-Atlanta]

I think you might've misunderstood what Floater was getting at. I seriously doubt he has any problem with the standard gasses.

That's possible - I was just going by his statement that "the multigas computers offer more flexibility if you don't like to dive using GUE's standard gases." I've personally never found the use of standard gases to be inflexible - in fact, in many ways it is actually liberating.

It's almost implicit in the reference to a multigas computer that we are talking about decompression diving with at least one gas switch. Personally, I am not a fan of using dive computers for planning and executing a deco dive. It just makes things unnecessarily complicated, in my opinion. Nobody on the team is going to wind up with the same deco, even if they are using the same computer. The effect of that is that the team will be fragmented and separated at one of the most critical and dangerous points of the dive (the ascent), which is clearly not a good thing. Plus you have to carry backup tables anyway in case the computer craps out - you might as well just plan it that way.

My teammates and I use tables that are custom cut for each dive and transferred to our Wetnotes. The deco schedule is set before the dive even starts, which allows us to discuss all aspects of the dive plan ahead of time. I personally don't like any "loose ends" before I start a dive, and the use of a dive computer leaves too many unknowns in the plan (again, in my opinion).

However, I wasn't always that way, and the whole process is a learning experience, so if I jumped to an early conclusion on what Floater was trying to say, then I apologize. Maybe he will clarify for us so we can continue the discussion.

 

[lamont]

One of those is a repeat/summary... I'll let you decide which.

you're right... =)

 

[lamont]

Somewhere in there needs to be the "adopting configurations and procedures without thought, because somebody has already done the thinking for you." (The mindless DIR lemming argument)

Yeah, I'm not sure if that's a "gear argument" or if its important enough to pull out on its own...

There's also the whole "gear standardization" argument about DIR being too inflexible or fixed in stone which usually is seen with the mindless lemming argument (and most often seen as a symptom of #7, but most arguments are really a symptom of #7...)

 

[JeffG]

That's possible - I was just going by his statement that "the multigas computers offer more flexibility if you don't like to dive using GUE's standard gases." I've personally never found the use of standard gases to be inflexible - in fact, in many ways it is actually liberating.

Its a PITA if you don't have a haskel.

 

[*Floater*]

However, I wasn't always that way, and the whole process is a learning experience, so if I jumped to an early conclusion on what Floater was trying to say, then I apologize. Maybe he will clarify for us so we can continue the discussion.

I don't have a problem with the standard gases. Those are what I would prefer to dive if available. If not available, then I may still dive what is available rather than not dive at all even if it's not DIR.

My point was just that while I prefer the method I was taught by Martin over my computer algorithm there are still advantages to computers, and for some people those advantages may outweigh the disadvantages, though not for me. And people planning to take DIR-F should wait until they've actually taken it before they get too committed to their computers. I certainly went in with no plans on leaving it in gauge mode, but now I do (or use it only as a gauge) because of what I learned.

 

[Charlie99]

The latest diving research seems to indicate that reverse profiles are generally not a problem for recreational dives where the difference in depth is not more than 40 feet.

This is a quite reasonable position. So is "I prefer to do shallowest dive first". So is "Shallowest dive first is acceptable".

But Floater starts off with ""I was taught in DIR-F to do the shallowest dive first..."., with the implication that this is in some way superior. Followed shortly by "here's what George Irvine has to say for what it's worth: 'Otherwise, repetitive diving is a good thing, and you should do your shallower dive first and then your deeper one. The stupidity taught in that regard is beyond the pale.' "

 

[*Floater*]

But Floater starts off with ""I was taught in DIR-F to do the shallowest dive first..."., with the implication that this is in some way superior. Followed shortly by "here's what George Irvine has to say for what it's worth: 'Otherwise, repetitive diving is a good thing, and you should do your shallower dive first and then your deeper one. The stupidity taught in that regard is beyond the pale.' "

And what sort of responses get posted when I question whether the shallowest dive MUST be done first ----

Charlie, you quoted my post and wrote "Internet DIR and real DIR aren't always the same."

Seems you were questioning whether what I was saying was real DIR or just some internet BS, so I quoted George Irvine's thoughts on the subject of the shallowest dive, and since the WKPP defines what is real DIR, then it seems to me that doing the shallowest dive first is real DIR and not just what I was taught in DIR-F, unless George changes his mind.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I see a little cleanup was in order ... some of you will find things you posted have been removed from this thread.

While it is routine for this topic to result in heated debate, let's do try to keep it from becoming personal ... shall we?

Thanks ... and carry on ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[mdb]

I see a little cleanup was in order ... some of you will find things you posted have been removed from this thread.

While it is routine for this topic to result in heated debate, let's do try to keep it from becoming personal ... shall we?

Thanks ... and carry on ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

NWGratefulDiver: Thank you for the cleanup. This topic is good and relevant and worthwhile. It does seem to attract the same posts over and over. It seems that GUE/DIR has much to offer as a contast to the "instant diver".