On Mon, 15 May 2000 17:12:13 -0500, mjblackmd@ya*.co* wrote:

>Another log for the fire, boys and girls.  Enjoy.
>(beginning of original message)
>
>Subject: DIR: Myths & Realities (updated)
>From: mjblackmd@my*.co*
>Date: 2000/05/15
>Newsgroups: rec.scuba
>
>Myth 8:  DIR and its proponents have saved many student divers from
>certain danger and possible death, as taught by all other training
>agencies.  Reality:  No agency is trying to kill you.  The agencies
>that have been in the business longest have enviable safety records,
>a testimonial to their quality of instruction, given the inherent
>dangers involved in scuba.

Would you care to quantify what an "enviable" safety record is? 
Perhaps putting the statistics in context would clarify your point. 
For example, compare an identical number of DIR and non DIR divers, and
see what the group incident rates are.  Obviously no agency is trying
to kill you, and you exaggerate the supposed myth.  The reality is that
the DIR proponents have identified risks which they feel are not
adequately addressed in most training curricula, and through logical
reasoning have developed a system intended to minimize these risks.

>To review (in reverse order):
>
>Myth 7:  DIR is a system for everybody.  Reality:  Personal preference
>is the system for everybody.  You have the right to choose DIR or the
>right to choose another system, or to incorporate useful parts of any
>system that suits your needs.  No single system will ever be the panacea
>for everybody.

You also have the right to repeatedly beat your head against a brick
wall, but that doesn't necessarily imply that it's a good idea.  DIR is
a system developed logically to reduce risk, and facilitate effective
emergency management over the broadest possible spectrum of diving
environments.  "Personal preference", in the context of diving
equipment, means that the diver is making equipment decisions based on
some sort of criteria.  If you place safety as the most important
criterion, and make every equipment purchase, placement and operation
decision with that in mind, you have DIR.  The fact that the system is
not right for everybody has more to do with where people place their
priorities than with drawbacks to DIR.

>Myth 6:  DIR is a system based on experience and proven facts.
>Reality:  Although many DIR divers have experience in technical diving,
>there are many among them who extrapolate facts to the point of
>distortion, confusion, and lack of truth.  The message soon becomes
>lost in all the noise.

DIR is a system based on logical reasoning and common sense.  The
thought process behind each decision draws on the collective experience
of many accomplished divers.  The "noise" surrounding the debate on
this topic does not change the content of the message, and those who
take enough interest in evaluating their own dive safety and equipment
decisions will seek out the information.  Individuals such as yourself,
who attempt to discredit the merits of DIR without actually addressing
a single technical point or decision with regard to DIR, are largely
responsible for the noise you are complaining of.

>Myth 5:  DIR is a new movement in scuba that will grow and someday
>surpass other systems.  Reality:  Tech diving will continue to grow,
>but the training agencies that will attract the most students are the
>ones with time-honored teaching skills, including respect, patience,
>and avoidance of name-calling such as DIR's infamous "stroke."

The reality is that the training agencies that will attract the most
students are the ones who can sell the most courses.  This is a fact
that is not likely to change.  Tech diving will continue to grow, and
the DIR "movement"  is simply an attempt to increase diver safety and
competence.  GUE is setting a prime example with their curriculum and
course requirements, and hopefully all of the other training agencies
will begin to take an increased interest in their standards with
respect to equipment, and the quality of divers that they generate.

>Myth 4:  DIR is practised by the BEST divers in the world.  Reality:
>The BEST divers in the world are too busy diving and conducting
>research to be sitting around posting to techdiver, rec.scuba, the
>GUE list, Rodale's, or any other newsgroup in cyberspace.  The BEST
>divers in the world, with few exceptions, are conspicuously absent
>from these lists.

Apart from the precious few that post on these forums to disemminate
useful information, I concur.  With regard to the "BEST" divers in the
world, it is hard to qualitatively define what makes someone the best,
but look at the accomplishments of DIR teams:  WKPP, CAST, BSTD, etc. 
The record speaks for itself.

>Myth 3:  DIR uses safe procedures, both in and out of the water.
>Reality:  DIR uses procedures that do not comply with guidelines
>established by NOAA and the U.S. Navy, including flying only three
>hours after a deep deco dive, in-water recompression for decompression
>accidents, diving well beyond recreational limits and simultaneously
>striving to shorten decompression times, exercising shortly after
>diving, plus others which are hardly safe.

Perhaps you could explain why you consider the guidelines of the NOAA
or US Navy to be correct?  Do you discourage any further research into
these areas?  Have you ever once asked a question with regard to any of
these practices?  I'm sure that the DIR divers on this list, myself
included, would be happy to address any one of these issues, with due
consideration to safety issues, and with the reasoning behind the
decision.

>Myth 2:  DIR is useful for cave diving, but can be applied to ALL forms
>of diving.  Reality:  Very few people use DIR outside of cave diving,
>because the system is inflexible and impractical.  In fact DIR teaches
>using NO COMPUTER, only a bottom timer, hardly a practical
>recommendation nowadays.

I think you will find that cave divers are only a small portion of the
total number of DIR divers, but without a properly conducted survey,
cannot be sure.  You can't make a claim such as "DIR is impractical"
without some sort of reasoning behind your statement.  Care to tell us
why you feel this is the case?  I can come up with about a dozen or so
reasons why carrying a bottom timer is a more practical solution than a
dive computer.  I will post them, if you care to debate the subject.  

>Myth 1:  DIR has had no fatalities or accidents.  Reality:  Bobby
>McGuirre, a WKPP/DIR diver, died while diving DIR in a cave, and
>represents at least one accident DIR cannot deny.

I was under the impression that Bobby's untimely demise was the result
of a violation of standard practice, but will open the floor to someone
closer to the incident for comment.

>MJB :-)))

-Sean


--
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]