lowwall:
Not going to argue that sentence two is a good idea.
But, wouldn't you consider requirements to use EAN and rec trimix at fixed depths a bit restrictive? I could be wrong about this of course, I only know what I've read here. If so, I'll be happy to retract the gas management part of my statement. As to dive planning, the requirement that everybody have the same setup is both unnecessary and unrealistic in many rec settings.
There's a whole 'nother thread on why people who are interested in the skills won't take DIR-F. Reading through it reinforces the idea that there's a need that is not being filled. Going back to my proposed training framework. I see the standalone fundamental skills class as being the most popular offering, at least at the beginning.
I won't say it's the only way to do it or to teach but a lot of what GUE does is worth spending the time to study.
I wouldn't say that there is anything about diving that's necessary but before we completely discount GUE standardization, why don't we try to understand the advantages and see if there's anything there that might help?
Using the same gasses for the same depth ranges does help get a feel for what your schedules/no stop limits will be. Whether you use tables, a computer or other methods, you'll know what to expect. It's familiarity.
It goes further though. That gas mixing itself is simplified. All the GUE mixes except for 30/30, EAN32, 21/35, 18/45, 15/55 and 10/70 are mixed by starting out with 32% and topping with air. If you bank 32% it's all pretty simple. Even if you don't bank anything, the math is simplified.
Remember, DIR is aimed at team diving. The process of getting a bunch of people on the same page and working together is simplified and less prone to error by having some rules. Driving a car on the left works as well as driving on the right unless some folks are on the right and some are on the left. In that case the result is a crash and probably lots of them.
You can certainly do without any one or all of those standardizations but 3 DIR guys from oposit ends of the country can meet in the middle for a dive and everything just clicks. All they have to plan are the things that are specific to the dive. All the mudane stuff is built into the system and doesn't need to be discussed again.
Additionally, the same methods and procedures they teach apply from shallow rec dives all the way through big exploration dives. You don't have to go backwards and change or relearn anything. Is having to ge back and change equipment or methods the end of the world? No, but it's more complicated than just having to do/learn everything once.
You'll find the same sort of advantages if you look at the rest of it.
Are they restrictions? A GUE trained diver can go out and dive any way they want just like anyone else. There's plenty of GUE trained divers diving shallow mexican caves on air and I know of one instructor who is or was a scubapro rep and uses an air2 for some of his diving.
How could some of those basic principles be of use to the average non-DIR rec diver? How many complaints do we see or hear everyday about insta-buddies. Every one has their equipment set up differently, everyone is using different computers that are calling for different things...one guy just watches his guage but has no idea how to plan gas useage and another has an air integrated computer that has no idea how much gas it will take to get the buddy to the surface. Things are further complicated by the wide range of skill levels, lack of any kind of consistant buddy/team procedures. Heck a group of divers new to eachother can't even descend and still be together when they hit the bottom. Frankly I'm amazed that any of them pull off a dive together ever and I'm certainly not surprised about all the buddy complaints that we hear. So ok, divers can do what they want and they can all do it differently but they are going to have trouble when they try to do it together and they do.
What is the commonly taught agency solution for divers using different computers? To follow the more conservative computer right? Great so you have to barrow everyone elses computer to simulate your dive and/or you need to be watching every one elses computer on the dive? Why even bring your own? When I dive I watch my bottom timmer and my SPG. My buddy knows the gas and ascent plan and there is no need for me to be looking at their guages. Which sounds easier to do on a dive? Want to avoid stupid mistakes? Keep it simple.
Pick a dive, specify a tank size and ask 10 divers when they should turn the dive or ascend based on gas supply. You'll probably get 10 different answers, most of which don't leave enough reserve for a worst case situation. Ask 10 GUE trained divers the same question and see if you don't get the same answer 10 times. Aside from teaching divers to calculate it, they provide them with some rock bottom numbers for variouse depths. If a student writes them down in his wet notes he has them for immediate reference and bingo, every one on the dive knows when to turn. How simple and fool proof is that by comparison?
GUE/DIR is an extreme. They teach team diving to a specific set of team guidlines. The rest of recreational training is the other extreme. They don't teach team diving at all...oh, I know they say that they do but when you examine it you see that they don't. They go astray right from the start,
the descent, because the largest training agency doesn't even require that a diver learn to conduct a descent with another diver. Even on training dives, how often do we see them meeting at the bottom. As often as problems occure on initial descent and as far as buddy diving goes, there isn't any sense in even evaluating the rest of the dive because by the time they're 10 ft down the dive is so hosed that they should be calling it and starting over from scratch.
This post is getting long and I want to cut it off but...what does it take for two or three divers to be able to descnd together, be aware of whats going on with the others and be prepared to respond to problems? Could we agree that this is a good way to start a dive? As I see it there are two main things. First is to know that there is a need to do it. Can you find an OW text that explains that descents and ascents are dynamic portions of the dive where problems are most likely to occure and that they need to be especially sharp at those times? Can we find an agency who's OW training standards require that divers demonstrate that they can do this with a buddy?Second is having the physical ability to do it...
nothing more than buoyancy control, trim and propulsion techniques. Forget looking at the rest of the dive, they don't have the necessary skill set to even begin the dive...it's taught in another class...or you get it with experience...or some such nonsense.
You can't even do a good job of starting a dive without the very skills that so many argue aren't needed by new or casual divers. Don't new and/or casual divers have the need to descend with a buddy? It seems to me that it applies to about every dive that anyone will ever do. Can we do with a little more standardization? I think so.
To much...do it your own way... and it gets almost impossible for any two to do it together. At the very least it becomes a feat of such complexity with so many variables that only the most experienced and highly skilled have much of a chance of pulling it off. It's the least experienced and least skilled that benefit most from just being told to "do it this way". Once you get really good, invent your own way but what we have here is a lot of people who can't do it at all argueing that they don't want to be told how they should do it.
Since they can't do it, we have a wonderful netwerk of resorts that are well staffed with DM's to heard divers around watching their gas, keeping them off the reef, deciding what dives they are able to do, planning the dive for them and doing everything except breathing for them. The resort standardizes the dives they offer. They dive about the same plan on every dive using the same gasses, taking the same routs and they tell all the divers exactly how they WILL do it. We can build the standardization into the training so divers can apply it as they see fit or we can build it into the supervision that we hope most divers are taking advantage of.
So, of all these divers who object to DIR, how many are really deciding how they want to dive as apposed to taking their marching orders from some DM?
What's restrictive? Some divers won't take a DIRF because they think the rules are restrictive. I don't dive on many resort boats because I find having a DM plan my dive for me, tell me that I MUST use a computer ect ect as WAY overly restrictive. You know like in that other thread where the DM posts about letting divers do as they please and have a good time while the staff observes them at the lodge, on the trip out sandwiches the divers between a DM in front and one in back and observes them on the trip back. Then they decide which divers will be allowed to do which dives and which they can invite on the special dives. Sounds like total diver freedom to me. LOL
