DIR, WKPP, GUE, and Halcyon Part 1 of 3

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Jarrod

Registered
Scuba Instructor
Messages
19
Reaction score
18
Part 1 of 3

Hello Everyone,

I know that many of you decided long ago how you felt about DIR, Halcyon, and GUE. However, some of you are still trying to evaluate these groups and how they fit into your future diving plans.

Over the years I have watched individuals intentionally misrepresent DIR, Halcyon and GUE and as a result became immune to what was being traded on the various lists. However, recently I had occasion to discuss issues of this kind with a number of individuals, some of who were honestly unaware of the proper history, others who could care less, and some others who were unknowing pawns in the misrepresentation of these entities. Therefore, I have decided, as briefly as I can, to give an account of these organizations and of their philosophical underpinnings.

In the earliest days of cave diving there were various groups of divers, each with individual commitment to things like streamlining, fitness, teamwork, exploration, and technological advancement. Much like today, cave diving meant different things to different people. There were those with a decidedly recreational focus and those with predominantly focused on exploration. There have been many cave explorers over the history of cave diving. Two of the most known and prolific divers to to date have been Sheck Exley and the divers of the WKPP. Sheck dove with many divers over the years but generally did his explorations alone. Few people know that near the end of his lifetime Sheck had started diving regularly with the WKPP and had almost instantly appreciated the value of DIR. However, unfortunately, outside of diving with the WKPP Sheck had not yet fully adopted DIR. I find this regrettable in that from my perspective it was this lack of discipline with respect to gas selection and team diving that were largely responsible for his death. I mean no disrespect to Sheck, his memory or accomplishments. I cared deeply for him and respected both his abilities and personality tremendously; it saddens me all the more that he was the victim of such a needless tragedy.

Initially, none of the prominent explorers, including those belonging to the WKPP, promoted a consistent approach to diving; something akin to what is now known as “DIR.” Various practices, such as donating the long hose, were utilized by various individuals, but there was no uniform practice running across an entire team. The WKPP of that day was the closest entity that as a group promoted the use of a specific system, though there was really no clear sense of what this meant. Most of the initial focus remained on “streamlining” equipment withWKPP lead divers Bill Gavin, Bill Main, and Lamar English spending countless hours on various pieces of equipment; Bill Gavin being the most meticulous of the group. I loved talking to him about his theory that the “fates” knew when you had properly maintained your equipment and when you had not; if you had not then the fates would seize upon you. It was, at least in part, a joke among as all. Yet, this sort of ethos became woven into the fabric of the WKPP.

It was Bill Gavin that first promoted the term Hogarthian (a term people seize upon in a naïve attempt to brow beat DIR). In some ways, the whole thing was a bit of a joke in so far as Bill Main (while certainly a significant part of the history) could lay no more claim to the group’s meticulous focus on equipment than any of its other members. For instance, there was the order of Hogarth (started by my then boss at the University of Florida Academic Diving Program) and other efforts at taxonomy. These, in an unofficial way, were the beginning of a formalized paradigm. However, in the interest of clarity let me emphasize that though many wrote about and promoted “streamlining”;, many of these same individuals let lights dangle freely, used huge double BC’s, wore two primary lights, and generally confused the entire premise of a cleanly configured diver. I do not say this to offend anyone. There were certainly INDIVIDUALS that sought to be minimally configured. There were others that experimented with significant redundancy. The sport was evolving so this was, in a sense, to be expected. Yet, there was no ordered system or group appreciation of what was desirable, save the initial discussions within the WKPP. Moreover, there were no discussions of any merit that sought to formalize a standard system with a broad approach to encompass team diving, standardized gasses, defined procedures, organized decompression, stipulated emergency procedures, and physical fitness.

It was in this climate that George Irvine and I introduced the hotly debated DIR system. I began writing about the elements of DIR in the early 1990’s and as Internet discussion groups began to blossom in the early 90’s these elements became more widely debated. George and I carefully outlined an ever more rigorous standard of care with respect to diving. It was designed from the outset to address every component of safe and efficient diving. We set about to formalize an equipment configuration that previously had been ill defined and, for the first time, insisted upon its use within our group and amongst our dive buddies. At the time I was teaching for nearly every major organization (PADI, NAUI, PDIC, YMCA, CMAS, NSS-CDS, NACD, IAND (now IANTD), and TDI (after they split from IAND). I was on the BOD of the NACD and NSS-CDS and was, for a time, the Training Director for the NACD. I mention these affiliations so that the interested could appreciate that my efforts were initially very much more about inclusion. I worked very hard toward promoting safety and uniformity WITHIN these organizations and WITHIN the industry at large. In fact, most of our initial group spoke regularly at conventions and wrote articles in their various organizations’ magazines.

After a time I came to realize that my efforts to change the status quo were perhaps unfair to the organizations themselves. This is because I saw first-hand how resistant people were any sort of change; in fact, many of these individuals had no interest in the commitment that DIR represented. Therefore, I amicably resigned my formal positions and sought out a means of providing a global instrument that would allow interested parties a means by which to learn about DIR; this, in turn, gave rise to GUE.

Concurrently, after many frustrated attempts to convince the major manufacturers of technical diver gear to make DIR equipment we also set out to provide, at least for ourselves, a conduit for this equipment. Initially I had no desire to manufacture equipment. Training and exploration were my focus. However, we continued to try and encourage individuals to recognize the value of these ideas. Now, of course, after tremendous effort and expense others seek to capitalize on what they resisted. Considering these events, I find it hard to imagine that anyone could begrudge our irritation at those that would intentionally confuse the meaning of DIR.

I imagine that many of you have reasons to dislike the implied exclusion within DIR (in fact, it is a self-selected exclusion because if you want to embrace all its tenets it is open to you). I also appreciate that some of you have a host of other reasons for not liking the aforementioned organizations. Honestly, I am perfectly comfortable with that fact. I am more committed to the freedom this choice represents than to any other paradigm. Yet, I seek to facilitate a choice based upon facts and not mangled representations.

Several individuals have complained about Halcyon’s association with DIR and about GUE’s close relation to Halcyon. Perhaps this history will assist those that misunderstand these relations. Because the interaction of these groups has been promoted as a reason to disparage their purpose I will, in another post, speak directly to the associations within GUE and Halcyon as well as the advancement of Halcyon-like products.

Best wishes to you all,
Jarrod
 
Those posts take time and thought and I appreciate it, as I'm sure a lot of others here do. Cranky folks seem to have the most energy for posting, so I just wanted to say thanks! Enjoyed your DIR Fundamentals book immensely, it has impacted me positively, although I will likely never be a serious tech diver, and I believe you're having a positive impact on diving generally.

Keep it up! Figure your detractors will post 4 times as much as your fans, and keep it all in perspective.

John Collins
 
Thank you for the brief history lesson of DIR. I'm not a DIR diver, however, I find the concept interesting. From what you said, DIR was originally created to standardize diving practices at the technical/cave level. I'm just wondering if the DIR concept is "appropriate/better" for recreational/week-end divers? In other words, will DIR (ie. DIR-F) TRULY make a recreational diver a better/safer diver. It just seems to me that DIR requires some sort of special commitment on behalf of the diver in regards to their entire approach to diving which may go beyond what the average diver is ready to commit. Lastly, have any independant studies been conducted or safety records compared to see if the DIR approach is safer than the non DIR approach to diving? Thanks
 
Jarrod once bubbled...
Part 1 of 3

Hello Everyone,

I know that many of you decided long ago how you felt about DIR, Halcyon, and GUE. However, some of you are still trying to evaluate these groups and how they fit into your future diving plans.

Over the years I have watched individuals intentionally misrepresent DIR, Halcyon and GUE and as a result became immune to what was being traded on the various lists. However, recently I had occasion to discuss issues of this kind with a number of individuals, some of who were honestly unaware of the proper history, others who could care less, and some others who were unknowing pawns in the misrepresentation of these entities. Therefore, I have decided, as briefly as I can, to give an account of these organizations and of their philosophical underpinnings.

Jarrod

Even though some might misrepresent DIR the message still comes through to those that are really looking for a good diving rig and philosophy. When I first started to get into diving I started to read this board and I thought DIR was crazy, but now that I have hung around and read most of the DIR debates and the very helpful threads on this board I now want to go that direction.

I bought my first BP/Wing not to long ago and have dived it about 10 times and find it everything DIR said it was and love it. I’m not DIR yet since I do not have all the equipment and most importantly I do not have the training. Be nice to have some here in the Midwest :wink:

Thanks for taking the time to post.


Dan
 
Thanks Jarrod

I appreciate you going to the effort in trying to clear up some misconceptions that I have (and am sure many others do) in regards to DIR.

I am very new to diving, was certified by PADI only a few months ago. If I had not come to this board I would never heard of DIR. I stil am not to clear on the whole concept, but I plan on reading the DIR fundamentals book, and hopfully I will get a better idea

I have the same kind of question that divemed06 had....Can the DIR philosophy be put into use by the average/beginner diver?

I am in the market for my first set of gear..would going with the Hogarthian approach be usefull this early in the game? or would it be better to wait?

Thanks for your help and I look forward to reading parts 2 and 3!

Cheers

Tommy
 
Well, here on Scubaboard there are some who are well intentioned, but end up spreading misinformation. They fit into the "cyberdiver" category. And more recently, we have the "cyberdirdiver". It's good to hear it from the horse's mouth. Thanks and keep the posts coming JJ.
 
Glad to see you here JJ.Thanx for taking the time to give the short bio.Doing the right thing when you don't have to is one of the trademarks of good and decent people.
Being open and honest about "DIR" is lot more attractive than some of the aforementioned"cyberdirdiver"control freaks.There are some great emissaries here ,Uncle Pug,Roakey and Lost Yooper were very instrumental here introducing quite a few Scubaboard members to the methods and reasoning behing DIR.
Hope to see you here,this is very good community of grown-ups.Most are very open to new ideas and willing to reciprocate.Aside from a few cranks any group this size will contain, this is my #1 stop on the net.
 
Seems to me that 'ya can't have it both ways.

"I worked very hard toward promoting safety and uniformity WITHIN these organizations and WITHIN the industry at large."
.....
"I am more committed to the freedom this choice represents than to any other paradigm."

These two statements seem, on their face, to be contradictory.

I have adopted many of the elements of "DIR" within my own diving. I primarily dive in open water, but do occasionally dive with "soft ceilings" (decompression), and often conduct hazardous activities while diving (e.g. spearfishing.)

The benefits of reduced drag and reduced entanglement risk are evident to me, and I welcome those changes. I dive a long hose, plate, wing, one-piece harness and bungied backup, and have spring straps on my fins as an example. I do not typically carry a canister light (although I own one) because they are inappropriate for much of the diving I do; but when appropriate, I like using one.

However, there are reasons why I will likely never be "DIR" as a diver, and those reasons all have to do with choice.

I choose to dive solo on occasion, as an example (but I do take redundant kit when I do!) I choose to dive with people who may not meet the BMI index standards set forth in the DIR-F book (and among the other purists.) I don't throw people who smoke out of my circle of friends (not even diving friends), and for the friends/divers to knock back a beer or two on the way back to the dock after a day of diving is perfectly ok wth me (just don't drop a glass bottle on deck!)

I believe in self-reliance before team reliance. Yes, I understand that some day I may curse that choice as I take my last breath and meet my maker. But I accept this, as I believe that in many cases the alternative is at least as risky, and perhaps even more so, as the "human computer" is more falliable than a mechanical one!

The "bakers dozen", as yet another example, is one I find poorly thought out in the DIR-F book. Here is a litany of 13 reasons to dislike computers. Of them, IMHO only 1 (#7) is truly valid. The others are criticism of divers, not computers! A computer neither makes ones brain go away nor does the lack of one insure that a brain will be present (and more importantly, functioning!) Having seen a couple of REALLY stupid things done by "table divers" in miscomputation of tables, one person of whom by LUCK ALONE avoided an iron pony ride, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the presence of lack thereof of a computer has nothing to do with whether or not the diver has not only a grasp of the concepts, but applies them correctly.

More importantly, if one's brain DOES go on strike, you are at least likely to get back on the boat un-bent if you have the computer with you. This is decidedly NOT true if you take a brain vacation while diving tables, custom cut, "rule of 120", or out of any of the agency books!

As just one personal example, people often point to the Suunto computers as being "overly conservative." Indeed perhaps they are for "NDL" diving (a misnomer if there ever was one!) Yet run some deco profiles on VPM-B against what Suunto gives you for the same dive, on an ACTUAL dive, and you will find that the Suunto is actually less conservative than VPM-B with the conservatism set to +2! Its not immediately apparent, but it is true. Further,while many will call the Suunto a "bend and treat" model, it doesn't HAVE to be dove that way. I dive my Vytec into deco on occasion (intentionally) and find that if I do a deep stop ascent profile, with the first stop just above where offgassing starts, then every 10' after that, the meter in fact credits me on the way up AND typically clears BEFORE my VPM-B generated runtime for the same square profile says I am "ok" to get out. Now the computer doubtless credits me for the time I spent at lesser depths if any, but the fact remains - the "overdeco" claim is not entirely accurate or even accurate at all for some meters, and you DO NOT need to follow a "bend and treat" deco model with ALL deco-capable meters either.

Carrying the computer on my wrist doesn't prevent me from cutting a custom table for the dive I'm about to do on the boat and inscribing the stops and ascent profile in my brain - which I do regularly. I also have the "basic" tables in my head for "NDL" dives, and those serve as a sanity check against the meter. If I have a brain fade underwater, though, that meter might just get me back on the boat without a trip on the iron pony.

I guess the biggest issue I have with "DIR" is the "one true way" that smells and sounds too much like a cult to me. You claim to value freedom of choice, but DIR does not when it comes to diving. DIR makes fairly serious claims about safety enhancements, but let's be straight here - the statistical incidence of real trouble in diving is low to begin with; even with the poor state of training (and I agree with you on that!) we only lose 100 divers or so a year out of a universe of many million and tens of millions of exposures (and perhaps more.) That's a VERY small number and make statistical comparisons extremely difficult to do with any validity. Post-hoc accident analysis to find a "non-DIR-thing" in the chain of events doesn't prove a thing, because even if someone was divnig "DIR", people, being human, make mistakes - even if adhering to the philosophy to the best of their ability.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm trying to separate dogma from reality. There seems to be an awful lot of dogma in the DIR philosophy, and while all dogma can be defended, that doesn't mean that adopting it is necessarily a good choice for all.

Part of having that brain you value so much is evaluating each piece of information and choosing whether it fits - or not - with what YOU believe.
 
the post Jarrod. I look forward to the next installments.

For those wondering about DIR and recreational diving.

I have taken the DIR-F class taught by MHK. As Mike pointed out the gear configuration in and of itself is only a small part of the total picture. Most of what is important is diving safely which is more attitude and skill developement than it is wearing a certain make or configuration of gear.

I'm not a caver and probably never will be simply because thats not what I'm interested in.

Having excellent skills and an attitude of safety applies to all diving. If you think you could benefit by seeing a higher standard then is presented by most OW courses then by all means take the DIR-F course. There is plenty of good information presented.
 
JJ, if Genesis ("Boycott 'em all, let God sort 'em out") doesn't like what you're doing, you must be doing quite a bit right...

Thaks for the post. Some of us still have open minds... :)

Roak
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom