DIR

[Dan_Solo]

Dano ...<br><br>To answer your question, you can check out and learn a bit more about DIR. In case you haven't heard yet, it stands for Do It Right.<br><br>

[Punky]

JoelW,

I was wondering how that DIR class went. I went to the web
site and they make it sound like you could improve upon your
training and enjoyment no matter where you got your intial
training.
Was it a good training experience?
What did it cost and was it worth it?
I don't think I care to get into cave diving but the Fundimentals class and Cavern class sounded like they could
be good advanced technic training.

[JoelW]

Punky,

I thought that the class was well worth the time, cost and effort. By the time all was said and done, it ran $275 per person. That wasn't too bad a deal in my book for bringing in 3 pretty amazing instructors. I saw one of them the other night on the Discovery Channel as one of the planners and divers on the Brittanic expedition in '99.

As far as experience goes, I know a couple of pretty experienced tech divers who felt that they learned a lot in the DIRF class. I know that I did. I now spend a chunk of each dive since the class doing skills practicing. I would like to take the class again just to see how I would do.

I don't know that there will be another class in Minneapolis. It will take a group who want to run it on their own. None of the stores in town are interested in sponsoring one. If you were going to travel to take the class I would recommend Seattle. The conditions are a little more like Minnesota than Florida. That is where a couple of us were going to go before we decided to import the class.

JoelW

[ccuda]

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

[Chris]

"Would I get kicked out"

Yes, but only after they got your money

[nomads]

I think if you go to and gue.com you will get all of your questions answered. There are also two DIR tapes available that you can view. The system is so simple that it applies to all types of diving. You are asking questions that can be answered with 10 minutes of reading. After you have educated yourself I will be happy to answer other questions.

[jasondbaker]

I agree, do some reading to get a basic understanding. I'll give you my simplified answers. But they don't carry as much weight if you haven't done some reasearch. I'm not DIR since I don't completely follow the gear configuration.

I'm not sure that DIR is completely opposed to using computers. The issue is that a computer is not a useful tool for many of the dive profiles (depth, time, gas, etc) that some DIR folks are doing. They can't use a computer 90% of the time anyway. So since they don't use it they eliminate it from the list of necessary tools. I know DIR divers that sometimes use computers on basic rec dives. They use the computer but don't necessarily rely on it to dictate their profiles.

I know divers that use hoses between 5' (for purely OW rec dives) and 7'. I recommend reading up on the proper use of the long hose. Watch some videos. Then, go out and try it for yourself. I guarantee that a person with a long hose can share air more easily than a person with a standard short hose. Whether that makes you a better buddy is something that you need to determine for yourself.

The additional length of the hose has little, if barely measurable (by a machine) impact on the performance. There have been studies done by technical diving groups to verify this.

[lrmoll]

The problem in switching back and forth between configurations can be that in a stressful situation (an emergency) people tend to revert to the conditioned responses they have most learned and trained in.

There is a story that during WWII a plane cockpit configuration was changed that moved the ejector seat switch where another switch used to be. Even with training some pilots under stress would press the button thinking they where activating the previous function and end up ejected from the plane.

In an emergency you want to minimize task loading of the mind.

[LKunze]

Like Jason I've adopted many of the DIR gear configurations but not all of them. I dive a backplate/wings, and I use the DIR reg configuration with a 7 foot hose. I love it. I guess the only way to judge it is to try it for yourself to see if it's for you or not. I find the DIR gear configuration to be much more streamlined and it's significantly reduced task loading and made my dives more enjoyable.

[DanL]

Lonnie,
Darn! Paul got me interested in a DIR hose setup. I played around a little (in my basement I hate to admit) with BC, tank and reg and found that a long hose relieves the side-and- down pull of the short hose. Also, having the backup right under the chin is a secure feeling, isn't it. Soooo... I ordered a set of hoses from 5th D. First step in the direction of the DIR side! I'm beginning to like your wing and plate more and more....
Dan