Dir, utd, wtf?

[Slamfire]

I like the expiring certification thing, myself, and I don't mind paying the fee. Although I'll have to scratch my head a bit to decide whether it's worth renewing my GUE C1 card when I'm Full Cave from another agency

But at least if you dive with someone who has a current card, you know they have SOME current experience. (Or fake a good logbook . . . )

There's nothing wrong with a non-profit organization doing fund raising activities. My comments are not about the money.

Neither is there anything wrong with an agency emphasizing on the need to keep skills up to date.

But tying both together in an unnatural c-card renewal process that really doesn't prove anything doesn't seem straightforward to me. Why not call it what it is and avoid pretending that it will solve recency problems. It is not a damn if you, damn if you don't situation.

I'll shut up now. Dive safe.

 

[Chris Brown Tech]

Just as a reference, George Irvine and Jarrod Jablonski (JJ) are GUE high ranking officers.

George Irvine has been out of diving for a few years now. I dont think he even holds a GUE card. He was active in the early days as WKPP project director if Im not mistaken.

JJ is the president of GUE

 

[Gombessa]

If I ruffled some feathers because I come here as an outsider and vocalize my opinion on this matter, then I am sorry you feel that way. This is a public forum and as such I thought input from outsiders was allowed.

Only two points:

1. Notice the "" in the reply. It's meant to reduce any confusion as to the intended tone of the reply. I'll repeat it here:

2. To me, the conversation to me hasn't veered off from being anything but friendly or cordial, and I've enjoyed reading the exchange and contributions so far. But it's a little curious that you'll come in and imply that an agency's recertification process is actually worse than a snake oil scam, and then immediately cry foul over ruffling feathers when a contrary opinion and explanation is given?

And just to eliminate any confusion, I'll be sure to end (again) with

 

[Slamfire]

Only two points:

1. Notice the "" in the reply. It's meant to reduce any confusion as to the intended tone of the reply. I'll repeat it here:

2. To me, the conversation to me hasn't veered off from being anything but friendly or cordial, and I've enjoyed reading the exchange and contributions so far. But it's a little curious that you'll come in and imply that an agency's recertification process is actually worse than a snake oil scam, and then immediately cry foul over ruffling feathers when a contrary opinion and explanation is given?

And just to eliminate any confusion, I'll be sure to end (again) with

Perhaps I was too harsh likening the process to snake oil scam because I really don't believe anybody is actually being fooled. You're just paying for something that is not really true to its own name, but everybody involved knows this. If I were to find myself in this situation it would leave a sour taste in my mouth. back at you. *Group hug*

 

[Gombessa]

I don't think anyone is deluding themselves into thinking the existing recert idea is perfect (heck, even if the agency could determine and deny/recertify its divers at a 100% accuracy rate, what shops or dive operators are going around checking expiration dates on cert cards??), but I do believe that those who support it see it as a step in the right direction. The requirements and procedures for recerts are actively evolving as well, so hopefully it will serve its intended purpose better over time.

 

[Ben_ca]

You're just paying for something that is not really true to its own name, but everybody involved knows this.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Can you please explain?

 

[RikRaeder]

RikRaeder, your point about doing technical dives is probably a valid one. GUE and UTD BOTH use standard gases, and both limit END to 100 feet. In the 150 foot range, both would use 21/35 for bottom gas and 50% for deco. I don't think a diver trained by either agency would be very happy to do such a dive with someone on air.

It doesn't mean they won't dive with you, but you may have difficulty figuring out a way to do staged decompression diving that works for both of you, if you don't use helium.

That's what I was wondering, and why I posted question 2. I'm very happy to find people to dive with, but from seeing that DIR is a "philosophy," and having heard of the strict prescriptions of gas, gear, etc, I was wondering how a self-proclaimed DIR diver would be ABLE to dive with me (DSAT trained) even though I'm trained to use the same gasses and deco schedules. Hypothetically (strictly hypothetically), I'd have to conform to DIR gas guidelines (no problem as long as we stay above 30m since I don't have trimix training) and procedures of which I know not. I am NOT a DIR diver. I understand they aren't robots or clones or whatever (borg maybe?), but how could I conform enough without standard DIR training or equipment to do tech dives with a diver who espouses and follows the DIR philosophy? Wouldn't that be impossible? And if so, would that person truly be able to say that they followed the DIR philosophy?

 

[lamont]

That's what I was wondering, and why I posted question 2. I'm very happy to find people to dive with, but from seeing that DIR is a "philosophy," and having heard of the strict prescriptions of gas, gear, etc, I was wondering how a self-proclaimed DIR diver would be ABLE to dive with me (DSAT trained) even though I'm trained to use the same gasses and deco schedules. Hypothetically (strictly hypothetically), I'd have to conform to DIR gas guidelines (no problem as long as we stay above 30m since I don't have trimix training) and procedures of which I know not. I am NOT a DIR diver. I understand they aren't robots or clones or whatever (borg maybe?), but how could I conform enough without standard DIR training or equipment to do tech dives with a diver who espouses and follows the DIR philosophy? Wouldn't that be impossible? And if so, would that person truly be able to say that they followed the DIR philosophy?

That has been addressed a lot. Try googling: "there are no dir divers, just dir dives" for a few threads.

 

[gsk3]

That's what I was wondering, and why I posted question 2. I'm very happy to find people to dive with, but from seeing that DIR is a "philosophy," and having heard of the strict prescriptions of gas, gear, etc, I was wondering how a self-proclaimed DIR diver would be ABLE to dive with me (DSAT trained) even though I'm trained to use the same gasses and deco schedules. Hypothetically (strictly hypothetically), I'd have to conform to DIR gas guidelines (no problem as long as we stay above 30m since I don't have trimix training) and procedures of which I know not. I am NOT a DIR diver. I understand they aren't robots or clones or whatever (borg maybe?), but how could I conform enough without standard DIR training or equipment to do tech dives with a diver who espouses and follows the DIR philosophy? Wouldn't that be impossible? And if so, would that person truly be able to say that they followed the DIR philosophy?

How do you work out any inter-agency differences in gas planning? You discuss them in advance. My understanding is that even agencies that teach best-mix don't say you *have* to use the best mix, so you should be ok on the standard gases. I'm not Tech trained, but for a Fundies-level dive (<30m, no deco ceiling), you use 32% nitrox and do 30 second stops every 10' from 50% of your max depth. If your agency says you have to do a 3 minute stop at 15', I'd be happy to do that with you as well. I would want to use appropriate gas management (all available, 1/2s, or 1/3s depending on the situation). All-in-all, there's nothing that would stop us from diving together. You may get a little less bottom time because I would want to reserve more gas than you generally do (or maybe not), but I was paranoid about gas reserves before I took Fundies as well.

 

[RikRaeder]

That has been addressed a lot. Try googling: "there are no dir divers, just dir dives" for a few threads.

Nope. Google didn't provide any clear information on my question. Are you talking about the thread regarding "Don't break rule #1?"

I was hoping someone could explain what I see as an inconsitency.