Wikipedia article on "Doing It Right"

[rlynch]

sounds good - i'm reaching out to one of the authors now.

 

[rlynch]

thanks Lamont - i'll reach out to JJ as well on that

Dan for this image can you provide the following info

Description: DIR Divers Origin (source): Gear Training4Author: Sandra Edwards 2010Permission: Sandra Edwards, Dan Volker 2012 http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/dir/404058-wikipedia-article-doing-right-22.htmlDan if you could fill this out that would be great.
Date: Date the image was created. The more exact, the betterLocation: Where the image was created. The more exact the betterOther versions of this file: Directs users to derivatives of the image if they exist on Wikipedia

TSandM also for your image that would be great - i'll get them uploaded soon

 

[danvolker]

thanks Lamont - i'll reach out to JJ as well on that

Dan for this image can you provide the following info View attachment 112143

Description: DIR Divers Origin (source): Gear Training4Author: Sandra Edwards 2010Permission: Sandra Edwards, Dan Volker 2012 http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/dir/404058-wikipedia-article-doing-right-22.htmlDan if you could fill this out that would be great.
Date: Date the image was created. The more exact, the betterLocation: Where the image was created. The more exact the betterOther versions of this file: Directs users to derivatives of the image if they exist on Wikipedia

TSandM also for your image that would be great - i'll get them uploaded soon

Shot taken December 2010
Location Delray Ledge off of Palm Beach, Fl
Derrivative images at Gear Training ( several pages of shots of 2 GUE divers in wreck and reef settings)

 

[TSandM]

Description: proper single tank trim; diver Lynne Flaherty
Origin (source): TSandM Associates
Author: Peter Rothschild
Permission: Peter Rothschild and Lynne Flaherty, 2012 Wikipedia article on "Doing It Right"
Date: 03/2007.
Location: Cozumel, MX.
Other versions of this file: None

 

[rlynch]

Step 1 complete: Title Picture swapped -
thanks Dan for your help in this.

 

[boulderjohn]

Step 1 complete: Title Picture swapped -
thanks Dan for your help in this.

And now we are accomplishing something!

 

[rlynch]

slowly, but yes.

 

[jago]

There's all these pics on the GUE equipment page:

Equipment Configuration | Global Underwater Explorers

You can drop JJ an e-mail and try to sort out copyright permission status for those.

Sometimes, my writtings are not useless.

If someone is linked with GUE leaders, it would be interesting to suggest them to put pics on this page Equipment Configuration | Global Underwater Explorers under a free licence so they could be integrated in Wikipedia.

 

[rlynch]

i'm sorting out the copyright process on wikipedia right now with dan's image then as i said i'll ask GUE for some shots as i've said.
some nice wiki person already tagged the main image for deletion, sorting that out.

 

[lamont]

Next couple of issues that should theoretically be easy:

Different types of equipment designs support different levels of skill and experience to provide optimal solutions - for example the BCD. A majority of diving accidents occur at the novice diving level, and many of these accidents occur at the surface. For these novice divers the jacket style type of BCD provides better heads-up surface flotation necessary to mitigate such risks, instead of the wing type BCD recommended by DIR.

This is a narrow problem cause by buoyant Al80 tanks and no weight, or by improperly placing all the diver's weight on a weightbelt and none on the tank. It is a problem largely caused by looking at the gear in insolation and not also considering the proper weight distribution.

Also, the only surface rescue I was involved in was a diver on the surface, positively buoyant, who couldn't breathe and worked themselves into a panic due to an overly-tight cummerbund on their BCD, which is a failure mode that BP/W's lack since the air pocket does not wrap around the diver's midsection.

So there's a clear lack of balance in this section. This is also a specific gear issue for BP/W-vs-BCD which is not unique to DIR/GUE/UTD.

The snorkel is deemed to be an adjunct to diving without breathing apparatus. In overhead diving they are considered to be a significant entanglement hazard.^[48]
[...]
Snorkel:^[57] Generally, having a snorkel is claimed to be unnecessary because "it has no meaningful benefit", and its presence can create additional hazards because it can snag or catch on something (if on the head, it may create a hazard by catching on something and pull the mask off. If on the leg, it could snag when doing an emergency weight belt ditch, or snag on nets or lines). The lack of a snorkel when on the surface carries the advice to "swim on your back".
[...]

Example	DIR rationale for non usage	Local practice rationale for usage
Need for snorkel at surface for recreational diving	The snorkel is a hazard in its potential for snagging in overhead environment or snagging on cave guidelines Short surface swims in cave systems make snorkel “excess baggage” Surface conditions are benign A diver on the surface should be able to breath from his/her primary or by swimming on his/her back	In certain non-cave diving practises the snorkel proves a very useful item,[81] e.g. the long swims involved in California beach diving divers use snorkels to breathe from until a good start point on a dive spot is located, to maximise air supply for a safer overall dive.[82] A snorkel is useful as an in-water pocket mask, a diving accident victim can be transported and have rescue breathing done as quickly as they might be just transported.[83] In rougher open water surface conditions a snorkel proves a useful safety device in scenarios that require long surface waits or surface swims[84]. BSAC rate the snorkel as "essential safety kit."[85]

The article is clearly being trolled by a BSAC diver here who doesn't know what they're talking about, and the mention of a snorkel, incorrectly, in three separate sections means that someone is clearly beating a drum here.

The snorkel is not used underwater because if you attempt to donate the long hose with one you will occasionally rip off your mask. It is not because the snorkel is "useless", it is because it is incompatible with the long-hose. And DIR allows the use of a fold-up snorkel that fits in the pocket for surface swimming. For reef diving in tropical waters there's nothing inherently wrong with taking a proper purge snorkel with a clip and clipping it off to a d-ring like a reel and deploying it for surface use and stowing for diving (although snorkeling following building up nitrogen loading is bounce-diving and a highly unsafe DCS risk -- and not just considered to be so by DIR/GUE/UTD). The DIR approach to surface swimming in chop is also to use your regulator and to manage your gas so that you have a gas reserve (again, the 'holistic' system here -- if you fail to maintain your gas reserve then you can wind up on the surface with zero gas -- but that isn't DIR -- and that is part of why rec1 takes so long and costs so much money).

There is a more fundamental problem here which is that a lot of these "controversies" stem from one fundamental misapplication of DIR which is to once or twice yearly recreational divers, and since the system does not work with that diving population it is "controversial". Neither GUE or UTD have suggested that divers with that little commitment should be diving DIR, however -- which is why the Rec1 course does not look like a typical PADI OW course. It is only "controversial" if you apply it to a population of divers that it isn't intended for.

I could go through and rewrite that whole section with much more NPOV, but the BSAC troll who wrote it in the first place will get all huffy over it, and I don't have time to deal with an edit war on wikipedia..