Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
At Mon, Mar 15, 1999, 12:27 AM , bdi wrote: >Craig, the subject deserves more accurate reporting and >more thoughtful analysis than you have provided here. I am not reporting anything nor providing any analysis. I am asking for an analysis of an idea from those with more experience than myself. bdi wrote: > You didn't mention the hose routing problem - requiring > all custom hoses routed up the back and over the shoulder, > or a convoluted mass of hoses on the front. From my first post: >-- Finally my questions. >First, what is your opinion on this upside down idea? >Second, how do you see this would effect the long hose, and other hose >routings? You are correct, I didn't mention the hose routing problem. I asked if anyone knew of any problems or solutions. bdi wrote: >You didn't > mention the inability to stand the cylinders up unless you > use valve guards You quoted this in your message. >>The tanks will be very awkward to handle on most boats I took the liberty of summing this in with this statement. With that I acknowledged the validity of that fault. bdi wrote: > Sloppy, inept and misleading analysis of diving methodologies, > should be pointed out and stomped on immediately. > > Further, the promotion of suboptimal gear rigging, failure-prone > equipment, difference for the sake of difference, retail greed, > personal agendas and plain ineptitude when applied to analysis > of technical diving equipment should be rooted out and dealt with > ruthlessly. All of these things have the potential to kill. > I agree. Promoting any life support equipment with out testing or analysis is against the common good. That is why I am asking for the help of the more experienced divers on this list to share their analysis of this method. Just for the record... I am not promoting anything other than a discussion. (the point of this news group) I am not criticizing DIR nor its proponents. The only opinions I have offered is: I don't think there is only one right method. I think the intolerance of difference simply because of difference, is counter productive. I do not mean DIR is not a valid and useful method or that you are obligated to try every idea someone shares. I am looking for input of the group as to the pros and cons of an idea I just recently became aware of. When I was away at dive school, I became aware of many isolated pools of diving experience. Commercial, Public Safety, Exploratory, Technical, Recreational... I found that each had its own methods, with their own reasons. I was studying commercial diving, and found that many of the techniques I learned for that style diving, would enhance my own non professional diving techniques. I plan on adopting as many of these techniques as is compatible with my training and equipment. My goal is to unleash the experience of each of these isolated pools of diving, and grow from the joining. I would suggest that DIR itself would not exist if someone somewhere didn't think, "Gee, there has to be a better way...." or "What if...." Should all efforts have been stopped the moment someone said "nope I've looked and this is as good as it gets. Anything else is stupid." I applaud the efforts the WKPP. A quote from my first message: >I have been very interested in the DIR methodology. Its practitioners seem >devoted, if not fanatical, about safety, and the furtherance of diving >technique. -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]