The "other" end of the DIR question

[AADiveRex]

No blasting from me
I am, however, genuinely interested in which DIR ideas you have adopted and which you have rejected. What did you find that did and did not work for you and why? I encourage you to post it openly, but if you'd rather not, PM is fine.

Happy to, as long as it is kept in mind by all that these were choices I made for myself. I am not saying that my way is better, nor am I saying my way is "right". For me, my way works better. If it works for you too, great. If not, I encourage you to find that which works best for you.

Let's start with the foundation. I don't use a backplate and harness. I use a Dive Rite TransPac with the stabilizer plates. I find the TransPac more comfortable and versatile that the harness, easier to get in and out of both on the surface and under water, and just as solid and secure as a harness and backplate. The backplate is actually a real problem for me. I am 5'6" and negative as a rock. I can lay down flat on the bottom of the ocean with just a bathing suit on. Fully geared up, I need zero weight, even without stage bottles. In just my drysuit, PST double 100s (the lightest tanks I use), TransPac and wings, with ankle weights on to trim me right, I am negative. Adding a backplate makes the situation much worse, and this weight is obviously not ditchable. As it is, I wear 8lbs of lead on my waist just to have some ballast, and because I set the hook on the wreck I need to be able to drop fast. When I cave dive with LP104's, I need to use Dive Rite Super Wings just to be able to get neutral. It comes down to both comfort and function, for me.

Next, the pressure gauge. I have a small console, not a solid brass SPG. Sure, a lone spg would work fine, but I prefer the console. First, the SPG itself is a Dacor gauge with a built in bottom timer. No big deal, but it acts as a 4th bottom timer. The console also holds an old Dacor Pro Brain air only computer. This is my third backup computer and bottom timer. Sure, it gets bent every time I do a deco dive, but even in its Out of Range Mode, it continues to function as a bottom timer. On the back of the console is a basic small dive knife, and around the boot is a Casio G-Shock watch. This last item is one of pure sentimentality. I have had it on every dive I have ever done since my open water training, never needed to be reset, and amazingly, in almost 20 years, never even needed new batteries. It is my 5th redundant bottom timer. Overkill for sure, but it costs me nothing to carry it. The whole thing is only 3 inches longer than a lone SPG would be. I clip it to a brass ring that sits in the middle of my chest (I made a custom chest strap with this brass ring on a fastex clip, so it is easily removable if need be), just below my dry suit inflator. I can read it without touching it, just by looking down. Certainly not DIR, but it works great for me.

Argon bottle. Strapping it to the side of my tanks DIR style would preclude entry and exit to at least 100 places inside wrecks that I can think of off the top of my head. If you have ever squeezed through a U Boat hatch, you know exactly what I mean. I use a 7cf bottle clipped to the soft backplate of my TransPac behind my right arm (sandwiched between my back and the wing). I have no problems or squeeze inflating my wing to capacity, and no loss of range of motion in my right arm whatsoever. I have never exhausted this bottle. If I did, I can always hook my wings lp inflator into my drysuit for some additional gas, even if it is trimix.

Light. I use a Dive Rite Slimline 10 watt HID worn on my right hip via waist belt. Seems like it could be DIR, right? Wrong. I hold it in my right hand and wrap the cord around my arm. This keeps the cord from snagging, and, well, I'm right handed, I like the light in my right hand. I also wear the canister inverted, top down. This protects the cord-canister connection from abuse when squeezing into tight spots. The solid delrin on the bottom of the canister takes the abuse instead. My backup lights are worn on my shoulder straps DIR style, but the light head faces forward, not down. This way, if the bezel is too tight and the light comes on under pressure, I know it. I can also turn them on and leave them stowed in place, and they shine in the right direction. Hands free works for me.

Regs. Poseidon Cyklones. Rugged, reliable, time proven, and I just love the way they breathe, deep or shallow. They work from either direction as well. Only down side is that hey are not disassemble-able underwater, but, well, I have a backup, right? DIR requires that the reg be dissassembleable (is that a word?) to clear debris from the diaphragm. This is a good point, and I actually have been considering upgrading my regs to newer technology, maybee Apeks or Aqualung Legend LX (AWESOME reg IMHO. Apeks technology, but better implementation, and by most tests, better performance) My long hose is on the right post, 6ft not 7ft because the 7ft is just too long for my short torso, and it floats up. My pressure gauge is on the right post, not left. This way, if I have a partially closed valve or isolator, I may see the pressure fluctuation as I breathe.

Stage bottles. Two 30cf bottles, worn one on either side for better balance and streamlining. I don't mark them DIR style because I often have to mix and top off on the boat over long trips, and the contents may change. On shallower deco dives (80 to 160 ft) I only need one bottle per dive, so I will fill both identically. One is black, one is yellow. If I carry both, black is the hot gas, always on my right. Easy. I also label with duct tape and a sharpie, so there is no possibility of confusion. I never use O2, I prefer 85%. I know this point could start a whole other debate, but I find the O2 tox loading lower and the deco advantage close enough to the O2. If you have ever done a deco in really rough seas, you know that your depth changes with sea swells regardless of your bouyancy skills. 85% is a little more forgiving. I never have found the need for larger tanks either. Two 30cf gives me plenty of gas for deco for a dive up to 30 minutes at 250ft, with 25% reserve. I use the Dive Rite stage straps, because they work great. The only deviation is that I use a nylon sleeve around the hose clamp to keep the metal of the clamp away from the tank. Dissimilar metals, elctrolysis, remember? I have seen tanks condemned due to pitting from electrolysis. One last deviation, I have lengthened the top clip leads to allow the bottles to sit a bit further from the chest clips. I find it more comfortable, and trimmed better for me.

Drysuit. No pockets. I find they give me additional drag. Everything I need in a pocket fits in a small nylon pouch on my waits band. (Spare mask, shears, surface signalling devices, marker light, small slate, double ended clip, jon line).


There you have it. Old school meets new world. This works for me. It may not be everything, but its a bunch. This configuration has evolved many times over the years, and I often experiment with different things when I get inspired, or find a problem to fix, or when I get a great idea from another diver. That's how I find out what works for me, and that's how I continue to make it better. It is optimized for my diving activities and my personal needs, and I know it won't work for everyone. But the system I used to get here is one that anyone can use to make decisions for themselves. For those of you who remain staunchly comitted to their strict DIR implementation, that is your choice. The only question I have for you, is this: If you haven't tried something different, how can you know that it isn't better?

I encourage your feedback and thoughts.
Adam

 

[jonnythan]

Argon bottle. Strapping it to the side of my tanks DIR style would preclude entry and exit to at least 100 places inside wrecks that I can think of off the top of my head. If you have ever squeezed through a U Boat hatch, you know exactly what I mean. I use a 7cf bottle clipped to the soft backplate of my TransPac behind my right arm (sandwiched between my back and the wing).

Just a nitpick, DIR style is exactly what you do, only on the left. See http://www.divetekadventures.com/armount/complete_AR_set.jpg

 

[AADiveRex]

Adam,

Welcome to the board. I am with ya bud (albeit more in spirt and philosophy than experience!)...

With the length of time and specific sites you've dove, I am just curious if you knew the Rouse's?

Not really, no. I'd met them, but I can't say I knew them. They hung with the Jersey croud, and dove mostly Jersey wrecks from Jersey based boats. I dive primarily from Long Island, though the sites do have considerable overlap.

 

[AADiveRex]

Just a nitpick, DIR style is exactly what you do, only on the left. See http://www.divetekadventures.com/armount/complete_AR_set.jpg

Nitpick right back at you...

DIR puts it on the belt. I wear it on the side of the backplate.

Adam

 

[AADiveRex]

The only reason the non-DIR divers feel "circled" and attacked is because there are so many people who have thought the system out so well and they are in complete consensus.. versus the one individual who Does It His Way and simply hasn't given his diving such an incredibly thorough examination.

There's no "us vs them" mentality or consensus in the DIR community.. there's simply the confidence that comes along with knowing you have done such a rigorous examination of your own diving and corrected as many problems as possible.

The question I have for you is, does this rigorous examination include trying anything different? I'm not talking about discussing it, I am talking about actually trying it. Perhaps my perception is wrong, but it seems to me that this rigid examination has been done and its results set in stone. Its not like every student tries every possible configuration and comes to the same conclusion theselves. They are given the conclusion first, then fed the information that supports it. Not being able to disprove something doesn't necessarily prove it. The methodology and even the conclusions may be sound and viable, but does that necessarily preclude the possibility of any other set of alternative conclusions that are not identical from being equally viable?

I challenge you to give us a detailed analysis of your gear, methods, and techniques for critique by ScubaBoard. Do you think that your way will stand up to intense scrutiny?

I have done so, and I look forward to your critique.

Do you think there is any possible way to improve your diving safety and enjoyment? If so, why haven't you made that change?

My position is that I continually strive to improve my safety and enjoyment. When I find a way to do so, I do make that change. That is how I become a better diver. On the flip side of the coin, if my gear methods and techniques do hold up, does that mean that you should change? If you stick to DIR, you can't make that change. That, in my opinion, is the biggest flaw in the system. The absolute intolerance to deviation, regardless of the reason.

The biggest difference is that I realize that my techniques and methods will most likely not work for everyone. That's part of what makes it work so well for me: the fact that it is based on my needs, my goals, my diving, my experience, my habits, and my capabilities. I don't expect my system to be perfect, and I don't need to thus defend it against attack. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right, and I'm also not trying to convince you that you are wrong. I am only trying to convince you that your being right doesn't necessarily make me wrong.

If DIR works for you, in its entirety, then for you, it is right. But DIR doesn't work for me.

Adam

 

[Scuba]

The only reason the non-DIR divers feel "circled" and attacked is because there are so many people who have thought the system out so well and they are in complete consensus.. versus the one individual who Does It His Way and simply hasn't given his diving such an incredibly thorough examination.

Does this leave room for the diver who has thought the system out and decided its not for him? If these divers are excluded, you only leave those who agree with the DIR system - in complete concensus. Since you either accept all, or you are not DIR.

There's no "us vs them" mentality or consensus in the DIR community.. there's simply the confidence that comes along with knowing you have done such a rigorous examination of your own diving and corrected as many problems as possible.

We disagree on the first point. I do respect your point of view. Things appear different when viewed from different angles. On the second point I would just apply examining and correcting as relates to myself.

There's no "dogma." DIR is a set of conclusions to the problems introduced by SCUBA. I challenge you to give us a detailed analysis of your gear, methods, and techniques for critique by ScubaBoard.

I'll pass. I do not claim my way is the best or safest for all, or even for myself all the time. On occassion I do take increasing risks that others may not or may rightly critize. I'm always trying to learn and improve. I do believe I am aware of, not all, but most of the potential pitfalls and risks of my system as they vary from dive to dive. Are you aware of the shortcomings of your system?

Do you think that your way will stand up to intense scrutiny? Do you think there is any possible way to improve your diving safety and enjoyment? If so, why haven't you made that change? Do you think that any of the experienced divers here will be able to find a potentially dangerous flaw in your system?

To a general concensus, yes.

Yes

I have made changes and will continue to do so when warranted. I learn from all, DIR, tec, rec, new, experts .........
Why limit myself?

Possibly, unlikely there is a signifant flaw I am not myself aware of from what I've learned so far. But I'm always open minded. Most of my diving is quite conservative rec diving.

No one can find such a flaw in DIR, so the only way to attack it is to attack is rigidity.. but this rigidity is what makes it so perfect.

Excuse me. Did you say perfect? I hope that was a figure of speech or typo.

An example of where rigidity causes harm or does not apply.

A DIR tenet is to always donate the long hose or primary breathing regulator? Correct me if there is room for flexibility.

Diver A: Is competent in this task.
Diver B: Is an oddity. Gets on the verge of panic when reg is out of his mouth.

Rigidity is not only not optimum here, but harmfull for diver B, regardless of which gas donation method is better for most divers.

Maybe this person should not dive. Should safely practice until competent. Would not qualify or be accepted as DIR. The point is valid nonetheless. One method is not optimum for everyone on everydive. I do not beleive this is a correct DIR position. I do think it is a widely misunderstood position by many. Maybe we can have an authoritative answer on the rigidity and flexibility of DIR by a DIR authority here.


Please tell me how diving with a computer places me at greater risk then without one? Don't assume I do things wrong.

Please tell me how the risks I take diving solo with the type of very conservative diving I do when doing so, places me at greater risk then a DIR diver buddy team doing a rigorous cave or wreck dive? or any penetration overhead environement dive?

We both take increasing risks during these dives compared to more conservative dives. Can you see the difference? I don't knock cave or wreck divers as wreckless.

If you don't like it, don't dive it. But do you really think "your way" can stand up to this type of examination? DIR can, and has for years. Do you really think your way is safer or more comprehensive?

That is exactly what I do!

Yes, with its flaws duly noted and fully accepted, unlike DIR.

Safer, sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Depends. Honestly.

More comprehensive. For my needs and desires - YES.

 

[Snowbear]

Nitpick right back at you...

DIR puts it on the belt. I wear it on the side of the backplate.

Adam

Actually, I was shown to put it on the BP. I've seen DIR instructors show students why it's better that way than on the belt.

And - thank you for answering my query. I do have a few additional why questions, though?

It sounds as if you are overweighted with steel doubles and a plastic BP to the point you say you need a large wing just to stay neutral, so why add even more weight (the 8# ballast)? I find that even when I've weighted for neutral at 10' with 400 psi in the tanks, an empty wing and dry suit squeezing, I'm overweighted enough at the beginning of the dive to drop as fast or faster than I could possibly want to.

Why is the knife better on the back of the console than on the waist belt? Is it easier for you to get it with one without looking 'cause it's on your chest? I tried mine in several places before settling on the waist belt, though I never used a console, so never tried it there (though I did try putting it on the corrugated inflater hose for a few dives). I picked the belt 'cause I can get it with either hand and without scrunching up as is necessary when it's strapped to the leg.

For those of you who remain staunchly comitted to their strict DIR implementation, that is your choice. The only question I have for you, is this: If you haven't tried something different, how can you know that it isn't better?

I encourage your feedback and thoughts.

I have tried different, and still sometimes do if there's reason to think it might work better than what I'm doing and won't compromise the system. I'm curious, Adam - have you tried the DIR system as a whole, or just the parts and peices you mentioned as presented by your tech instructor? I've found DIR implementation for the recreational diver (including "tech divers") anything but strict. It allows for some individual variation within the whole of the system (like the 6cf Argon bottle on the BP vs the 13CF on the tank, light cord behind or in front of the hose and in either hand until it's time to donate the reg) and is open to change if something is proven to work better. The basics still apply for the simple reason you stated in your post - your similarly trained buddies are intimately familiar with the gear and where everything is, how you will react and how everything fits together, with the exception that each member of the team is committed to the other members of the team and the dive is planned and executed as a team effort, not as if it were solo.

 

[AADiveRex]

It sounds as if you are overweighted with steel doubles and a plastic BP to the point you say you need a large wing just to stay neutral, so why add even more weight (the 8# ballast)? I find that even when I've weighted for neutral at 10' with 400 psi in the tanks, an empty wing and dry suit squeezing, I'm overweighted enough at the beginning of the dive to drop as fast or faster than I could possibly want to.

I'm only overwieghted when cave diving in a wetsuit, using those heavy steel 104s, and in this situation, I wear no lead. In my double hundreds (the only tanks I use wreck diving), in a drysuit, I am negative at the surface with the tanks full, and just a little positive with tanks low. 4lbs would be perfect, I wear 8 to be able to get below the surface quick when I need to, as I do when setting the hook.

Why is the knife better on the back of the console than on the waist belt? Is it easier for you to get it with one without looking 'cause it's on your chest? I tried mine in several places before settling on the waist belt, though I never used a console, so never tried it there (though I did try putting it on the corrugated inflater hose for a few dives). I picked the belt 'cause I can get it with either hand and without scrunching up as is necessary when it's strapped to the leg.

Actually, I do have one on the waist as well. I carry four cutting devices: 2 Knives, One shear, and a small line cutter on my left hand computer wristband. The one on the console is the longest, with one end aligned to the top end of the boot, and the bottom down along the hose (but not attached to it) this is the most streamlined place to put it. Also, consider this: What is perhaps the most conditioned action we perform while diving? Arguably, it is checking our gas supply. If it isn't, it should be. Going for the gauge is almost reflexive. In an emergency, having a knife positions it in the place you can get to the easiest, IMHO.

I have tried different, and still sometimes do if there's reason to think it might work better than what I'm doing and won't compromise the system. I'm curious, Adam - have you tried the DIR system as a whole, or just the parts and peices you mentioned as presented by your tech instructor?

I have never taken a course, if that's what you mean. I know from my research that some of it won't fit my style, as I have explained in some detail. I know that there is more of it that I don't know about than I do, which is why I talk with many of the DIR guys who dive here, and read posts on this board, and continue to research, etc. I don't reject anything BECAUSE its DIR. But just because its DIR, doesn't mean I will jump up and try to adopt it. And I'm not just talking about equipment, I'm including procedures and diving parctice as well. For instance, DIR teaches continuous guideline in every overhead situation. I am pretty strongly opposed to using a line in a wreck penetration, except under very limited circumstances. If I can't navigate my way safely in and out of a wreck blind, I don't belong there. I don't want to deviate from the thread, but there is an example I will defend till my death, and will keep me from ever getting an official DIR rating.

I've found DIR implementation for the recreational diver (including "tech divers") anything but strict. It allows for some individual variation within the whole of the system (like the 6cf Argon bottle on the BP vs the 13CF on the tank, light cord behind or in front of the hose and in either hand until it's time to donate the reg) and is open to change if something is proven to work better.

Proven by who? To be DIR, you have to accept the system in its whole. If an alternative is proven to YOU, but not the system, you have to violate the system to implement the alternative. Now, if it is "Proven" to the DIR gods, then the system will change, but then that will mean that the system was wrong in the first place, which can't be true... You see where I am going here. I'm willing to consider and even try anything to make my diving safer and better, which makes my system better for me. ME. I can't accept anything for given. I can't just take someone's word for it. And I can't commit to do things a certain way in every situation just because someone in a position of DIR authority decided that's the way it should be.

Some people need to be told what to do. For many students starting out or getting into technical diving, DIR is not necessarily a bad thing. I know plenty of divers who try stuff that is foolish. Staring off with something that works is a definite advantage. I'm with it up to there. But, at some point, some people's needs might drive alternatives, like I have demostrated. Unfortunately, by that point, most DIR inductees are (generalization coming here...) unwilling to consider the alternatives because they have been taught not to. For me, I'm set in my ways, because it works for me, but that doesn't mean I don't consider change or try new things. I can take the best of what's out there, amoung all the ideas and procedures and gear and configurations, and optimize it for my needs. If DIR was a foundation to build and grow and experiment on, I'd shout its virtues from the top of my dive boat mast. Until the context of the word "Proven" is redifened, I remain on my side of the fence.

The basics still apply for the simple reason you stated in your post - your similarly trained buddies are intimately familiar with the gear and where everything is, how you will react and how everything fits together, with the exception that each member of the team is committed to the other members of the team and the dive is planned and executed as a team effort, not as if it were solo.

The point is, I am my team. I almost always dive wrecks alone. I consider it safer. The one buddy I do have is at the same level, and we only occasionally dive together. Just because we are together, though, does not mean we have to abandon our methodologies just because we happen to be on the same wreck. It doesn't mean we arent there for each other just in case, or that we are not every bit as capable of assisting each other. It doesn't mean we don't look out for each other and execute our dive as a team. It only means that we are just as self sufficient when diving together, as we are when we dive alone. That makes us able to dive together as a team without being a liability to each other if the poo poo hits the props.


Please remember one thing. I'm not against DIR. I'm not saying its wrong or that it doesn't work. I'm just saying that it isn't the only thing thats not wrong, and works.

Dive Safe
Adam

 

[H2Andy]

I am pretty strongly opposed to using a line in a wreck penetration, except under very limited circumstances. If I can't navigate my way safely in and out of a wreck blind, I don't belong there. I don't want to deviate from the thread, but there is an example I will defend till my death, and will keep me from ever getting an official DIR rating.

[snip]


For me, I'm set in my ways, because it works for me, but that doesn't mean I don't consider change or try new things.

would you consider knowing the wreck blind AND laying line?

seems to me if for some reason you have to exit in zero vis,
it would help to have that line even if you know the wreck
blind.

in other words, why would you oppose using the line not as
a crutch but as a safety item, a back-up to your memory
and mental clarity?

 

[AADiveRex]

would you consider knowing the wreck blind AND laying line?

seems to me if for some reason you have to exit in zero vis,
it would help to have that line even if you know the wreck
blind.

in other words, why would you oppose using the line not as
a crutch but as a safety item, a back-up to your memory
and mental clarity?

Oh well. I knew when I wrote it that I was inviting this question, so here goes.

Let me start this off by admitting that I don't expect to convince anyone off of their practice. For every negative I suggest, there is a positive that can be countered. After weighing the benefits and the risks, and doing more than my fair share of dives both ways, I have opted not to use a line in most situations. That said, I will support my opinion.

In my opinion, a line in a wreck is a greater liability than safety tool. For one, it is an entanglement hazard. Especially in the areas where you might be most tempted to use it, such as areas of poor visibility and directional changes where there are more than one choice, entanglement is a real risk. If you navigate into tight quarters, this risk becomes even greater. Add a buddy, and the risk is doubled. Even if you are an expert with the line and avoid entanglement, it is very possible that someone else, who you are not even diving with, may become entangled in your line, and cut it to free themselves. I have seen this happen. I have followed cut lines as they dissapeared into the recesses of a wreck, and followed it back to some very wide eyed, lost divers, who were very happy to see me. I have rescued lost divers with birds nests of line wrapped all around them and led them out from their doom. Line becomes even more unmanageable when free, and there is no good way to deal with it. If you leave it slack where it lays to try and follow it out, it will bite you. If yopu reel it in, you can't follow it out.

Laying line in a wreck is not like laying line in a cave. Edges of most things are jagged and rusty and slices through line slicker than snot. In caves, flow, if there is any, is usually in one direction. You can wrap the line thus so it remains properly tensioned with the flow. In a wreck, surge moves water back and forth, sometimes violently. This back and forth motion frays line at every point of contact. Once severed, it becomes more of an entanglement hazard, as described above. In a wreck, every loop you make to secure the line is one additional possible point of fray. You need to weigh the need to secure the line with the need to minimize friction. They also do not always lay as you expect them to, sometimes they drift. They can get cought on something and be severed, or they can wind up in an area that when followed, lead the diver through a smaller part of the wreck that cannot be fit through. I have also seen this happen.

Caves are natural formations. They follow no predictable course or patterm. Wrecks are manmade structures. They are predictable, once you understand how they are built. You can use logic to navigate. There are often multiple points of possible exit, and light from the outside filters in to lead you to entry/exit points and to sometimes partially illuminate the way. Another important point to consider is that wreck penetrations are not typically measured in the thousands of feet, like a cave. In even the largest wrecks, you are rarely more than 50 feet from an exit. I challenge anyone to find a wreck penetration that puts you over 100 feet from an exit point.

The method I use to penetrate wrecks is a combination of progressive familiarization and visualization. In short, you repeatedly cover the same ground, progressing further each time as you become more familiar with the area. At the same time, you concentrate on visualizing physical structures to act as reference points to guide you back the way you came in the event of a total loss of visibility. Like using a line, this is a skill that requires practice, concentration, and skill. Trying to do both at once comprimises the effectiveness of both. Its task loading, which all technical divers know decreases performance. Trying to do an effective progressive penetration, AND visualization, AND laying a line for "Backup" means you are more likely to screw something up.

To run a line and not use it as a crutch is not as easy as it sounds. You wouldn't lay the line if you don't believe it can be used to guide you safely out. If its there, why not use it? To me, it inspires a false sense of security, and people can and do rely on the line to get them out. Cave divers especially use the line as a guide. In a cave, they rely on it. They don't "learn" every foot of the cave as they go in. To tell them to use it on a wreck but not to rely on it is a tall order.

Part of the responsibility every diver has is risk assumption. This means determining the risks, weighing them, devising the best plan for minimizing or eliminating them, and then again, evaluating the resulting methodology to make the choice as to if they will assume the responsibility of diving with that risk or not. In DIR, the methodology does the first parts. Outside of DIR, we do it for ourselves using the combined knowledge of what we have learned. Here, on this issue, risk exists both ways. If you choose to penetrate a wreck, you are taking a risk, regardless of how you choose to do it. I choose to take the risk without the line to eliminate that set of risks. In doing so, I am assuming the responsibility for the risk of not having a line. I have done over a thousand deep, long penetration dives into many wrecks, and this method works for me. When I teach wreck students, I teach them both ways, give them all the information on the risks present in both styles, and tell them how I do it and why. I make them practice and master both ways, and I make them do penetrations both ways. When they leave my course, they are capable of doing it both ways, and informed enough to decide how to proceed. Most important, they are aware of the risks involved in either way.

I'm not about to tell you or anyone else not to use a line in a wreck. That wasn't my goal in answering this request. What I did hope to accomplish, is to give you an understanding of some of the risks, so you can factor them in to your risk assesment.