Why is this not the standard?

[cascas]

Defining a standardized set of equipment and procedures as "Doing it Right" implies that anything else is "Doing it Wrong" or, at the very least "Not Doing it Right."
This irritates and aggravates many of us.

It aggravates you because you let it aggravate you. The term 'Dir' should be read in it's proper context. And that is where it originated.. In cave diving. Nothing more nothing less....

Besides.. Jj doesn't use the term dir much... I never heard him use it

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Desire HD A9191 met Tapatalk

 

[quickfreze]

I agree with FoxHound that everyone has their own opinion from what their style of diving is. I personally work at a shop which carries all the major brands in rec and tec, and I have always enjoyed the simplicity of a normal bcd (which used to be my personal preference). But since I started venturing into sidemount awhile back I really love the tight feel of a speed harness and my nomad setup built with new transpac tech. Even being a smaller guy, 5'7" 135, I feel sidemount is much easier to dive as long as you care enough about diving to put the time in and learn. Since changing styles I have put my SP Litehawk up for sale (which I still have for a good price if anyone's looking) and moved to what I think are MUCH more comfy and stable rigs. In the end though just do what's comfortable for you. If you want those shoulder pads, grab a pair and take the 10min to install them. Personally though I'll stick to my SS bp, Oxycheq speed harness and hog 32lb wing, which are my new all time favs.

 

[DevonDiver]

I agree with FoxHound that everyone has their own opinion from what their style of diving is.

I agree, but to incorrectly 'name' or associate your own specific 'style' to a formalized approach is silly. There are a number of formal approaches to equipment configuration - 'DIR', 'Hogarthian'... and a wider range of agency-mandated equipment philosophies.

If you choose to follow a pre-mandated philosophy or set of standards that's fine. If you don't, that's fine also. I just think that it doesn't help wider community understanding when people incorrectly label themselves as following a pre-set philosophy or standard, when they actually aren't.

Most of the formalized philosophies have a strong reasoning behind them. As such, they present a very good starting point to less experienced divers - simply because they cover options and issues that the individual diver may not have knowledge of. Choosing to deviate from a well considered philosophy, that was developed by well experienced divers and is based upon practical lessons learnt on high-end dives, should be upon the basis of credible research, discussion and decision based upon risk and reward.

Of course, we're primarily talking about philosophy in regard to technical level diving. Recreational divers may benefit from certain 'best practices' inherited from the tech community, but - in reality - the risks and demands of recreational scope diving do not necessitate the refinement and standardization promoted by many of the equipment philosophies out there.

 

[TSandM]

the risks and demands of recreational scope diving do not necessitate the refinement and standardization promoted by many of the equipment philosophies out there.

No, but they benefit from them, when they are adopted.

 

[DevonDiver]

No, but they benefit from them, when they are adopted.

I agree completely. Necessary and beneficial being different states...

 

[elan]

Defining a standardized set of equipment and procedures as "Doing it Right" implies that anything else is "Doing it Wrong" or, at the very least "Not Doing it Right."

This is at least not logical, doing something "right" does not imply that any other ways are "wrong". Chinese eat with sticks, Europeans with forks and spoons. They both must be doing it right as they stay alive and nations exist.

 

[nimoh]

JJ is mistaken. It isn't standardization that is "frequently misunderstood" - it is the arrogance and the implication in the DIR term itself. Defining a standardized set of equipment and procedures as "Doing it Right" implies that anything else is "Doing it Wrong" or, at the very least "Not Doing it Right."
This irritates and aggravates many of us.
I proposed changing the name to the much less confrontational "Doing it Rite" a la "Dive Rite" as a "Rite" is a far more accurate term for any set of standardized equipment and procedures, but that's fallen on deaf ears. Clinging to the acronym in the face of the many and varied objections may be viewed as the "right" thing to do among its devotees, but I'll just stick with my floaty yellow hose and tow strap harness
Rick

If you don't consider DIR to be "doing it right", then do you have any examples of aspects of DIR that are, in your opinion, wrong?

 

[Blackwood]

If you don't consider DIR to be "doing it right", then do you have any examples of aspects of DIR that are, in your opinion, wrong?

The standard equipment configuration associated with DIR is wrong for any environment where backmounted cylinders won't fit.

 

[nimoh]

The standard equipment configuration associated with DIR is wrong for any environment where backmounted cylinders won't fit.

I am assuming you are referring to sidemount diving, and I don't disagree with you. However, I am not aware of any DIR divers that claim sidemount to be "wrong", even though many don't use it. As a matter of fact, UTD is (imho) a well respected DIR certification agency, and also teaches sidemount diving. I am quite sure they would not say sidemout is "doing it wrong".

My point is just that "doing it right" does not imply that any other way is automatically "doing it wrong".

 

[Blackwood]

I am assuming you are referring to sidemount diving, and I don't disagree with you. However, I am not aware of any DIR divers that claim sidemount to be "wrong", even though many don't use it. As a matter of fact, UTD is (imho) a well respected DIR certification agency, and also teaches sidemount diving. I am quite sure they would not say sidemout is "doing it wrong"..

The context of this little discussion is early GUE and its use of the Hogarthian configuration though, right?

The birth of the term was:

"If it's not Hogarthian, it's not right. If you're not doing it right, don't do it at all."

Now, it's possible to read the article and infer that GI3 would approve of sidemount where necessary (the bit precluding independent dubs is due to added complexity merely to avoid manifold failures), and he never defines Hogarthian as back mount in that article. However, the gear config which came out of WKPP was back mount.

My point is just that "doing it right" does not imply that any other way is automatically "doing it wrong".

I concur.