Hogarthian VS(?) DIR...

[Kim]

When I read it again your question basically becomes:
Why can´t RB´s be DIR?

Actually the RB80 is DIR and only DIR (you have to have the training before you can buy it). As I said earlier though - leaving CCRs out of it - I am still curious as to why other SCRs can't be although I gather that the RB80 is a very good unit.
I DO think that people should be able to recognise the merits of each others skills though. It should be a question of what you can bring to the table, not where you got it from.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I agree with this. I only started to learn some of it when overheads became involved. I don't know how true it is yet but I've been told that the NAUI Master diver course is fairly comprehensive in this respect.

Yes, and it's a good, comprehensive class ... but it is a very different course with different goals and a different focus on skills than DIR-F.

I took NAUI Master Diver, DM, an Instructor courses before my DIR-F ... went into DIR-F thinking I had solid skills and would breeze through the course.

I found out otherwise ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Kim]

Yes, and it's a good, comprehensive class ... but it is a very different course with different goals and a different focus on skills than DIR-F.

One of the questions raised though is about the goals. If the goal is to be a safe competent diver in the recreational area which course is aimed purely at that? From what I can understand DIR-F's goal is to teach the skill set required as a fundamental for further overhead training which to some might seem overkill to do the type of diving they want to do. I presume that you Bob were already a safe competent diver before you did DIR-F. Did DIR-F amount to something that you really needed by revealing that actually before you had been a far less safe and competent diver than you thought? If so....was that the only way to get that knowledge?

 

[grazie42]

Originally Posted by Kim:
I DO think that people should be able to recognise the merits of each others skills though. It should be a question of what you can bring to the table, not where you got it from.

I think that is true in the realworld. The only way to find out though is to go diving. For some, once you "drink the koolaid" (or non-dir equiv.), that´s just too much "work" and so you limit the people you´re willing to "audition". I doubt unknown tech1-dir-divers just jump in the water for a penetration dive with deco obligation either...it´s just a question of eliminating "enough" uncertainties to get there faster...

Originally Posted by Kim:
From what I can understand DIR-F's goal is to teach the skill set required as a fundamental for further overhead training which to some might seem overkill to do the type of diving they want to do.

I think the skillset required for overhead training is fundamental. I don´t think it is overkill for OW-diving. Whether that is REALLY what dir-f teaches, someone who has taken the course is better equipped to answer....

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

One of the questions raised though is about the goals. If the goal is to be a safe competent diver in the recreational area which course is aimed purely at that? From what I can understand DIR-F's goal is to teach the skill set required as a fundamental for further overhead training which to some might seem overkill to do the type of diving they want to do. I presume that you Bob were already a safe competent diver before you did DIR-F. Did DIR-F amount to something that you really needed by revealing that actually before you had been a far less safe and competent diver than you thought? If so....was that the only way to get that knowledge?

Well, I think I was already a safe, competent diver.

What I was addressing was the inference (perhaps it was only a perception on my part) that these two classes would provide equivalent skills. They won't ... because they address different aspects of diving.

Both are exceptional classes, to my concern ... but neither will turn you into a safe, competent diver. They will only provide you some of the tools that you need to become one ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[lamont]

Actually the RB80 is DIR and only DIR (you have to have the training before you can buy it). As I said earlier though - leaving CCRs out of it - I am still curious as to why other SCRs can't be although I gather that the RB80 is a very good unit.

I don't think that anyone involved in this discussion so far understands the relevant differences between the different SCR units and why the RB80 is the only DIR approved one. I could venture a guess that it is because the RB80 is a purely mechanical passive addition SCR, but I just crossed over into the realm of junk that I don't know anything about...

Since DIR/GUE/WKPP views rebreathers as inherantly more dangerous than OC, they don't want to sell it to just anyone. And, actually, this kind of refutes your view that they're out just for profit. They can only sell RB80s to people who have gone through Tech 2 and take the rebreather class. If they wanted more profit, they could sell more units by dropping those restrictions and letting economy of scale let them price it lower. As it is, they almost actively try to discourage anyone from buying an RB80, which is not your best tactic if your goal is to profit.

GUE also "loses" a lot of money from divers who go through GUE technical training and then wind up diving CCR rebreathers. If you look on TDS you can find multiple divers who have gone down this path and are GUE-trained divers that use CCRs. If Halcyon and GUE were so concerned about profit, they'd figure out what a DIR CCR looked like and start marketing it to those divers.

 

[Kim]

I don't think that anyone involved in this discussion so far understands the relevant differences between the different SCR units and why the RB80 is the only DIR approved one. I could venture a guess that it is because the RB80 is a purely mechanical passive addition SCR, but I just crossed over into the realm of junk that I don't know anything about...

Since DIR/GUE/WKPP views rebreathers as inherantly more dangerous than OC, they don't want to sell it to just anyone. And, actually, this kind of refutes your view that they're out just for profit. They can only sell RB80s to people who have gone through Tech 2 and take the rebreather class. If they wanted more profit, they could sell more units by dropping those restrictions and letting economy of scale let them price it lower. As it is, they almost actively try to discourage anyone from buying an RB80, which is not your best tactic if your goal is to profit.

GUE also "loses" a lot of money from divers who go through GUE technical training and then wind up diving CCR rebreathers. If you look on TDS you can find multiple divers who have gone down this path and are GUE-trained divers that use CCRs. If Halcyon and GUE were so concerned about profit, they'd figure out what a DIR CCR looked like and start marketing it to those divers.

Fair answer. I also don't know enough about it myself. I can see your point about Halcyon though - it's certainly another way of looking at it.

 

[Scuba]

So, Whats you point...other than trolling.

JeffG, sorry for my prior snide remark. It was out of line and not really meant. Let me show you what I caught in my long wide trolling net.

As regards the WKPP, it was the need and desire to improve safety and efficiency in attaining goals in a harsh environment that led to a more uniform standardized approach to diving. Their first well organized rules and standards system became known as Hogarthian. In time, a more encompassing and uniformly structured system evolved which became known as Doing It Right.

Both systems share almost, if not identical fundamental principles at the very core. Safety, efficiency, simplicity, uniformity of gear, fitness, skills training and planning while employing the team approach. Differences arise in the implementation of these core principles. Mainly, DIR demands stricter conformity over a wider set of rules.

The biggest difference in these two dive systems is in the marketing arena. DIR has its creators/leaders, an organization, GUE, and fervent supporters all promoting the system. A promotions machine. Hogarthian doesn’t. In fact, the difference is so stark that the concept of the Hogarthian system has been almost completely corrupted. So much so, that it extensively survives known as a gear configuration, even in the mind of many who claim to know it and use it. Its essential qualities mainly lives on through its continued legacy to diving in general, specially tech diving, and DIR in particular since it adheres to its fundamental vision. As someone said, the victors get to write the history books. And this chapter in history is just about fully written.

Finally, the important point to note is that these are examples of the endless search for doing it better. It’s been going on before, others continue to explore along parallel similar and dissimilar paths, as the search for progress continues onward. Few have the need, resources, and desire to trailblaze a new path to do things better, in fact, many are quite content and desire nothing more than to utilize and follow in the footsteps laid by others. A good number want the flexibility to make a few fine tunning custom adjustments to existing standards and systems. A few seek greater modifications.

To the sport diver population, DIR attempts to provide the equivalent of a custom tailored made suit off the rack, usable by anyone in all conditions. It only asks that the diver fit in and everything will be taken care of. Hogarthian is much the same, although it's a slightly looser fit, less refined, allowing more individual customization. Ultimately all standards and systems require a degree of adherance, the difference being some do not engender the peer pressure policing to conform as much as others.

That’s my take on it.

 

[JeffG]

To the sport diver population, DIR attempts to provide the equivalent of a custom tailored made suit off the rack, usable by anyone in all conditions. It only asks that the diver fit in and everything will be taken care of.

That’s my take on it.

Well, my take on it is....

DIR is a system designed to work in some of the most extreme situation that a diver could find himself. (And in this case, based on the bias of the founders, would be 19,000ft back in a Florida cave)

Taking this extreme situation and working backwards to an beginner open water diver in both skills and equipment. This gives the beginning diver a system in which as he is exposing himself to more demanding environments, he doesn't have to re-learn new skills. He should only have to learn and practice with the new issues this environment demands. (This could be: knowledge of deco...use of stage bottles...use of a reel, etc etc)

The "user interface" of a DIR system is a very stable platform throughout an entire divers career. His backup lights are in the same place, his primary is in the same place, knife. Also the procedures are relatively stable. (example...Allows donate what you are breathing...always works in all situations (except a rebreather))

A diver can stop anywhere along this path of OW to 19,000ft, DIR is not about going more and more extreme, but it does create a stable consistent platform for any diver to do whatever his knowledge/comfort/finances allow him.

The biggest difference in these two dive systems is in the marketing arena. DIR has its creators/leaders, an organization, GUE, and fervent supporters all promoting the system. A promotions machine. Hogarthian doesn’t.

Thats because DIR is a very specific thing, Hogarthian isn't, Its "grayer" and isn't as consistant across alot of divers.

Ultimately all standards and systems require a degree of adherance, the difference being some do not engender the peer pressure policing to conform as much as others.

Maybe from the outside looking in, it may look like that. Yet you do not seem to believe anyone if they tell you differently. So without believing us, without taking the class you still seemed to be able to attach the following descriptions on DIR.

Marketing
promotions machine
victors get to write the history books
peer pressure policing to conform


and you wonder why I was asking if you are trolling.

 

[Scuba]

Thats because DIR is a very specific thing, Hogarthian isn't, Its "grayer" and isn't as consistant across alot of divers.

A system need not require the meeting of all narrow specific tolerances to be highly and effectively promoted. In addition some allow for wider tolerances and operate efffectively.

Maybe from the outside looking in, it may look like that. Yet you do not seem to believe anyone if they tell you differently. So without believing us, without taking the class you still seemed to be able to attach the following descriptions on DIR.

Marketing
promotions machine
victors get to write the history books
peer pressure policing to conform


and you wonder why I was asking if you are trolling.

You appear to be making a different claim without denying my statements. We now go into a DIR discussion, all I can add after many such discussions ultimately reaching your conclusion, is that if no-one is able to effectively explain the concept through written language on a forum, I don't believe I would understand it any better in a classroom. I don't buy it. You want me to believe the notion that if I don't accept your premise it's because I just don't get it, again, I'm not sold. DIR is not some out of this world inexplicable concept revealed only to those who accept it to be in their best interest. Be careful how you and others portray it, if you don't want to be accused of certain things.

Optmization is the bottom line. One can optimize for this, for that, but not for everything. An advantage here often causes a detriment there. I would like to see a forum dedicated for simple logical explanations about optimization. If you do this, these are the consequences. Which are not always easy to discern, either.