DIR- GUE Why are non-GUE divers so interested in what GUE does?

[Lorenzoid]

... but from a marketing perspective Doing it Right is a terrible slogan ...

Which is why GUE has for a number of years now only used "DIR"; they no longer use "Doing It Right."

Geeky note: I had to look it up, but I believe "DIR" would be considered an "orphaned initialism." Letters that no longer stand for anything.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

On another note, I have done some DIR diving courses and prescribe to a lot, but not all of the DIR tenants, but from a marketing perspective Doing it Right is a terrible slogan, it implies that every other way of doing it is wrong. You don't win a lot of friends by telling them if they don't do it your way they are doing it wrong.

This could be urban legend, but didn't DIR come about from the WKPP/GUE folks being told they are doing it wrong? They got sick of it and responded "No, we are doing it right." And thus "DIR" was born.

Anyone with far more knowledge of the history, please correct me.

 

[boulderjohn]

This could be urban legend, but didn't DIR come about from the WKPP/GUE folks being told they are doing it wrong? They got sick of it and responded "No, we are doing it right." And thus "DIR" was born.

Anyone with far more knowledge of the history, please correct me.

George Irvine was asked why the WKPP had such a good safety record, and he responded that it was because they were "doing it right."

 

[jadairiii]

George Irvine was asked why the WKPP had such a good safety record, and he responded that it was because they were "doing it right."

George also referenced "doing it right" in an article in
DeepTech magazine, explaining the "Hogarthian system", last sentence of the article:

"......If it doesn't feel like fun, then it's not. If it's not clean and simple, it's not Hogarthian. If it's not Hogarthian, it's not right. If you're not doing it right, don't do it at all!” (G. Irvine, DeepTech 1995)

This could be the article that coined the phrase. I believe it also show up in print in an Aquacorps article he wrote.

 

[Adobo]

great, now normalize this data. What % of divers dive DIR? if the number is 10% and 20% of accidents/incidents occur with DIR dives there is a problem. If 10% are DIR and 5% of accidents and incidents are DIR divers it would be an indication that DIR is effective at reducing accidents/incidents.

Chasing these statistics is a fool's errand. I don't need to look at statistics to intuit certain things in life including:
- better training yields better divers (and better divers have a better chance at executing a given dive successfully). Related to this, I wouldn't hesitate to take fundies, tech 1 or cave 1 from any of the currently active GUE instructors. I could pull an instructor's name out of a hat and be confident that whoever it is, I will get great training. Can you say the same for any other agency?
- learning one good way to handle an emergency and learning it from the beginning is superior to learning 5 different ways to handle the same emergency. Standards in gear and procedures minimizes confusion and unpredictability in emergencies.
- two brains and two sets of eyes are better than one at proactively spotting issues before they escalate
- making decisions using cost as the sole deciding factor inevitably results in compromised safety. Related to this, deep air is less safe than a properly chosen gas mix.

It is be selective with statistics to show that a DiR consistent approach to a dive doesn't yield better safety or even, worse safety. We could certainly focus on DiR dives where incidents took place (and there have been several) to show that the DiR approach is not fool proof. Those statistics will never convince me that solo deep air diving is safer than the way DiR divers would execute the same dive.

Not bashing DIR, just trying to keep data in context. There is a lot of invalid conclusions drawn from data throughout society.

Yes I realize that there is virtually no way to gather this data because the governance structure of scuba diving does not allow it, except perhaps with BSAC who seem to be a lot better at it.

On another note, I have done some DIR diving courses and prescribe to a lot, but not all of the DIR tenants, but from a marketing perspective Doing it Right is a terrible slogan, it implies that every other way of doing it is wrong.

Which courses have you taken that are DiR? If they were not with GUE, what makes you say they were DiR?

You don't win a lot of friends by telling them if they don't do it your way they are doing it wrong.

Let's get real. No one is on this thread or even in this forum to "make friends". We are here to discuss and exchange ideas related to how we approach diving. The so called "slogan" was not intended to make friends. It was intended to convey and idea. Sometimes the most important things that others have to say are not to our liking. I prefer honesty and truth over friendliness when I am trying to learn.

People have been crying over the term "doing it right" for decades. You know what I say? Who cares. We are all big boys and big girls. If your feelings get that hurt over such a term, it makes me wonder why you would even endeavor to do big boy and big girl dives.

 

[kierentec]

This has been a super interesting read. While I do not have time to respond to every point made, I would generally say (based solely on the responses in this thread) that the majority of those who are aggressively against GUE are simply very mistaken on many of their arguments. Whether it's based on personal experiences with one or a few GUE divers or instructors (not looking at the community as a whole), or their misinterpretation of the SOPs, equipment configuration or curriculum, they are simply mistaken (as I ABSOLUTELY was prior to taking a fundamentals course, the CCR configuration in particular) and it would be a shame if those who ARE "GUE curious" to read those responses and form an opinion based on that. As an active GUE instructor and instructor trainer for multiple agencies at all levels and project diver with groups within and outside of GUE, I may have a slightly different perspective to many of those who have responded here so far. So, if you're out there and genuinely curious, please feel free to reach out to me directly and I can clarify any questions or doubts you may have.

Those who have responded saying it's a cost or time barrier, or they are just interested in taking a peek at the SOPs to see if they want to implement anything into their own diving are, of course, very valid reasons.

The only person I would like to address directly is @boulderjohn. You have extensive experience in education, which, outside of diving, I do not. Hearing your input is super beneficial to me. Your comments about how the curriculum might be flawed because we have students who do not pass the first time around is intriguing. We constantly strive to improve our training, we have an instructor forum and monthly meetings where all GUE instructors speak regularly of the struggles we see with students and how we can adjust the curriculum to better set them up for success. So any input you have based on your educational experience is valuable and may be brought forward.

So my questions/comments to you are:

1. At the fundamentals level, this is most often the very first exposure we have to a student, not knowing their level of proficiency coming in. I would say it's a bit different than academia where there is more widely accepted standardization. The skill level of a brand new open water diver can vary greatly, as can that for an advanced trimix or cave instructor trianer. GUE certainly does hold higher standards than the other organizations (NOT speaking of individual instructors, which there are certainly excellent ones outside of GUE), and the fundamentals course is designed to refine a diver's skillset, no matter their starting point and introduce them to GUE SOPs and the community. I find it important to tell all my students that skill development and improvement, NOT a certification, is how we gauge success at that level. Of the 80 some GUE students I've worked with, I have absolutely never had a student feel they were not "successful" in that regard.

In your opinion, how would you suggest GUE change the fundamentals curriculum to ensure a higher pass rate on the first go?

2. Students also occasionally provisional in level 1 courses (Cave 1, Tech 1) and higher. This is a point where your theory may prove to be relevant. However, diving skills absolutely degrade without practice, conditions may be different (water temperature, visibility, current/flow, etc), and at the fundamentals level it is virtually impossible to cover all of those variables. So, we place the responsibility on the divers themselves to ensure they are comfortable and familiar with the equipment and conditions they will be training in and still able to perform to the tech pass level on day one (they are very well of what the standard is). With the majority of my C1 students who have provisionaled their first time around, I had a good idea within 10 minutes of being in the water with them that that would be the outcome (and we have that discussion that day). Often, students do improve rapidly and surprise me, though. Before a Cave 1 student books onto a course with me, I tell them that if they are unsure if their foundational skills are still up to standard, they are more than welcome to send me a quick video of S-drills/valve drills and kicks. Few take me up on that offer. We also always suggest divers do a day or 2 of shakedown dives immediately prior to the start of the course to knock off any rust.

We also require a minimum of 25 experience dives before moving from level 1 to level 2, which helps ensure they have relevant and recent experience before moving forward.

What input do you have regarding improving the success rate for level 1 (and above) courses? It seems if we add more to fundamentals, we will lower the pass rate at that level. Do we add more courses inbetween level 1 and 2, or maybe require students "test in" immediately before starting the next course?

Thanks for any suggestions you may have!

 

[boulderjohn]

This has been a super interesting read. While I do not have time to respond to every point made, I would generally say (based solely on the responses in this thread) that the majority of those who are aggressively against GUE are simply very mistaken on many of their arguments. Whether it's based on personal experiences with one or a few GUE divers or instructors (not looking at the community as a whole), or their misinterpretation of the SOPs, equipment configuration or curriculum, they are simply mistaken (as I ABSOLUTELY was prior to taking a fundamentals course, the CCR configuration in particular) and it would be a shame if those who ARE "GUE curious" to read those responses and form an opinion based on that. As an active GUE instructor and instructor trainer for multiple agencies at all levels and project diver with groups within and outside of GUE, I may have a slightly different perspective to many of those who have responded here so far. So, if you're out there and genuinely curious, please feel free to reach out to me directly and I can clarify any questions or doubts you may have.

Those who have responded saying it's a cost or time barrier, or they are just interested in taking a peek at the SOPs to see if they want to implement anything into their own diving are, of course, very valid reasons.

The only person I would like to address directly is @boulderjohn. You have extensive experience in education, which, outside of diving, I do not. Hearing your input is super beneficial to me. Your comments about how the curriculum might be flawed because we have students who do not pass the first time around is intriguing. We constantly strive to improve our training, we have an instructor forum and monthly meetings where all GUE instructors speak regularly of the struggles we see with students and how we can adjust the curriculum to better set them up for success. So any input you have based on your educational experience is valuable and may be brought forward.

So my questions/comments to you are:

1. At the fundamentals level, this is most often the very first exposure we have to a student, not knowing their level of proficiency coming in. I would say it's a bit different than academia where there is more widely accepted standardization. The skill level of a brand new open water diver can vary greatly, as can that for an advanced trimix or cave instructor trianer. GUE certainly does hold higher standards than the other organizations (NOT speaking of individual instructors, which there are certainly excellent ones outside of GUE), and the fundamentals course is designed to refine a diver's skillset, no matter their starting point and introduce them to GUE SOPs and the community. I find it important to tell all my students that skill development and improvement, NOT a certification, is how we gauge success at that level. Of the 80 some GUE students I've worked with, I have absolutely never had a student feel they were not "successful" in that regard.

In your opinion, how would you suggest GUE change the fundamentals curriculum to ensure a higher pass rate on the first go?

2. Students also occasionally provisional in level 1 courses (Cave 1, Tech 1) and higher. This is a point where your theory may prove to be relevant. However, diving skills absolutely degrade without practice, conditions may be different (water temperature, visibility, current/flow, etc), and at the fundamentals level it is virtually impossible to cover all of those variables. So, we place the responsibility on the divers themselves to ensure they are comfortable and familiar with the equipment and conditions they will be training in and still able to perform to the tech pass level on day one (they are very well of what the standard is). With the majority of my C1 students who have provisionaled their first time around, I had a good idea within 10 minutes of being in the water with them that that would be the outcome (and we have that discussion that day). Often, students do improve rapidly and surprise me, though. Before a Cave 1 student books onto a course with me, I tell them that if they are unsure if their foundational skills are still up to standard, they are more than welcome to send me a quick video of S-drills/valve drills and kicks. Few take me up on that offer. We also always suggest divers do a day or 2 of shakedown dives immediately prior to the start of the course to knock off any rust.

We also require a minimum of 25 experience dives before moving from level 1 to level 2, which helps ensure they have relevant and recent experience before moving forward.

What input do you have regarding improving the success rate for level 1 (and above) courses? It seems if we add more to fundamentals, we will lower the pass rate at that level. Do we add more courses inbetween level 1 and 2, or maybe require students "test in" immediately before starting the next course?

Thanks for any suggestions you may have!

I am going to take this out of the thread.

 

[eelpout]

Couple years ago I was interested in GUE because I had thought it could teach me a few new tricks/ skills that would ultimately make me just that much more comfortable in the water.

That's it - in a nutshell - right there. Whatever comfort level you're at - GUE has the potential to make you just slightly more comfy. So does any scuba school, honestly.

I beg to differ on your last comment " GUE has the potential to make you just slightly more comfy. So does any scuba school, honestly." I suggest that anybody interested in GUE read "THE FUNDAMENTALS OF BETTER DIVING (2021)". It is the updated version of of the First book " DOING IT RIGHT: THE FUNDAMENTALS OF BETTER DIVING" . The concept is trying to make you a better diver. That takes effort and practice. Just the concept of improving your health and physical endurance in the water will make you better equipped for more strenuous dives and potential emergency situations that can arise. In 40+ years of being a diving professional, my experience in my Fundamentals class made me a better diver all around. First and foremost , it humbled my opinion of my skill level. With that it motivated me to improve. set old politics aside, GUE has a has a VERY high standard for their instructors, so it is not a like many Instructor certification programs out there.

 

[Germie]

I believe the topic has changed in what is dir and what is not.

I dive DIR, if it is needed. But not always. Or maybe I do most of my dives as DIR also means take the gear needed for a dive. But yes, I also dive solo sometimes and I like to do it.
I already had a backmount and a sidemount ccr before gue accepted rebreather diving. Maybe I am already an dinosaur in diving then.
I already dove sidemount way before this was done in the 'DIR' community.

In my eyes DIR means Doing It Relaxed. And that fits better than all the other ways of saying you do it wrong or you do it right.
I can explain pro's and con's about dir or non dir. I think that is also important, respect and accept other divers. There is no best. And every diver started as a beginner.

So let's DOING IT RELAXED.

 

[loosenit2]

Which is why GUE has for a number of years now only used "DIR"; they no longer use "Doing It Right."

Geeky note: I had to look it up, but I believe "DIR" would be considered an "orphaned initialism." Letters that no longer stand for anything.

was curious so i pulled out my GUE materials, specifically their comprehensive "Beginning with the End in Mind" dtd 2009. Doing it Right is spelled out 67 times in the 503 page document.

Cant find it spelled out in any of my UTD materials.