Good advice, iDiveChick!Originally Posted by iDiveChick
Great ideas are great because they can withstand spirited but polite challenges.
But we'll ask all to follow some great advice:
"You can disagree without being disagreeable"- Ronald Regan
But, I think it's Ronald Reagan.
"Blessed are they who learn from their mistakes. For they shall make, if not necessarily fewer of them, different and more interesting ones."
My excuse is I'm not SIR...Spelling It Right
Wow, Thats a new one. Does your buddy have you thinking you cant wear that rig while teaching? Just wear the damn thing!
I don't see how it violates PADI standards.
What, If one of your studenst show up with a BP/wing your gonna tell him he can't wear it cause your not qualified to teach him how to use it.Thats BS!
Your buddy is violating rule number one when he dives with you
It is a reliable air supply, But it's not independant if it has a manifold.
I think he was referring to sidemount, wich is safer if diving solo in tight caves.
That's not my buddy, that's my training agency. Their policies clearly state I have to be configured in the same gear as I am teaching my students. For instance, since the basic course requires teaching to use a snorkel, I have to stick a snorkel on my gear when I teach the class, even though I wouldn't normally have one. Makes sense ... how can I teach with credibility a system I've never been officially trained to use? If a student showed up in backplate and harness ...? Interesting . . . never happened before but I think I'd commend them ...
I don't see how it violates PADI standards.
What, If one of your studenst show up with a BP/wing your gonna tell him he can't wear it cause your not qualified to teach him how to use it.
I am a NAUI instructor (and not a NAUI TECH instructor) ... don't know what the PADI standards say ... I'll leave PADI bashing for another thread ... TOTALLY KIDDING!!!!!
I know! ha ha .... That's why I have to protect his name! lol We'll just refer to him as "DIVER X" . . .Your buddy is violating rule number one when he dives with you
The manifold has an isolator between the tanks. I can breathe the full air supply from either reg, even if one post is shut off, or I can close the isolator and use the tanks independantly.It is a reliable air supply, But it's not independant if it has a manifold.
I think he was referring to sidemount, wich is safer if diving solo in tight caves.
Manifolds are reliable, but much more efficient when used in a team configuration. You do not typically close the isolator valve unless you have a problem, and even then you do not have a truly independent system. In an independent rig you do not have to worry about a total loss of gas resulting from any single point of failure. If you are going to dive it closed, why not just dive true independents cylinders to satrt with and avoid the extra points of failure (not to mention not having a projection that can be damaged and still result in a total loss of all available gas supplies)? Every setup has its pros and cons and some are better suited to certain situations than others. The thing that really makes me laugh is when I read questions asking whether a setup is DIR or not, when the more appropriate question would be what are the merits and disadvantages of such a setup.
Yes, the only reason I can see to close the isolator would be in an emergency situation ... then again, I'm not "officially" trained in the use of the manifold .. .
I think this is an excellent point. In my personal experience with DIR, they are not open to discussing merits of other setups? (Except among themselves, because I've noticed they make adjustments in their official procedures and gear config from time to time as they come up with what they feel are better ways). My impression is it's more of a "Our way or the highway" kinda thing. Or maybe "Our way or the funeral home". And for me, on the lighter side of diving (open water perfect conditions stuff), I think the gap between traditional system and "better" way is pretty small. One example that comes to mind is the DIR emphasis on streamlining and body position. Chuck a tourist off the boat in 85F water temp, 100' viz 30fsw, relatively calm, no current, where he might swim as much as 50' away from the boat while poking around the reef ... is he really going to notice the extra drag of his less than ideally routed hoses? Then they will say "teach 'em right from the beginning!" and I suppose there is something to be said for that. But those divers may never go beyond that once a year vacation diving. Does he have great risk of dying because his hoses stick out too far? Probably not as big a concern as the fact that he is out of shape. I am not rambling ...
I think this is an excellent point. In my personal experience with DIR, they are not open to discussing merits of other setups? (Except among themselves, because I've noticed they make adjustments in their official procedures and gear config from time to time as they come up with what they feel are better ways). My impression is it's more of a "Our way or the highway" kinda thing. Or maybe "Our way or the funeral home". And for me, on the lighter side of diving (open water perfect conditions stuff), I think the gap between traditional system and "better" way is pretty small. One example that comes to mind is the DIR emphasis on streamlining and body position. Chuck a tourist off the boat in 85F water temp, 100' viz 30fsw, relatively calm, no current, where he might swim as much as 50' away from the boat while poking around the reef ... is he really going to notice the extra drag of his less than ideally routed hoses? Then they will say "teach 'em right from the beginning!" and I suppose there is something to be said for that. But those divers may never go beyond that once a year vacation diving. Does he have great risk of dying because his hoses stick out too far? Probably not as big a concern as the fact that he is out of shape. I am not rambling ...
One of the things that is not being considered is simply if the training of body trim, weighting, etc. is incorporated, the preservation of the reef system or other underwater ecology has a much better chance of surviving and flourishing in the aftermath of a diver's visit. Another consideration is the diver is far more proficient and hence far safer if they adhere to the general philosophy of DIR.
What is being lost in this discussion is the basic philosophy of having the SAFEST diver in the water. Does gear play a factor? yes. Does the ability of the diver to maneuver within the water column improve? yes! Why is it that individuals insist on being guarenteed the right to dive, even though they are not prepared (physically, mentally, etc). The best conditions can change radically in a very short period of time, are the divers capable to handle the new adverse conditions, with a safe dive being the result?
Why is the focus of this discussion on a specific gear configuration? DIR encompasses far more than this one area. DIR is ALL ABOUT having the safest diver being safe. Where the philosophy was developed is irrelevant. But lest the board start protesting that their gear requirerments are not that of the WKPP or other GUE sponsered explorations, I ask these questions: 1. Where did the BC derive it's existance? 2. where did the SPG come from? 3. Where did the safe second or octopus regulator originate? The answer to this and many of the other questions relating to gear is simply.....CAVE DIVERS. These pioneers did more than explore passages, they developed a far safer diver and their gear. Stop trying to throw out the baby (diver) with the bath water!!
we all can agree that safer divers is the goal of every training agency. we can all further agree that no agency insists on precise gear configurations except GUE. The point of contention is not whether a diver is a safer diver and better buddy because of his DIR training but does he really need the gear in that exact setup?
Secondly, why is it that any diver wishing to take the GUE-Fundamentals course must have all the gear as prescribed in the GUE handbook? I could agree that all equipment must meet specifications for a tech 1 course or tech 2 course but for a fundamentals course?
If this training is superior to that of other agencies, and from the course syllabus it appears to be, why restrict that training only to those who dive with a BP/W and 7 foot hose on a primary second stage with a short hosed octo connected by necklace to the diver? And why exactly is it necessary to only have stiff black non-split fins?
I am contemplating taking the GUE-F course and do not mind springing for a BP/W. I think I will end up liking the BP/W once I get used to it and forget about all the pockets and weight integration features of my jacket style BC. But come on, do I now have to get new hoses for my reg? Throw away those split fins and get the kind that will make Jarrod Jablonski happy?
Please do not consider this a DIR/GUE bashing. It is not intended that way. I wish all agencies spent as much emphasis on buddy OOA training and buoyancy. I doubt if the GUE course is a joke as was my AOW course.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote