Misplaced Pages

Doing It Right (scuba diving): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:15, 5 September 2009 edit70.245.226.134 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 11:15, 13 October 2009 edit undo194.60.38.198 (talk) →External linksNext edit →
Line 68: Line 68:
* *
* *
*


] ]

Revision as of 11:15, 13 October 2009

Doing It Right (DIR) is an holistic approach to scuba diving. According to the DIR approach fundamental skills, teamwork, environmental awareness, and the use of highly optimized and streamlined (minimalist) equipment configuration are the primary fundamentals of diving. DIR proponents argue that through these essential elements, safety is improved by standardizing equipment configuration and dive-team procedures for preventing and dealing with emergencies, in particular out-of-air emergencies. This approach to diving encompasses specific equipment requirements, dive planning mechanisms and team procedures.

History

The 'DIR' approach (and moniker) evolved out of the Woodville Karst Plain Project (WKPP) in the mid-1990's under the direction of George Irvine III. The origins of the approach to equipment taken by DIR practitioners can be found in the 'Hogarthian' equipment configuration attributed to William Hogarth Main. These individuals, along with many others, were attempting to develop equipment and procedures to allow the safe exploration of the deep submerged caves in the area. Eventually, a suitable set of equipment configuration rules and dive procedures came into common use.

The phrase "Doing It Right" as applies to diving is thought to have first appeared in 1995 in an article by George Irvine III. George Irvine and Jarrod Jablonski eventually formalized and popularized this approach as DIR, applying the approach to all forms of scuba diving. Irvine's polemic style and inflexible stance led to a great deal of controversy and, while popularizing the style among some people, turned off many others. This has begun to ameliorate somewhat. As of 2009, there are two US-based dive training organizations, Global Underwater Explorers (GUE) and Unified Team Diving (UTD), and many independent dive instructors who teach a DIR style of diving. GUE renamed its 'DIR Fundamentals' course to 'GUE Fundamentals' in 2007, distancing itself somewhat from the acronym.

Tenets

The notion that diving should be approached holistically is central to DIR principles.

Equipment

Often cited as what DIR is about, equipment is viewed as only one part of a whole. Most DIR proponents believe that the most important piece of dive equipment is the diver, followed by the team. According to DIR proponents, equipment configuration should be simple, streamlined, exactly sufficient or minimalistic and applicable to all diving situations, from shallow reef diving to long cave penetrations.

Team

The notion of a dive team is central to DIR. A unified team acts in concert to preserve the safety of the team and meet the goals of the dive. All of the team's equipment and its consumables (i.e. breathing gas, batteries) are held in common and dedicated to the safety, comfort and dive goals of the team. In addition, each team member should be familiar with what all other team members are carrying.

Preparation

The notion of preparation within the DIR ethos applies well before the divers approach the water. It encompasses personal physical fitness, mental fitness, rigorous planning and pre-dive safety drills and routines.

Unique features

There are several features of the DIR approach which are somewhat at odds with more conventional forms of diver training.

  • Dive computers - the DIR philosophy is trenchantly opposed to the use of dive computers. Most other technical diver training agencies recommend using two - a primary and a backup.
  • Helium mixes - the DIR approach calls for the use of trimix for any dive below 100 feet. Most other agencies train divers to use "deep air" as deep at 185 feet. DIR is extremely unusual in promoting the use of hyperoxic 30/30 trimix.
  • Team diving - most technical diving is focused on self reliance, and creates an emphasis on solo diving. DIR is solidly committed to buddy or "team" diving.
  • Identical equipment - all divers in the team should have identical equipment configurations, to facilitate assistance. Whereas other conventional training agencies promote customising equipment for particular scenarios and individuals (sometimes called "personal preference"), DIR strongly advocates everyone always the same.
  • Ratio decompression - rather than using established algorithms for decompression diving, DIR promotes "ratio decompression" which is a mathematical derivative of the Bühlmann decompression algorithm and the Varying Permeability Model. Because no dive computers use this methodology (and DIR eschews dive computers in any event), divers are taught to calculate decompression schedules on the fly (although they will still plan their dives in advance).
  • Redundancy - whilst most training agencies preach the maximising of equipment redundancy, in certain areas DIR opposes equipment redundancy; for example, the DIR approach is against dual bladder BCDs.
  • Age - most diver training agencies will train divers as young as 12, and some as young as 10 (or even 8 for pool diving). Agencies which promote DIR will not train divers younger than either 16 (UTD) or 17 (GUE).
  • Physical fitness - whilst all forms of diver training promote physical fitness, the DIR approach takes it the furthest. DIR focused training agencies have considerably more demanding swimming ability requirements to start the course, and mandate much higher degrees of ongoing physical fitness.

Controversy and "strokes"

The core of the controversy surrounding DIR is the phrase itself. If a group is DIR, then all who are not doing things the DIR way are 'Doing it Wrong', DIW. The use of the term 'stroke' to describe non-DIR divers has exacerbated tensions.

ossibly the most important piece of wisdom in the diving world, and is something we should all apply to all of our diving. It is, simply, 'Don't dive with strokes.'

The term 'stroke' refers to someone who, knowing there is a better system, chooses to dive in a less than optimal way. It applies to those instructors who encourage students (who know no better) to exercise Personal Preference, in order to sell more equipment; it applies to those who don't plan their dives; those who dive beyond their abilities; who dive deep on air; who take unnecessary risks; who do big dives using unfamiliar gear; who's only reason for diving is depth.

Diving with strokes moves us into an area where our safety is no longer in our own hands. Strokes are sometimes highly 'qualified'. Often they seem very confident - usually because they have no concept of the danger they are getting themselves, and you, into.

This generated a lot of argument, mostly on various internet forums. Many of these arguments devolve rapidly into braggadacio, name calling and foul language. The terms used in such accusatory arguments include:

  • Strokery: the condition of being a non-DIR diver; statements supporting non-DIR points of view
  • Strokeslamming: severe criticism of non-DIR divers or their opinions

There is no extant empiricism proving the DIR approach better than any other approach, but proponents will point to the safety record and achievements of the WKPP, the 1999 GUE Britannic expedition, the Mexican Cave Exploration Project, and the recent exploration of the German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin by UTD divers as anecdotal evidence of the strength of the DIR system of diving.

Associated organizations

Notes

  1. Jablonski, Jarrod (21 March 1997). "Hogarthian Gear Configuration". Retrieved 2009-06-15. - originally posted to rec.scuba by Carl Heinzl on 21 March 1997
  2. ^ Jablonski, Jarrod. "Evolution of DIR Principles". Global Underwater Explorers. Retrieved 2009-06-13.
  3. Irvine, George (1995). "Do it Right - Or Don't Do It!" (pdf). DeepTech Magazine (3). Retrieved 2009-06-15.
  4. Irvine, George (2005). "DIR articles by George Irvine" (pdf). Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  5. ^ Jablonski 2001, p. 54
  6. Asian Diver Magazine April/May 1997
  7. Jablonski 2001, pp. 56–65
  8. In Doing it Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving 13 reasons why dive computers are bad are listed at page 119. However, some of these appear strange - including the suggestion that they are expensive (modern dive computers are cheap, especially when compared with the cost of other equipment and diving gases recommended by the DIR approach), and too conservative (the approach to decompression promoted by DIR - ratio decompression - leads to decompression profiles of varying conservativeness, but are often very conservative).
  9. In Doing it Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving it is put thus: "It is the perfect system in zero visibility as well as in crystal clear water. The DIR system requires no modification in order to function effectively and efficiently in different environments ... In freezing water these divers use dry gloves and thicker undergarments and possibly electric heat. Cold water divers use slightly larger bolt-snaps. Otherwise, exactly the same system is employed whether the dive is below ice or in the balmy tropics." at page 67.
  10. In Doing it Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving it is suggested that the fitness levels of "advanced" divers should be able to run 26.2 miles and/or swim 5,000 meters continuously and/or cycle 100 miles, at page 32.
  11. "George M. Irvine III's First Post to techdiver". Netfirms. 1995. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  12. Billy Williams. "And the word was Hogarth". Retrieved 2009-09-03.
  13. "George M. Irvine III's Third Post to techdiver". Netfirms. 1995. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  14. "As the BBS Turns fix". Diver.net. 2001. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  15. Ellyatt, Mark (2009). "DIR – What its not". Inspired Training. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  16. Werner, Chris (1997). "Exploration History of the WKP". Global Underwater Explorers. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  17. Kernagis Dawn N, McKinlay Casey, Kincaid Todd R (2008). "Dive Logistics of the Turner to Wakulla Cave Traverse". In: Brueggeman P, Pollock Neal W, eds. Diving for Science 2008. Proceedings of the American Academy of Underwater Sciences 27th Symposium. Dauphin Island, AL: AAUS;. Retrieved 2009-06-15.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. Mills, Simon (2005). "Britannic expeditions". Marconigraph.com. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  19. "Mexico Cave Exploration Project". Global Underwater Explorers. Retrieved 2009-06-15.
  20. Georgitsis, Andrew (2009). "Graf Zeppelin Trip Report - May 2009". Unified Team Diving. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Bibliography

  • Jablonski, Jarrod (2001). Doing it Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving. Global Underwater Explorers. ISBN 0971326703.

External links

Category: