At 12:01  23/10/99 , you wrote:

>  >Sorry, but in diving what is DIR? (except an MS-DOS computer command)
>
>It's a new name for what the thoughtfull divers have been doing for years.
>No-protruberance rigs. Thoughtfull practice. Redundancy without complexity.
>Doing it Right. Problem is that a minority believe that the DIR system
>should
>not be fluid and allow changes for differeing circumstances, and it's these
>dogma laden folks that make it miserable for people specializing in diving
>in
>areas that their critics are inexperienced in by telling the specialists
>that they are
>stupid for applying the correct technique to the correct situation.

To be fair, Anthony, it must be said that there is
little, if any, of this kind of argument happening. 

Most of the honking comes from outside the DIR fold, 
from people who a) can't accept that a single, well
thought out system of gear, mindset, dive planning,
gas selection, narcosis avoidance, teamwork and 
procedure is more effective and safer for a wider range 
of diving in a greater variety of conditions than any 
other, or b) who can't explain why their opposing 
system is more effective or safer than DIR, or c) who 
claim DIR won't work in their 'unique' conditions, but 
can't explain why.

Another important point is that DIR is a lot more than 
just a collection of gear.

It is true, as Dave Sutton notes, that a lot of the 
equipment used in the DIR system was around well 
before the marketeers took over the dive manufacturing 
industry. You've probably dived most of it yourself.

I started diving with a backplate & harness & either 
single 72s or straight manifolded doubles. We paid 
attention to streamlining - as anyone with a background 
in competitive spearfishing would - recognising that 
streamlining reduces gas consumption and fatigue, reduces 
the risk of entanglement, and improves ease, agility, 
mobility, responsiveness and safety underwater. This holds 
true whether you are in a cave or on your way across a 
wreck to a work site.

Back then the minimalist approach was mandated by the 
fact that there wasn't much gear available to hang off 
oneself. And the buddy system - like the DIR team system
was a standard way of diving.

However, there were some significant differences. The 
bouyancy wing came and went in a flash the first time 
around, and I don't recall ever seeing anyone on the long 
hose back then. I didn't see helium outside the commercial
diving community, either.

>Hey, I -can- drive a tack with a sledgehammer. But since I have a
>tack-hammer
>too, why not use it when it's needed?

The other thing about DIR is it doesn't preclude the use
of the right tool for the job, be it scooter, sidemounts,
camera, video lights, sidemounts, airlift, sledge hammer
or tack hammer. In fact, it makes the use of the tools a 
whole lot easier.

Anthony and Dave, you'll find a whole lot more about DIR on the 
GUE web site. http://www.gue.com/

rgrds   billyw

--
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]