Why the Prejudice about DIR or GUE

[djanni]

Not all air sharing occurs when someone is in a panic and out of air. It's much better to share air in a low air situation while you can still breathe and there is also the case of problems that can be solved with a diver's air supply while sharing air. With a long hose, sharing air can occur as a preemptive measure to prevent someone from running out of air or in situations where a problem like a free-flowing regulator my be fixed while the diver's valves are shut down. It doesn't preclude holding onto a panicked diver, but it gives you more options in other situations.

Question: I thought the purpose of the "Long Hose" (7') was to be able to pass it forward or backward if in the tight confines of a cave or wreck. I thought that came from the DIR/GUE practices which makes total sense. How pitiful that it wasn't thought of long before DIR/GUE showed up on the scene. I wonder how many died in a cave or a wreck before someone decided a longer hose might be appropriate in these situations.

At any rate, why would anyone need such a long hose if in open water? In an OOA or LA situation the couple is headed to surface aren't they? Why wouldn't the standard length hose get a couple to surface just fine in one of those situations?

I'm going to assume the answer is that if in open water a standard length hose is fine and then ask the question; why would DIR/GUE insist on the "Long Hose" for people who never intend to enter a cave or wreck?

EDIT: I see Lamont just posted something related which I'm about to read but, if you don't mind, my question still stands.

EDIT:Okay, I read it so never mind.

EDIT: In the face of proliferation of liability claims, law suits and the increasing cost of insurance I'm also curious why the manufacturers are so satisfied with the standard length hose. It would only seem to make sense that they, above everyone else, would want to do it right.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Not relevant.
The topic is 'Why there is a prejudice against DIR". The answer is consistent with the question. Probably if you asked why there is a prejudice against solo diving someone might say that one of the reasons is the existence of that rule in the solo diving forum.

I see your point ... I believe it was Socrates who said "against stupidity, the Gods themselves struggle in vain" ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[jeraldjcook]

No, quite frankly, you are wrong.

You are ignoring the fact that you can grab ahold of a diver regardless of whether there is 7 ft of available hose or 3 ft. Additionally, if you don't want to go up with that diver, a quick yank on the long hose and you will rip it out of their mouth. They will either continue up on their panicky way, or come back to you. Either way, that part of the problem (getting dragged) is solved...that is, if you couldn't get ahold of them, which the length of the hose has no effect on.

Bottom line is, to be picky, this just plain isn't going to happen with two trained DIR divers who would have practiced long hose shares with an adequate rock bottom gas supply. This might be a potential situation if some random schmuck comes up to you and mugs you for your gas.

First off, I agree with your first paragraph completely, but it is easier to grab someone's bc or bpw strap than a fin of someone who is kicking to get to the surface.

Secondly, I also agree that this is likely not going to happen to two DIR divers but I was under the impression that one of the answers to the original question about the hostile attitude toward DIR is that DIR divers [at least some on SB] have a "this is the only/right way to do it" attitude. While it might be the right equipment choice for two DIR divers, it might be completely wrong for two recreational vacation PADI divers. Not every diver is trained DIR so the long hose might not be right for everyone in every situation is all I was try to say. Sorry, just trying to clarify.

 

[lamont]

Question: I thought the purpose of the "Long Hose" (7') was to be able to pass it forward or backward if in the tight confines of a cave or wreck. I thought that came from the DIR/GUE practices which makes total sense. How pitiful that it wasn't thought of long before DIR/GUE showed up on the scene. I wonder how many died in a cave or a wreck before someone decided a longer hose might be appropriate in these situations.

At any rate, why would anyone need such a long hose if in open water? In an OOA or LA situation the couple is headed to surface aren't they? Why wouldn't the standard length hose get a couple to surface just fine in one of those situations?

I'm going to assume the answer is that if in open water a standard length hose is fine and then ask the question; why would DIR/GUE insist on the "Long Hose" for people who never intend to enter a cave or wreck?

Thanks for the Sarcasm Don. Glad to see you showing up. Now I think we've got all the Usual Suspects here.

Anyway, I addressed this in post #95:

http://www.scubaboard.com/showpost.php?p=2215287&postcount=95

To reiterate the concrete example: we have a massively popular recreational dive site where the biggest attract is the Octos that live directly under where the ferry props go over. If someone OOAs me down there the safest route is *not* going straight up. Similarly, on a recreational wreck dive, the best choice will often be to swim a minute or two back to the upline rather than to ascend directly with no reference.

 

[jeraldjcook]

Don, there is a good answer to your second paragraph by lamont below.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Question: I thought the purpose of the "Long Hose" (7') was to be able to pass it forward or backward if in the tight confines of a cave or wreck. I thought that came from the DIR/GUE practices which makes total sense. How pitiful that it wasn't thought of long before DIR/GUE showed up on the scene. I wonder how many died in a cave or a wreck before someone decided a longer hose might be appropriate in these situations.

The long hose was in use before GUE/DIR ever existed.

I have heard more than one DIR instructor state that "we didn't invent any of this stuff, we simply put the pieces together into a coherent system that works".

At any rate, why would anyone need such a long hose if in open water? In an OOA or LA situation the couple is headed to surface aren't they? Why wouldn't the standard length hose get a couple to surface just fine in one of those situations?

Obviously the standard length hose works ... it just doesn't give you as many options. As I like to explain to my students, you can't predict how people are going to respond to these situations ... so more options is better. With a standard hose, the options that are removed are two-fold ... first, by the nature of how you are taught to respond, you are limited to ascending vertically ... face-to-face. While that works, it may not always be the optimal method. If the OOA diver is calm and reasonably competent, ascending horizontally and side-by-side makes doing your stops easier and more natural. This can help reduce the stress of the situation during the ascent. It also (as Lamont already pointed out) provides you a better option for swimming to an ascent line or safer exit point if you're in a place with boat traffic. With the standard length hose, doing so would be more difficult, if possible at all.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Dragon2115]

...I could go with 40" primary instead of a long hose, but I firmly believe that donating the primary in the mouth and going to a bungee'd backup is better...

And that's fine, but that's not DIR, is it. According to DIR there is only one right way to dive and that's with a long hose and bungeed secondary. Anything else and you're being unsafe. That may be true with regard to cave and wreck penetration but not for standard OW dives.

...I know that done properly you can dive in a jacket BC...

But according to DIR you can't, period. And that was the whole point.

That assumes that the shop doesn't accidentally blow air onto a rich nitrox mixture and turn around and rent it to them. I don't think its unreasonable to suggest that divers should get a broader education about diving and be able to take steps to become less trusting of their diveshop and their DMs. Trust, but verify.

I should have left this one out because it has nothing to do with DIR. But since we're here. Reading an analyzer I might go along with. I.e. 'check to see that there is nothing other than 21% in your tank'. But I see no need to go beyond that.

Dude, you're lifting a post of mine out of the whine and cheese forum and acting like I've penned the manifesto on how DIR is going to take over the world.

No, I'm using them (without attribution) strictly as an example becasue they are exactly what DIR pushes for all diving.

The DIR forum has a designated audience of DIR-oriented members. It isn't to squelch debate, its to keep one little place of scubaboard free of our need to justify our existance. Otherwise the DIR forum just degenerates into endless debates that all the DIR members of the board have made up their minds on a long time ago.

But the same is not afforded to the members of other forums that are sick and tired of having every thread about someone's choice of BC turn into an argument and ad campaign for BP&W's.

It is not your right to hop into the DIR forum and challenge RTodd to a debate over pony bottles -- I'm sure he doesn't give a ****.The rules of the DIR forum are so that I can go in there and ask RTodd about more advanced diving that what I'm doing right now and try to learn something -- the forum is about me and RTodd and the other DIR divers and not you.

You just made my point, which was about why the DIR people get bashed btw. The rules of the board are setup so that the DIR folks can hop into any topic they want and freely disagree and tell everybody about how if they're not diving a BP&W with a long hose and bungeed secondary they're not "doing it right" and are unsafe. However, if someone tries to do the same in DIR territory there's a wail and a howl about how a protected area is needed for them.

Don't take it so personally, you've got the rest of the board. If you want to get into arguments about why DIR doesn't do something some other way, then just take it to Basic Scuba or Technical Diving or whatever.

First, I don't take anything here personally. This is an internet forum and on the internet you can be anything you want to be. So when I read something here that's of interest I check it out elsewhere too. You know, trust but verify. Btw, I find your comment particularly amusing whereas I didn't comment on this topic until after it had already been moved to the Basic Scuba Discussions forum.

 

[Matsya]

I see your point ... I believe it was Socrates who said "against stupidity, the Gods themselves struggle in vain" ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

One of my favourite quotations though I didn't know that it was Socrates. The second phrase of the quote is the title of an Isaac Asimov book.

Absolutely Bob you hit it:

Here are some definitions of prejudice:

Prejudice is a negative or hostile attitude toward a person or group formed without just or sufficient knowledge and based on negative stereotypes. Prejudice is the result of "prejudgment" and can lead to discrimination.

An attitude acquired prior to relevant experience or knowledge; a predisposition to take an intellectual position relative to a given phenomenon irrespective of the nature or amount of relevant objective information. Prejudice has also been defined as a "preconceived judgment or opinion, often based on limited information."

An adverse judgment about a person or group of people based on limited knowledge or stereotypes.

Whether intentionally or not the OP used the exact word to describe the general attitude towards DIR which is based on a limited idea of what some of its adherents say or how some of them behave rather than what DIR is all about.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

While it might be the right equipment choice for two DIR divers, it might be completely wrong for two recreational vacation PADI divers. Not every diver is trained DIR so the long hose might not be right for everyone in every situation is all I was try to say. Sorry, just trying to clarify.

That's a valid observation ... if you haven't been trained to use a long hose, you should not use one.

Fortunately, the training isn't real involved ... a few minutes learning how to properly route the hoses and a couple of dry-land practice OOA switches is about all that's needed.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Soggy]

First off, I agree with your first paragraph completely, but it is easier to grab someone's bc or bpw strap than a fin of someone who is kicking to get to the surface.

Why do I need to grab their fin just because the hose is longer? You aren't making any sense and you aren't paying attention. The length of the hose does not prevent you from grabbing their harness!!!!! It's not like, because the hose is 7' long (or 5' if you want to use in OW) that I'm going to make you (or allow you to) swim 7' away from me, especially in OW.