Posted by seahunt on January 04, 2001 at 22:40:55:
Part 4. Yah, I'll finally end this.... MHK, have a great trip!
I like writing. It is how I explore things. It makes one
marshal their thoughts. Writing this has been an exploration of
thoughts and essays and the ongoing contributions of other peoples
thoughts. Many of the points I make in conclusion are largely the
eloquent ideas of others that have posted. I say that I don't much
come up with new ideas as much as I try to put ideas into words.
Many people have already had the thought, but it is hard to put
thought to word and writing does that.
I like the writings of Ayn Rand. She celebrated the Trueths
about the real world that come from science and engineering. I
dislike Michael Crighton with his hate for science and his plots
supported by implausible engineering. Look at the design of
Jurassic Park for examples of how to design systems with built in
disasters. It's nice for story plots, but in reality goes against
all modern engineering problems.
In Part 1 of this, I described the significance of diving
cultures and how DIR culturally fit (or didn't fit) into west
coast diving. In part 2 and 3, I tried to examine DIR as I found
it on the DIR sites and as I had heard it described on the BBS
here. I voiced objections mostly that whether they admit it or
not, much of the stuff about DIR was taken straight from deep or
cave/wreck practices. Really though, for a couple of reasons,
that isn't really important. Just becuse they were developed one
place does not conclusively mean that they cannot work perfectly
in another... though that is quite likely. I actually skipped
over the basic configuration of the backpack, because I don't
see it as an issue either. It seems good enough whether it's as
good as claimed or not. Put on a tank and dive.
Really, DIR is an advanced diving system and seems to be a
good one. Still, there is more to it than that. It can make
diving inherently very expensive, like mixed gases.
Now there are a few things that I think are minor problems
with DIR and a few major blow its, still these are not the key
issues, but they are worth mentioning. Ambiguity makes some of
these things unclear, but still... DIR says no dive computers?
That would limit my bottom time as much as the costs would.
Around here you just can't do more than 5 mid level dives in a
day without a computer. Not only that, but it would certainly
increase the number of accidents as well. That is not a safety
idea.
Here are some fundemental problems I have with DIR, but they
are not the worst.
The first is alluded to by the point about Ayn Rand and
Michael Crighton. By its description, DIR was not
designed based on scientific or engineering principles. I have a
problem with that and the weakness of the system are illustrated
by basic engineering concepts of adaptability of systems and by
failure resolution principles that are comnpletely ignored by DIR.
I hate to say it, but they cannot be ignored in the real world of
machine systems.
The second is that call it holistic if you want, that is
just a buzz word mostly used on the fringes of medicine. Modern
principles of design are based on objects, because that is the
current best model of reality that we have.
A third problem and a big one is that DIR claims to supercede
any diving activity, even when it relates to safety. I guess DIR
says you must have guages on your wrists. Compass on left. Bottom
timer (what's that for, a computer is safer for the non-technicl
cultures) on right and SPG somewhere on one arm or another. That
is simply no good for the hunter and is even potentially hazardous.
Aside from that, when I have my face smashed against some rock with
my arm up a hole to the shoulder, it is impractical to have a guage
on that arm. It 'seems' that DIR says "so what, DIR is more
importnt than your hunting or anything else for that matter". No, I
don't agree.
DIR bases its authority on safety. That is not my first
consideration when diving or I wouldn't be diving. If you don't
live by that premise, then DIR doesn't have the overwhelming
authority it claims. Also, they have yet to prove their safety
claims. It is a good system and sounds like a very safe one, but
their claims go beyond that and are not backed up as far as they
claim.
Another major problem I have with DIR is it leaves the diver
out of the equation. It bases a dive on the divers gear or method.
A dive is always based on the individual diver. It's easier to
leave the diver out of the equation, but it is an error.
I also have some personal problems with DIR.
One problem is my personal view that adaptability is the
the best way for me to operate. It's just who I am. It's what my
hard learned lessons of life have taught me. DIR simply says it
has no need to adapt and is not to be adapted. There is just a
huge personal clash there. It also leads inevitably to the culture
clash described in part 1. Claim that it can be ignored if you
want. It can't be and you will just continue to wonder where the
hostility comes from.
In response to critisism that DIR doesn't allow much
individuality in diving, the response has been what is wrong about
giving up a little individuality. That's OK, but DIR demands that
a diver give up ALL individuality. That's a bit much.
Another problem with DIR is an ambiguity about some things
that borders on dishonesty... like the use of a computer, what is
called deep, what is unneeded gear and other issues. It is really
like some less palatable issues are kept hidden.
The worst problem of DIR for me is the mindset. This is the
thing that gets it called a cult. I'm uncomfortable with that term,
though it does have its point. What I usually call it is different
and no better. Perhaps clique is best. In any case, any system where
loyalty to the system is the main criteria by which its followers
are judged is a really bad system. It normally occurs for pitting
one group against another. I guess it's true of cults, but I only
studied it in terms of gangs, mafia and communism. I'm not going to
pursue that, but be aware that loyalty based systems are really
weird.
This also arises in the DIR statement about teamwork. The
statement seems innocuous, but I'm not so sure. Team diving is not
really needed for non-technicl California diving. Team diving is
appropriate for technical diving and especially for the diving that
George Irvine et al were trying to accomplish and that is the roots
of DIR. A team with a single (usually a single person's) objective
is a great way to solve problem like they were trying to. But I
don't think that that is the issue. I really think being a team
member here does not refer to a diving team, I believe it means
subjugating oneself to the DIR team...
Realize, it says on the DIR site that a DIR configuration is
perfect. It is continually emphasized that a DIR configuration
cannot be changed. That really produces some difficult issues, like
that DIR is a system that cannot be improved. Say what? Nothing
works that way on this planet.
Of course that really makes me wonder about the GUE effort to
produce a description of DIR for sport diving. Something is going
to have to give here. Either it is going to be DIR or modified DIR.
DIR claims there is no room for modification....?
Think about it. There are such small differences, but to DIR
they are so critical. Put me in a DIR rig. That's fine, but I have
a wetsuit on, so I have to either have a low volume Al tank or a
monster Al 104. If I change that to a steel 100, I have this really
nice tight rig with about the air I like for a dive and far more
comfortable boeyancy, but that one change makes it non-DIR. Well, I
don't believe it is all that much more dangerous for non-technical
diving and for my diving it is a huge improvement. DIR says it
cannot be changed. I just can't go with that, which in normal
systems would be OK, but it is a major offense in DIR. I do not
believe, knowing their arguement, that it is signigficantly more
dangerous. Still, that one desirable modifiction is not allowed.
At one point a list was made of places that are appropriate
for DIR. Except for Farnsworth and Bird Rock (I could add a couple
others as well) they are not part of the California traditional
diving culture, defined as the shores and islands. Sites like the
Moody, Palawan and others are new and part of the newer California
Technical Diving culture. That is fine, but don't claim those as
typical dives. DIR seems fairly appropriate to technical diving.
The Matterhorn trip done by MHK and JW was just better done as a
technical dive. That place just has a history of being unsafe for
normal diving techniques.
In conclusion, I think DIR has a lot to offer the technical
diving culture in California, but less for the hunters and site
seers, because it was not designed for that kind of diving and
its limited adaptability creates a problem there.
Anything that promotes good diving practices is a good thing.
Michael's efforts to promote a quality diving system and high
diving standards are to be applauded.
Aside from that, it's non-adaptive nature, cliquish (maybe
cultish) nature and often times confrontational nature make for
major problems of culture and sometimes even of safe, comfortable
diving practice.
I plan to try a DIR rig when I get the chance, but I don't
think I have any reason or desire to... go pure DIR. As I
understand it at present, it just wouldn't work for me.
This was informative to me. I hope that it was informative
and enjoyable to you. I would appreciate any corrections about
dive computers, guage placement or steel tanks in salt water
with a wetsuit... or other issues I might have mde a mistake on
or missed.
I further hope that you don't need new prescription for
your mask now either, but that's just how I do things.
Enjoy the diving no matter how you do it, seahunt
.
.
.
.
.
.
Beyond that is the issue of solo. I could skip that, but it is
so basic to hunting and photography, mainstay activities of diving,
that it cannot be ignored. I will not say that buddy diving is not
usually safer than solo, but so what. Diving is not exclusively
about safety. Often it is about photography or hunting which works
far better solo.
.
.
.
I still can't believe you set your friend Blitch up with double 104's in the Pt. Loma kelp beds. That is not minimal or streamlined!