Posted by seahunt on January 02, 2001 at 21:06:04:
Part 2.
As I will mention again later, I have the view that DIR is
Hogartharian streamlining principles, cave/wreck practices, deep
technical methods and a few other signature techniques thrown in
with a big dollup of ego/arrogance.
So I wanted to clarify some things and get a further view of
DIR. I proceeded to the web sites of DIRQuest by Jarrod Jablonski and
George Irvine's WKPP site. One thing that is immediatly noticed, is
that both emphasized that the system cannot be modified in any way.
This is a repeated theme. DIR seems to really mean "Do it this
way". It is sort of a statement that you can't change anything.
"DIR is a holistic approach" is another way of saying that you
can't change any part of the package. Any system that states
that it is not open to modification and adaptation has a problem.
Really though, I think that this is that DIR ego/arrogance
thing.
Beyond that, examination of the DIR sites was not inspiring.
True, they were never really meant for examination for how
they apply to West Coast diving and according to tleemay, the GUE
people are trying to develop practical DIR sport diving principles.
But what is on the current sites is not encouraging.
Actually, I like the surgical tubing holder for the primary
regulator and there are other good ideas, but the entire gear
package seems dubious.
I did feel better that George Irvine used the premise that
their lack of accidents during many dives proved the quality of
their system. I certainly feel that the same thing applies to my
system and that of the many divers I have gone with year after
year. On the boats I frequent, it seems that heart attacks in
the older divers seems to be the biggest problem. Well, dive long
enough and that seems to be a good way to go.
Some other points were not as encouraging. They seemed
extremely specialized to certain kinds of diving.
***
One point made by George Irvine that shows why DIR would have
to be adapted to California diving is the insistense of wearing the
compass on the wrist. Any typical California hunter can tell you the
problems with that. Worse than that you would destroy it reaching in
holes, it would make it difficult to reach in some holes and worse
than that could cause injury or even potentially get a diver's arm
stuck. His reasoning that a compass must always be immediatly
accessable isn't that true for California diving. It's just not
always that important. Also, he predicated its position as being
correct for a uw sled rider. Those are more rare in California than
40 pound lingcods.
***
I'm not positive, but I am pretty sure that DIR proponents push
disposal of dive computers. This only further proves that whatever
they say, they are really talking deep diving. Ron Bear gave a great
description of why tables can actually work better in cave dives. The
same logic would hold true for wrecks or other deep diving. Still, the dive computer is the greatest invention for the sport diver in the since scuba. There is no way, with the typical dive profiles of the California sport diver, that they can get as much bottom time or dive as safely, as with a computer.
***
Another point showing that DIR is adapted for diving other than
California sport diving is George Irvines insistance that Aluminum tanks are the correct choice in salt water. He says that if you need more air than that, use a stage bottle. That can only apply to wreck/cave or deep diving. It cannot apply to the hunter, sport photographer or the sight seer. At another point, he says that steel should never be used in ocean or lake without a dry suit. Poppycock!
***
Looking at one item of DIR methodology, I have to ask the
source. That is the 5' hose. The 8' hose makes perfect sense in
cave or wreck diving, so that a buddy breather can follow in a tight
spot.. The only reason I have heard mentioned (by MHK, though not on
the DIR web sites) for a 5' hose is to keep a panicked diver at
distance. I think that that reason was made up off the cuff and if in
any case, it's just a bad idea. The traditional teaching says the OOA
diver should firmly grasp the shoulder strap of the buddy. This was
intended for a couple of reasons. First of all was to communicate that
the OOA diver was not panicked and could be safely helped. A panicked
diver cannot be helped or even safely approached. Attempting to do so
is likely to lead to a double fatality. (though I have done it using my
own techniques based on my rather unique abilities.) If the diver is
still panicked after they have a working air supply, 5' feet of hose is
not going to help. (Generally, a panicked diver takes off for the
surface anyway, whether they got a breath or not) The diver with air
can grab the shoulder strap of the OOA diver for the same purpose.
When in a situation of sharing air, the main objective is to carefully
and safely get to the surface, nothing else. As such, the second reason for
linking is for ease of ascent. From experience, I can state that
two divers linked can accomplish this more easily and with more
control than when seperated. They can easily synchronize their
movement.
The positioning of the knife, positioning of the light and use
of a crotch strap are very suspect.
One other suspect point is George Irvine's quote of Bill Gavin, that
a diver must never settle for less than prefection when it comes to
gear. While this just sounds like another typical silly DIR platitude,
it shows a bit of arrogance. Hey guys, if you believe DIR is perfect,
you're deluding yourself.
Proceeding on to the DIRQuest site by Jarrod Jablonski I again see
how they say it is applicable to everyone and then focus on cave/wreck
and deep diving. He also emphasizes that the DIR system has no room for
modification and I assume that means no room for improvement.
The DIRQuest web site discussion of physical fitness described
a physical regimine appropriate to extreme diving, not necesarily
sport diving. Sort of like saying that a weekend hiker should always
be in training for a marathon. Some of the more serious divers do
train to stay in shape and many divers (especially hunters) qualify
as atheletes, but really, in California, a lot of sight seers can
dive quite well while being in fairly poor shape. Remember, you're
weightless in the water. Many divers just don't ever go deep or
even very far from the boat. There is nothing wrong with someone
enjoying diving who is not in great shape.... unless you are talking
cave/wreck or deep.
There is more on both sites and many of the ideas are good, but
my point here is that DIR is not as good as these sites claim and is
certainly no where near as universally applicable as they claim. Really,
I was looking for how the DIR system could be applied to West Coast
diving and these resourses were not promising. Say what you like, what
I read here was cave/wreck and deep. Every paragraph showed that.
I'll continue this examination of DIR in two more parts. It still
goes down hill from here, but the final part is a challenge to DIR
proponents to make their system adaptable and relevant enough to be
of some wider use on the west coast.
Enjoy the diving, seahunt