Split from MHK's "Exactly 6 years ago today"

[Kim]

CJ-62. You are a new member so you might not be aware of all the rules.
This is the DIR Forum and as such is meant as a place to actually discuss DIR theory and practice - not to debate the merits or otherwise of the system, or to compare it with other agencies.
Please could you read:
http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=43458
and:
http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=45143
for an explanation of the special rules for this forum.

We have many other places to conduct the kind of discussion that you are trying to start here riight now - please feel free to do so - but not here.

Thank you.

(This actually applies to everyone!)

 

[Otter]

Bob,
I think you have hit on a key point....there are several concepts (buddy, asecent rates, O2 provision) that agencies present as important in the open water class, yet unless the instructor injects 'supplemental' information (which is allowed), the tools aren't supplied...my personal pet-peeve (not necessarily the most important) is the fact we teach that administering of O2 is critical in cases of suspected DCS....of course, we don't teach how to actually do that until Rescue (which is a recent addition).

That being said, teaching some of the 'supplemental information' is easier when you are already dealing with certified divers. First, regardless of the level of the student, they have their own gear and have at least proved they aren't going to bolt to the surface the first time their mask is off of their face. Second, providing the material and the jetting off leaving 90% of the class with a 'provisional' won't work when the certification is standing between the student diving and not diving. As you well know, when you are working with a O/W student, you basically spend as much time as needed to get that person's skills where they need to be.

I honestly am looking forward to the GUE Open Water Class to get ideas and see how JJ balances all of this out.

 

[CJ-62]

Thank you for the response, I have the advantage of only speaking for myself so I can only blame myself if I overstep. The quote concerning those who get bent is not defensible, my statement is incorrect. I apologize.

The statement about DIR preventing an accident I must wholeheartedly defend. The first exhibit is the friend you reference, I will assume proper training, attitude, equipment and behavior. It did not protect him. DIR cannot garauntee a DCS free history any better than any other system. Unfortunately, luck resides underwater and the risks can only be minimized, never eliminated.

Of course, any and (almost) all training is valuable and again I do not disagree with any technique forwarded by the DIR if it makes sense for the anticipated scenario. If 'because its DIR' ever seems like a suitable defense for any aspect of one's diving then I would make sport of them.

Maybe the one idea that I have failed to properly present is that humility is something that seems lacking in quite a few of the proponents of DIR. I can stand by that assertion, present company excepted.
Maybe later,
CJ

 

[Rick Murchison]

I usually stay out of this forum.
I am not a "DIR" diver.
In fact, I have some major heartburn with a few points and procedures in "DIR."
However, I just have to jump into this thread on the side of DIR. When it comes to DCS prevention there is no system of recreational/technical diving that is better than DIR. (Different and equally as good in my opinion, but not better) There just isn't. And while I may have heartburn with some nits here and there, the DIR philosophy is mature and sound, especially in the areas of teamwork, discipline and attitude towards safety.
We would all do well to adopt that part of the system at the least.
Rick

 

[Otter]

...
Maybe the one idea that I have failed to properly present is that humility is something that seems lacking in quite a few of the proponents of DIR. I can stand by that assertion, present company excepted.
Maybe later,
CJ

CJ,
From my perspective, I would change humility to respectfully. Calling people names is disrespectful. In my experience the more confident a well-balanced person is, the easier it is for that person to be be respectful of those less skilled. Replace confidence with diffidence and things change.

That being said, the DIR concepts are sound and while they may not be necessary in every situation, I can't think of a situation where following DIR principles is 'worse' than not following them.

 

[CJ-62]

CJ-62. You are a new member so you might not be aware of all the rules.
This is the DIR Forum and as such is meant as a place to actually discuss DIR theory and practice - not to debate the merits or otherwise of the system, or to compare it with other agencies.


We have many other places to conduct the kind of discussion that you are trying to start here riight now - please feel free to do so - but not here.

DIR theory and practice is what I was discussing in response to the original post. I have repeatedly stated that DIR is great. I am not knocking DIR. The logic behind it is fantastic. My assertion would be that arrogance has no place in the philosophy.
Am I right or wrong?
If I'm wrong then you won't have to worry about subsequent posts. If I'm right then the tribal elders need to wake up and get the youngsters in line, i.e. Every time someone uses the 'stroke' term you should shudder and demand an apology!
I didn't start out to challenge any single person but my first post was all about the fallacy of several diver's thinking 6 years ago. That wasn't about DIR, that was about over-confidence, hubris and complacency.
I see a disconnect between at least two groups of DIR trained divers, their comments and actions are at odds. I have rubbed up against some arrogant elitist types and have dove with a couple of fantastic DIR guys. I would like to see more of the latter and less of the former.
Don't worry this will be my last post,
Goodbye,
CJ

 

[ghrousseau]

DIR theory and practice is what I was discussing in response to the original post. I have repeatedly stated that DIR is great. I am not knocking DIR. The logic behind it is fantastic. My assertion would be that arrogance has no place in the philosophy.
Am I right or wrong?
If I'm wrong then you won't have to worry about subsequent posts. If I'm right then the tribal elders need to wake up and get the youngsters in line, i.e. Every time someone uses the 'stroke' term you should shudder and demand an apology!
I didn't start out to challenge any single person but my first post was all about the fallacy of several diver's thinking 6 years ago. That wasn't about DIR, that was about over-confidence, hubris and complacency.
I see a disconnect between at least two groups of DIR trained divers, their comments and actions are at odds. I have rubbed up against some arrogant elitist types and have dove with a couple of fantastic DIR guys. I would like to see more of the latter and less of the former.
Don't worry this will be my last post,
Goodbye,
CJ

I think the the whole point of MHK's original post was how a cruical event could change one's outlook on diving and change their behavior in a positive way. As he pointed out in his original post, he had not yet adopted the DIR principles on that Doria Dive. What I would really love to see and hear discussed in a different thread is how many "saves" have been made as a result of DIR principles applied. :06:

 

[detroit diver]

I don't think those numbers exist. The only incidence that I'm aware of is a toxing situation in a Tech 1 class in Europe. The students were grilled and instructed on how to fill and analyze their mixes, and one apparently didn't follow procedure. Bottom line is, he was breathing pure O2 at depth greater than 70 feet and toxed. Some quick action by his instuctor, Andrew Georgitsis, saved his life. This skill is now taught in all DIR-F classes.

I think the the whole point of MHK's original post was how a cruical event could change one's outlook on diving and change their behavior in a positive way. As he pointed out in his original post, he had not yet adopted the DIR principles on that Doria Dive. What I would really love to see and hear discussed in a different thread is how many "saves" have been made as a result of DIR principles applied. :06:

 

[detroit diver]

The above was done from memory. The actual numbers are (thanks Charlie99): The diver was supposed to be breathing 30/30 mix, and it analyzed to 50 percent O2. Tox depth was 36 meters.

 

[Otter]

I think the the whole point of MHK's original post was how a cruical event could change one's outlook on diving and change their behavior in a positive way. As he pointed out in his original post, he had not yet adopted the DIR principles on that Doria Dive. What I would really love to see and hear discussed in a different thread is how many "saves" have been made as a result of DIR principles applied. :06:

How do you count a "save" that isn't necessary because the problem is prevented in the first place?