Why do you dismiss DIR?

[Lost Yooper]

So, Mike, do you believe that when comparing agency to agency (IANTD, TDI, GUE) that they all offer equally safe, quality instruction and have the best interest of the students in mind with their curriculum? I'm talking agency to agency here, not individual instructors.

Just curious.

Mike

 

[newton]

I think DIR (the attitude) is not applicable to my diving style.

However, DIR (the diving style) is applicable (although not a requirement) to all forms of diving. That means the use of BP/wings, long hose, being trained/prepared for bad things to occur (OOA, hose blowouts, regs getting messed up, etc...).

That is IMO *primarily* what GUE teaches, at least in DIR-F. I can't speak to Tech-1 or Cave-1, although according to my instructors, if you can master what is taught in DIR-F, Tech-1 and Cave-1 are fairly easy.

Some quick background. Last Fall, my wife and I drove 550+ miles (each way) from Montana to Seattle to take the DIR-F course taught by 5th Dimension in Seattle over a 3-day weekend. We didn't complete the course because my wife got too cold in the water of Puget sound and we were unable to complete our dives. It was a very tiring and expensive weekend, and knowing what I know now, I would do it over again. With that in mind, I consider my experience to be a representative sample of what DIR/GUE have to offer.

If I had to summarize what I was taught in DIR-F it's:

* Buoyancy/trim is your #1 concern while diving (it may be automatic for some, but it wasn't for anyone in my class).
One must have proper trim at *ALL* times (including during emergencies)
* By prepared for bad things to occur (OAA)
* Equipment can make a difference in your ability to deal with the above two issues.
* There are multiple ways to kick underwater, and some are better suited to silty environments
* Nitrogen is bad (Aka deep-air)
* Oxygen isn't much better, but is a necessary evil
* Helium is bad, but is better than anything else we have currently available (vs. Nitrogen && Oxygen)

Just to set the record straight, my wife and I learned a *TON* of information in my DIR-F course. In particular, my wife was especially convinced that deep-air was something to be avoided, which did not bother her previously. It was by far the best course I've taken since my OW course (and I've taken 4 additional courses after certification). The instructors challenged (humiliated?) me, and caused me to re-assess a number of beliefs I had learned during my initial OW classes that I believed to be absolute truth.

What I didn't like was:
* The *BLATENT* Halcyon marketing. This is obvious in both the DIR-F book as well as the class.
* The underlying attitude of the instructors. It seemed that the intent was to humiliate you, not to point out weaknesses. As the weekend progressed, it became obvious that there was no way to make the instructor(s) happy. More on both of these later.

Also, during the course, two of the members in the class mentioned that they've been diving with 36% Nitrox for a while now. The instructors chastized them for not using 'standard' mixes. When asked why 32% Nitrox (the DIR standard) was better than 36%, the answer was O2 toxicity (95' has PP02 of 1.4). However, the divers pointed out that the bottom of the sound where they are diving is around 80', so it's a non-issue. Finally after discussing among themselves, the answer given was "you wouldn't be able to dive with the DIR folks, since you'd be using non-standard equipment". The sad thing, is that the *reason* for using 32% Nitrox wasn't know to the instructors.

I spent months doing my own research as to why this particular mix was 'magical', and finally heard a talk given my George in Europe where he discussed the fact that there wasn't anything special about 32% Nitrogen, except that it was chosen at some point to *BE* the standard. However, no-one knows why this is, but if George says it, it must be 'Right'.

This kind of attitude (if George says it's true, it must be true) is why DIR in it's truest form is something I do not want to be associated with. Give me a *reason* for doing something that I can hang on my hood. I'm an intelligent person, let me make my own choices as to what is 'Right' and what is wrong. You're way *might* be better, but unless you inform me, I won't be a better diver just by emulating you unless I know *what* to emulate. (Aka, just because I wear a BP/Wings and use a long-hose, I therefore must be considered a DIR diver.)

Others have pointed out that there are nutcases in every group you join, and I'd have to agree with them. However, I'd also make the general statement that DIR tends to draw the kind of people toward it that are a reflection of it's leadership. And, the most public leader of the DIR movement is George, like it or not. Yes, JJ is his alter-ego and is easier to get along with, but he is not nearly the force that George is in DIR. (One can say that JJ is the one making money off George's idea, and as such is much more senstive to the public perception of DIR.)

Because of George's personality, it is my opinion (based on mailing list discussions, Internet chat rooms, BBS experience, descriptions of others who have taken GUE classes, and my own experience) that the DIR movement (and GUE) tends to get a larger share of zealots/obnoxious people than most other organizations. The DIR way is to put-down anything it doesn't like, rather than lift up it's ways as being better. (Deep-Air is bad, Bungied Wings are Bad, OMS is bad, PADI is bad, the dive industry is bad, if you disagree with me you're as dumb as a farm animal, I'm smarter than you, I know more than you, you are stupid, etc..)

Case in point is Uncle Pug and Lost Yooper. How many of the folks on this board were *pleasantly* suprised (shocked perhaps?) to find two such fine individuals who are DIR advocates, but who do not resort to name-calling and put-downs to get their point across? I know I was, and I appreciate both of them immensely for their wisdom. If the public leadership of the DIR movement were more like these two, then DIR would be *more* acceptable to folks.

I guess to summarize I feel that the DIR 'system' has alot of good points, but because of it's unflexibility (primarily due to the inflexibility of it's leader) to extend and embrace new ideas, it will continue to cause a rift and not allow it's many of it's good ideas to be considered by the general dive community.

Fortunately, with it gaining wider notoriety/exposure, there are people like UP and LY who are trying to show by positive example why it's a better system.

 

[Lost Yooper]

Thanks Newton. The merits really speak for themselves, but the trick is getting message acrossed to people willing to think about it. It's funny that new divers are a lot more open to DIR than most. They haven't been exposed to the darkside of DIR and all the DIR debates. They can look at DIR quite objectively and see the merits for what they are. When the attitude is ignored, or unknown, all you have left is the merits. The merits of the philosophy is all that is relevant to me.

Take care.

Mike

 

[newton]

Originally posted by Lost Yooper
So, Mike, do you believe that when comparing agency to agency (IANTD, TDI, GUE) that they all offer equally safe, quality instruction and have the best interest of the students in mind with their curriculum? I'm talking agency to agency here, not individual instructors.

I'll bite here.

We all agree that "it's the instructor, not the curriculum", right? (If not, then this is a moot point.)

Do you *honestly* believe that IANTD and TDI instructors are intentionally providing unsafe poor-quality instructions? Do you believe that the parent organizations are *intentionally* ignoring valid/defendable/provable new methods and sticking with older methods because they want to make more money?

How is teaching Deep-Air making them more money than teaching something else (tri-mix)?

Do you honestly believe that they are afraid that by changing their curriculum, they open themselves up to legal liability, and that's why they aren't doing it?

Or, is there even a remote possibility that they may have reasons beyond making money and decreasing their legal risks for continuing to teach a certain method?

I guess I'd like to give these agencies the benefit of the doubt. Rather than taking the DIR/George approach (shoot first, ask questions later), I'd rather use positive methods to convince someone of something. It seems to work on ScubaBoard, so why won't it work outside in the real world?

 

[Lost Yooper]

This wasn't the direction I wanted this thread to go, but I'll talk about anything .

Originally posted by newton

We all agree that "it's the instructor, not the curriculum", right? (If not, then this is a moot point.)

Yes, an instructor can make all the difference. However, if an agency allows the use of unsafe dive practices, then they lose credibility, IMO.

Do you *honestly* believe that IANTD and TDI instructors are intentionally providing unsafe poor-quality instructions? Do you believe that the parent organizations are *intentionally* ignoring valid/defendable/provable new methods and sticking with older methods because they want to make more money?

Yes I do, believe it or not. I'm not afraid of saying so either. The fact of the matter is that helium (and argon, oxygen, etc.) is expensive and many divers don't want to pay for it (or it may not be available). As a result, there is a demand for deep air "training". TDI, ANDI, PADI, and NAUI (IANTD in other countries) are there to supply the demand. Deep air is proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be physiologically dangerous -- and they all know it. If they would simply eliminate deep air thinking from the industry (make it a virtual taboo), they would be doing something genuinely good.

How is teaching Deep-Air making them more money than teaching something else (tri-mix)?

As I said above, there's a demand for it, so they fill that demand. If they discontinued the deep air classes, they would lose prospective students who can't/won't afford trimix.

Do you honestly believe that they are afraid that by changing their curriculum, they open themselves up to legal liability, and that's why they aren't doing it?

Possibly. By doing so, they are effectively admitting to having taught unsafe practices that directly lead to the deaths and injuries of thousands of divers. I place more weight on the supply and demand of it though.

Or, is there even a remote possibility that they may have reasons beyond making money and decreasing their legal risks for continuing to teach a certain method?

I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it comes down to money.

I guess I'd like to give these agencies the benefit of the doubt. Rather than taking the DIR/George approach (shoot first, ask questions later), I'd rather use positive methods to convince someone of something. It seems to work on ScubaBoard, so why won't it work outside in the real world?

I'd rather use positive methods too. I don't like the rudeness of a lot DIR (and NON DIR) advocates. I may respect what they have done; I may understand why they are the way they are; I may continue to learn from them; but I don't subscribe to the rude and foul attitude. I, too, have to wade through all the BS some of these guys put out and take in the really valuable stuff.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Uncle Pug]

Originally posted by newton
I think DIR (the attitude) is not applicable to my diving style.

The *bad* attitude I agree with you... but I find that there is a *good* attitude toward diving that is an important and intergral part of preparing for technical diving: The attitude that takes diving very seriously and not *laissez faire, jump in the ditch and thrash around.* (self description pre-DIR)

However, DIR (the diving style) is applicable (although not a requirement) to all forms of diving. That means the use of BP/wings, long hose, being trained/prepared for bad things to occur (OOA, hose blowouts, regs getting messed up, etc...).

Agreed... but DIR is really directed at the kind of diving where such things become really important.

That is IMO *primarily* what GUE teaches, at least in DIR-F. I can't speak to Tech-1 or Cave-1, although according to my instructors, if you can master what is taught in DIR-F, Tech-1 and Cave-1 are fairly easy.

Uh...that was a come on.... nobody gets through Tech 1 easy! And nobody gets past Andrew in 5 days either! At least not recently

Some quick background. Last Fall, my wife and I drove 550+ miles (each way) from Montana to Seattle to take the DIR-F course taught by 5th Dimension in Seattle over a 3-day weekend. We didn't complete the course because my wife got too cold in the water of Puget sound and we were unable to complete our dives. It was a very tiring and expensive weekend, and knowing what I know now, I would do it over again. With that in mind, I consider my experience to be a representative sample of what DIR/GUE have to offer.

That is one of the difficulties of coming from so far to take the class... the locals can come back. However the problem with being a local is that Andrew is much harder on you.... he even admits it!

* The underlying attitude of the instructors. It seemed that the intent was to humiliate you, not to point out weaknesses. As the weekend progressed, it became obvious that there was no way to make the instructor(s) happy. More on both of these later.

Uh huh...it probably seemed that they wanted to humiliate you, and I know one guy who ended up crying they had him so messed up... (he's on the board so we'll see if he confesses) ...but the point was to expose your weaknesses.... and that is what ended up humiliating you. The reason for this is to help you find and deal with those weaknesses in 20~30fsw so that when you get to the big dives you will know how to handle the situation with confindence. DIRF is not a recreational course... it is a preparatory course for Tech 1... and you are right...There is absolutely no way to make Andrew happy.... no matter how good you are he will find something... he is excels at that

Also, during the course, two of the members in the class mentioned that they've been diving with 36% Nitrox for a while now. The instructors chastized them for not using 'standard' mixes. When asked why 32% Nitrox (the DIR standard) was better than 36%, the answer was O2 toxicity (95' has PP02 of 1.4). However, the divers pointed out that the bottom of the sound where they are diving is around 80', so it's a non-issue.

Actually there is a good reason for 32 but this has gone on too long so I will get to it at another time...
but it is not just "cuz George said" :yelling:

Case in point is Uncle Pug and Lost Yooper. How many of the folks on this board were *pleasantly* suprised (shocked perhaps?) to find two such fine individuals who are DIR advocates, but who do not resort to name-calling and put-downs to get their point across?

Aw.. shucks... :blush:

 

[jetblast00]

Man, I thought I was the only one... The ghost of Andrew still hovers over my shoulder everytime I get in the water. I can hear him snicker and say "get out of the water already, man" everytime I feel my trim go off a bit...

But that makes me determained to keep at it and get it right... guess the GUE method worked and is working for me.

 

[newton]

newton writes
I think DIR (the attitude) is not applicable to my diving style.

UP writes
The *bad* attitude I agree with you... but I find that there is a *good* attitude toward diving that is an important and intergral part of preparing for technical diving: The attitude that takes diving very seriously and not *laissez faire, jump in the ditch and thrash around.* (self description pre-DIR)

True, but DIR-F wasn't targeted towards technical divers. It was for people who want to improve their diving skills, and *potentially* become technical divers. Sort of a stepping stone with material that doesn't hurt to have even if you never do a technical dive the rest of your life.

newton writes
However, DIR (the diving style) is applicable (although not a requirement) to all forms of diving.

UP writes
Agreed... but DIR is really directed at the kind of diving where such things become really important.

Ok, but the DIR movement is making the statement that DIR is *more* than just something for technical diving. It's for all kinds of diving.

newton writes
although according to my instructors, if you can master what is taught in DIR-F, Tech-1 and Cave-1 are fairly easy.

UP writes
Uh...that was a come on.... nobody gets through Tech 1 easy! And nobody gets past Andrew in 5 days either! At least not recently

I'm not the one that said it. I'm just repeating what the one instructor said to the other. (PS, Andrew wasn't one of the instructors for DIR-F. There were two locals, and a guy they flew in from the Bay Area who taught the class.)

newton writes
The underlying attitude of the instructors. It seemed that the intent was to humiliate you, not to point out weaknesses. As the weekend progressed, it became obvious that there was no way to make the instructor(s) happy.

UP writes
Uh huh...it probably seemed that they wanted to humiliate you, and I know one guy who ended up crying they had him so messed up... (he's on the board so we'll see if he confesses) ...but the point was to expose your weaknesses.... and that is what ended up humiliating you.

I disagree. My weaknesses (and the weakness of my classmates) were obvious after the first dive. After the very first dive, we all realized that our trim sucked, that any attempt to do even simple tasks caused our buoyancy to go out the window, and that we didn't have the *any* training in emergency procedures. Adding more and more crazy situations to the mix (you're at 200 feet and have been there for 15 minutes, your mask is ripped off, your partner is tied up in kelp) was *way* over the top for a bunch of poor slobs who couldn't even do an air-share without popping to the surface at 20'.

The reason for this is to help you find and deal with those weaknesses in 20~30fsw so that when you get to the big dives you will know how to handle the situation with confindence. DIRF is not a recreational course... it is a preparatory course for Tech 1...

That's not how it was advertised to me, or to a couple of the other participants in class. And, FWIW, DIR-F is currently being advertised as 'DIR-Recreational' by 5th-D, so unless they've changed the course-work, it's even more tailored for recreational SCUBA.

Humiliation may work for the military, but I don't see it as an appropriate teaching method for *any* kind of diving.

Actually there is a good reason for 32 but this has gone on too long so I will get to it at another time...
but it is not just "cuz George said" :yelling:

If that's so, why don't even the GUE instructors know the reason? (And, according the the talk George gave in Europe, it's because it was a good gas to standaradize on, not necessarily the *best* gas, because there was no one 'best' gas for all situations.)

(And, I would be interested in hearing your take on this. I spent 3 months looking for an answer, and the one I have currently isn't very satisfying.

In any case, thanks for jumping in. It's nice to get both you and LY's opinion on this. I learn more from low-emotion interactions than from highly-charged interactions.

I've decided that trying to read tech-diver is simply a waste of time, simply because I can't get past the attitude of the folks 'attempting' to educate the poor innocent unwashed such as myself.

 

[TRUETEXAN]

Hey yoop,
I really enjoy reading your posts, you unselfishly help people all the time on these boards by giving good solid information without resorting to telling them that they aren't "dong it right", or that they aren't wearing a backplate and wings, or breathing the long hose, but yet you directly answer their questions to the best of your ability, this also makes me think that deep down you also think that there is probably more than one way to do anything, let alone diving. Here is an example of how I see the the DIR thing. Other than diving my hobbies also include driving dragsters and drag boats, when I am in these vehicles doing this very specialized task, " such as cave & wreck diving are ", I wear a full fire suit, fireproof gloves, boots, and a helmet, however when I get in my truck and drive to work or go to the lake in my play boat, I do not wear these things, would they make my transit a safer one? probably.Would it be overkill? Definitly.This is how I see the DIR system. If I wanted to become a cave diver I would be the first one in line to go get DIR training, and I may do it anyway becase I like to learn and I realize that when you close your mind to new ideas, you can no longer advance, can you? I realize that in order to have faith in anything that you have to believe in it with all of your heart, and the DIR folks do that exactly. They have taken a system that they have proven works, simplified it, and to their belief perfected it, but what makes them think that they are the only people in the world that are capable of doing this? This is not a cookie-cutter world that we live in, and not everybody fits the DIR mold, does this mean that they are stupid and should not be allowed to dive? Most if not all people have to be given a reason why the should do something, as in how will it benefit them and so on, not just be told to do it because someone says so. Do you buy a car just because the salesman told you to? Or did you want to know the features and benefits first and how much it would cost? That is just my take on this situation for what it's worth. And I totally respect the way you handle this discussion Yoop, and you are welcome to come down an dive with us anytime!

 

[Uncle Pug]

Originally posted by newton
Ok, but the DIR movement is making the statement that DIR is *more* than just something for technical diving. It's for all kinds of diving.

I am not having a DIR movement myself....
While I agree that everything I have learned in DIR is an excellent way to do every kind of recreational limits diving I had been doing... it is certainly not the only way... though I must admit that the viz has cleared up remarkably in all my favorite dive sites

I'm not the one that said it. I'm just repeating what the one instructor said to the other. (PS, Andrew wasn't one of the instructors for DIR-F. There were two locals, and a guy they flew in from the Bay Area who taught the class.)

MHK is a teddy bear compared to Andrew... be thankful

I disagree. My weaknesses (and the weakness of my classmates) were obvious after the first dive. After the very first dive, we all realized that our trim sucked, that any attempt to do even simple tasks caused our buoyancy to go out the window, and that we didn't have the *any* training in emergency procedures. Adding more and more crazy situations to the mix (you're at 200 feet and have been there for 15 minutes, your mask is ripped off, your partner is tied up in kelp) was *way* over the top for a bunch of poor slobs who couldn't even do an air-share without popping to the surface at 20'.

The amazing thing is... if you go practice what you were taught and master the skills you will be a far better diver... and then when you come back for Tech 1 you will be reduced to a non-diver who just wants to take up golf... and then after you go practice.... ect. ect.

This is not for everyone! Out of five of us (dive buddies) who took the DIRF one didn't finish.... and only Shane and I went on...
Hey we all still dive together on the kinds of dives we can...

That's not how it was advertised to me, or to a couple of the other participants in class. And, FWIW, DIR-F is currently being advertised as 'DIR-Recreational' by 5th-D, so unless they've changed the course-work, it's even more tailored for recreational SCUBA.

I know... that is the original name but it was started by Andrew because people were not ready for Tech 1 and they needed a fundamentals class... which is what it is in reality

Humiliation may work for the military, but I don't see it as an appropriate teaching method for *any* kind of diving.

I agree with your first assertion but not with your second.... it is definitely like boot camp in some respects and that is not for everyone.... but it worked for me.

If that's so, why don't even the GUE instructors know the reason? (And, according the the talk George gave in Europe, it's because it was a good gas to standaradize on, not necessarily the *best* gas, because there was no one 'best' gas for all situations.)

Andrew would have explained it to you. And a generalization from George is being misconstrued. I will do my best to give you the reason in a separate post (pretty simple really.)
[/B][/QUOTE]