Is It Time For A DIR Forum???

[Bob]

How funny! Ran across this thread early this morning and I've been laughing ever since. Every time I'm diving and loop that long hose around my neck, I'll probably laugh. :tree: Bob

 

[John C. Ratliff]

DIR (Doing It Right) seems to be an offshoot of a diving philosophy first advocated by the National Association of Skin Diving Stores (it was changed to Schools later, I believe), NASDS from the 1970's. That organization also advocated one, and only one regulator manufacturer (Scubapro) and one type of BC (the AtPak). They had the "inside" story on dive safety. I looked at the GUE site, and noticed that at least one of the instructors was NASDS certified. The gear configuration has changed, but the philosophy has not.

The DIR divers typically conduct what has come to be known as "extreme diving." They have a gear configuration that allows them to dive beyond the no-decompression limits, and deeper than 120 feet sw; these are realms that are (or at least were) considered beyond the range of "sport diving." These divers also regularly dive in overhead environments (wrecks, caves, etc.). Because they are way beyond the "knife edge" of the no-decompression limits, these divers cannot simply surface in an emergency .

This may be why their "blood boils" when they see someone not in the DIR gear configuration; it literally would if they had any kind of malfunction that forced them to surface. Typically, these decompression dives are conducted (or at least appear to be conducted) without a portable decompression chamber. That means that there is absolutely no room for error.

There are other problems DIR divers contend with:

--They dive twin 80's or 90's, many times with extra cylinders hanging from their body for decompression. This configuration means that they have extreme difficulty simply swimming through the water. It also means that it is easy for them to go beyond the no-decompression limits.

--Because of the difficulty swimming, they are therefore using underwater propulsion vehicles for transportation, and to conserve gas for their decompression commitments. This means they are gear dependent. They are in the same situation as a snowmobiler if their UPV stops working, only they cannot simply stop and wait.

The DIR is therefore a way of dealing with extreme diving hazards, where there is no margin for error. It is not the only way to deal with these hazards.

Most of us simply avoid the situations that DIR divers place themselves into; we don't conduct decompression dives, and don't wear the amount of gas that can get us into the problems that DIR divers must contend with. It is their choice to do diving this way, but it simply is not the only way to dive; it's not even the only way to do extreme diving. But it is their way, and the DIR divers apparently feel that it should be our way too.

Could there be a financial incentive for this advocacy?

SeaRat

 

[ckharlan66]

John C. Ratliff once bubbled...
But it is their way, and the DIR divers apparently feel that it should be our way too.

Could there be a financial incentive for this advocacy?

SeaRat

Nah, You don't see those that are actually affiliated with GUE (the organization that teaches DIR) on here telling everyone that thier way is the only way. They will respond to questions asking why they do what they do, but they don't bash those who choose not to.

The folks on the board do make recommendations but you will notice that the ones that do that don't have any connections that would cause a conflict of interest.

There are some who bash those that don't do it thier way but there are those on both sides of the issue.

Dive Safe.

Chad

 

[Lawman]

of Halcyon stock for your thoughts!!

I think you're on to something, Holmes!!

 

[Popeye]

Sydney_Diver once bubbled...
Is It Time For A DIR Forum The Poll

Note Option #2 : Yes, start a Non DIR Forum

Would be a place to post a question and not have it beaten to death by DIR.....



I for one have had enough of DIR entering into almost every thread on all the Forums.

It is turning people away from the forums and I have no doubt new divers away from Diving.

Couple things:

If one can't defend one's practices articulately against DIR, one might want to reevaluate that practice in light of DIR.

You may also notice that the loudest DIR shills are usually the least DIR divers.

Second only to those that say they tried DIR, and it doesn't work.

You can usually catch them in a lie with the simplest question.

Speaking from personal experience, the best way to recognise who's a shill, and who isn't, is to learn DIR principles.

It helps you cut the wheat from the chaff.

There's nothing about DIR that isn't easy, educational and safe.

Whether every bit of DIR is for every diver, and every dive, is a different question.

If anyone is so weak willed as to be turned away in this fashion, they're better off out of the water anyway.

 

[ElectricZombie]

No one ever said that it was the only way to dive, just the most efficient.

 

[Aquamaniac]

Id like to throw out a challenge...........

Cut and Paste all the derogatory remarks made by "true" DIR divers to non DIR divers on this board.

And then do the reverse.

How many posts can you find where a DIR advocate has called a NON advocate a Stroke?

How many Trolls can you find where a DIR diver has attempted to upset a NON DIR diver group?


Dave

 

[detroit diver]

John C. Ratliff once bubbled...
DIR (Doing It Right) seems to be an offshoot of a diving philosophy first advocated by the National Association of Skin Diving Stores (it was changed to Schools later, I believe), NASDS from the 1970's. That organization also advocated one, and only one regulator manufacturer (Scubapro) and one type of BC (the AtPak). They had the "inside" story on dive safety. I looked at the GUE site, and noticed that at least one of the instructors was NASDS certified. The gear configuration has changed, but the philosophy has not.

The DIR divers typically conduct what has come to be known as "extreme diving." They have a gear configuration that allows them to dive beyond the no-decompression limits, and deeper than 120 feet sw; these are realms that are (or at least were) considered beyond the range of "sport diving." These divers also regularly dive in overhead environments (wrecks, caves, etc.). Because they are way beyond the "knife edge" of the no-decompression limits, these divers cannot simply surface in an emergency .

This may be why their "blood boils" when they see someone not in the DIR gear configuration; it literally would if they had any kind of malfunction that forced them to surface. Typically, these decompression dives are conducted (or at least appear to be conducted) without a portable decompression chamber. That means that there is absolutely no room for error.

There are other problems DIR divers contend with:

--They dive twin 80's or 90's, many times with extra cylinders hanging from their body for decompression. This configuration means that they have extreme difficulty simply swimming through the water. It also means that it is easy for them to go beyond the no-decompression limits.

--Because of the difficulty swimming, they are therefore using underwater propulsion vehicles for transportation, and to conserve gas for their decompression commitments. This means they are gear dependent. They are in the same situation as a snowmobiler if their UPV stops working, only they cannot simply stop and wait.

The DIR is therefore a way of dealing with extreme diving hazards, where there is no margin for error. It is not the only way to deal with these hazards.

Most of us simply avoid the situations that DIR divers place themselves into; we don't conduct decompression dives, and don't wear the amount of gas that can get us into the problems that DIR divers must contend with. It is their choice to do diving this way, but it simply is not the only way to dive; it's not even the only way to do extreme diving. But it is their way, and the DIR divers apparently feel that it should be our way too.

Could there be a financial incentive for this advocacy?

SeaRat

This may be the most inaccurate post I've seen on this board. Unless you've taken a DIR class, don't guess what DIR is or isn't.

1. DIR is for ALL types of diving, including no-decompression dives.

2. Some of us dive in overhead environments, others don't. And yes, some of us have the ability to surface in an emergency. We just prefer to a. Take care of the problem before it's a problem, or b. surface in a safe manner.

3. No blood boiling here. If you want to dive in a poodle jacket, go ahead. But at least look at the alternatives because there may be a better way.

4. With twins, we usually dive LP104's with a drysuit. Twin AL80's witha wetsuit. We DO NOT have "extreme difficulty simply swimming through the water". In fact, because we have been trained to keep horizontal trim, and because our equipment configuration puts the bottles in the slip stream, you don't even notice that the bottles are aboard (within reason).

5. I don't own a DPV.

6. We try to avoid the problems before they become problems. If we can't, then we have a redundant backup system-our buddy. Everyone is gear dependent. We are no more or less than you. What we do is constantly train for various situations.

7. Financial incentive? For who? The training director who is away from his business most of the year? Halcyon? Possibly, but the DIR classes don't push Halcyon products. It's word of mouth, qualtiy control, and customer service that puts them up front. No different than any other well run company. You want to dive DIR w/ a FredT backplate and an OMS non-bungeed wings? No problem. DIR doesn't care.

I hope this wasnt' a troll, but now I'm beginning to wonder...

 

[John C. Ratliff]

Nope, I'm not a troll, but am still learning after 40+ years of diving (see the "Introductions" area of this site for my explaination of my experience). The observations are from what I've seen posted, and from what I learned reading the GUE website. I've also had past experience with NASDS instructor types, and DIR seems to fit the same profile. So perhaps what is happening here is past experience on my part influencing my views on the emergence of a new way of diving. If what I've seen is not true, then some of the DIR divers need to better educate me, and perhaps others. I doubt I will ever put a long hose on my primary regulator, however, as I do a lot of river (high current) diving, and a lot of solo diving. I also dive double hose regulators a lot, which helps in aquatic life observation and U/W photography, which I'm also into.

SeaRat

 

[ckharlan66]

According to what I have learned DIR does not require the long hose for recreational diving. Most prefer to use it so to keep their configuation the same no matter what type of diving they are doing. As for the high current I have found (YMMV) that the long hose is more streamlined when routed correctly than a standard rig. But I am in no way implying that you should change your rig.

I am sure those who are more knowledgeable than me would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have about DIR. You might also consider getting the Fundimentals book as it would probably answer alot of the concerns you have about the system.

Dive Save and Dive often......however you choose to dive.

Chad