Re: DIR question (long)

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by MHK on November 13, 2000 at 18:22:20:

In Reply to: Re: DIR question (long) posted by Gerry on November 13, 2000 at 17:48:34:

I also had to print out your questions and I hope to address them all, if not we'll keep it going...

I'm unclear about GUE's cherry picking attitude and the fact that JJ has never brought them to heel.. I'd disagre that JJ doesn't request people to tone down the rhetoric, in fact JJ has asked me several times to be less aggressive, but at the end of the day each person decides on there own how they approach any particular NG.. I have tried many, many times to keep the tone friendly, but with each debate the discussion sometimes get's truned up a notch or two and BOTH sides need to bear responsibility for it so it get's old when DIR people are accused of this, but other's get a free ride... But that's a whole different topic...

As to gear standarization meeting different demands, we have been saying only take what you need, and if it isn't needed don't take it.. Obviulsy if you are taking pictures bring the camera, or if you are bug hunting, bring the bag..

I simply disagree that a 5' hose presents any significant entanglement hazards in the open ocean.. I cite for example that if properly mounted a 7' hose doesn't get entangled when inside a wreck or a cave, so why would you have trouble stowing a 5' hose in the same manner and then worrying about entagling in the open ocean??? I just simply don't see it...

In terms of ditchable -v- non-ditchable and my comment about *all the egg's in the weightbelt basket*, take a look around on the next open boat you are on and I promise you that the overwhelming majority of diver's have all there weights on the weightbelt.. Whenever I do my DIR demo's and we get to the dtichable -v- non-ditchable portion it amazes me how many people have no clue what I'm talking about and look at me as if I'm speaking in French.. I disagree with your comment that if it's important to drop it's important to drop it all. In fact, you and I have can't be any further apart in our viewpoints.. I STRONGLY believe in balancing your rig so as to have enough available to ditch should the need so arise, but enough distributed properly so if you do ditch you don't rocket to the surface and risk and emolosim.. What good does it do you to get off the bottom, only to embolize at the surface???

Next issue that we disagree on, you talk about having 3 drysuits fail, and I'll conceded they leak, but have you ever been at 100' or 130' with a steel tank on, had your bladder fail and then needed to get to the surface??? Should it happen how would you get up??? If you say ditch and go, you're probably risking an embolisim versus the option of having an alternative inflation source.. I'm also not clear your notion that it is a *dangerous* cure for a minor problem... If that same diver was simply cold than it's not dangerous, but for added inflation it becomes dangerous... Furthermore, I don't see it as a minor problem if you loose your inflation source at depth without alternatives....

As for the QR's, I see them as an unnecesary failure points that can easily be done without by properly sizing the webbing.. I try to subscribe to a mindset and an approach that I eliminate as many failure points as possible so I don't have to worry about the probability of this failure point and the probability of that failure point.. The fact is we have equipment that is inherintly prone to failure, so I maintain mine as best I can and I don't add any unnecessary failure points that can be easily avoided and to me the QR's fall into that catagorey..

I'll send it back you way now ;-)


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]