Determining the future of DIR

[boulderjohn]

I don't think an single person has 'veto' power (my comment was tongue in cheek). But just because some dude starts running around calling things "DIR", doesn't make it so. Like I said, when I talk about something being DIR, I'm discussing DIR as taught by GUE/WKPP/EKPP/MCEP, et al.

Are you arguing that only GUE/WKPP/EKPP/MCEP, et al can say what DIR is? IF so, then you are indeed saying that GUE has the veto power over what is or is not DIR.

If so, are you arguing that UTD and others are not DIR and should not be included in a forum like this?

If so, then it seems to me you are supporting the argument that a DIR forum should go away and be replaced by separate forums for GUE and UTD.

By the way, I am not arguing one way or the other--I am just trying to analyze your argument and take it to its logical conclusion.

 

[liuk3]

It's a meaningless term at this point to me. People using it these days are either directly or indirectly trying to market something or sell you something...

 

[liuk3]

Are you arguing that only GUE/WKPP/EKPP/MCEP, et al can say what DIR is? IF so, then you are indeed saying that GUE has the veto power over what is or is not DIR.

If so, are you arguing that UTD and others are not DIR and should not be included in a forum like this?

If so, then it seems to me you are supporting the argument that a DIR forum should go away and be replaced by separate forums for GUE and UTD.

By the way, I am not arguing one way or the other--I am just trying to analyze your argument and take it to its logical conclusion.

Who says GUE and UTD are the only ones claiming they are DIR? I know people who are trained from many other agencies who claim that they are DIR. Anybody who wants to is claiming the title these days. Hence, my post above about the term being meaningless these days.

 

[Gombessa]

At least on a recreational level, the current variations in DIR mostly mean a little more due diligence is required before the dive. I'm happy diving with friends in BCs, split fins, and whatever other classical "non-DIR" gear that 99% of divers use. As long as I know where their equipment is situated and how it works, it doesn't really matter to me if it's a Delta trim device or a Knighthawk.

I'm sure the "as the dive gets more complicated, the scrutiny increases" mindset for tech/cave divers requires a bit more consideration than the above, though.

 

[PfcAJ]

Are you arguing that only GUE/WKPP/EKPP/MCEP, et al can say what DIR is? IF so, then you are indeed saying that GUE has the veto power over what is or is not DIR.

If so, are you arguing that UTD and others are not DIR and should not be included in a forum like this?

If so, then it seems to me you are supporting the argument that a DIR forum should go away and be replaced by separate forums for GUE and UTD.

By the way, I am not arguing one way or the other--I am just trying to analyze your argument and take it to its logical conclusion.

Well, yes and no. Let me break down how my opinion.

For starts, I do think that GUE=DIR. But, regional variances can and should exist. But on a large scale, its all the same.

I don't think CCRs are DIR, or sidemount, or monkey diving, or that delta harness thing. Nor is solo diving, deep air, steels doubles w/ wetsuit, etc. Where do we draw the line?

If you wanna dive a CCR, go nuts. Same with SM, monkey diving, etc. If you want to make it standardized, use team practices and such, all the better. But since that stuff is not universally considered DIR, then lets just stop trying to call it that all together. If you don't want to mark your bottles, have a blast. Enjoy. But lets try to keep the term DIR referring to actual 'DIR', not faux "DIR" based on moneymaking. I feel that calling everything under the sun "DIR" just 'cuz kinda annoying. It makes meaningful discussion about DIR diving more difficult than it has to be.

Btw, I'm not opposed to CCR, SM, etc. Its not my cup of tea, but its a tool in the toolbox, and I respect that.

The more we see these extreme variations of whats called "DIR", the more we need to take a step back and remember why DIR exists at all. You quickly lose the strength of the system by this constant (and drastic) modification.

 

[boulderjohn]

Who says GUE and UTD are the only ones claiming they are DIR? I know people who are trained from many other agencies who claim that they are DIR. Anybody who wants to is claiming the title these days. Hence, my post above about the term being meaningless these days.

Just to repeat, I am not framing an argument with these comments. I am just seeking information and comments.

I don't know for sure about agencies other than UTD and GUE that have been associated with the term DIR in anything resembling an official position. In my opening post I said I was not sure about NAUI tech. I do know that the nearest NAUI tech instructor also teaches GUE fundamentals and requires GUE materials for the NAUI courses. If there are other agencies that are officially calling themselves DIR in their approach, I don't know about it.

Sometimes individual instructors will make that claim. When I took my initial TDI training, the instructor said what we were learning was DIR, and we had to get some GUE material as well. That instructor had taken GUE fundamentals, and his TDI instructor training came from a GUE employee. (Interestingly enough, I asked TDI about it, and they told me that they had no problem with one of their instructors following the GUE standards and curriculum precisely, as long as it also met TDI standards.)

However, I am sure that if I had said "I am TDI trained in DIR," I would not have been considered DIR and given access to this forum. It was not until that same instructor crossed over to UTD and taught us the same stuff over again so that I could earn UTD credentials that I was allowed to post in here.

Individual divers may adopt DIR methods on their own. Even if they do so quite thoroughly, though, they will not be given access to this forum because they will not be considered DIR practitioners.

So, I guess the question is this: Is DIR defined by the way you dive or the name of the agency that certified you?

 

[PfcAJ]

So, I guess the question is this: Is DIR defined by the way you dive or the name of the agency that certified you?

Both, either, or neither

 

[Gombessa]

Individual divers may adopt DIR methods on their own. Even if they do so quite thoroughly, though, they will not be given access to this forum because they will not be considered DIR practitioners.

I know this isn't the original point of your post, but in regards to the DIR Practitioner's forum, I think a lot of it depends on tone and expectations. A person coming up to Lamont and saying, "I should be given access to the DIR Prac Forum because I was trained in a DIR fashion by xx non-DIR agency" is obviously going to raise some red flags. But oftentimes, a person with no formal DIR training, but dives with DIR mentors or within a DIR community, who expresses an interest in learning more about DIR, can be given access. It does seem to matter what type of contribution the person is likely to provide.

On a separate note, it's not hard to envision a DIR diver without formal training (DIR predates GUE after all and I assume mentorship was the original way to learn it), but "an individual adopting DIR methods on their own," if taken at its literal word meaning without anyone else to learn any non-equipment or personal skills aspects of the system, or without mentorship from someone who actually knows/dives the system, will necessarily raise some eyebrows and perhaps merit a bit of additional inquiry.

 

[Rainer]

Having a term by which to refer to a particular style of diving is useful. Labels are useful. The term "DIR" remains useful to the degree that its referent remains (relatively) agreed upon. When UTD started out, there did not appear to be too many differences in the style of diving they promoted and that taught by GUE (I've "technical" training from both). Obviously, things have changed with time (MOD markings, use of RD, mixed OC-SM-CCR teams, carrying the same deco gases within the team, NDL tables, trimix tables, wing designs, use of course prerequisites, teaching classes with only one student, etc) and the agencies have diverged with respect to what they teach and promote.

The term "DIR" can (1) be extended (i.e. diluted) to encompass a subset of practices taught by various agencies/instructors, (2) used in its original sense (i.e. more akin to what GUE continues to teach), or (3) simply abandoned. To the extent that continued extension causes more confusion than good, I don't see that as particularly useful.

I'm loathe to simply abandon the label altogether for lack of a better term. Simply referring to the agencies themselves tells me little. Knowing someone is GUE-trained doesn't tell me how they currently dive. Similarly, if these agencies under discussion simply ceased to exist, the style of diving they espoused would not. My own beliefs about diving "best practices" aren't dictated or determined by any agency (though of course I'm happy to see them mostly reflected in one).

 

[rjack321]

Who says GUE and UTD are the only ones claiming they are DIR? I know people who are trained from many other agencies who claim that they are DIR. Anybody who wants to is claiming the title these days. Hence, my post above about the term being meaningless these days.

It lost all meaning when Cedric Verdier created "DIR rebreather" in 2007-ish.

Rjack, I like diving with a lot of people, too. But if someone says "yeah I'm DIR" and we show up for a dive with different gases, different configurations, different (or nonexistant) bottle markings...

I actually don't dive with that many different people. My "core list" of buddies is maybe 12.

I would never assume someone calling themselves "DIR" means anything, or even trained by a particular agency. Even just 5 yrs ago valve drills, gas MODs, deco gases the list of "changes" goes on and on - and that's just within GUE. Its not like they are the "keeper of DIR", they've even ditched the term.