What is, and what isn't DIR?

[Tek_Divr]

"Doing It Right".

It is with great amusement that I read in various Internet forum circles the endless discussion on what is and what isn't "DIR".

Global Underwater Explorers is the umbrella ogranization that is THE DIR training and certification agency.

There seems to be more time spent by Internet divers endlessly asking what is and what isn't to the DIR wannabees who clearly haven't been trained by GUE Instructors whose list can be found here

An excellent article about the evolution of the DIR philosophy can be found here

Because there is so much debate by divers who haven't been trained by GUE instructors who have self appointed themselves Grand Master Interpreters of what is and what isn't a good DIR gear rig, for a definitive listing on a GUE DIR equipment list along with photos of all, click here.

[tiswango]

Why is there so much Debate in DIR?

In all the standard dive training, one message is very clear. Do not dive with a goal or mission orientation as it will cloud your judgement. This is a basic protection against photographers sucking their tanks try trying to get the last perfect shot, lobster hunts wrestling out the last bug or the spear fisherman getting in the last shot.
But what is you do want to accomplish a goal underwater and you are not a commercial or military diver?
An individual can only do so much with technology. Eventually they need to help of another individual. As people and equipment are added, so in the complexity. Therefore it becomes simpler, easier and more efficient to streamline training, equipment, and responses to accomplish the goal.
If you have no team and no goal, then you have no basis to be DIR. Individuals debating D ring placement outside of the context of a team with a mission, is time wasting folly.
GUE is simply the most consistent training organization. But even their instructors (I've had 4 so far and are Friends with others) have various in how and what they teach. Their background or team will set the context for the difference.
An diver or dive team has to decide which is more in context for him or her and the team they dive with.
GUE Tech 1 is taught with the small Halcyon Surface marker as an acceptable lift bag and surface marker. This is DIR.
I dive with a team off South Florida that bombs wrecks and shoots a lift bag upon drifting off. The small Halcyon marker is not big enough to been seen at distance in rough seas. Our team has decided that the Halcyon Semi-closed 60lb lift bag is the preferred choice for a surface marker. Every team needs one. The small Halcyon marker is not allowed on the boat.
This is DIR to us in the context of our team and our mission of exploring wrecks.



To another team (I'm making this up to prove a point) say, surveying fish off the shores of Bonair, the small surface marker may be just fine and there is not need for a larger lift bag to accomplish their missing. Hence it is DIR to their team and purpose.
The debate is always about the "small" details. The big picture is that a well trained DIR diver can take their equipment and go from South Florida to the Great Lakes or Truk Lagoon and dive with other DIR divers with very little time spent getting up to speed on those smaller differences. Team in those regions will have already figured out the best way to dive those areas.

[Tek_Divr]

I think the debate is among those not trained by GUE certified instructors aka Wannbees.

Good post by the way.

[Humanphibian]

Why is there so much Debate in DIR?

In all the standard dive training, one message is very clear. Do not dive with a goal or mission orientation as it will cloud your judgement. This is a basic protection against photographers sucking their tanks try trying to get the last perfect shot, lobster hunts wrestling out the last bug or the spear fisherman getting in the last shot.
But what is you do want to accomplish a goal underwater and you are not a commercial or military diver?
An individual can only do so much with technology. Eventually they need to help of another individual. As people and equipment are added, so in the complexity. Therefore it becomes simpler, easier and more efficient to streamline training, equipment, and responses to accomplish the goal.
If you have no team and no goal, then you have no basis to be DIR. Individuals debating D ring placement outside of the context of a team with a mission, is time wasting folly.
GUE is simply the most consistent training organization. But even their instructors (I've had 4 so far and are Friends with others) have various in how and what they teach. Their background or team will set the context for the difference.
An diver or dive team has to decide which is more in context for him or her and the team they dive with.
GUE Tech 1 is taught with the small Halcyon Surface marker as an acceptable lift bag and surface marker. This is DIR.
I dive with a team off South Florida that bombs wrecks and shoots a lift bag upon drifting off. The small Halcyon marker is not big enough to been seen at distance in rough seas. Our team has decided that the Halcyon Semi-closed 60lb lift bag is the preferred choice for a surface marker. Every team needs one. The small Halcyon marker is not allowed on the boat.
This is DIR to us in the context of our team and our mission of exploring wrecks.
To another team (I'm making this up to prove a point) say, surveying fish off the shores of Bonair, the small surface marker may be just fine and there is not need for a larger lift bag to accomplish their missing. Hence it is DIR to their team and purpose.
The debate is always about the "small" details. The big picture is that a well trained DIR diver can take their equipment and go from South Florida to the Great Lakes or Truk Lagoon and dive with other DIR divers with very little time spent getting up to speed on those smaller differences. Team in those regions will have already figured out the best way to dive those areas.

Probably one of the best explanations I have seen to date.

If the shoe fits....wear it... Just make sure it's the "Right" shoe for the task at hand. (and it better be black, or Stainless, or you will be thrown to the GATORS!)

[tiswango]

[QUOTE=Tek_Divr;428]I think the debate is among those not trained by GUE certified instructors aka Wannbees.
[QUOTE]

Who trained the WKPP divers that invented DIR over 10 years before GUE existed?

There are GUE instructors with absolutly NO GUE training. How did that happen?

Next time I see George Irvine, I'll tell him he's a "Wannabee"!

Perhaps a better question thread would be:

What is the difference between "Gets it" and "Doesn't Get It"?

--Matt

[seasnake]

[QUOTE=tiswango;424]Why is there so much Debate in DIR?

"In all the standard dive training, one message is very clear. Do not dive with a goal or mission orientation as it will cloud your judgement. "


I've never seen or heard that promoted before ... I agree having a goal, and then a plan to reach that goal, can lead to safer dives.

[scubapro25]

[QUOTE=seasnake;631]

Why is there so much Debate in DIR?

"In all the standard dive training, one message is very clear. Do not dive with a goal or mission orientation as it will cloud your judgement. "


I've never seen or heard that promoted before ... I agree having a goal, and then a plan to reach that goal, can lead to safer dives.

Well, as a non-DIRinian, I can only say that is one of the bizarrest things I've ever heard in diving, that 'having a goal or mission' is dangerous.

Look....I think there is a lot to like about DIR....consistency in training.......consistency in gear configuration.....all that is good stuff

But, the downside is twofold:

1. Doing It Right implies everyone else is doing it wrong, by implication

2. The 'religious zeal.' Like it or not, DIRinians have a reputation of being like any 'new convert' to a new religion: a bit fanatical in spreading the 'Gospel According to Jablonski.' Let's face it: there are elements present here of religious fanaticism here. Not all, but some.

3. DIRinians brag that they can 'go anywhere in the world and dive with anyone else trained in DIR and know that their gear configuration and training will be the same.' Predictability--that's good.

4. But, the downside of that is: you can go almost anywhere in the world and find that DIR is a numerical minority in diving [a minority within a minority] and you may not be able to dive with anyone in your group because they are NOT DIR. Is it not true that many DIRinians will refuse to dive with those not trained in DIR also?

So, those are my main objections to DIR: they have many good ideas which evolved from Cave Diving, but have tended to be a bit self-righteous and 'holier-than-thou' in their promotion of the DIR teaching, which alienates many who might otherwise be tempted to try it.

Now, you can 'tar and feather' me for having the temerity to point out what everyone in diving already knows.

[tiswango]

[QUOTE=scubapro25;1121]

But, the downside is twofold:

1. Doing It Right implies everyone else is doing it wrong, by implication

2. The 'religious zeal.

3. DIRinians brag that they can 'go anywhere in the world and dive with anyone else trained in DIR and know that their gear configuration and training will be the same.' Predictability--that's good.

4. Is it not true that many DIRinians will refuse to dive with those not trained in DIR also?

Now, you can 'tar and feather' me for having the temerity to point out what everyone in diving already knows.

I don't want to tar and feather you, I want you to back up your statements. Put them in the proper context and see if you still draw the same conclusions.?

1. Where did the name "DIR" first appear in print? Who coined the term? What was the context of the first use of the term?

2. The GUE instructors and WKPP members do not have this religious zeal. It comes from people who were taught to dive poorly and in the process of 2 weekends feel like everything they were taught was wrong and now they are free to really enjoy diving. The natural tendacy is to what to "share" that with those who have not had the experience.

Anyone who already "knows it all" in diving and cannot learn anything new will tend to discredit those who have learned something new as they are a threat.

3. Here is a pic of Charlie Gamba from Buenos Aires Argentina. Charlie was flying from LA to BA with a 16 hour lay over in Miami. I picked him up at 6 AM and put together a scuba rig with pieces from three other divers that was identical to what he was used to diving. Once on site, I forgot I took the bungee necklace off that set of regs. We fixed it with a double ender. Sure, any diver could put on any gear and dive, but you feel 100% comofortable in that gear? Would your trim and bouyancy skills be perfect?



4. I think you are confusing the desire to dive with other DIR divers and the classic "Rule #1".

Rule #1 = Do not dive with unsafe divers

Do you have a dive buddy where you have 50 dives or more together. You know thier gear, you know their reations, it feels like you can read their mind underwater? That is what principals of DIR give you. More dive buddies, on the same page, and as a team, your able to get to that point faster.

I would always prefer to dive with someone with a DIR gear confirg, but I dive with others as well as long as they are safe. There are several divers in DIR gear confirgs that I choose not to dive with.

This is purley a matter of attitude in diving. Have you been on a dive where taking pics, catching bugs, or shooting fish was more important that sticking together and watching out for each other? More people answer "yes" to this question than they would probably like to admit.

As for not having a goal when diving, its in the Padi OW manual. I don't have mine with me to quote a page number. I believe this concept is repeated in the other manuals.

I'll wait a few days to see if anyone know's where the term "DIR" came from before posting a responce to #1.

I shouldn't have to wait too long as "everyone in diving already know's this..."

--Matt

[scubapro25]

[QUOTE=tiswango;1123]

I don't want to tar and feather you, I want you to back up your statements. Put them in the proper context and see if you still draw the same conclusions.?

1. Where did the name "DIR" first appear in print? Who coined the term? What was the context of the first use of the term?

2. The GUE instructors and WKPP members do not have this religious zeal. It comes from people who were taught to dive poorly and in the process of 2 weekends feel like everything they were taught was wrong and now they are free to really enjoy diving. The natural tendacy is to what to "share" that with those who have not had the experience.

Anyone who already "knows it all" in diving and cannot learn anything new will tend to discredit those who have learned something new as they are a threat.

3. Here is a pic of Charlie Gamba from Buenos Aires Argentina. Charlie was flying from LA to BA with a 16 hour lay over in Miami. I picked him up at 6 AM and put together a scuba rig with pieces from three other divers that was identical to what he was used to diving. Once on site, I forgot I took the bungee necklace off that set of regs. We fixed it with a double ender. Sure, any diver could put on any gear and dive, but you feel 100% comofortable in that gear? Would your trim and bouyancy skills be perfect?



4. I think you are confusing the desire to dive with other DIR divers and the classic "Rule #1".

Rule #1 = Do not dive with unsafe divers

Do you have a dive buddy where you have 50 dives or more together. You know thier gear, you know their reations, it feels like you can read their mind underwater? That is what principals of DIR give you. More dive buddies, on the same page, and as a team, your able to get to that point faster.

I would always prefer to dive with someone with a DIR gear confirg, but I dive with others as well as long as they are safe. There are several divers in DIR gear confirgs that I choose not to dive with.

This is purley a matter of attitude in diving. Have you been on a dive where taking pics, catching bugs, or shooting fish was more important that sticking together and watching out for each other? More people answer "yes" to this question than they would probably like to admit.

As for not having a goal when diving, its in the Padi OW manual. I don't have mine with me to quote a page number. I believe this concept is repeated in the other manuals.

I'll wait a few days to see if anyone know's where the term "DIR" came from before posting a responce to #1.

I shouldn't have to wait too long as "everyone in diving already know's this..."

--Matt

I'd say Matt gives a fair defense of DIR principles....and, no: I don't know enough of the 'inner' history of DIR to know the answer to the first question.

I was mainly just wanting to start a thread here and see how DIRinians defend their beloved system. Didn't mean to offend anyone...if I did, that was not my intent. Nothing wrong with people wanting you to back up your statements with facts.

But, the fact is, it DOES sound like DIRinians feel non-DIRinians are, by definition, unsafe divers, although Matt does say that there are a couple DIR folks he won't dive with, because he feels they are unsafe also. Fair enough. So they are NOT all 'Doing It Right.'

BTW, I DO have a dive buddy with whom I have over 50 dives with [over 500, actually] whose configuration gear I know and whose mind I feel I can read underwater: my girlfriend. But, if DIR can give you that after 5 dives with someone you hardly know, then more power to you.

I say, if you can remove the 'self-righteousness' and 'religious zeal' from the DIR system, you have a good system.

I'm willing to give DIRinians here the last word.

But, before I do that, let me just quickly say that I mentioned to a PADI Course Director that I know, Matt's contention that PADI teaches 'that having a goal on a dive' makes you dangerous, and the Course Director said that PADI teaches NO SUCH THING.

[Sarah]

Great post Matt!

"Doing it Right" was a term that came from an article written by G. Irvine that appeared in DeepTech in 1995. Look at the last sentence.

“A dive instructor I know recently had a student show up for a cave diving course with a rectangular dive light, a scooter cage, a helmet, and a convoluted independent doubles rig. This student already knew what he wanted from his cave course presumably from reading the advertisements. His first comment to his amused instructor was that he was not quite ready to try a 1,000 foot penetration dive, but his cave diving merit badge would be a good start. He never once asked for his instructor's opinion. And his instructor happens to be one of the most experienced cave divers around. Unfortunately, much of the day was spent teaching buoyancy control to this new "tech-diver."

On the technical diving discussion groups, that are popular on the internet (techdiver, cavers, etc.), I routinely see recommendations for gas mixtures known to cause seizures and heavy narcosis by people who boast every qualification except having been there or done it themselves.

I read comments from people who claim to have the ability to dive deep-on-air and "handle" the narcosis. I read justifications for dangerous gear configurations under the guise of personal preference. I read report after report of deaths of "tech-divers" who apparently believe that technical diving means depth. I read about training agencies who sell certifications for asinine specialties, like "technical deep air", or "advanced technical nitrox."

Especially insidious are the rebreather pushers, who offer the desperate techdiver the diving equivalent of a cure for AIDS, but like the elixir salesmen of the wild west will leave death and destruction in their wake and leave us with regulation from the likes of the FDA. If people really understood these devices, they would run screaming from the room, and would certainly not take instruction on so sophisticated a device from someone with no engineering or technical background, let alone the cadre of under educated instructors who apparently don't understand high school math judging from their performance in teaching dive academics.

Diving is a wonderful sport that can be enjoyed your whole life. Why not just do it right? It is a physical activity that is best enjoyed if one is in good shape. After all, the finest piece of dive gear you own is you! Get in shape, get a physical, and have your doctor check you for predispositions to DCS and other dive related problems before you dive.

When the time comes to gear-up for a dive, remember that less is always best. Why encumber yourself with excess underwater baggage. Less gear is more streamlined, more comfortable, more effective, and therefore more safe. If you don't need it, don't take it. Keep it simple. There are no unseen demons in diving. Rigging your gear to prevent non-problems is counterproductive. For example, independent valves are an attempt to avoid a failure in the manifold. Manifold failures seldom, if ever, occur.

Independents add complexity and risk due to the air management rules required to use them effectively. Not to mention the difficulty in sharing gas with another diver in an emergency. Remember the buddy system? Remember the basics? When the LUVLUVLUVLUV hits the fan, they're the only thing that will save you, so you had better get them mastered.

I am fortunate to be the director of a research and exploration organization called the Woodville Karst Plain Project (WKPP). Our group conducts research dives around Tallahassee, Florida. One member of the WKPP, William Hogarth Main, happens to be the person for whom the Hogarthian system of gear configuration is named.

The Hogarthian system has a few simple tenets and principles. It relies on simplicity and skill rather than complexity and equipment. The primary piece of equipment is the mind and body of the diver, which must be in excellent condition. The next most important piece of equipment is the buddy, who must likewise be fit and configured the same, since it is the buddy's job to provide redundancy.

The Hogarthian diver's gear is in perfect condition from maintenance and is clean and streamlined, with no elbows, swivels or convolutions of hose routing or anything else that is not absolutely necessary. It is proven gear of the highest quality with no consoles, computers, gadgets, widgets, or dangling nonsense of any kind. There is nothing in front of the diver. Everything is hidden away neatly. All of the diver's motions are unencumbered and his solutions to every contingency are simple and straight forward.
With all of the macho deep-air divers and officious nouveau techies running around, it is easy to lose sight of the basics, and the objective, which is to have fun.

If it doesn't feel like fun, then it's not. If it's not clean and simple, it's not Hogarthian. If it's not Hogarthian, it's not right. If you're not doing it right, don't do it at all!”