Small Potatoes, but...

[lamont]

Do you think rule number one breeds denial?

Because I imagine any style diver could panic given the right circumstances, and my question was, is there something integral to DIR training that addresses that, should it happen? A discussion about when you, a DIR diver would cut another loose, DIR, Non-DIR, team member, stranger, those scenarios.

But I think Lamont only has answered directly and simply.

I heard him say

1)be mentally/physically prepared, it could happen

2) render aid prepared for the worst

3) choose yourself if it comes right down to it

The details painted a pretty clear picture of what he meant.

The one thing you are missing is that when it comes to your teammates, DIR explictly does not teach "when to leave your buddy behind".

From El Guapo himself on his definition of a S----e:

For instance, if somebody is taught that diving is an "every man for himself" sport, that you "can't help somebody deep," that "my gas is my gas," or "know when to leave your buddy," then that is somebody you do not want to be in the water with.

So DIR explicitly doesn't teach those.

The classes also don't teach panic cycle, AFAIK, which may be an oversight. I think the assumption in the classes is that you will train and train and train and that under pressure having that training reassert itself is the best way to prevent a disaster -- plus building up experience gradually so that you don't start out the dive in over your head.

And the selfish point here is really that if I'm having a bad time and stressed inside of a wreck or a cave, I want my buddy to be trying to help me and to not immediately go "screw him I'm leaving" -- I want the lattitude to take 5 minutes to freak out and then get my **** together and be able to survive, and not have a buddy flee from me at the first sign of stress in my eyes. In return, I'm going to do the same. In the worst possible case when a panic isn't recoverable this might result in a double fatality, but my guess is that much more often this attitude will result in a successful rescue. And from what I know of the USMC, I'd guess they would probably find this philosophy more acceptable than the "know when to leave your buddy one".

 

[Cacia]

In the worst possible case when a panic isn't recoverable this might result in a double fatality, but my guess is that much more often this attitude will result in a successful rescue.

Yes, I understand. The reason I was curious is because lets face it...many of us come from a water culture where we first did Jr. Life Saving, YMCA classes, etc. Many of the accepted "one victim, not two" is deeply ingrained in our American societies water culture because of the broad based early introduction of this tenet. (schools, camps, organized water activities)

So..I was curious how DIR approached this and at what point in the training they begin to counter this.

Again, mountain climbers and various other "exploration subcultures" have the conversation in some pretty frank terms.

I am open to the idea that I have been somewhat "brainwashed" from childhood to believe that other swimmers could readily drown me. Perhaps if I have a reg, plenty of gas, an extra mask, it is not as easy as I have always assumed.

"screw him I'm leaving"

YES, ...you guys just say it at the dock, remember?

I would be very interested to see if DIR fatalities happen in multiples more than "other" divers. I wonder if those numbers are evn possible though.

 

[AXL72]

Lately I have noticed a lot of bright yellow bungeed necklaced regs on DIR divers.

Is that "right"? Are ya'll afraid some random paniced diver might grab the wrong reg?

just curious. I am not compliant but thought that was important to switch my cover to black when I went long hose.

ooooooh....catherine telling it like it is!!!!


ooooooh!


What happened to "Budha Catherine"? She was the total peacmaker!


ok, mental note....**don't mess with or talkback to catherine**

 

[AXL72]

"screw him I'm leaving"


wait! who is the big boned cartman who said that?

 

[riguerin]

Yes, I understand. The reason I was curious is because lets face it...many of us come from a water culture where we first did Jr. Life Saving, YMCA classes, etc. Many of the accepted "one victim, not two" is deeply ingrained in our American societies water culture because of the broad based early introduction of this tenet. (schools, camps, organized water activities).

And that's probably the appropriate response if you're the lifeguard at the local pool or beach. The capabilities and mental state of the victim are likely complete unknowns. You have to be prepared for the worst possible scenario.

So..I was curious how DIR approached this and at what point in the training they begin to counter this. )

By eliminating some of the unknowns ... incorporating some controls. That is, making informed choices ahead of time regarding the dive ... the risks you're comfortable with , and the constraints you'll place on it. Incidental, that's not necessarily a DIR thing. It's just good common sense.

 

[Cacia]

Incidental, that's not necessarily a DIR thing. It's just good common sense.

I have some common sense.
I just think that making the point that concept gets instilled in many of us from an early age is a good one. Because to switch to the "USMC" model as Lamont described, you must come counter to this doctrine somewhat.

If you read through this thread, you notice that most DIR diver answers don't really ever acknowledge diving on wrecks with non-DIR "penetrators" . There was a lot of inference to rule number one, staying off cattle boats. I am just not convinced that is a "right" way to think, until they install some DIR wrecks somewhere.

 

[AXL72]

catherine is beating some booooty today!!

 

[riguerin]

I have some common sense.

No one has suggested otherwise.

I just think that making the point that concept gets instilled in many of us from an early age is a good one. Because to switch to the "USMC" model as Lamont described, you must come counter to this doctrine somewhat.

There's truth in that. I guess the difference is trust. At some point you start to trust the people that you choose to dive with. Trust that you're all the same page with respect to experience, capabilites, goals, risk tolerance, etc. If there are any gaps in that trust, then you should strive to address them. If that's not possible, then you can always choose not to dive. Simple.

If you read through this thread, you notice that most DIR diver answers don't really ever acknowledge diving on wrecks with non-DIR "penetrators" . There was a lot of inference to rule number one, staying off cattle boats. I am just not convinced that is a "right" way to think, until they install some DIR wrecks somewhere.

If you're looking for a non-DIR answer then this is probably not the place to find it.

 

[Cacia]

I said I wanted the DIR answer. Several times.

You really don't comprehend asking DIR divers how they prepare for an encounter with "other" divers on a wreck?

 

[Ben_ca]

I said I wanted the DIR answer. Several times.

You really don't comprehend asking DIR divers how they prepare for an encounter with "other" divers on a wreck?

There's been plenty of replies but you do not seem satisfied...

It's really a non issue... You don't see GUE cavers fret about other cave guys going in or out.... or a OW guy in the cavern zone "mugging" them for their regs.