An Attempt at Understanding DIR

[Kingpatzer]

Ok guys -- as some of you have gleaned from another thread -- my personal, face to face, experience with DIR divers local to me have been horrendous (lacking a better single adjective to describe these jerks). I have specifically stated that I don't believe that such attitudes are requirement of being a DIR proponent, but that a vocal minority clouds the community.

I'm starting this thread in an honest attempt to clear up some beliefs I have which folks have told me in PM's are incorrect. I'm honestly trying to keep this respectful and specific.

One of the comments made was that DIR doesn't care about equipment configurations or diving styles, only that the DIR diver should follow a basic rule about not diving with unsafe divers -- which, I've been assured, does not mean DIR only divers.

So, I've been perusing the Fundamentals of Better Diving book, and I have a few questions.

First, there's been some talk that DIR does not require specific manufacturers, but it seems that someone forgot to tell the manual authors to stop writing as if they do. For example, after spending some time and effort telling divers how to modify their gear, it's comment that the trouble can be avoided "Alternatively,
divers can avoid all these modifications, and purchase a BC that is specifically
designed for DIR, namely, the Halcyon BC" (page 85). The text is replete with recommendations for particular manufactures, combined with derisive comments about other manufacture's gear. How do DIR divers reconcile the position that GUE/DIR do not require specific manufacturers when the texts are written to strongly suggest that only very specific manufacturers make the gear DIR requires?

Continuing on equipment. While some on this board have stated that they'd have no problem diving with someone in non-DIR sanctioned gear configurations, I fail to see how that would not violate DIR's "don't dive with unsafe divers" rule. In other words, diving with someone "doing it wrong" (honestly said in jest here) is in itself "doing it wrong."

From the Fundamentals book:

Page 67:

Recently, some have tried to respond to the popularity of DIR by advocating
other “systems.” These configurations, however, are not really
systems; they are, rather, a collection of loose recommendations put
together from a variety of sources (often from the DIR system itself ). It
would be wise for divers to be wary of these, since such modifications
compromise the fundamental efficiency and safety of DIR.

Page 68:

Equipment that does not enrich the dive is considered a liability and therefore to be left at home.

Note, "does not enrich the dive" is, in context, clearly referring to non-DIR specified equipment.

Page 84:

However, if, in fact, a diver does need more than 65 pounds of lift for diving doubles, or more than 30 pounds for diving singles, then they do not have a balanced rig and are an accident waiting to happen.

Now,the text does have plenty of excellent information in it. But the question remains -- the GUE/DIR diving philosophy states that one should not dive with unsafe divers, and the Fundamentals text indicates quite specifically that diving a non-DIR configuration in intrinsically unsafe.

How then, can a DIR diver committed to the DIR methodology and philosophy not be considered in violating that methodology and philosophy when diving with someone in a non-DIR sanctioned gear configuration?

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Depends on the dive. On a recreational, reef dive it doesn't make a whole lot of difference, and most DIR-trained divers I know are going to be far more concerned about your attitude and your ability to be a reasonable dive buddy than they are your equipment configuration.

On a deep tech dive, or a cave dive, it matters a lot ... and I'm gonna want to be doing that dive with someone who's got a rig that's functional, well thought-out, and appropriate to the conditions of the dive.

As for the Halcyon reference ... keep in mind who wrote that book (the founder of Halcyon) ... and back when that book was written they were pretty much it for DIR gear. However, since that time some other companies have come out with some kick-ass alternatives that are completely DIR-compatible. A couple months back I spent three days on a liveaboard with 21 other divers. All of us had some level of DIR training. All of us were in what could be legitimately considered DIR configurations. I think I recall something like six Halcyon rigs on the whole boat. Most of the rest were DSS and Oxycheq.

But let me make this point ... if you're focusing on gear, you're focusing on the wrong thing. Take a closer consideration of the primary concepts of DIR ... team, standardization, methodology. The gear is just the tools needed to turn those concepts into practical reality. Without an understanding and adherence to those concepts, all the gear in the world won't make somebody a DIR diver.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Anti-Hero]

I think you're taking the statements in the book too literally. "Unsafe Diver" is more of one's attitude towards diving than the gear they use. It could also mean gear in some instances. If another divers gear is configured in such a way that it poses a real risk to the group, they are an unsafe diver. Many non-GUE/UTD/Etc. divers only seem to focus on the gear configuration, but fail to realize the gear configuration is only a supporting platform.

As far as Halcyon goes, I only have (ONE) 1 piece of Halcyon gear in my kit. My SPG, and the only reason I have that is it came with a regulator I bought. All my gear is 100% compliant.

 

[Kevin Carlisle]

I was hoping for more responses than this. I hope you get some answers.

 

[JeffG]

I was hoping for more responses than this. I hope you get some answers.

to much work.

A lot of it is nitpicky kinda stuff (boiling down to how he reads a line) and plus most of the stuff you have to put into context of the time it was written.

 

[JeffG]

The gear is just the tools needed to turn those concepts into practical reality. Without an understanding and adherence to those concepts, all the gear in the world won't make somebody a DIR diver.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

A stroke with nice gear.

 

[Kingpatzer]

to much work.

A lot of it is nitpicky kinda stuff (boiling down to how he reads a line) and plus most of the stuff you have to put into context of the time it was written.

Is this book not one of two required text for the GUE Fundamentals class?

Can you explain to me how stating that having more than 30# of lift with a single makes someone "an accident waiting to happen" is taking something out of context?

 

[JeffG]

Is this book not one of two required text for the GUE Fundamentals class?

I suppose. I read it and said to myself "Where's the beef?"

Can you explain to me how stating that having more than 30# of lift with a single makes someone "an accident waiting to happen" is taking something out of context?

See...you did get it out of context.

You read 30 lbs = accident

go back and re-read

a diver does need 30 lbs = unbalanced rig

unbalanced rig = accident

and since this isn't math...you cannot link 30 lbs = accident.

also...you need to see the difference between needed and having.

Needing 30 lbs of lift to having 30 lbs of lift.

 

[Kingpatzer]

But let me make this point ... if you're focusing on gear, you're focusing on the wrong thing. Take a closer consideration of the primary concepts of DIR ... team, standardization, methodology. The gear is just the tools needed to turn those concepts into practical reality. Without an understanding and adherence to those concepts, all the gear in the world won't make somebody a DIR diver.

Plenty of other agencies teach those concepts. Standardization can be to more general principles than specific configurations (the rec diver's secondary air source in the golden triangle" compared to DIR's requirement that it be specifically "below the chin without the hose bulging to the side.").

DIR's specific claim is that the gear and methodology comprise a holistic system and that one can not merely pick and choose parts of that system. The gear, the standardization, the methodology, the team concept are all part of a greater whole.

To that point then, gear choice is not merely something a DIR diver can discount as merely the tools to turn the concept to reality. They are part and parcel of the reality as that reality is a holistic system.

The DIR system is based on the concept of minimalism. Equipment
that does not enrich the dive is considered a liability and therefore to be
left at home. DIR divers use a rigid back plate with a one-piece, webbed
harness, a back-mounted buoyancy compensator for streamlined movement
and horizontal posture, a short reserve hose that hangs around the
neck for easy retrieval, and a hose from which they breathe that can be
passed in the event of an emergency. In most situations this latter hose
is longer in length (5-7 ft. or 1.5-2 m) than the former and runs under a
hip-mounted light canister, is tucked in the belt, or is run under a waist
mounted knife pouch. Though there are numerous other important
elements forming the DIR system—we will address these in the next
chapter—this simple configuration is the foundation of DIR.

Page 68.

 

[JeffG]

Lol..