Why not DIR ?

[Laughing Swordfish]

After many hours of researching the topic online I have really bought into this "DIR" philosophy... that is as a technical rope rescue tech following NFPA standards I can truly appreciate having the most simple, strong, fail proof and effective systems possible.

But now the dilemma...

DIR is a good system, but it is just one other way to dive. If anyone tells you differently, your bulls**t meter should be pegged to the max.

You have to look at your long term plans for diving. If you're going to end up cave diving then DIR is probably for you. That is where it originally came from. If you are going to do serious tech divng, it may or may not be for you. IMO for recreational diving it is overkill and totally unnecessary. The buoyancy and trim skills everyone touts the fundies course for can be learned on your own with some reading and in-water practice. Contrary to popular myth, DIR divers are not the only ones with buoyancy skills.

If you are only rec diving and go strictly DIR you may be severely limited in terms of buddy selection. While others are having fun you might be sitting out dives because you can't dive with 'strokes'. Also, no solo diving. DIR folks would say thats exactly right. IMO for rec diving it's just too anal. Each to his own.

Also, keep in mind that some of the best divers out there are definitely not DIR. Do a Google search on John Chatterton and Richie Kohler. IMO they've done more for diving than any DIR diver.

DIR is a good system. It is not the be all end all.

 

[greatwhitepike]

Amen!

this site has some of the best vids I have seen in a while

http://www.turut.no/dykk_eng.htm

 

[greatwhitepike]

Okay, an unsupported statement like that deserves a comment. Actually I after reading the above statement I got curious and had a quick look on the web.

From http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/Policy/scubafact_e.htm



and



Which would put the 115 000 to about 150 000. Anyway, 115 000 certified divers in BC is greater than 100 000 residents in Red Deer, so, ....

Now if you were referring to all of Alberta, I couldn't find a number for Alberta. But, from http://www.betherecommunications.com/btc/portfolio_4.htm puts the number of certified divers in the Calgary area at 20 - 35 thousand.

The article also states

This article, http://www.tourism.bc.ca/PDF/DIABC_Survey_Report_Final_Sept_2004.pdf states that about 9700 people became certified by BC diver operators in 2003.

Interesting stuff.

Cheers,
Bill

Great research, Man I love this forum! I am still shocked to see that all of you would do so much to help us all out. The funny thing is the Alberta VS British Columbia theory was given to me the last time I was at a dive shop in Vancouver by the owner.
I thought he would be a reasonable source. Thank you everyone again for your thoughts, especially you old timers!

 

[WarmWaterDiver]

Why would graduating from college be a reason against learning? :dontgetit

I agree - unless someone decided they had learned all there is to learn.

But why is this post interpreted as being against all learning?

 

[Snowbear]

But why is this post interpreted as being against all learning?

Because it was given as a reason not to pursue GUE/DIR training.
One thing I learned when I became a college graduate..... I STILL didn't know what I didn't know :eek_2:

 

[WarmWaterDiver]

Yep, that it is.

Yep a few of them probably can.
But unfortunately, there are very few who actually do, regardless of "rec" or "tech" level, who have not also had some level of training with GUE.

My understanding is the genesis of this system was use of quantifiable data and structured incident investigation approaches to obtaining results. It never ceases to amaze me why those who support such approaches don't post links to actual statistical data when in disagreement. As someone who has and continues to perform similar approaches in the workaday world, I would say this would be one of my main reasons I haven't formally entered any DIR / GUE training. It doesn't appear to me the core principles that started this are being taught to the students (show the data, and the methodology / structure used to reach the conclusion, supporting the validity), nor valued at this point by the instructors, else they would be taught to the students and practiced by the students. From my perspective marketing is solely driving the bus. "Show Your Work" used to be a standard schoolroom exercise outside of scuba.

I will couch this in terms of my opinion that my wife and I have had extremely staisfactory experiences in our ANDI training, and neither of our ANDI instructors had any association with DIR / GUE when we took these courses (nor any today).

The shoe fit already . . . no need to continue shoe shopping - and the instructors were what guided our choice more than agency - although having stuff written by engineers being studied by engineers may have colored our judgement somewhat. The hard science was there, and the instuctors were great. Our TSD-3 instructor (ANDI IT#95) in particular practiced what he preached about training "thinking divers". This is how the shoe really fit for us.

In contrast, I was in a thread a while back where reflex action was touted to be superb by using an analogy of which causes a quicker reaction, whacking the patella or something else - when whacking the patella absolutely short-circuits the thinking brain. I thought of the old fable / parable on the Philosophers' Stone, but didn't post it as I didn't think it would be understood in the context.

 

[Snowbear]

The shoe fit already . . . no need to continue shoe shopping - and the instructors were what guided our choice more than agency...

I thought the same thing.... until I dove with Uncle Pug.

My instructor(s) kept telling me what a great diver I was. That I was a "natural." That I had great skills. blah, blah, blah.... my training was actually a positive experience.

After all ~ I wasn't getting hurt. I had good buoyancy skills and was not losing control and crashing to the bottom or missing stops on ascent.

I figured out (on my own mostly) some important things like proper weighting, that it was better and easier to use a wing rather than a drysuit for primary buoyancy control, to fin without stirring up the silt, to be there for a buddy, but be independent enough to dive solo. Since I was aspiring to tech/cave diving (haven't done the cave part yet), I had already started using a BP/W for doubles. I quickly figured out that although my SP Black Diamond BCD was a good one for single tank diving, the BP/W with an STA was MUCH more comfortable and stable. I had also already seen the benefits of having the primary 2nd stage on a 7' hose with a bungied backup.... I did not get ANY of this from DIR divers or DIR training.... There were no DIR divers in my area yet.

Although I had read a lot about DIR on ScubaBoard and TDS and elsewhere on the internet, I was pretty much convinced they would have nothing to offer me that I had not already figured out on my own or learned from more experienced divers and instructors.

Then I dove with Pug. I figured out within about the first 5 minutes that I had a whole lot more learning to do. So I started asking questions. Turns out I didn't have a clue what I didn't know.

I still don't know much, but what I've learned from my tech training most definitely has usefulness for plain ol' vanilla OW recreational dives. Yes, I probably could have eventually learned it from some non-GUE source, but I didn't. I don't particulary care if it's just a marketing ploy. So what if the DIR system is a compilation of lessons learned and essential skills taken from 50 years of people dying in caves. It's still good training.

But hey, it's great that you learned everything you need or want to learn from your ANDI instructors... as many have said.... GUE/DIR is not for everyone

What I don't get though, is why some folks hate the system or the concept so much that they try to discourage others from pursuing the training?

 

[Vayu]

1. Because you have been told the plate is uncomfortable. This just is not true, man. My steel feels like a pillow.

2. Because you like diving with instructors that smoke, suck, or want you to die.

3. Because you think all the DIR instructors are aggressive and hate you and/or want you to die. They are actually nice people.

4. Because alot of people hate DIR because they are not DIR and will hate you for being DIR because they think you will hate them for not being DIR.

5. Because it is expensive.

I would buy the inexpensive book by Jarrod Jablonski and see if you find the ideas sound and logical. I think you will. Don't worry about what people may say. Try things out... When I started rearranging my diving I found the DIR people to be a great resource.

-V

 

[WarmWaterDiver]

I thought the same thing.... until I dove with Uncle Pug.


What I don't get though, is why some folks hate the system or the concept so much that they try to discourage others from pursuing the training?

I dunno - I can't answer from any personal experience. In fact, I've posted 'to each their own' a number of times.

The patella reference was to a post by UP, BTW. See post #29 in this thread.

http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=123580&page=3

And, you've misinterpreted or taken liberties with my post - I never posted I learned everything I needed to know from my ANDI instructors. Help me understand how this was expressed so I can be clearer going forward. I have never had any instructor say I was a "natural" - all have given me constructive critique for improvement; nor do I suffer from any illusion that I can know or do everything.

Allow me to re-emphasize the emphasis on "thinking divers" in theory and in practice was (and continues to be) the key for me. Hope that helps clarify.

I would say our tech training has also heped us in our 'plain vanilla' recreational dives as well - something in common.

 

[Snowbear]

Help me understand how this was expressed so I can be clearer going forward..

. . . no need to continue shoe shopping - ...

Guess I read it wrong.
Sorry.


As for "thinking divers" ... this is one thing that was stressed over and over in my training. I think Pug's analogy in the post you linked was not intended as a short-circuiting of the thinking brain. It seemed more like he was trying to point out that knowing something (i.e. buancy control) well means you don't have to consciously think about it for the correct response to happen. It just means that you don't have to think about buoyancy control while dealing with something more important like solving a problem.

Just because you know something so well that you don't need to consciously think about it doesn't mean you've stopped thinking.