DIR
|
11-27-2002, 10:24 AM,
|
|||
|
|||
Re:DIR
I believe I'm pretty open minded when it comes to different ideas and ways of getting something accomplished. I think I look at many training agencies/courses and try to take the best that they convey and use it to practice and improve my knowledge. I've noticed DIR has some pretty specific ways they suggest a diver does things, and ways they suggest you don't do things. I've heard the language "dive nazi's" come up a lot with other non-DIR believers and chats...and this is not my concern because I think I'm a little more intelligent than to believe in a all of nothing type of way of doing things (or those who will rip on one agency over another). But two areas of concern I have questions on...
Something that struck me in particular was that DIR doesn't believe in using dive computers for diving. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe its a system of over-redundant dive planning, multiple emergency and dive contingency plans, back up upon back up, etc, and a strong set of execution once an issue comes up. But dive computers are a no-no. Sure, that would be great in a perfect world, but each dive is ever changing and I see so many people who think their skills are far better than they really are. (Obviously, all of this points to practice, practice, practice, and lots of communication - lets not pretend common sense is not being inturpreted here). But can someone who's using the DIR approach care to elaborate on why an agency and you as a diver would follow in a path that does not recognized the use of all available tools to accomplish improved safety and dive profiling? Doesn't the use of a dive computer (no name brands at issue here), HELP in providing the diver with more information BEYOND all the dive planning and dive plan execution. (Not a reliance upon, but use of as another helpful tool) And if an incident should occur and the diver was found in trouble (or possibly unconscious or worst), wouldn't the dive computer be a valuable piece of information to help identify and communicate the possible profile and incidence timeline to those who could help, revive, or recover the troubled diver? And when accident evaluations occur, so much false identification and speculation occurs... at least with one more piece to the puzzle (the dive computer in use) might help education other divers in better research for the future, and more safe ways of diving. And lastly, wings, no wings, whatever... my question is concerning the hoses. I don't think the 7' long primary hose is necessary with proper communication and planning with my dive buddy. (Simply, I'm not going to dive with an ignorant dive buddy, or one who choses to be careless - so communication is easy for us - we just plan to be sure to USE communication prior to, during, and after ANY dive.) I believe the 7' hose was designed for 'leader and follower' shared-air situations and more felxiblity through CAVE diving. (To me, it's irrelevant to "normal" recreational diving as if you communicate your gear sets to your buddy, your buddy should know where to grab an alternate air from (be it octo, air2, whatever)). If I choose to cave dive, I can adapt my reg so that I use the longer hose and practice and pre-plan for a long training PRIOR to making those cave dives. If setting up my reg only one way forever and needing to only practice that way of gear configuration, then I think I become complacent and it could throw off another diver who's reg has a problem (like on a vacation), and would need to use an alternate form of gear configuration for completion of a dive trip. (For example: your reg and hoses break down, you don't have another 7' hose and you have to borrow or rent from a buddy or dive shop that doesn't have those things - are you going to travel all over to find a shop that does because you can't go without?) I can't see not doing the dives if I traveled 1000's of miles and spent hard earned money to go do. So how would the use of a longer hose be more preferable as a standard than using a shorter one in say local diving and regular open water environments? And with the deeper diving, how would the standard configuration of teh longer hose be beneficial with increased dead-air space within the added length, increased workload, and higher requirement of your regulator to flow at a better rate to offset the added length? Have these questions been answered by DIR and how? Does DIR allow you to adapt your configurations? I've heard they do not say outright you can or can't do this with most topics, but it is highly frowned upon to go outside of their standards. I've trained under 4 other agencies, but they seem to say if you have this gear, or that gear, adapt to it and communicate, though trying to maintain standards of a primary air source, secondary, bcd, and ways to tell tank pressure, depth, and time, etc, etc. I'm interested in taking the DIR classes, but with tough questions like these and the 'attitude' I've heard that is portrayed, would I be kicked out? ;D |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Messages In This Thread |
Re:DIR - by ccuda - 11-27-2002, 10:24 AM
Re:DIR - by jasondbaker - 11-27-2002, 06:29 PM
Re:DIR - by freedivernd - 01-07-2003, 10:31 AM
Re:DIR - by chrisw - 01-08-2003, 09:01 AM
Re:DIR - by jasondbaker - 01-08-2003, 04:15 PM
Re:DIR - by DRE - 01-10-2003, 02:48 PM
Re:DIR - by DRE - 01-10-2003, 03:06 PM
Re:DIR - by DRE - 01-10-2003, 04:19 PM
Re:DIR - by DRE - 01-10-2003, 04:30 PM
Re:DIR - by DRE - 01-10-2003, 05:14 PM
Re:DIR - by DRE - 01-10-2003, 06:35 PM
Re:DIR - by DRE - 01-10-2003, 10:21 PM
Re: DIR - by jasondbaker - 03-19-2002, 08:48 PM
Re: DIR - by Starfish - 03-20-2002, 09:22 AM
Re: DIR - by Starfish - 04-23-2002, 10:01 AM
Re: DIR - by Starfish - 04-23-2002, 10:02 AM
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)