Scuba Diving magazine

[SeaJay]

Genesis once bubbled...


Gee, what's your bottom timer (wristwatch, etc) run on? Again, this is hypocrisy. A watch can flood just like a computer, and will lock up just like a computer if it does. Even worse, you might not notice that it has right away - you WILL notice that a computer has gone bananas or failed completely.

Excellent point, and for that reason, I went ahead and purchased that Vytec.

Can you not see that they feel that the simplest solution is always best?

I see it. And I understand it. And I have learned it as well.

On the contrary.

I believe that I can trust the RGBM algorythm in the Suunto to accurately execute its algorythm and, via that model, present to me a graphical and numerical representation of the gas loading in its model of my tissues.

I do not believe that this model will be 100% accurate in respect to my actual body tissues.

Agreed. Why is it that you believe the Suunto proprietary RGBM alogarithm to be superior to the DIR "quick" method?

However, I also do not believe that the DIR model is any better able to model those tissues, and in fact I believe it by definition must be LESS accurate, since the DIR model eschews direct observation.
[/][/quote

This is true... With the 'puter, there is direct observation, whereas with the DIR method, there is no direct observation... Well, with the exception of what you, personally provide. Instead of trusting the computer, these guys trust their own observations.

And like someone said before, this isn't an exact science... So the real question is, what does spending the money on the computer do for you that you didn't have before?

Me? I like the redundancy. But I can see their point.

The closer to the actual events your sensors and input come, the better the model's input. The quality of the model may still be open to question, but its execution is more refined and by definition more accurate.

Well, that's assuming that there was some degree of accuracy in the first place, which we can't know for sure. All of these methods are still nothing but theories. Even the "exact" ones in the expensive computers.

With that said, I won't claim to be a "perfect buddy". Spearfishing makes it a very, very difficult thing. In fact I'm considering manifolded doubles for exactly this reason - not for the increased gas, but for the redundancy.

You know, a lot of your thought processes seem to be very DIR... Buddy awareness and prior planning, doubles for redundancy... The works. You sure you aren't drinking Kool Aid?

Let's then simply agree on one thing... That DIR is addressing the issues that are so often overlooked by other agencies... Like some of the things you mentioned above.

As for the "what if the computer floods", that's why you carry "brown water" bailout tables for a mandatory deco dive. But those are "worst case" tables, and are there for the explicit case where you have a computer failure. They'll get you out of the water, although it will take longer than you'd like.

Cool. You have your redundancy. DIR guys do, too... And something tells me that both methods are applaudable. I have no desire to debate the differences.

That doesn't mean they aren't religious fanatics in many of their positions, and that some of what may have started as a reasonable view towards diving has turned into religious fervor.

Perhaps this is true. I have not met those people. I have only met those of like mind, with like interests to people like you and me.

I think I would more agree with your statement above if you simply called them "fanatics," rather than "religious fanatics." They're just divers, man... And they'll agree that this has nothing to do with spirituality or God or whatever... Calling it a religion isn't really fair, and a bit of a stretch of the truth.

I can see your point about fanaticism... I've also seen like passion for football games, cars, money, gambling, sex, hobbies, work, or whatever... And yet I wouldn't call those people "religious."

Sure DIR people are serious. Fanatical. Passionate. So? Why wouldn't that be applaudable? Calling them "religious..." Either you define religion differently than I do, or you ran into some real weirdo at some point who gave you a foul impression of DIR.

It also doesn't mean that they don't push limits in ways that require absolute 100% top fitness - to a degree that makes their methods unsafe for many people who are perfectly fit to dive in general.

Yeah, I won't argue with that either. They expect and preach excellent physical fitness... And following their dive plans without the whole tenant of DIR being followed... Including the fitness part... Well, that's simply asking for trouble.

DIR was not made for the "lowest common denominator" like PADI and NAUI were... It was made for the "cream of the crop." It was made for those people fit and without chemical addiction.

When faced with my own addictions, I had to make a choice to continue to be addicted or rise to the top. To the surprise of some, I rose to the top. I met the challenge... Regardless of whether I dive "DIR" or not.

It's a very cool thing, religion notwithstanding!

 

[Genesis]

A few things, in no particular order...

Can you not see that they feel that the simplest solution is always best?

I see it. And I understand it. And I have learned it as well.

Well, no, they don't.

There is an old saying about clocks - a broken one is right twice a day. That's quite true. But a broken COMPUTER clock is instantly known broken, because it is either displaying crap or nothing at all!

Back to the SPG debate... one of the more common failure modes of an SPG is for the needle to "stick". Either due to interference with the crystal or because the internal mechanism locks up for some reason. With an EPG (wireless transmitter, electronic version, etc) if you see garbage its immediately obvious. For instance the other day when I was cleaning the boat I hooked up a new tank, saw 2963 psi, got in the water, and before I submerged it started beeping the low pressure alarm - showing 524 psi! Well, obviously the other 2500 psi didn't bleed off Turns out the transmitter was in the water and the wrist unit out, and that screwed it up. I moved my arm underwater and it "cleared" in a couple of seconds; all was well.

The point being that I knew it was giving me garbage for data because it was instantly obvious. On the Vytec when you get a good data packet it also displays a little lightning bolt for a second or so. If you see what you think is garbage, look at that - if its not flashing, then you aren't getting good data. You thus have a nice integrity check that is always "in your face".

A stuck pointer on a traditional SPG might not be obvious, with really, really bad results.

In fact, I have seen accident reports where the victims SPG shows ~700 psi, but the tank is EMPTY! Was that the cause of the accident? Well, not entirely - bad gas management in general is part of the cause, of course. But is it a contributing factor? You bet. And why? Because that 700 psi reading is PLAUSIBLE when looked at, so the diver doesn't realize that the gauge has failed!

Agreed. Why is it that you believe the Suunto proprietary RGBM alogarithm to be superior to the DIR "quick" method?

Because it is. The DIR "quick" method is really just a way of reducing the PADI tables for first exposures. But those are based on the navy tables, which are known to be REAL old, and again, be developed for the 20-year-old guy with a BMI of about 12!

Second, if you want to look at what RGBM has in terms of validation, you actually can. Bruce Weinke has published his work, and there is real peer-reviewed science behind it.

Unfortunately, very little if any of DIR's stuff meets that test of science. They can point to anecdotal evidence, but they can't point to published, peer-reviewed science. In fact they run and hide when challenged on such a basis, and MHK has twice when I have put those challenges to him. That's unfortunate - but it is, in my experience, factual in my experience.

Nobody is going to tell me to "just drink the Kool-Aid and you'll understand." That's the statement of a cult leader, not an organization that has hard science behind their positions. I don't play that kind of game, even with a "money back" guarantee. Been there, done that, have the T-shirt.

And like someone said before, this isn't an exact science... So the real question is, what does spending the money on the computer do for you that you didn't have before?

Provide more accuracy and cover more eventualities with the same quality of data. Unless the computer takes a dump I do not need to "guess" (even an educated guess) by extrapolating between various data points in real time - I have the machine to do that.

I think I would more agree with your statement above if you simply called them "fanatics," rather than "religious fanatics." They're just divers, man... And they'll agree that this has nothing to do with spirituality or God or whatever... Calling it a religion isn't really fair, and a bit of a stretch of the truth.

On the contrary.

One definition of a religion is a belief in something that you either cannot or will not subject to scientific scrutiny, even in the face of potential conflicting evidence. Many people who say that calling those who are "unbelievers" names is part and parcel of religious fanatacism as well.

DIR qualifies on both counts.

A number of blanket statements that have come out of GUE (DIR's "home") are pretty clearly in this camp. The computer screed is one; the steel/wetsuit prohibition is another. I've gone after them on the latter point with facts and figures, and surprise - no response. Why not? Is simple math too difficult? Or would GI3 have to take back one of his "credos"? Who knows which is true, but the silence has been deafening. Then there is GI3s long history of screaming about the Inspiration rebreather, and his incessant need to call people (and things) names - stroke, "deathspiraton", etc.

Sounds a lot like the fundamentalist preachers I've run into. Do it my way or the Devil will get you (and in GI3s case, he thinks the Devil will get his turn with you TOMORROW if you don't toe his line!)

I've seen no effort to correct the record when its obviously wrong, or to retract any of the simplistic nonsense that doesn't bear up under examination, or to stop the name-calling, for that matter. (Fact is, as a percentage of users, the Inspiration has a lower death rate than the Halcyon RB!)

DIR was not made for the "lowest common denominator" like PADI and NAUI were... It was made for the "cream of the crop." It was made for those people fit and without chemical addiction.

"Fit" is not a state. It is a vector, not a point.

You can push that concept too far, and make a snob-a-torium out of your worldview. Setting the bar at marathon-capable runners is not going to win GUE much support. Nor are they internally consistent - there are overweight Cave-certified divers with GUE cards - how'd they get them? Yet SCIENTIFICALLY, excessive BMI is at least as bad as smoking, and perhaps worse when it comes to DCI-related issues.

GUE has the right to do this sort of thing if they want, but they will only sow discord and dissent with that path. It does seem to be what they live on.... but heh, that's a choice.

My issue with GUE is the intentional "head in the sand" response when challenged on some of their claimed "science", rather than proffering peer-reviewed material or modifying positions that have been shown not to hold water. You've seen some of it here SeaJay, like the screeds on smoking that MHK and I went back and forth on, and you might have seen the tank selection debate as well (which MHK declined to get involved in, but a few other DIRites did). You missed the Heliox one on Usenet - it wasn't here.

The commonality between them was the response when the bluster and unsubstantiated claims ran into someone who challenged them with facts and/or blatent inconsistency and hypocrisy.

THAT is what disturbs me about DIR, because that could compromise my safety, if indeed all of this is anecdote and willful disregard of facts that contradict positions already publically taken.

Unfortunately it also reduces the claims of "superiority" in their "system" to superstition - yes, with anecdotal support, but still, superstition.

 

[SeaJay]

Genesis once bubbled...

There is an old saying about clocks - a broken one is right twice a day. That's quite true. But a broken COMPUTER clock is instantly known broken, because it is either displaying crap or nothing at all!

Well, that is definitely true... And I see your very valid point on the whole SPG issue.

Case in point, though... The very example you use, where you had some difficulty with your computer due to some of it's components being submerged while others weren't... Well, that would not have been an issue with an SPG.

Keep in mind that I agree with you. Remember, I just laid down the dosh to purchase a new Vytec!

However, there is a very valid point about the simplicity in an SPG. Yes, you are right... It's obvious when computers read faulty information, and may or may not be so obvious with an SPG. However, I contest that someone accustomed to using an SPG will better be able to handle the situation, particularly in a deco obligation situation, than someone who is dependent on a computer. A computer failure in a deco-obligation dive to a computer-dependent diver is a life-threatening situation. An SPG failure in a deco-obligation dive to a diver not dependent on a computer is not faced with a life-threatening situation. Simple.

Now before you go pointing out that there's backup and redundancy, keep in mind that both you and the DIR ideals teach redundancy... You preach "computer, redundant tables," and they teach "tables, redundant knowlege." The bottom line is that we both agree that knowlege, tables, planning, and yes, even a computer, would be our choice dive gear, especially in an overhead environment such as caving, wrecking, or deco.

I don't see a real issue there, and I'm tired of debating that topic. I see that we agree. The execution of the slightly differing theories is moot.

The DIR "quick" method is really just a way of reducing the PADI tables for first exposures. But those are based on the navy tables, which are known to be REAL old, and again, be developed for the 20-year-old guy with a BMI of about 12!

All true. I don't see an issue with that. I quit smoking and have eaten very healthy... My BMI is improving significantly, and I'm enjoying life all over again. The truth is that PADI and NAUI teach fitness, too, I just don't think that they put quite the "spin" on it that DIR does.

Nonetheless, the bottom line is that this is a better way... Staying fit is a much better way of ensuring that you stay clear of DCS... Much more effective, IMHO, than a computer, which does nothing to decrease your risk of DCS... It's only a guage to help you see how far you are from THEORIZED DCS. It could be wrong, after all... Either way.

Bottom line: Fitness improves the dive and reduces the possibility of DCS. So I can see their point...

Second, if you want to look at what RGBM has in terms of validation, you actually can. Bruce Weinke has published his work, and there is real peer-reviewed science behind it.

Yes, I'm familiar. DIR teaches PADI Dive Tables and U.S. Navy Dive tables, depending on the situation. Both of those sources are just as qualified as Bruce Weinke's stuff. GUE is not making this stuff up.

Unfortunately, very little if any of DIR's stuff meets that test of science.

Okay, but that's simply not true. That is a false and misleading statement, Gen.

They can point to anecdotal evidence, but they can't point to published, peer-reviewed science. In fact they run and hide when challenged on such a basis, and MHK has twice when I have put those challenges to him. That's unfortunate - but it is, in my experience, factual in my experience.

Again, that's a false statement. More accurately, that's a matter of opinion, and you are expressing it as a fact. The last line says so.

I watched the one debate between you and MHK... And while certainly you and I would agree as to what factually happened, I think we would both disagree, from an opinion standpoint, as to what exactly happened subjectively and what exactly the outcome of the debate was. I saw that you argued with him (refusing the see the fact that smoking was harmful to a diver's objectives) until he simply said, "Those are the facts, and I'm not going to discuss this with you any longer." No offense, Gen... I quite enjoy our discussions online... But it certainly seems that your debates get longer with each passing turn, focusing less and less on the debate topic at hand. I can understand anyone eventually saying, "That's it... Those are the facts, and if you want more, you're going to have to take the class." You are certainly not going to convince MHK of anything, and if you want to continue to probe his mind, you're going to have to do it in a classroom. And that's the bottom line.

I did not see that he "ran and hid" from you.

Nobody is going to tell me to "just drink the Kool-Aid and you'll understand."

Nobody ever did. That's a very misleading statement. In fact, as I recall, it was ME that said, "If you want more, then take the class." MHK said, "I can point you to associations that believe what you do, but we don't." Later, I even said, "No biggie. We don't care if you subscribe to these ideals or not... No skin off our backs." Who's asking you to "just drink the Kool Aid?" Why should we care if you drink the Kool Aid or not?

Gen, it's YOU that keeps coming over to out "table of Kool Aid" and asking us to explain. We've done our best to tell you what it tastes like. If you want some, then enjoy. If you don't, then no biggie. We can point you to the place where they sell the flavor that you seem to be looking for. But you must stop telling us that we're wrong for liking this flavor of Kool Aid. (Is that taking the analogy too far?)

If you want some, then try it. If not, no biggie. But stop getting mad at us for saying, "Damn, this is good Kool Aid."

That's the statement of a cult leader, not an organization that has hard science behind their positions. I don't play that kind of game, even with a "money back" guarantee. Been there, done that, have the T-shirt.

Well, I empathize that you've been burned before. I'm sorry to hear that. Would you like some Kool Aid?

Hey, man... If you don't want any Kool Aid, no problem. Hang out and chat... But don't get mad if I drink some Kool Aid, k? I happen to like it.

Provide more accuracy and cover more eventualities with the same quality of data. Unless the computer takes a dump I do not need to "guess" (even an educated guess) by extrapolating between various data points in real time - I have the machine to do that.

Precisely. And I'm with you on that, and I can see your position on that. I can also see the position of not wanting to be reliant on the machine to do that. No biggie. Hey, I'd offer you a different drink, but Kool Aid is all that is here. That said, I also like Coke. They're serving Coke at the next party, and I can certainly see why people like Coke. I can point you in that direction, if you'd like. <sips Kool Aid>

One definition of a religion is a belief in something that you either cannot or will not subject to scientific scrutiny, even in the face of potential conflicting evidence. Many people who say that calling those who are "unbelievers" names is part and parcel of religious fanatacism as well.

Man, Gen, I love you man... But you should really lighten up. We like the Kool Aid... Why's it such an issue? Enjoy... Partake... Or not. Who cares?

Sure, there might be this one guy in the livingroom of this house party that says that everyone in this party must drink Kool Aid... But most aren't like that. Who cares either way? Enjoy the Kool Aid, or enjoy the Coke next door. Or heck, stand there having nothing to drink... We don't care.

But don't get mad if someone offers you a drink.

A number of blanket statements that have come out of GUE (DIR's "home") are pretty clearly in this camp. The computer screed is one; the steel/wetsuit prohibition is another. I've gone after them on the latter point with facts and figures, and surprise - no response.

Hey, that's a subject I'd be interested in hearing about. Where's this debate?

As a salt water, tropical diver, I dive DIR and stick to AL80's... Although there is a new steel tank offered by PST that's neutral when empty, only about 4 pounds of difference between that and the AL80. If I were to dump my SS backplate and get an AL backplate with a STA, I could probably do it, from a weight and buoyancy standpoint. My trim might be a bit off, especially since my cg would be so far from my body centerline. However, that might not be such a bad deal if I were to get all those cubes in it's place. 'Course, now I'd be starting my dive considerably heavier because of the additional 40 cf... Actually 42.6 cf... Which is another 3 lbs... Which means that I'd need ditchable, probably... Which I don't dive with now... Which would put me overweight and unable to ditch without ditching the tank, which is somewhat vital. Do you see the problem?

It was a nice thought... And may actually be doable, although probably not advisable.

My solution? If I really want more gas, then it's drysuit time or double 80's time... Which would be just *barely* doable for me and still stay DIR.

See, all of these things are taught in DIR-F, Gen.

Tell me more about your theories on why someone would be able to dive a steel tank in a tropical situation safely.

...would GI3 have to take back one of his "credos"?

Who cares?

Although, to be fair, all of the math I've done, even with this newer, lighter steel tank which promises to be neutral at the end of the dive, supports GI3's theories. A diver could do double AL80's, though... Which is actually recommended, since you'd have a manifold, the ability to isolate, and redundant first stages.

Who knows which is true, but the silence has been deafening.

"Silence?" I didn't hear silence. Of course, I had to go to them, not sit back and expect it to be handed to me on a silver platter. When I got curious enough, I went to find out. I think the same will happen to you, truthfully; else you would have left this argument long ago.

Then there is GI3s long history of screaming about the Inspiration rebreather, and his incessant need to call people (and things) names - stroke, "deathspiraton", etc.

With all due respect to GI3 (and I've seen some of your complaints for myself), who cares? GI3 is not the end-all decision maker in DIR. He's no "Pope," and he's no "Jesus." He's simply in charge of the WKPP, which I jokingly referred to as "The Third Reich" before I got a clue.

Sounds a lot like the fundamentalist preachers I've run into. Do it my way or the Devil will get you (and in GI3s case, he thinks the Devil will get his turn with you TOMORROW if you don't toe his line!)

I think you meant, "...tow his line," but I'm the last person that needs to be pointing out typos.

Who cares what GI3 thinks? He's not the focus here... The student is. The student's skills are.

I've seen no effort to correct the record when its obviously wrong, or to retract any of the simplistic nonsense that doesn't bear up under examination, or to stop the name-calling, for that matter. (Fact is, as a percentage of users, the Inspiration has a lower death rate than the Halcyon RB!)

Whatever. If it made a difference, then I'd say, "Show me proof of your claim." But even if it was true, what's it prove? That GI3 was wrong? Even if he was... So? What's that got to do with your skills?

"Fit" is not a state. It is a vector, not a point.

Actually, "fit" is an adjective, describing a person who is physically healthy and able. What, exactly, that means is subjective and is left up to the listener to interpret the conditions of "fit." "Fitness" is a noun, as in, "the ongoing pursuit of being 'fit.'" Thus, I would argue that "fit" is a state of being, and that it's subjective. A vector, or a journey, would be more accurately decribed as "fitness," or "the pursuit of being fit."

So I disagree. As if that had anything to do with this debate.

You can push that concept too far, and make a snob-a-torium out of your worldview. Setting the bar at marathon-capable runners is not going to win GUE much support.

Agreed, although there might be no lesser definition of "fit" to those who are marathon runners. Thus, the term "fit" is subjective. In GUE's eyes, the term "fit" includes not being addicted to nicotine.

Nor are they internally consistent - there are overweight Cave-certified divers with GUE cards - how'd they get them? Yet SCIENTIFICALLY, excessive BMI is at least as bad as smoking, and perhaps worse when it comes to DCI-related issues.

Well, GUE is a new association, and certainly not all of their rules have been "tweaked" yet. I liked your idea of describing "fit" not through smoking or not, but by taking the divers for a certain fitness test, such as running. But however you cut it, you must be "fit" in their eyes. What, exactly, is that? Well... They spell it out, but you seem to want to argue the subjective term of "fit." Who cares? If you want their "stamp of approval," then you first need to be "fit" by their standards, whatever they are.

If you think they're silly or unfounded, then by all means, blow it off. I invite you to care less.

GUE has the right to do this sort of thing if they want, but they will only sow discord and dissent with that path. It does seem to be what they live on.... but heh, that's a choice.

I totally agree. Why's this taking up so much of your time?

THAT is what disturbs me about DIR, because that could compromise my safety, if indeed all of this is anecdote and willful disregard of facts that contradict positions already publically taken.

Hey, man... Don't dive with them if you think they're going to compromise your safety.

Unfortunately it also reduces the claims of "superiority" in their "system" to superstition - yes, with anecdotal support, but still, superstition.

Well, I don't see it that way, but you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Rice]

Earlier in this thread a few deaths were mentioned.

Three times today at different dive shops I heard people say that GUE has had zero deaths by trained divers.

Is this perfect safety record reality or not?

It's also my undersatnding that Sheck wasn't a DIR guy. I might go find out more about that tomorrow.

Seajay: tahnks for your well written and thoughtful writing. You're a major influence on me getting Jarrods book today. thanks

Genesis: I also have a great apprecieation for your insight and wit. I hope that the arguments you bring up here will lead to an even greater understanding of the "right" ways to dive in a variety o condiitons.

thanks to you both. Hopefully I'll have the priveledge of diving with both of you in the future.

Rice

 

[Genesis]

I watched the one debate between you and MHK... And while certainly you and I would agree as to what factually happened, I think we would both disagree, from an opinion standpoint, as to what exactly happened and what exactly the outcome of the debate was. I saw that you argued with him (refusing the see the fact that smoking was harmful to a diver's objectives) until he simply said, "Those are the facts, and I'm not going to discuss this with you any longer.

But here's the problem - he didn't make his case.

What he did was hide behind junk science. When challenged on the fact that his "impairment" figures were bogus, and further, didn't apply to two specific tobacco-using situations (cigars and snuff), he ran and hid - instead of modifying his position - retreating to a position that boiled down to "well, even if you did catch me prevaricating, its harmful, so that's that."

Well, no. All claims rest on the strength of the claimed facts. If it turns out that you fabricated your evidence, or applied it in places where it simply doesn't in ways that cannot be refuted.....

Who's asking you to "just drink the Kool Aid?" Why should we care if you drink the Kool Aid or not?

Actually, MHK did. He essentially did exactly that when he retreated to "if you want more, pay me, and if you got NOTHING after you pay me, I'll refund your money."

This is a shell game. Its like Saddam's "hide the missile" game, in that the evidence that they claim for their position is either published or it is not. If it is, then pointing to it should not require paying someone - THEY didn't fund the studies! (at least one hopes they didn't, or the objectivity of them is even MORE in doubt!)

"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.

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.

Frankly, I think the Kool-Aid is grape in flavor and has shades of Jim Jones stenciled all over it

Hey, man... If you don't want any Kool Aid, no problem. Hang out and chat... But don't get mad if I drink some Kool Aid, k? I happen to like it.

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.

Hey, that's a subject I'd be interested in hearing about. Where's this debate?

As a salt water, tropical diver, I dive DIR and stick to AL80's... Although there is a new steel tank offered by PST that's neutral when empty, only about 4 pounds of difference between that and the AL80. If I were to dump my SS backplate and get an AL backplate with a STA, I could probably do it, from a weight and buoyancy standpoint. My trim might be a bit off, especially since my cg would be so far from my body centerline. However, that might not be such a bad deal if I were to get all those cubes in it's place. 'Course, now I'd be starting my dive considerably heavier because of the additional 40 cf... Actually 43 cf... Which is another 3 lbs... Which means that I'd need ditchable, probably... Which I don't dive with now... Which would put me overweight and unable to ditch without ditching the tank, which is somewhat vital. Do you see the problem?

Diving without ditchable is not DIR.

(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)

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!)

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. 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.

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.

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?

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!

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!

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! The risk of a runaway ascent is VERY real, and it is completely unacceptable in any circumstance. So, if I need lift, I need a bag, a second BC chamber, or (gasp!) a drysuit. Choosing to dive wet, the drysuit is not on the list, so the obvious options are either a bag or a second (independant) BC chamber.

The choice of the tank's material is irrelavent, provided I can balance the rig to be neutral at the surface with no gas in it. Most people can. Even with DOUBLE HP tanks, since they are only slightly (-2 or so) negative empty. With an AL backplate and no STA, you're -4 on the kit. How many wetsuits and person's inherent buoyancy won't be at least +4?!

DIR says that steelies in a wetsuit are unacceptable. That's a lie. 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.

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.

With all due respect to GI3 (and I've seen some of your complaints for myself), who cares? GI3 is not the end-all decision maker in DIR. He's no "Pope," and he's no "Jesus." He's simply in charge of the WKPP, which I jokingly referred to as "The Third Reich" before I got a clue.

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.

But even if it was true, what's it prove? That GI3 was wrong? Even if he was... So? What's that got to do with your skills?

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.

Well, GUE is a new association, and certainly not all of their rules have been "tweaked" yet. I liked your idea of describing "fit" not through smoking or not, but by taking the divers for a certain fitness test, such as running. But however you cut it, you must be "fit" in their eyes. What, exactly, is that? Well... They spell it out, but you seem to want to argue the subjective term of "fit." Who cares? If you want their "stamp of approval," then you first need to be "fit" by their standards, whatever they are.

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?

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

 

[Genesis]

Three times today at different dive shops I heard people say that GUE has had zero deaths by trained divers.

Is this perfect safety record reality or not?

Not even close. In fact, its a pure fabrication.

In fact, there was a death at Ginnie not long ago by a GUE-trained cave diver (suspected Oxtox hit), and there have been a few deaths at WKPP.

There were also apparently some close calls during the Britannic expedition (DCI hits), which some have alleged GI3 and GUE attempted to cover up, and there have been a number of DCI and O2 hits of various severities at WKPP over the years as well, some of them being extremely serious.

Recently, one of the GUE-trained folks from the west coast (Far) was found floating with no tanks or gear at one of the springs here in Florida. While it appears that his death was a freediving incident (he had his drysuit on, but no tanks), it was nonetheless a GUE-trained diver who was freediving solo and apparently bought it (possibly due to shallow-water blackout - I have not heard a conclusive report as to the cause of death.)

Finally, there has been one reported death on the Halcyon SCC RB, which (out of the VERY few units in use) is an extraordinarily high percentage - far more than the CC "Inspiration" on a percentage basis - and which can be presumed to be a GUE-trained person since they are the only source of the unit AND the training to use it.

There are others, but those are the ones that I know of without doing any kind of search.

GUE makes a big deal out of their "safety record", but when you look at the facts its smoke and mirrors. In reality GUE-trained divers die just like NAUI-trained, TDI-trained, IANTD-trained and NSS-trained or NACD-trained ones, and in terms of percentages, I've never seen anything even approaching statistically-valid data that their programs lead to statistically-safer (less likely to suffer a DCI or O2 hit, or less likely to die) divers.

 

[SeaJay]

Rice once bubbled...
Earlier in this thread a few deaths were mentioned.

Three times today at different dive shops I heard people say that GUE has had zero deaths by trained divers.

Is this perfect safety record reality or not?

I've never heard any GUE member say that they had a perfect safety record.

That said, I believe it to be true that the WKPP has had a perfect safety record; not necessarily the entire organization of GUE. But for me to say that is simply heresay... I do not know for sure. It'd be interesting to find the information on that.

It's also my undersatnding that Sheck wasn't a DIR guy. I might go find out more about that tomorrow.

Who's Sheck?

Seajay: tahnks for your well written and thoughtful writing. You're a major influence on me getting Jarrods book today. thanks

Wow... How very flattering to be credited with influencing you to pick up that book. It's my sincere hope that it will inflame your curiosity and that you will pick up "the good stuff" from it. Honestly, the first time I read it I found myself thinking, "Yeah, right," or "Whatever," or "This guy's a nutcase..." However, every time I tried something during a dive that I learned in the book, I found my dive experience to be enhanced. I hope that you find equally good "tidbits" here and there in that book, and I sincerely hope that you'll read it more than once... Each time I go through it, I find another "gem" that I overlooked before.

The class, apparently, is the same way.

Genesis: I also have a great apprecieation for your insight and wit. I hope that the arguments you bring up here will lead to an even greater understanding of the "right" ways to dive in a variety o condiitons.

thanks to you both. Hopefully I'll have the priveledge of diving with both of you in the future.

Rice

Wow. How very cool.

 

[SeaJay]

"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...

 

[Genesis]

Must have been a pretty wild experience. What happened?

It was a religious thing. I learned a lot from it and the time that I took from my life with it, and won't make that mistake again.

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 think it is materially better than anyone else's. WKPP has lost several people over the years. At least one set of deaths has been reported in their progress reports. They have also bent a LOT of people. GUE in general has had people die, including most recently Far (from the west coast, expired here in Florida) and a GUE-trained cave diver who expired in Ginnie not all that long ago (suspected Oxtox hit). I've heard of others, but don't have the details.

I don't know of any agency that trumpets its failures, of course, so the lack of full disclosure is not an indictment - its pretty much SOP. DAN doesn't catalogue agencies when compiling their reports to the best of my knowledge either.

Cool. Say, what're you drinkin'? Why don't you tell me about your dive style?

Pretty Hogish in terms of gear config. I like the trim and the pack "melting away" in the water - I don't even notice its there.

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?

GI3 and the Fundamentals book both make the case for ALWAYS having ditchable weight - for the specific purpose discussed below.

I disagree, in that I disagree with the basic premise.

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.

No they don't. My SSI books didn't, and neither does a set of PADI books I loooked at. Both list that as an ABSOLUTE last resort. In fact, both make pretty clear that during an ESA, you DO NOT ditch until you get to the surface (THEN you ditch!)

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 is NOT necessarily true.

The amount of weight you need to balance your rig at the surface with no gas (or very little) in the cylinders has NOTHING to do with the type of metal the cylinder is made of!

Whether you are "overweighted" is ENTIRELY dependant on only TWO things:

1. How much gas you have
and
2. How much buoyancy your exposure protection loses at depth.

That's it!

Now can you overweight yourself? Sure. Is there any reason to? No. Can you get in trouble with weight without being "overweight"? You bet. Let me give you an example;

240 cubes of backgas of Nitrox (pick your doubles) weighs about 18lbs. A 7 mil wetsuit might have 20lbs of inherent buoyancy (with booties and heavy gloves), and loses at least half of that at 100'.

So you are, if balanced for neutral at the surface with empty tanks, going to be 28lbs negative at that same 100'! Can you swim up 28lbs? I probably cannot. I don't know if you can.

I'm not "overweight", but I still have a (potential) problem!

I can't imagine a SINGLE tank configuration that gets me in trouble though. Let's say I have an HP120. Its got 9lbs of gas in it. With my "heavy wetsuit" exposure protection, which is a 3 mil full suit with a 3 mil hooded vest under it, I have compensation for about 15lbs of suit buoyancy; let's say half that gets lost at 100'. So I am now -16 at depth at the start of the dive. I know I can swim that up (I've tested it.) I can also sit on the bottom and breathe some of the gas if I want, and THEN swim it up If I find this out at half-empty, I'll be -11-12ish, and that's not even difficult to swim up.

 

[Genesis]

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.

I think the correct answer is that in any dive that has a floor above the MOD of the bottom mix, you carry some kind of reserve device (e.g. a bag) or dive dry. The delay in deploying the bag is not material since you have a hard floor, and remember, you only need a small amount (10lbs or so) of "assist" from it, not its full capacity. In a dive that does NOT have a floor, if you can't swim it up I would argue that you need either redundant bladders OR a drysuit, with the drysuit preferred.

In either case if you're OOG then you have a buddy who is not (you hope!) for the purpose of obtaining inflation gas - after all, you're going to need him for the ascent, right?

Second, you say "what if you're OOG and have NO buddy?" I say "well, how come you're impossibly negative in that case?", because the problem IS the gas volume. If the tanks are dry, that negative buoyancy is GONE. If you can't swim up 10lbs or so of wetsuit compression, you've got bigger problems.

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?

Actually, I'd argue that a bag is probably the "best" backup, absent a drysuit. Its easy to fill even from a buddy's gas supply, so an inflator malfunction (or a first stage malfunction connected to it) doesn't screw you.

And its easy to control too - if it gets away from you the option always exists to let it go!

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...

Not really. Ever tried it? "Over the head" (do it with gas in the wing unless its for real!) works REAL well and REAL fast. In a drysuit you might hang up on the deflation valve, but not in a wetsuit.

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.)

I haven't had any trouble with that at all. In fact, I'm waiting for the new "E" series PST tanks to show up so I can buy some - I refuse to buy the screwball-threaded ones that are out there now, because I want the option of doubling them.

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?

Absolutely. I can swim up 18lbs, in fact. You only need to get 20 or 30 feet up the water column before that buoyancy starts to come back, so the maximum is only there for a short while.

7.5 isn't even difficult for an overweight smoker