Nick_Radov:
The DIR leadership has been pretty good at explaining why we do things a certain way. It's less good at explaining that alternative approaches have already been tried and rejected years ago. Then these ideas resurface every few years and around we go again, often playing a game of "telephone" with second- and third-hand information. It would be helpful to document not just the "why" but also the "why not" as the reasons aren't always obvious to those with limited experience, or who only do a single type of diving. Maybe we need something like a DIR wiki? Although it's difficult to get the real experts to devote much time to writing about the basics.
I would love to read something like that. Most of the decisions that went into the DIR system are easy to explain, but not everything.
I just watched some old videos (2004 I believe) on GUE.tv where they cover the point Nick makes above. Interesting stuff seeing their thought process and how they arrived at the standards.
Also, Fundamentals of Better Diving covers just about everything and a lot of the reasoning. For example, here is a little snippet from the book:
"To provide additional redundancy when using two first stages, the inflator hose should always be run from the right post. This requirement is illustrated in the case of a diver’s left post rolling off or breaking. If the
inflator is run from the left post, the diver will simultaneously lose not only the use of the backup regulator around the neck but also the ability to inflate the BC. These two problems together could be inordinately
compounded by an out-of-air situation in which a diver would not only be without the means of controlling his/her buoyancy but would also be deprived of the use of a third regulator (cf. note 7)."
Also I think they took into consideration a runaway power inflator. One would be able to swim down while simultaneously shutting down the right post and dumping gas from the left rear dump valve.
Interesting stuff.