Wikipedia article on "Doing It Right"

[Rick Murchison]

... or send an Englishman to Alabama ... :shocked2:

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

He'd be right at home in Alabama. New York or New Jersey, now, there the mother tongue is murdered!
Rick

 

[limeyx]

That's as may be ... but it doesn't really address the issues of dive planning in mixed teams. Issues of gas matching, deco schedules and emergency bailout are significantly different with mixed teams than they are when all teams are on the same type of gear ... and I'm not sure any of the potential solutions would fall within what is considered DIR protocols. For example, in the mixed-team dives I've done, each diver carries their own emergency bailout ... which rather violates the whole team resources concept. It works ... but it ain't DIR ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

If you used a "UTD" CCR (i.e. the MC or MX in whatever variety), then
- Bottom and deco gases are identical
- Deco schedule is identical (The CCR diver just follows the OC schedule)
- Bailout/RB is identical with the CCR diver having RB in their doubles, and a long-hose and a "necklace"

About the only real differences are
- Rescue procedures for the CCR diver which are virtually identical (switch the BO valve and dump the counterlungs as well as wing when you ascend them)
- Long-hose comes from the chest D-ring (like the RB80) not the mouth

Thats really about it, all team principles, kicks, buoyancy & DIR "principles" are the same.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

He'd be right at home in Alabama. New York or New Jersey, now, there the mother tongue is murdered!
Rick

In theory I could have picked any state ... we don't speak "English" in this country ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

If you used a "UTD" CCR (i.e. the MC or MX in whatever variety), then
- Bottom and deco gases are identical
- Deco schedule is identical (The CCR diver just follows the OC schedule)
- Bailout/RB is identical with the CCR diver having RB in their doubles, and a long-hose and a "necklace"

About the only real differences are
- Rescue procedures for the CCR diver which are virtually identical (switch the BO valve and dump the counterlungs as well as wing when you ascend them)
- Long-hose comes from the chest D-ring (like the RB80) not the mouth

Thats really about it, all team principles, kicks, buoyancy & DIR "principles" are the same.

I see your point ... my experiences with mixed-team diving have been with people using either a Meg or a rEVO ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Adobo]

In theory I could have picked any state ... we don't speak "English" in this country ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I've always claimed to speak Americanese. I only get strange looks in return though.

 

[danvolker]

My personal observation is that GUE gave up on DIR a few years ago. My guess is that it was a realization that they had no way to prevent any Tom, Dick or Harry from coming up with their own definitions of what is or isn't DIR.

I'm not really sure it matters all that much. Or at least, it might not matter that much to new comers like me. I know what to expect from a GUE diver and I know what to expect from a UTD diver.

The DIR stuff matters when WIKI has definitions of it made up by divers that are more DIW than DIR, or divers that know nothing of the real issues and have the retarded idea that telling 2 different sides of an issue is somehow better than telling the one correct explanation.

As to where you go today to be DIR, to me this is going to GUE...but for many, it could be going to the old DIR 1 and 2 videos....

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

... those videos generally just make me sleepy ... I much prefer the lively discussions we used to have in here about bent vs straight D-rings ... or the evils of brass bolt-snaps ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[PfcAJ]

If you used a "UTD" CCR (i.e. the MC or MX in whatever variety), then
- Bottom and deco gases are identical
- Deco schedule is identical (The CCR diver just follows the OC schedule)
- Bailout/RB is identical with the CCR diver having RB in their doubles, and a long-hose and a "necklace"

About the only real differences are
- Rescue procedures for the CCR diver which are virtually identical (switch the BO valve and dump the counterlungs as well as wing when you ascend them)
- Long-hose comes from the chest D-ring (like the RB80) not the mouth

Thats really about it, all team principles, kicks, buoyancy & DIR "principles" are the same.

Except that whole 'if you don't need it' thing... But I guess we can just ignore all that and add unneeded complexity, risk, bulk, and procedures for s&g's these days.

 

[jago]

France has every right to define the French language, it's proper pronunciation, dialects allowed, etc. The French made the French language. So you visit parts of Canada, where French is the primary language....Drop a well educated Frenchman in one of these French-Canadian cities, put him in conversations with the locals, and my guess is there is a high likelihood he will be annoyed at the dialect, and what he considers the bastardization of HIS language.

Actually French of France is more batardized than French of Canada. The only annoying point is the word "check" they use as many as the little bue creatures say "schtroumpf" or "smurf". But anyone who likes la Pléiade would be happy to discuss with Canadians.

I am not sure of your point. The Wikipedia article on the French Language has sections for all the places that French is spoken in its various forms. Are you saying that Wikipedia should remove those sections?

There are dozen version of French, even in France, French differs from the regions. But everybody French-speaking guy is able to communicate easily with any other guy.
So, did a GUE, NauiTec, UTD and ISE divers can dive together and did their team procedures compatible ?

I guess there is still interpretation in the anology, but my point was that with French and Spanish, there are the TRUE forms or expressions of the language--that from which the others were derrived.

No French of Canda is basically old French + "check" word + nice and rational neologisms for informatics and electronics lexical fields.

What does that mean?

Is that akin to a solo diver diving with a long hose?

They add failure points (i.e. the manifold for SM divers, the only one way to isolate a leak is to unplug Qc6 connections, 2 are on the bottles, 5 (6 if there is a drysuit inflation connected to bottom gas) are on the back of the diver).

 

[Adobo]

So, did a GUE, NauiTec, UTD and ISE divers can dive together and did their team procedures compatible ?

The point of standardization is that it allows for a certain level of predictability. Example, if I am doing a tech 1 dive with another GUE diver to ~130ft., I know what backgas he/she will bring and I know what deco gas he/she will bring. I know what tools that other diver will use to figure out the deco time based on our planned bottom time. Now, of course, the other diver or I could ask to modify the plan/procedures/equipment to satisfy other requirements. But the baseline is established based on a common standard.

With a UTD diver, all of this standardization might not apply. For example, the UTD diver has different tools he might apply to this dive. Specifically, the gas might be 25/25. The equipment might not be backmounted doubles. It might be side mount. Or it might be some CCR kit. For deco gas, I dunno but maybe 100% might be the deco gas of choice for this dive. And for deco planning, is there even deco software that the UTD guys use or is it ratio deco only?

Of course, discussion and planning ahead of time can remedy all these asymmetries between the GUE diver and the UTD diver. But the point is that there isn't a common standard between GUE and UTD (and I have no idea how NAUITec or ISE fits in the discussion). And as time goes along, GUE and UTD will only continue to diverge. Its really already come to a point that its pretty much meaningless, to me anyway, when one is characterized as a DIR diver. (Sorry Dan V.)