Standard MOD

[amascuba]

IMO, there is no proper switching procedure when you're assuming a MOD because the tank lacks the sticker. This is going to bite you in the ass the day you actually forget to label a tank or get handed somebody elses unlabeled tank from the boat.

What this "no need to label bottom stages"-stuff adds is nothing but an completely unnecessary exception to a rule (for what purpose?) and a layer of assumption to verify the MOD.

It's the same problem as with any ways of color/fO2 coding MODs that pop up from time to time - you're going to have to decode to get to the MOD you're actually interested in.

That said, I've used an unmarked bottom stage (apart from the analysis sticker) now and then and survived, and often only label the left hand (buddy) side of a bottom stage unless it's a dedicated tank, but it's not something "we do" or I'd recommend to anyone as standard.

//LN

When doing a switch. You and your team mate verify that there isn't a MOD label. You assume that it's a bottom stage and appropriate for the deepest part of the dive. THEN you check the analysis sticker to verify the contents of the bottle. You DO do that right? I'd much rather trust an analysis sticker than a generic MOD sticker.

Anyways, I'm going diving.

 

[LiteHedded]

When doing a switch. You and your team mate verify that there isn't a MOD label. You assume that it's a bottom stage and appropriate for the deepest part of the dive. THEN you check the analysis sticker to verify the contents of the bottle. You DO do that right? I'd much rather trust an analysis sticker than a generic MOD sticker.

Anyways, I'm going diving.

then lets not mark any of them

there is NO valid reason to not label stage bottles. and they call it DIR.... very strange

 

[ucfdiver]

and they call it DIR.... very strange

Almost like calling water quality sampling "exploration"

 

[KMD]

When doing a switch. You and your team mate verify that there isn't a MOD label. You assume that it's a bottom stage and appropriate for the deepest part of the dive. THEN you check the analysis sticker to verify the contents of the bottle. You DO do that right? I'd much rather trust an analysis sticker than a generic MOD sticker.

From a philosophy point, If the only stages that you do not mark are bottom stages then you *are* marking your bottom stages by not marking them.

I.e. if you ask your buddy to confirm your bottom stage, he is looking to confirm that your stage has no MOD sticker on it.


The main issue is that seeing and confirming with no sticker on it really does not tell him if that stage has the proper gas for the dive. I.e. was that his 15/55 stage or his 32% stage for the second dive?

So back to philosophy for a second. If you arn't going to mark your bottom stage don't bother asking your buddy to confirm it for you as he can't really tell if its correct anyways. I.e. its a false sense of security. Of course if one isn't including ones buddy in bottle switches then is one really diving UTD/DIR?

 

[PfcAJ]

Thats the problem with this faux DIR. Its nonsense. DIR has become such a loose term lately that now were seeing distinct divisions in procedures, and some of these "DIR" procedures are dangerous and have loopholes. Tell me again why its a good idea to not mark them?

 

[DaleC]

Thats the problem with this faux DIR. Its nonsense. DIR has become such a loose term lately that now were seeing distinct divisions in procedures, and some of these "DIR" procedures are dangerous and have loopholes. Tell me again why its a good idea to not mark them?

It will only get worse, not better. Originally DIR was a "philosophy" created by cave/wreck divers doing deep penetrations - for cave/wreck divers doing deep penetrations. The message and the audience was the same. Now that it has become marketed as a regime that everyone can benefit from, the message will get watered down.
Earlier James said:

DIR wasn't designed to do cute little 20 minute at 150ft dives... Sometimes Team A has to carry stages 5000ft back into a cave for Team B, who will be going further (and deeper). Let's say we setup Manatee springs back to 10,000ft for exploration one weekend, and at 12k we find that it goes to 150ft deep.

but the truth is many people currently training ala DIR will for the most part only do 20 minute dives at 150' and will probably never penetrate a cave to 10,000'. In the past peer pressure kept many DIR tenents intact but I am curious what will happen when the number of recreational/low dive commitment DIR divers out numbers the extremely high commitment dive DIR divers and start wanting to drive the agenda to better reflect their needs.

Perhaps standardization for the masses contains some unintended consequences.

 

[Jasonmh]

...
Compared to the price of a roll of tape and a fat sharpie, not marking them is really just nickel rocket laziness.

This is an interesting discussion, esp. hearing about senarios where you might have multiple bottom mixes. But, you know UTD's stance on stage markings and what they are teaching, it may be a tad disingenuous to say it is due to "cheapness". I would be surprised if anyone in this discussion has had anyone legitimately say to them "I don't want to pay what it costs to label my tanks."

Clarifying Stage Bottle Markings vs Deco Bottle Markings - Unified Team Diving

 

[ScubaFeenD]

It will only get worse, not better. Originally DIR was a "philosophy" created by cave/wreck divers doing deep penetrations - for cave/wreck divers doing deep penetrations. The message and the audience was the same. Now that it has become marketed as a regime that everyone can benefit from, the message will get watered down.
Earlier James said:



but the truth is many people currently training ala DIR will for the most part only do 20 minute dives at 150' and will probably never penetrate a cave to 10,000'. In the past peer pressure kept many DIR tenents intact but I am curious what will happen when the number of recreational/low dive commitment DIR divers out numbers the extremely high commitment dive DIR divers and start wanting to drive the agenda to better reflect their needs.

Perhaps standardization for the masses contains some unintended consequences.

Wait, to be high commitment i need to do 10,000 ft dives? Why can't i do smaller "technical" dives to 150+ fsw and still use team cohesion, situational awareness, superb gas management, and minimalist gear setups. I think you are clouding your judgement about where DIR is and is going based on confusion about bottle markings. Please dont condemn us divers that do piddly dives in your opinion just because we arent WKPP.

 

[ScubaFeenD]

Sometimes we setup divers to go deeper. DIR wasn't designed to do cute little 20 minute at 150ft dives.

I was under the impression DIR wasn't "designed" for any kind of diving. It is supposed to be a philosophy that supports a specific method that can be applied and scaled to any diving situation. Not sure how this all stemmed from a MOD sticker discussion, but I feel like complaints about DIR now isn't based on a great understanding of what DIR is actually supposed to be.

Sure, things have changed, but it doesnt make it non DIR. Im just sorry I dont have the knowledge to take part in the labeling discussion. Ill be sure to bring it up again once I take a tech class.

 

[DaleC]

Wait, to be high commitment i need to do 10,000 ft dives? Why can't i do smaller "technical" dives to 150+ fsw and still use team cohesion, situational awareness, superb gas management, and minimalist gear setups. I think you are clouding your judgement about where DIR is and is going based on confusion about bottle markings. Please dont condemn us divers that do piddly dives in your opinion just because we arent WKPP.

Take it easy dr, I wasn't criticizing the commitment of the diver; just describing the physical/physiological parameters of the dive.

How my point relates to the MOD discussion is pointed out in AG's UTD atricle linked above (in particular point 0). That position makes perfect sense from my stand point as I do easy profiles, switch the makeup of my backgas a lot and rarely (if ever) carry more than one deco bottle (which is labeled). There is no confusion or risk in not labeling the MOD's on backgas in my case.
However, Jame's point that any non marked bottle on a highly committed cave/wreck dive can create havoc also makes perfect sense, and there is no real reasonable justification for not doing so in that case.

The question becomes, "who drives the agenda and who does it serve"? Currently there are recreational (or tech light) divers adopting certain configurations (because of standardization) that they don't really need because of peer pressure from divers who do more technically challenging dives. What happens when the peer pressure flows the other way.