Limits of standardization.

[kr2y5]

Just wondering... what are (or should be) the limits of standardization? Are there things that should be standardized, but aren't? Are there things that are standardized, but shouldn't be? Is too much standardized, or not enough? What areas should be subject to standardization? What should be the right process for answering those questions? Thanks!

 

[tbone1004]

oh my, while not a DIR diver because I have some fundamental disagreements with a couple of large key points of theirs that I won't go into, here is my take.

Standardize the divers mental game. They all have to be on the same page, prepared for the same dive, and trained to respond issues in the same manner. This is the foundation of why they work so well as a team. This is the #1 most important thing of any technical diver regardless of claiming DIR or not.

Standardization of training, subset of the mental game but is equally important in building the dive teams mental game by ensuring that they know how the rest of their dive team will respond in an emergency situation, as well as ensuring the diver that they are prepared to respond to an emergency situation encountered by a member of their team.

Standardization of equipment. This is one point of contention that I have with the current DIR mentality though less so with the origination of the term. There is huge validity in having a somewhat standardized rig, you need to know where everything is on your buddy so that in a zero visibility emergency, you can find things by feel because you know where any one piece of equipment is. I think they go a bit far with the one configuration for all environments because I personally believe adaption is critical to your diving environment, but the base configuration is important for muscle memory.

If you look at the current endorsers of the term, UTD etc., as well as the agencies that used it previously, GUE etc., they have gone through and evaluated every potential aspect of standardization and I feel they have addressed all of the pertinent points of standardization over the last 20+ years.

 

[TSandM]

As I have had it explained to me several times, by several different people, the things that affect the team are standardized. Gases, deco, procedures and protocols, signals, and overall equipment configuration are standardized, because they need to be to have plug-and-play teams. Things like exposure protection, dry or wet gloves, fin choices -- those aren't standardized because they don't have to be, unless something is so out of whack that it's causing the team problems. (For example, if you are having to abort dives because you are too cold to do what you have planned, something needs to change.)

I think the perception from the outside is that we standardize to the "how many angels can dance on the head a pin" point. But it really isn't true. There are still a lot of different things that work within the system, as long as they are truly personal choices that don't impact the functionality of a team.

 

[PfcAJ]

If it affects the dive or could affect the dive, it needs to be standardized.

 

[kdupreez]

HAHAHA, Krzys, you know you should mix the koolaid responsibly with water... Not snort it directly from the packet, right?

Im very much looking forward to your fundies class in May! You'll love it!

 

[decidedlyodd]

There's a fundamental tradeoff between standardization and customization. You standardize when the benefits outweigh those of customization.

Assumptions about team dynamics strongly drive the balance of that tradeoff. At one extreme you have the case of solo diving in shallow, benign conditions where customization may easily win. At the other end you have a team doing a "big dive" where standardization around things like ascent and deco procedures are crucial.

Where you fall on that continuum and what it means to you is subject to personal, often strong opinions.

Moreover, there are varying opinions on how much standardization should vary when the same person or team does different kinds of dives. E.g., how much of the procedures and gear are the same for a tech dive with multiple gases and mandatory deco in poor conditions vs. a shallow tropical reef dive.

 

[SillyQuestions]

There's a whole subsections of diving where GUE don't apply well at all.

The two that spring to mind are both cave diving.

Put your elbow on your desk, raise your forearm vertically, make a fist. Imagine a passage this high, for a few hundred metres, with zero vis from the start, line traps everywhere. This passage is located at the end of several miles of similarly sized passage. GUE standardised kit just doesn't work here, nor do many of the protocols and ideological points. That's the type of diving I do mostly.

Show me how a GUE diver in standard kit, with a buddy is getting through here, when I, with a 28inch waist, can't even fit in a drysuit!

I do tend to use standard gases (with the exception of 32 as a lot of dives are too shallow for this to be of any worth whatsoever) and steal lots of things from GUE, but the whole system just isn't implementable. Including the buddy system.

I've never done it, but passing sump 5 in the emergence du ressel, I know two gents who have done it, big GUE divers. Did they do it using GUE standardised kit? No. Do any of the big GUE divers (including JJ) use GUE standardised approaches to many of their big dives? No.

The philosophy is truly the only thing that can, and needs to, be standardised.

Protocols, gear and anything else you can think of, is changeable, and needs to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LiteHedded]

There's a whole subsections of diving where GUE don't apply well at all.

The two that spring to mind are both cave diving.

Put your elbow on your desk, raise your forearm vertically, make a fist. Imagine a passage this high, for a few hundred metres, with zero vis from the start, line traps everywhere. This passage is located at the end of several miles of similarly sized passage. GUE standardised kit just doesn't work here, nor do many of the protocols and ideological points. That's the type of diving I do mostly.

Show me how a GUE diver in standard kit, with a buddy is getting through here, when I, with a 28inch waist, can't even fit in a drysuit!

I do tend to use standard gases (with the exception of 32 as a lot of dives are too shallow for this to be of any worth whatsoever) and steal lots of things from GUE, but the whole system just isn't implementable. Including the buddy system.

I've never done it, but passing sump 5 in the emergence du ressel, I know two gents who have done it, big GUE divers. Did they do it using GUE standardised kit? No. Do any of the big GUE divers (including JJ) use GUE standardised approaches to many of their big dives? No.

The philosophy is truly the only thing that can, and needs to, be standardised.

Protocols, gear and anything else you can think of, is changeable, and needs to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

backmounted doubles dont work everywhere. i dont think gue is telling anyone to dive backmount in passages like that...

 

[SillyQuestions]

They don't.

But they don't tell you to dive sidemount either.

It's not the standardised kit, hence, the limitations of standardisation, which is the topic of this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PfcAJ]

Uh, the big dives Jj and Casey did were standardized. Same kit and same procedures. Standardization is what made those dives possible.

Im im not so all surprised that gue doesn't teach how to dive in a cave that small. What kind of buddy can you be in a situation like that?