The DIR Team -- Questions

[Peter Guy]

As a result of comments made by my Fundies instructor, I'm in the process of evaluating (re-evaluating) the concept of the DIR Team. I'm very interested in reading SB's description/definition of a DIR Team and the roles played by the Team's members.

This question comes from a comment made by a teammate from a dive yesterday. This was the scenario:

I was #1, Teammate A #2, Teammate B #3. We were shallow (less than 15') doing some skills and the ambient light was such that our can lights weren't very noticeable. The agreed upon formation was 3 abreast -- #1 in the middle leading; #2 on #1's right; #3 on #1's left.

As #1, I could easily see both #2 and #3 (and their lights). #2 was maybe 6-8 feet to my right (which is where I wanted); #3 was maybe 4 feet to my left (which was closer than I wanted).

During the debrief #3 mentioned being "uncomfortable" during this part of the dive because #2 was "too far away" for #3 to easily see.

This goes back to my questions about the functioning/roles of a DIR Team:

1. Once in the water (after going through the goals and team roles), is there a team leader (#1?) who directs team placement?

2. In diving 3 abreast in open water (assuming visibility is NOT an issue), need all three team members be close enough to each other so that any of the three could "immediately" respond to an OOG situation, OR is it sufficient that the middle teammate have direct contact with each and that the "wingmen" rely on the middle to maintain the contact (as is the case in single file)?

Many years ago when I was playing a team sport, my coach told me, "Do YOUR job and trust your teammate to do his" (which was his way of telling me that if I tried to do my teammate's job AND my job, neither would be done). Is a DIR Team based on the same principle?

 

[JeffG]

OR is it sufficient that the middle teammate have direct contact with each and that the "wingmen" rely on the middle to maintain the contact (as is the case in single file)?

Yes..

 

[Doc Intrepid]

"During the debrief #3 mentioned being "uncomfortable" during this part of the dive because #2 was "too far away" for #3 to easily see.

This goes back to my questions about the functioning/roles of a DIR Team:

1. Once in the water (after going through the goals and team roles), is there a team leader (#1?) who directs team placement?

Yes, there is a designated team leader. This need not be, however, the same diver for every dive. It is not like the Captain of a sports team, a more formal role, to continue your analogy.

"2. In diving 3 abreast in open water (assuming visibility is NOT an issue), need all three team members be close enough to each other so that any of the three could "immediately" respond to an OOG situation, OR is it sufficient that the middle teammate have direct contact with each and that the "wingmen" rely on the middle to maintain the contact (as is the case in single file)?

The latter. (Particularly given the circumstances you describe) the objective is that any given team member has another at a distance which allows an immediate response.

"Many years ago when I was playing a team sport, my coach told me, "Do YOUR job and trust your teammate to do his" (which was his way of telling me that if I tried to do my teammate's job AND my job, neither would be done). Is a DIR Team based on the same principle?

Generally yes. (Although the roles and responsibilities are (IMHO) seldom so specifically differentiated as "Catcher", "Pitcher", "First Baseman", etc.)

I prefer to use the analogy of a military or law enforcement tactical team, or perhaps a surgical team, where roles and primary responsibilities are indeed defined, but given the broad array of possible scenarios or potential emergencies any given team member may be called upon to perform a wide range of (cross-trained) response activities. (There is correspondingly a reasonably high expectation of competent execution by all members, because they have trained and will perform as a team - rather than an ad hoc assembly of divers with unknown degrees of skills and competence, and general unfamiliarity with one another.)

YMMV.

 

[rjack321]

2. In diving 3 abreast in open water (assuming visibility is NOT an issue), need all three team members be close enough to each other so that any of the three could "immediately" respond to an OOG situation

Nope. OOG won't be immediate when #2 has a failed post and then #1 or #3 is OOG. Consider 1/2 the breathhold swim as a primer on how long you have/need to donate.

Is it sufficient that the middle teammate have direct contact with each and that the "wingmen" rely on the middle to maintain the contact (as is the case in single file)?

Yes, you won't be when strung out along a line in a cave for instance. The #2 is almost always a critical communication link between #1 and #3

Many years ago when I was playing a team sport, my coach told me, "Do YOUR job and trust your teammate to do his" (which was his way of telling me that if I tried to do my teammate's job AND my job, neither would be done). Is a DIR Team based on the same principle?

Yes, you need to rely on each other. E.g. backup the deco captain and have a spare SMB but you divide up roles for a reason. At somepoint you start doing dives where you can't do it all. The team is only stronger than the parts when you can delegate and take on more as a group than you could as an individual.

 

[KMD]

This question comes from a comment made by a teammate from a dive yesterday. This was the scenario:

I was #1, Teammate A #2, Teammate B #3. We were shallow (less than 15') doing some skills and the ambient light was such that our can lights weren't very noticeable. The agreed upon formation was 3 abreast -- #1 in the middle leading; #2 on #1's right; #3 on #1's left.

As #1, I could easily see both #2 and #3 (and their lights). #2 was maybe 6-8 feet to my right (which is where I wanted); #3 was maybe 4 feet to my left (which was closer than I wanted).

During the debrief #3 mentioned being "uncomfortable" during this part of the dive because #2 was "too far away" for #3 to easily see.

This is one reason why I am not a huge fan of the echelon formation where #2 and #3 are positioned to the right and left of #1.

It puts all the onus on #1 to make sure the team stays together and pass communication back and forth to #2 and #3. All this while #1 is also having to concentrate on navigation and any other issues that crop up.

Plus in any type of failure scenario, you put the weakest team mate in the middle which means that your weak diver will also have to deal with the potential stress of navigating.

 

[JeffG]

This is one reason why I am not a huge fan of the echelon formation where #2 and #3 are positioned to the right and left of #1.

It puts all the onus on #1 to make sure the team stays together and pass communication back and forth to #2 and #3. All this while #1 is also having to concentrate on navigation and any other issues that crop up.

and??? its not like it is hard. If they are not up to the task, then you shouldn't be doing the dive like that anyways.

Plus in any type of failure scenario, you put the weakest team mate in the middle which means that your weak diver will also have to deal with the potential stress of navigating.

Huh??? Why would you do that? If the failure required a level of task loading that wouldn't allow navigating, then that task would/should be delegated to someone else.

The weaker diver should be joined by the hip with another teammate effectively making them "one unit".

 

[KMD]

and??? its not like it is hard. If they are not up to the task, then you shouldn't be doing the dive like that anyways.


Huh??? Why would you do that? If the failure required a level of task loading that wouldn't allow navigating, then that task would/should be delegated to someone else.

The weaker diver should be joined by the hip with another teammate effectively making them "one unit".

Didn't say it was hard just said it put the onus all on the lead diver. Its can be more efficient to have the team line abreast, line echelon or line.

For me it something I would deal with while kick diving, but there is no way in hell I would ever want to do for any length of time while scootering in a team of three. To much work for not enough reward.

 

[Jason B]

Its can be more efficient to have the team line abreast

It was my understanding (from the quote below) that this is how they (Peter's team) were in formation.

I was #1, Teammate A #2, Teammate B #3. We were shallow (less than 15') doing some skills and the ambient light was such that our can lights weren't very noticeable. The agreed upon formation was 3 abreast -- #1 in the middle leading; #2 on #1's right; #3 on #1's left.

 

[RTodd]

Three person teams are, to some extent, an advanced skill. Particularly if you are truly focused on being a team as opposed to three people in the water. Until you can run the dive seemlessly, two person teams are better. Three person teams do add extra redundancy that is beneficial on more advanced dives. But, the increase in task loading to keep the team together generally outweighs this form simple, fun dives. A diver that was uncomfortable with the team layout due to low vis is probably not quite ready for a three man team. Also, in low vis, three in a line, slightly offset so you can stay closer together tends to work better since it is easier to see the light beams pointing straight ahead from the front and to watch the fins/ legs from behind.

 

[rjack321]

Teams of 2 make T1 and C1 classes much easier. I imagine that's why I passed

Either kicking or scootering (OW) as an chevron is one of the better 3 person formations for us. Center #1 in front can see lights on their left and right. Numbers 2 and 3 can see each other.

"Close by" is all relative to the vis and environment. Sometimes its 3 or 4 feet, sometimes its 15ft. Realistically in a linear formation #1 and #3 could be 30-35ft apart. If you ever take C1 you'll have to do s-drills from this distance apart (facing each other).