Opposition to DIR philosophy?

[MORGAN]

GDI - "G*d D*mned Independent"? Sign me up!

I enjoy being a student of the activities I enjoy, and try to read everything I can find connected with cave diving. So even though my cave and tech certs are NSS/CDS, NACD, and TDI, and I have never taken a GUE class, I have read their downloadable texts on tech and cave diving and their printed "Doing It Right" book, and have also watched the DIR 2004 DVD set.

Most of the material is very similar to that which is taught by other agencies. There are a few GUE/DIR recommended practices or areas of emphasis which are good food for thought even if you don't agree with them. I have done some productive thinking about my equipment and techniques as a result of thinking: GUE recommends X; I prefer to do Y, for reasons A, B, & C. The valuable part of this is to think about what you do and how you do it, study the alternatives, and make informed choices that make sense to you rather than just do something because someone told you that's the way to do it.

The major objection I have to the GUE/DIR philosophy is the idea that there is one right way to do something and that every other way is wrong. I believe that someone who knows half a dozen ways to do something is way ahead of someone who only knows one way to do it.

Mike

[ssmdive]

No, not really

Then care to explain where I am off?

[UCFKnightDiver]

Then care to explain where I am off?

I think Mike and I posted at relatively the same time anyway his posts explains it pretty well in my opinion.

[chilldive]

So here's my take at this point... for me, DIR is a philosophy on diving. It describes a streamlined approach. It incorporates physical fitness into the picture. It promotes proper training and a good mental approach to diving. This is all formed out of many discussions and lots of people's opinions over the years. It takes what many have promoted and rolls it into one package. Most, if not all, is very common sense and has good explainations behind the reasoning. A great starting point to learning if nothing else.

Then there's the institutional side and/or the opinons of some very influential people or organizations, who took that philosophy a little further and have tried to dictate specifics.

Personally, I wear two hats. I dive as an individual for recreational purposes and I dive on team with specific objectives in mind. As an individual, I only need to be concerned with my safety and the safety of my buddy (I don't dive solo). In those instances, as long as my buddy and I are in agreement with procedures and trust each other, then it's a go. In that setting, we're free to try new things.

However, when I dive on a team, that's a whole different thing. The team has established standards and procedures. And much of this can get specific, but for good reason. When I show up to a dive site for a team project to push the system, video, take samples, survey, or what ever, no one is bogged down with the details of who is using what equipment or what gases, or any such thing. We're all on the same page and thinking alike. Our total focus can be on the objectives at hand. Safety is already built in. I know my buddies gear and he knows mine. I can be paired of with anyone on the team and know how they dive and know their gear. Gear can be shared easily. It is this philosophy that makes it possible to accomplish huge goals - such as Wakulla. Now does that mean every team has to have the same specifics - no. As Kelly mentioned earlier, there are systems where the typical team philosophy needs to change. On the team I dive with, we do just that. But the impact of having a standard way of doing things still holds true - the team just has to develop those standards. Standards aren't always the "best" way, they are the standard way. Until the team changes the standard, everyone needs to abide by it for the sake of meeting the mission objectives and/or ensuring a high level of safety.

I think it is probably from these teams standards that the rest of the cave diving community has been made to feel inferior. If you're not on a particular team, then there's room to be objective in the gear chosen or the configuration of gear, etc. During a high profile team project is probably not the best time to try something new.

My perception is that most people are not involved in team types of diving activities, thus take objection to the specifics that get called out by teams and possibly inflicted on them by individuals.

How am I doing thus far? Remember, stay objective and general, I'm not looking to bash anyone or any organization. Just continuing to analyze.

[FW]

How am I doing thus far? Remember, stay objective and general, I'm not looking to bash anyone or any organization. Just continuing to analyze.

That is a pretty good assessment of the facts. What I like about the "new" OCDA, is they realize that not all caves are the same, and are willing to adapt their "standards" to other types of caves. That wasn't always the case for OCDA, or some other DIR teams. Even the WKPP has realized that not all caves are the same as the ones in the Leon Sinks area. When WKPP realizes that a metal backplate won't work for sidemount, I may actually join them

[Shocky]

Does the term "stroke" ring a bell? Remember, what works, works!
John

[Me]

I've got a t-shirt that I got at CDS workshop about 5 years ago. If I recall correctly, one side says STROKE; the other "Society of Techincal Risk Optimizing Karst Explorers"

[FW]

We used to have a filter that blocked that word. Apparently this software doesn't have it. I think Chris' question has been answered, time to close this thread.