The DIR Team -- Questions

[Peter Guy]

Lamont, I'm not at all sure I understand your position on this -- really.

Is it your belief that being 3 abreast w/an 8' separation between each diver, with viz being greater than 20', at a depth above 70' when the goal of the dive is to "look at the pretty fishies and have fun" -- that the 8' separation between the wingmen and the middle is too great?

Or, as I re-read my original question, is it your belief that

all three team members be close enough to each other so that any of the three could "immediately" respond to an OOG situation....

 

[limeyx]

You have been in class too much

I agree 8ft is perfectly adequate or even closer than necessary when things are going fine. 8ft is often too far when a dive is going major sideways. Just mosying along having #2 and #3 communicating directly should not be required. If things are not going well and they can't communicate much if at all they are too far or the formation needs changing

heh, Gideon spent our entire T1 class trying to get us further apart in the "V" formation -- but we refused as we knew he was behind us about to bring doom down!

8feet is no problem unless the vis is 4 feet!

 

[limeyx]

That German guy was solid... and the reason you passed :mooner::mooner:

True, he did carry our arses for most of two days -- man that guy has some enthusiasm for diving! (Compared to our grim reliance on sheer survival instincts!)

 

[jeckyll]

Lamont, I'm not at all sure I understand your position on this -- really.

Is it your belief that being 3 abreast w/an 8' separation between each diver, with viz being greater than 20', at a depth above 70' when the goal of the dive is to "look at the pretty fishies and have fun" -- that the 8' separation between the wingmen and the middle is too great?

Or, as I re-read my original question, is it your belief that

A bit of an aside Peter: You may be more comfortable with further spacing (if I recall some of Lynne's posts).

It's been awhile since I've gone diving in a spot where we could comfortably do a 3 abreast dive. But during fundies I can tell you that the only time we were 8 feet+ apart was when someone screwed up.

Personally, I have a tendency to dive fairly close to folks (so that I'm just at a point where if we both frog kick we don't kick each other). That's just me. Well, it probably has to do with the fact that often that's about the viz on the ascent / descent anyways.

So if it's a team of divers you frequently dive with (or plan to) I'd say this is something you guys should sit down, have a beer (the non-alcoholic DIR kind ... like Corona or something ) and chat about to see what works ... for the team.

Just my $0.02.

Bjorn

 

[nadwidny]

Methinks y'all have missed the import of the issue concerning being 3 abreast. There was NO problem with me (#1 in the middle) doing navigation, keeping track of the team (ambient light negated the effectiveness of Salvo communication) and maintaining the team. The issue that came up was that my "wingman" to my left was upset that he couldn't see the "wingman" to my right -- although at all times he had no problems seeing me (in the middle). The fact that I was #1 was irrelevant -- the problem was that the "wingman" in a 3 person team felt he should be able to see both members rather than just key on the middle person and trust (if that is the right word) the middle teammate to keep track of the other wingman.

So far, as I'm keeping track, the consensus is that the wingman needs to be concerned with tracking the centerman and the centerman is responsible for tracking the wingmen -- but that it is DIR OK for the wingmen NOT to track each other.

(Which, of course, is how I understand single file teams to work.)

An offshoot of this is when ascending/descending -- in a 3 man team, must all three be able to track each other at all times during the ascent/descent, OR would it be OK for one team member NOT to be tracking one member AS LONG AS that team member is tracking the other team member who is tracking the 3rd team member (A tracks B, B tracks C, C tracks A but A does not track C and C does not track B). (Is that clear?)

The problem is that you were in the wrong formation to begin with. In a 3 man team having your wingmen on either side doesn't make sense. Number 1 leads. That is his job. Number 2 maintains communication between 1 and 3. That is his job. To have 2 and 3 on either side of 1 is kinda dumb.

The right formation for a team of three should be echelon, line astern or line abreast, not Vic.

 

[Peter Guy]

Bjorn -- your suggestion is, of course, the simplest way of solving the particular issue -- but I'm actually more interested in the perceived "DIR" answer.

In this particular case, the instructor made the comment "You may be too comfortable in the water" which I took as an interesting observation.

 

[rjack321]

If, regardless of the failures going on (there may be none), one of your buddies was uncomfortable with the formation and/or distance he/she has 3 options:
tighten up the formation
change the formation
beetch about it after

There's nothing "wrong" with any particular formation or distance unless its not working for some or all of the divers. When that happens you either need to change it or stop diving together.

There's no DIR answer that says people should or must be comfortable at xyz distance or in abc formation. If its not working for one, its not working for all. But the onus is on the uncomfortable buddy to communicate about it preferably at the time and for everyone to try to remedy the situation.

Otherwise thumb the dive and future plans together.

 

[dsteding]

The problem is that you were in the wrong formation to begin with. In a 3 man team having your wingmen on either side doesn't make sense. Number 1 leads. That is his job. Number 2 maintains communication between 1 and 3. That is his job. To have 2 and 3 on either side of 1 is kinda dumb.

The right formation for a team of three should be echelon, line astern or line abreast, not Vic.

This makes sense, but not the way it is usually done around here in the DIR teams I've dived with (both inside and outside of classes). But, giving #1 the responsibility of leading the dive, and then sandwiching #2 between to handle keeping the team together seems like it keeps the task loading spread out.

 

[jeckyll]

Bjorn -- your suggestion is, of course, the simplest way of solving the particular issue -- but I'm actually more interested in the perceived "DIR" answer.

In this particular case, the instructor made the comment "You may be too comfortable in the water" which I took as an interesting observation.

Peter: I think "The simplest way to solve the issue" and "The DIR answer" may well be one and the same thing.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

We often dive three divers on scooters. #1 leads - e.g. is the first scooter. #2 and #3 follow, but not in any strictly prescribed formation. As all the scooters have essentially the same rate of speed, its relatively easy to maintain position vis a vis one another in a single file - but some vertical variance also occasionally occurs, e.g. we're not always all on the same horizontal plane.

The determining factor with respect to distance from one another is how far can the light beams be seen given the turbidity of the water. We use light signals, mostly, and #3 needs to be able to see #1's light motion. Its easier in darker water (e.g. deep enough that no sun filters down, but still offering 60'+ vis at depth).

Trying to maintain any specific formation strikes me - at least in open ocean wreck diving - as relatively pointless: requires concentration out of proportion to the benefit derived...

YMMV.