Posted by seahunt on January 03, 2001 at 22:22:55:
*** Note that much of the dispute and confusion related to discussions
about DIR is about some lack of specifics. That makes for a very serious
problem in communication. So before going further in this discussion,
I will define a few things so as to remove confusion. You're welcome
to disagree. These are only offered to organize the discussion, not
to set any rules.
Technical diving here is considered to be the use of gas mixes with
helium. Associated with this are high percentage O2 mixes used for
shallow parts of decompression procedures. Doing a nitrox dive 20%
to 36%, is not considered a technical dive here.
Cave and wreck are closely related enough to be considered together.
Deep diving gets blurry. Call it very deep beyond sport diving which
is usually defined as a max of 130 feet. Call anything past say 80
feet, fairly deep. These will do for this discussion, partly because
they describe California conditions.
So this makes DIR a system that was developed for the needs of
cave/wreck and very deep. DIR proponents say that it applies at all
depths...
To start this discussion I will mention a few things I agree with.
In my essay 'Flame The Industry'
I make a few points about the general failings of the dive industry.
One is about Feature Creep in gear design leading to unwanted,
unneeded and impractical Fancy Assed Gadgetry (or FAGotry). Still
though, I am haveing problems coming up with specific examples of
unnecessary equipment. It does show up, but it also vanishes very
quickly. I'm about the worst for this. I don't hesitate to have a
camera floating above my head with a spear in hand and both a line
cutter (I like the Isthmus High Spot) and an iron clipped on. I look
like a Christmas tree, but what is extra? By my point of view, only
my octopus is unneeded.
Another point is the certification agencys catering to the lowest
common denominator diver for economic reasons. Both of these issues
are addressed by DIR discussions. Again, in California, conditions
mostly enforce a quality of diver even if the agencies don't, though
training standards sure could stand for improvement. Beyond the
basic diver, who does seem adaquate, the agencies allow teaching by
people that are questionably experienced..
I love studying people... Just don't pose questions to me.
I'll start with some conclusions and then describe why I think
they are the case. DIR is composed of Hogarthian gear configuration
for streamlining, other gear placement specialized for cave/wreck
diving and rules for technical diving. These three components apply
differently at different times to needs of the different west coast
diving cultures. Another noticable component of DIR is a major
ego/arrogance/intolerance of some of the practicioners. This seems
to be a direct creation of George Irvine and some other DIR
proponents.
Remember that DIR is supposed to be based on streamlining and
minimalism. It's a long way from there to staged entries into deep
caves and wrecks, but that is what is mentioned on the sites.
Another point to keep in mind. No diving methodology matters any
if the practicioner doesn't practice common sense. Actually, this
point is important to keep in mind when a statement is ambiguous
and some assumption or another is made. If the statement or the
assumption does not include common sense, then it is irrelevant.
I often have to use this assumption when reading DIR statements.
One thing I noticed about discussions by DIR proponents is that
they get vague or ambiguous on certain details. Well, the Devil is in
the details.... and there are two critical details that cannot be left
vague. One is deep and the other is 'unnecessary gear'. As I already
said, we all know about funky gear, but really, how common is it?
Deep is critical, because if not left vague, many DIR points become
irrelevant. One of my points is that there is very little diving done
in California that fits a criteria of deep as described by DIR
procedures.
I figured the next place to look at the DIR message was in
the essay by Michael Kane (MHK) about DIR for Recreational Diving.
I was curious as to what it had to offer. After reading it, I was
dismayed. Realistically, it was technical DIR for wreck/cave, deep
and otherwise extreme diving, recycled and diluted a bit, but
certainly only marginally pertinent to shallower California
sport diving.
A close examination of it point by point shows it to be a slightly
(very slightly) touched up version of a methodology for cave/wreck
and technical diving. Mostly it could only apply to the technical
diving culture in California. I will go point by point to illustrate
this. Note the vagueness about depth in this discussion, but most
points only make sense in deep environments.
Some points are moved for grouping. Since I didn't write this and
must interpret it, I am open to clarification about my assumptions.
1) No deep air diving;
What do you call deep? There is very little real deep diving done
in California. Going past 100 feet is very rare. Out of thousands of
dives here I have never intentionally gone past 130 feet here. You
really have to look to find a reason to go past 100 feet and it is
almost never done on charter boats. At that point, if a deep dive is
planned (that means probably more than 100 feet and probably less
than 130), I think it is fair to assume that the diver is advanced
anyway (or DIR is not going to be practiced anyway). An advanced diver
should be able to handle the minor effects of narcosis at that depth
or being an advanced diver, they already know that it is a problem.
Common sense. If you are talking about much past 130 feet let alone
100 feet, you are not talking about typical California sport diving.
5) Using the proper mix for the planned dive;
Again, how deep? Aside from NITROX PO2, irrelevant, but here this
means tri-mix anyway. It's irrelevant to non-technical California
diving.
6) Keeping your EAD’s or End’s at 100’ max;
Again, how deep are you talking? Mostly meaningless to typical
California diving. Also, upon what is this based?
7) A unified team concept;
True for cave or very deep, rhetoric for normal California diving.
Teams for sport diving here are called buddy pairs, yet solo works
just fine too. Actually, this becomes very important in Part 4.
3) Limit your P02’s to 1.4 for the working portion of the dive;
Seems reasonable to me, but really seems to come from a technical
diving perspective. Teaching used to be that for all but technical
diving, limit it to 1.4 though now I hear that it does go to 1.6.
Actually though, I'm pretty sure that this refers to tri-mix deep
or using high percentage O2 mixes for decompression.
9) Increased pre-dive preparation;
Huh? While extremely true, again I think this is a reference to
planning wreck/cave or very deep diving. In California, pre-dive
planning primarily means observation of conditions. In California
reef diving you don't plan what you are going to do, you go down
to see what is there and adapt to that unknown.
4) Incorporating deep stops into your ascents;
Again, how deep are we talking? Discussion with MHK suggested that
in terms of non-technical diving, this is part of the ongoing
discussion of ascent rates. It sounds OK if it can be backed up.
One problem here is that no matter what new stuff they learn about
this, it's different for different people. The research goes on.
8) Good physical fitness;
Yes, PADI agrees... or did they steal the idea from DIR. Actually,
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.
10) Minimalism and streamlining.
Yes, well that stroke of insight is why many serious California
divers dispense with BC's. Really, this is just an incorporation of
Hogarthian principles. It is a good idea, but I'm not sure how
revolutionary. Being non-streamlined underwater is a poor idea,
but it may not be as common a problem as all that. Does DIR have any
suggestion as to how to reduce the drag from game bags, especially
when they have lobster in them? That is a solution that would help
in California.
2) The selection of a proper buddy ( NO SOLO DIVING );
Whatever... but interesting, because without this premise, many other
DIR premises become meaningless. If you don't accept this, much of the
DIR equipment practices just don't make sense... something they agree
with, because it changes the DIR configuration. I still say that a
buddy for photog or hunting is realistically an open issue.
So of the 10 points in the DIR for Recreational Diving essay,
7 points are seem primarily applicable to wreck/cave, very deep
or otherwise extreme diving anyway. They are mostly irrelevant to
non-technical California sport diving. The other 3 are platitudes.
This is one of my main problems with the actual dive methodologies
as described on the DIR sites as well. They say that it is all applicable
to all sport diving, then they give the rational in terms of cave/wreck.
Just pick a non-hogarthian paragraph on any of the sites to confirm this.
In this case, the rational is not offered, but it sure looks like
technical to me.
OK. I'll end this soon. Yes, I got carried away, but really,
there sure are a lot of vague issues and that makes for difficult
communication. The point of this part, like the last part is to
illustrate how specialized a diving culture DIR is, whether they
know it or not. They think only one way. The last part I post
will try to look at what DIR can offer to the California diving
cultures. Unfortunately, it also looks at the primary odd point
of DIR that gets people to use the word Cult.
Enjoy the diving no matter how you do it, seahunt