"Just drink the Kool-Aid" is apt here. Once you've had the indoctrination, then your mind is going to be swayed by that indoctrination. Its a way to cut off or limit debate by throwing irrelavancies - whether other elements of their system are good in your estimation - into your evaluation of this one specific issue.
This is a dishonest debating tactic SeaJay.
Fair enough. But see, that's the point... None of these guys wanted to get into a debate. They don't care about the debate. They simply want to enjoy their Kool Aid. You want to debate. Me? I'm just enjoying chatting with you about it. I can see many of your points, and I can see many of their points. Fair enough.
The reason why people keep telling you to take the class is because you keep asking questions and debating the answers.
As someone who bit on the left outrigger many years ago in a different context, I won't be tempted by the teaser reel on that rigger again.
Must have been a pretty wild experience. What happened?
Frankly, I think the Kool-Aid is grape in flavor and has shades of Jim Jones stenciled all over it
Hahahaa... Yes, I see that analogy. Certainly the first person to make up the Kool Aid analogy was trying to make exactly that point.
I'd be really interested to find out the safety record of GUE, like we both talked about above... Might settle once and for all whether the Kool Aid is poisonous or not.
I don't care what 'ya drink, as long as you don't mind the snicker coming from my corner. Free choice and free speech and all that, 'ya know.
Cool. Say, what're you drinkin'? Why don't you tell me about your dive style?
Diving without ditchable is not DIR.
Well, from someone who actually attended the class, I can tell you that that statement isn't correct. There are some situations where diving without ditchable
is DIR. It's a safe bet to always dive ditchable, but there is a situation where it's acceptable... And it might involve AL80's, too, which has been incorrectly argued on this board are not DIR, simply because they're AL80's.
Who told you that diving without ditchable is not DIR? While yes, that's true most of the time, there are situations where that's not true... My case, for example.
Where did you learn this information?
(The original debate on this is found in the "tanks" forum - I don't recall the keywords, but if you look for my login in there, you'll find it)
Very cool. I will check it out...
DIR, in fact, preaches something that I find amazingly dangerous on this topic. That is the idea of ditching (partial or otherwise) at depth as a preferred way of dealing with a buoyancy device failure with a wetsuit.
I'm absolutely appalled at this concept.
Even PADI will tell you that ditching at depth is a VERY bad idea, and that its your LAST option (and should never be relied on!)
Wait a second here... There seems to be a very basic translation problem here.
All PADI books teach that if you must do an emergency swimming ascent, one of the first things you need to do is ditch weight. DIR teaches to ditch weight, too, in the event that you can't swim up the rig, and they always say that once you're at the surface, you either get out of the water immediately or ditch weight to maintain buoyancy.
Obvoiusly, nobody is looking for an "elevator ride" to the surface, and neither DIR nor PADI teach this concept. Both of them, however, teach that ditchable weight should be ditched in the case where you cannot surface because of buoyancy failure, or in case of an emergency swimming ascent due to an OOA.
In other words, what I'm telling you is that PADI, DIR, and you are all agreeing and saying the same thing about ditchable. I don't see a debate there.
...And if you think about what you've said here, it should be really obvious as to what situation would be okay for there to be "no ditchable" weight.
It is my position that IF you are diving in a situation where you cannot swim the rig up as configured when you leave the surface, then you need a redudant buoyancy source - NOT ditchable weight.
Hm.
What I learned was that if you are diving in a situation where you cannot swim the rig up as configured, then you are probably overweighted. There's lots of options that you can take to ensure that you don't end up in that situation.
That said, if you have buoyancy failure at depth (say you've torn your bladder wide open and it will hold no air whatsoever) then there's two things you can do to surface... One would be to slightly inflate your drysuit (not recommended on a regular basis, but let's face it... It IS a redundant buoyancy source) or ditch weight. Ditching weight has the advantage of consistency... If you ditch weight and are now 5 pounds light, then you'll be five pounds light throughout the water column. If you inflate a secondary buoyancy source and become 5 pounds light, then when you go up another 33', you'll be 10 pounds light, and so on. This, of course, can lead to an uncontrolled ascent bad by any standards. Of course, that's why you have a dump valve on your drysuit... So you can control how much buoyancy the thing has.
What's the correct answer? Well, ditching weight is predictable and arguably safer. However, many DIR guys are claiming their light cannisters as part of their ditchable weight, and so it's more likely that faced with that situation, they'd swim what they could and use their drysuit for what they couldn't. Not many would ditch a $1000 light for 3 pounds.
Ditching at depth is NEVER a legitimate option for a conscious (or even unconscious but alive and breathing!) diver. If you plan for that to be a legitimate option, you're asking to be severely injured or even killed as a consequence of your decision. To avoid carrying redundant buoyancy device(s) as a matter of religion is dangerous.
To say the words "never" and "always," Gen, is really dangerous. No doubt, if someone experienced a buoyancy failure, the first thing anyone would do, strictly out of instinct, is attempt to swim up. I don't think that anyone really is debating that. As I've said, nobody thinks that an elevator ride to the surface is a safe way to surface.
Many DIR divers do carry redundant buoyancy devices... Dry suits are common (not generally used, but they work better than redundant wings, which I assume is your argued preferred solution) and many of them (myself included) carry lift bags, surface marker buoys, or diver shuttles. Of course, all of these sources would be much more difficult to control, especially in a decreasing pressure environment (such as surfacing) than the ol' ditch method.
...Which is probably why they recommend ditching weight if you can't swim it up. Why would you ever need a redundant bladder?
DIR's screed is entirely based on the issue of not being able to swim up a rig if you are using steelies in a wetsuit, and the lack of ditchable weight to make that possible. I find that asinine in the extreme, in that the obvious solution to the problem (a punctured or otherwise damaged wing) is a secondary source of lift. It doesn't have to be enough to make you neutral - only enough to make it possible for you to swim the rig up.
Well, that's true... But what if the damage to the primary source of lift also damages the secondary source of lift? If you've got two bladders together, then isn't it likely that both will be punctured and not just one?
What happens in the situation where the diver's diving wet with steelies and has had the need to be negative in the water column by say, ten pounds, and he then experiences an OOA? No secondary bladder is going to fix this, since there's no air to inflate EITHER of the wings.
Either way, remember that ditching your ditchable is a much more controlled and simple solution than having a redundant lift source. And if steelies bring you past the limit of what you can swim up, then you've got a problem there.
I've swum like that one time, ever... It was a very scary feeling, and the dive didn't last long. The problems that I had with "turtling" was enough reason for me to not want to dive steelies while wet again anyway.
Lots of people claim that steelies are great tanks because they take some of the weight off of your belt. That's true, and that's great, assuming that the new weight placement waaay behind you doesn't cause trim issues, and of course, assuming that you had the weight to spare in the first place. If you didn't, then you're overweighted and having to swim with too much air in your BC or wing.
Personally, I very much like AL80's on my back while diving a 3/2 mil for the same reason that they are favored as stage tanks... Because they vary in weight from a little bit negative to a little bit positive. They are never "throwing off" your trim by being either really negative or really positive. In fact, most AL80's are almost perfectly neutral at half-full... Which is really nice to have when you're diving wet and need to use what little weight you use in the correct places for proper trim.
...so I'm not against steelies, and I'm not against aluminums. They have their places, based on proper necessary weight placement, depending on what sort of gear you are wearing and what sort of environment you are diving.
And I have not seen a case where a heavy steel tank is appropriate with a wetsuit.
This "redundant buoyancy source" is exactly what a drysuit is... Which is why DIR says that steelies are okay in dry suits.
Ditching your tank(s) at the surface is a PERFECTLY legitimate option. Why wouldn't it be? What do you need them for on the surface? If you're in a wetsuit, you're going to be SEVERELY positive at the surface absent your rig, so you're guaranteed to float. So why not ditch the kit in such a situation?
Well, I don't see a problem with that at all. If you want to call your whole rig "ditchable," then so be it. Do you have a quick-release for that? Might take a while to get off...
And of course, at depth, ditching your whole rig is kind of a problem... Especially now that your suit's compressed and you're a whole lot MORE negative. Why not just ditch your weights? Oh yeah... You're not wearing them because you didn't need them... Because your rig was too heavy to begin with...
Let's say you need no ditchable with a steel BP+STA+Wing and an AL80 in a wetsuit (I need 6lbs with that configuration.) If you switch over to a HP Steel tank, you can compensate by changing out the steel BP for an AL one (I can drop 4lbs and now dive with 2lbs on my belt - cool!)
You're not overweight in that situation. You (still) have no ditchable weight, but that's ok. Neither do I. In an emergency ditching at depth is not an option - but ditching at the surface IS! That's cool too - if I need to ditch, I'll ditch the KIT!
Well, this may be something that you COULD do safely... But why would you want to ditch your entire kit? Furthermore, have you dove this configuration? Having all of your weight that far behind you causes some "turtling" problems (trim issues.)
Funny that you and I are on the same wavelength. I was just thinking to myself as I was reading this, "There is ONE situation where you might be able to do it, but I don't know that you'd WANT to do that...
I think that the idea is, don't dive a 7 mil suit (very compressable) with no ditchable (because you've got a pair of 104's on your back that weigh together like 40 pounds) and end up waaay overweighted and not be able to ditch.
The calc for me works like this: My body (+2), SS BP (-6),
STA (-3), AL80, empty (+4), lead (-6), suit + booties (+9)
If I get rid of the AL80 (+4) and replace it with a steelie (-1), I get rid of all but 1lb of lead. If I then swap the booties for a lighter (less thickness) pair, I can probably get rid of the other pound of lead too. So now I have a balanced rig with no ditchable weight.
If I find myself at the surface with an emergency, I can ditch the BP+STA+Tank (-10) and now I'm +10. Ain't no way I'm sinking at +10!
True.
What happens if you have an emergency at 110'?
Let's say this... You take the above rig and go to the bottom and decide to collect some shark's teeth. There's some current, so you decide you need to be negative. Any diver would deflate their BC or wing completely, especially if there were any sort of current. Sure, DIR guys say to always maintain perfect trim and buoyancy here, but let's say you're diggin...
Now you have an out of air.
How heavy are you? Let's see...
BP (-6), STA (-3), empty tank (-1), you (+1 at depth), suit and booties (+9 - 85% due to compression, or +1.5): -7.5 pounds. Can you swim up -7.5 pounds? Can you swim up -7.5 pounds from 110'? Do you want to bet your life on it?
That's why when the suits get thick and the depth makes a difference, you'd better be either dealing with a thin wetsuit or ditchable weight.
And whatever gear you choose... If that overweights you, then you've got a problem. It better be ditchable. Even at depth.
If the shift of the suit + gas makes me unable to swim up with a holed BC, I need another means of lift - not something with mass that I can throw away at 110'. Why? Because as I rise, the suit's compression will come back, and as I breathe the gas weight will go away too!
True... The suit's compression will come back. The difference, with your thick suit, is about 7.5 pounds. The tank's pressure will not change significantly over the course of the ascent, though... I don't see that as being an issue.
Let's use your aluminum example above. You have a holed BC, and find yourself at 110' with half a tank of air. You decide to abort the dive. Here will be your math: BP (-6), STA (-3), half-empty tank (0), you (+1 at depth), suit and booties (+9 - 85% due to compression, or +1.5), and weight belt, (-6). A total of 12.5 pounds negative. You ditch the belt. You're still 6.5 pounds negative, but you have air, so you swim it up, eventually hitting the surface around neutral. If you were out of air, the same scenario would have started you only 2.5 pounds negative... Much easier than 7.5 pounds negative.
The bottom line is that you could probably do it with your specific scenario... But most people would take a credo of allowing wet divers to dive steel as "okay," even for those divers diving double steel or really heavy steel.
It's easier just to say, "If you're diving wet, use AL tanks." It's advisable anyway, even if it's possible to dive steelies. Trim and risk alone are reasons to dive AL while wet.
By the way... You point out something interesting about an "unconrolled ascent." I found that remark entertaining. Guess what the best way to control an ascent is? Spread out... Spread eagle style... And what's that mean? A horizontal ascent, something that you and I debated about in another thread.
DIR says that steelies in a wetsuit are unacceptable. That's a lie.
They do not say they are unacceptable. They preach against them for the reasons I quoted above. They do not recommend them. This is a style of diving... A class... Not a religion.
What is PROBABLY true is that double LP steels are unacceptable with anything other than a VERY THICK wetsuit (e.g. a full 7 mil, or a layered configuration), because they are severely negative empty, and this means that even empty, at the surface you need gas in your wing to compensate.
Yeah, you've got the idea. Of course, don't forget to take into account that compression at depth... Most suits are going to lose some 85% of their inherent buoyancy at 100', so the above configuration would be dangerous, IMHO... And even the HP steels not really recommended.
The material the tank is made of is irrelavent. The gas buoyancy shift is relavent, but not related to the material the tank is made of. Compensating for a BC failure by ditching weight is both unacceptable and dangerous. The proper compensation for that, if you would be left unable to swim up the rig, is some redundant form of lift.
True, until your emergency is an OOA. Then there's no lift, period. Not a problem if you start neutral, but a serious one if you don't, for whatever reason.
And that's the beauty of the AL tanks... They're buoyant when empty, and the weight used to counteract that can be ditchable. Of course, this isn't really an issue with light exposure protection, with the exception that you won't need much weight to begin with, so AL is advised anyway.
Steels are advisable when you've got plenty of ditchable available to you and you are looking to get a little off of your belt... Of course, with the knowlege that you're going to have to account for the trim, whether good or bad.
He's not? Gee, could have fooled me. GUE (which begat DIR as a claimed philosophy) certainly seems to have him as the titular head.
Hahahhaa!! "Titular head." Funny. Nope. He's not "Jesus." There are a lot of people that influence DIR, not just GI3.
Why do I want to be trained by someone who screams "STROKE!" and "DEATHSPIRATION!" at people? Either they're egomaniacs or worse, they're using false claims as a marketing tool. Neither gives me warm fuzzy feelings when I'm trusting my life to them.
Understood.
Why does the military use such tactics to train their very best soldiers? I dunno. Apparently in some cases, and with certain people, the tactic works. Fine by me, I don't care. I don't even bother to listen to that, personally. Would you like some Kool Aid?
If their standards are not objective, then their claim that this is related to safety is hollow and false.
If that is hollow and false, what ELSE is?
What? Where did this go? What standards are you talking about? What do you mean that "they're not objective?" And why would their standards not being objective be "hollow and false" because of it?
I'm not saying that I agree with everything that comes out of GI3's mouth... What's that got to do with it? I don't dive wet with steelies either, for the reasons listed above. It just so happens that I simply agree with this one point. Of course, there's a lot of points that I have found myself agreeing with DIR on, and so I value their set of standards.
Consistency is very important to me when I am entrusting my well-being, literally, to someone's expressed position and teaching.
Why do I care?
Because calling superstition and hypocrisy for what it is is one of my hobbies, in all walks of life - and has been since I became sentient.
Used to drive my 'rents nuts. Still would, I bet, if they were "in range."
Just go ask the Catholic Church what they think of me
Hahahhaaaa!!! Well then, *respect* to you, my friend. I'll bet you're a hoot to get started...
Yeah, I have a few issues with organized religion myself...