Value of the DIR approach

[JeffG]

I am going to burn for this.......

I think that the DIR approach would be great for new divers. The regimented approach to things that the training take will cement a lot of the basics of diving so that it will become muscle memory, i.e. buoyancy, trim, kicking techniques and, above all, awareness. Once you have those things nailed and begin to learn more about your diving environment you will develop your own approach to the rest.

Burn? No. But you are misunderstanding DIR a bit.

buoyancy, trim, kicking techniques are not just for DIR. They are just fundamental skills of diving and as such, are really not a part of DIR. They should be a part of any divers tool kit. (The DIR-f class is a response to the fact that many of the fundamental skills are missing from a lot of divers.)


So the "bulk" of DIR's policies and procedures lie in the technical realm and thats why they would see the "most benefit".

But in the end its just one or many ways to skin a cat, so ta speak.

 

[Cacia]

Any dive that the diver perceives as dangerous. That will vary from diver to diver.

Standardization and conformity will be a benefit.

If I were cave diving or going below 130-140, I would want a reliable partner (I am really hating the term "buddy")

Wreck penetrations, it is nice to know some people in doubles.

DIR is a great source for methods and techniques, because it has all been "worked out", in a logical "structure follows function" design.

I like assimilating things one piece at a time, as opposed to agreeing to an entire mindset.
That way ALL options are available.

he he...poor viz.

Besides, if you run off to DIR, Jeff can't come in and that's no fun.

The great ace himself once said "there are no DIR divers, only DIR dives...I liked that"

 

[Blitz]

They certainly spend far more time developing those skills than a lot of instructors around here. I watch classes around here... I should that I watch silt clouds around here all the time. My point is that they spend more time concentrating on those skills. I would rather see instructors teaching students to hover horizontally rather than testing buoyancy by doing a 'genie hover'. Now, I should clearly state here that I am not a DIR diver and never intend to be.

 

[cool_hardware52]

Rapid responses are alot less important than accurate responses IMO. Confusion kills more than lack of speed.

I disagree. Rapid and accurate responses should be the goal of everyone that gets into the water.

Which is it? For me I want prompt, reflexive response to a very limited range of problems, OOG being at the top of the list. Most other problems are better contemplated a bit before acting.

Tobin

 

[JeffG]

They certainly spend far more time developing those skills than a lot of instructors around here.

That part is a "Part of DIR". The idea to practice to keep skills up to date for the real thing. Where the real thing could be a 60' reef dive or a 300' deco dive.

 

[cerich]

cerich, your last post is a good answer to my question. But given the existing state of dive instruction, rather than how it should be, do you see value?

It could be except for some issues. GUE will never (nor wants to) be the system for every diver. Logistics, quality control and even money play againts that. By the DIR purist, only GUE can be really DIR. Then we have guys like Andrew G. who break away from GUE (break away-kick away...same thing) who while I consider to be quite DIR no longer being so considered by others I consider DIR.

NAUI tech, well many of us come from a DIR approach and have taken GUE training, but some of the NAUI Tech instructors haven't and don't think/dive/teach even close to DIR. NAUI outside of tech is NOT DIR slanted. So NAUI won't be filling any gap for recreational divers ever.

Is an Instructor who has taken Fundies the best choice to teach a recreational course for any agency and to call it DIR? My feeling is not on your life, even as I don't teach a DIR course.

I also honestly don't believe that a diver in standard scuba gear that is well trained is at ANY increased risk of problems over a well trained diver in DIR configuration, the gear honestly isn't any safer. The long hose is nice, but comfortable divers can do fine with a Air2 in open water conditions.

One aspect that in fact Andrew G and I have debated often is the DIR approach to deco, quite frankly 75% of Fundies level divers don't really get ratio deco, they would be safer diving standard tables or computers. This is because most new to DIR divers are still working on in water skills and adjusting equipment during the training, and they don't have enough basic comprehension of normal deco theory to put it all together and actually use it effectivly. Too much too fast because their initial Open water left them not competent in the water. Just equipment changes and ratio deco and the sucess rate would be much higher.

What I hope will come from (and has to a degree) is that DIR willmake instructor look at what they are doing and step up to the plate, unfortunatly there are many factors in the industry that are still pushing the less is more attitude.

I don't know if I answered your question...

 

[TSandM]

I think what strikes me most often is the problems people have with poor buddies . . . We see a lot of posts here about people whose buddies swam off and left them, or failed to follow the dive plan, or ran out of air. To me, this is probably the single greatest benefit the system would offer to recreational divers. Buddy behavior and communication protocols. But the dive planning and gas planning would be valuable, too.

On the other hand, I don't do decompression diving or cave diving (yet), so I don't know how much of that kind of thing is pretty reliable in the technical community regardless of the school of technical training you've gone through. Maybe they have the same issues.

 

[theatis]

Great formulation of the issue/debate if a bit question begging in the following sense:

Why is there an assumed "quasi-natural" designation between 'rec diver' and 'tec diver'? And, BTW, i'm not saying that TSandM either created or is trying to perpetuate said designation. In fact, part of her intent may be to illuminate this question as well.

If we can accept a definition that separates 'rec diving' from 'tec diving' (and there have been many debates here on those labels as well) it does not necessarily follow that individuals who do either can be separated into 'rec divers' and 'tec divers' since they can go back and forth between the two activities, depending on how we differentiate them.

As i understand the principles of DIR as a philosophy, they appeal to me mostly because they don't enforce this dichotomization. In light of that, couldn't an answer to the posed question: "For which group is an approach involving standardized equipment, gases, skills and protocols going to offer the greatest increase in either comfort or safety?" be "such an approach is advantageous to both practices even though there don't have to be two distinct groups of individuals"?

 

[cool_hardware52]

A 1% benefit translated to a huge population of recreational divers may be just as important (in e.g. numbers of fatalities) as a 20% benefit in the smaller pool of technical divers.

This is a very intriguing idea. By what metric do you measure success?

The 1% to many argues in favor of being as inclusive as possible. The 20% for a few argues against it.

I have no idea how to pursue either, and know of no way to meassure the outcomes, but it's still and interesting point.


Tobin

 

[cerich]

I think what strikes me most often is the problems people have with poor buddies . . . We see a lot of posts here about people whose buddies swam off and left them, or failed to follow the dive plan, or ran out of air. To me, this is probably the single greatest benefit the system would offer to recreational divers. Buddy behavior and communication protocols. But the dive planning and gas planning would be valuable, too.

On the other hand, I don't do decompression diving or cave diving (yet), so I don't know how much of that kind of thing is pretty reliable in the technical community regardless of the school of technical training you've gone through. Maybe they have the same issues.

Come on Lynn! everybody has been taught to use turn signals when driving. How many do? I even see/hear people making statements that using a turn signal is dangerous.

People will be people, I've had Tech 2 GUE trained divers swim off by themself, I've been in the water on a lobster dive with 3 GUE instructors, and another 4 or 5 GUE Cave 1/Tech 1 or higher divers that were diving "same ocean same time". Because we all felt comfortable that we could easily perform a CESA from the 60-80 feet we were diving at. But that thinking would be by no means DIR. Some of them even following a computer...

These same folks on a tech dive worked flawlessly as a team, and even though I didn't and don't like a couple of them personally would dive anywhere with them.