Jump to content

Talk:Doing It Right (scuba diving)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Will resume updates to equipment section this week.

[edit]

This is more of an FYI since there has not been much activity here.

I will be updating all sections under equipment with new revised/content as well as the intro section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.79 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos the earlier discussion of the sourcing of DIR material

[edit]
The problem, as I see it, is that we are confusing sourcing for "things that are DIR" with sourcing for claims as to why such things are superior. It is easy to source GI or JJ for the former, but is rather self-serving to do so for the latter. DIR is only one of several "holistic" approaches to diving techniques and equipment selection, and it is, in fact, perhaps the youngest. It has reached it's current level of market penetration because of three things: 1) the entrepreneurial bent of the originators (it would have been interesting to see how differently it would have developed and presented itself it Parker was still around); 2) because of it's extremely narrow focus on a very specialized sort of diving; 3) because of the attractiveness of the "Kosherat of DIR" to those who rely more heavily on their amygdala than on their anterior cingulate cortex (see: Biology and political orientation ). Keep in mind that I can make all the same arguments that are made for DIR (and perhaps make them better) for the holistic approach that was developed at the University of California in then 1960s and 1970s; and while DIR would likely be a better approach (at least in my mind) for cave diving, the U.C. approach would be better for everything else. Wiki4Thal (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Permit me to illustrate the problem: JJ write's [[1]]: "As more people took up scuba diving, however, variation in equipment, training, and equipment configuration grew. With ever-growing numbers of people finding pleasure in open water, no decompression diving, came a collective identity reflecting the interests of its participants-recreational diving. An entire industry would soon follow to serve these interests. Concurrently, another identity would take shape, one tied to a group of divers, some coming from within recreational diving, some from without, that pushed the limits of recreational diving, by committing themselves to the exploration of increasingly more demanding environments; e.g., ice, caves and deep wrecks. Over time, these two groups would diverge and each would follow its own trajectory. The somewhat vague (in part arbitrary) categories of "technical" and "recreational" diving were set up to describe these two trajectories."
It would seem perfectly reasonable to use this as a reference to the "origin" of DIR or GUE, but is it accurate? I would submit that it is not. The problem is that it ignores the true origins of all civilian (and much of the military) scuba diving in the non-Florida scientific diving community (more on that latter), which had, and continues to have, a tradition of a "holistic" approach to diving that was abandoned by the recreational community when it moved to increase the number of recreational divers by lowering the prerequisites for training and the demands of training. I offer the aside that organized Florida scientific diving grew, in large part, out of the NOAA Scientist in the Sea Program what was very different than the California model in content and organization. Anyway, in the late 1980s and early 1990s the very clear (not at all vague) distinction between recreational and technical diving was created by Michael Menduno and aquaCorps Journal. The distinction was the presence of a ceiling, either physical or physiological, that precluded a reasonable risk normal direct ascent to the surface. Diver with such a ceiling had no choice but to place their complete faith and trust in the equipment that they took with them, just like technical climbers whose nomenclature strongly influenced Michael's coining of the Technical Diver term. Cave diving was one branch of the diving disciplines that made up the "trajectory" called "Technical Diving." DIR was a twig of the Cave Diving branch and GUE a sliver carved from that twig.
JJ goes on: "Given the different orientations of recreational and technical divers, it should come as no surprise that different training practices, equipment choices, and configurations would emerge to answer to the wants of each. The evolving idea of what it meant to be "recreational" led to some divergence regarding what one needed to know to remain safe during dives of minimal difficulty. Therefore, dive training tended to become shorter, with minimal treatment of topics such as gas planning, breathing gas concerns, decompression and crisis management. Likewise, this shift led to greater variation with respect to equipment choices and to how this equipment would be configured. However, the needs of technical diving required generally greater knowledge of these areas, more precision, more attention to detail, refined skills, practiced crisis management, a sound configuration, and well-crafted and well-maintained equipment. Conventions foreign to the recreational diving community, such as the "thirds rule," the use of a long hose, and the use of a redundant regulator, emerged expressly to address the needs of the technical diver. However, in time, it became apparent that the more precision and the more proficiency that were required to pursue eXploration-level technical diving, the more need there was for a unified system. This is because it was impractical, if not impossible, to operate efficiently as a team if individuals were not functioning under a common set of constraints."
He denigrates recreational diving (I feel for good reason) saying: "The evolving idea of what it meant to be "recreational" led to some divergence regarding what one needed to know to remain safe during dives of minimal difficulty. Therefore, dive training tended to become shorter, with minimal treatment of topics ..." and praises the Technical trajectory with, "greater knowledge of these areas, more precision, more attention to detail, refined skills, practiced crisis management, a sound configuration, and well-crafted and well-maintained equipment. Conventions foreign to the recreational diving community, such as the "thirds rule," the use of a long hose, and the use of a redundant regulator, emerged expressly to address the needs of the technical diver." which is part right and part wrong. First there is the implication that everything else is somehow less and then there is the completely erroneous comment concerning the redundant regulator, which first appeared in diving within the Recreational Trajectory back in the mid 1960s and which was (at the time) rejected by the cave and wreck community as well as the scientific community, all of whom came around to it later on. In any case you are left with two mistaken ideas, the first is that the Recreational Trajectory favors lesser knowledge of these areas, less precision, less attention to detail, sloppy skills, unpracticed crisis management, an unsound configuration, and poorly build and poorly-maintained equipment and that the trunk of the tree, the West Coast Scientific Diving Community (and places like U Mich., WHOI and RSMAS) was not already there with codified manuals and training programs that dealt, in detail, with all the issues raised.
To get back to the point I was trying to make: I have no issue with using sources such as JJ and GUE as authorities for that DIR or GUE do ... but great care must be taken with using them to support either the "why" do things that way or the history of how it came about. Wiki4Thal (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My thoughts.. Since this article is only for the "Doing It Right" as envisioned my GI3, JJ and the other principals involved in the WKPP during that era and through them GUE, I do not see any issues with sourcing almost exclusively from materials authored or generated by those people or organizations. In essence this is going to be limited to published articles, videos (DIR 2004 1-3), and books written by one of those people. Trying to make this more than an article just "DIR" is not doing anyone any good. trying to prove what or whom is best is really not the point. Getting an accurate representation of the Diving system is. That is my only aim here, frankly I would like to strike out all of the unsupported info in here and start over (all sections). If there is such a strong reaction to "DIR" then (and there seems to be at every juncture) I would suggest a separate page which can be used and linked over. Anti-DIR or "why DIR is wrong" or whatever. Putting it in the article just makes it look like a mess and accomplishes nothing. The other info is interesting and should warrant its own article, however i do not think its place is here in this article. Wiki articles need to be focused pieces otherwise your trying to boil the ocean Rlynch356 (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with what you are saying. The problem (for me at least, having a somewhat broader and more distant view than most) is that hand in hand with "Doing it Right" is the clear assumption that everything else is "Doing it Wrong." It is quite impossible to separate the "how" and the "why," since the "why" is based on an assumption that DIR is the "revealed" word, rather than just one splinter of the tree that works well in certain circumstances. Philosophically, DIR is so defined by arguments as to what it is not, rather than by what it is, that, funny as it sounds, a good case can be made that much of DIR, when applied to open water, for example, is a classic, "equipment solution to a skill problem." It is not clear to me how this can be handled in an encyclopedia situation except by saying that: 1) DIR exists; 2) is controversial for a number of reasons; and 3) here are some links to websites that describe it. Wiki4Thal (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
we are in partial agreement here. I think that what trips people up is the word "Right" here. DIR was popularized by a polerizing character whom adopted a WWF esq persona to get his point across. It was effective in that sense. My aim with the article is to publish what it is, the history, etc. and not to get philosophical on counter points since they are generally unsupported and opinion based. If there are counter articles written by authortive sources on why DIR is wrong can you point me to them. I'll start posting up material this week on the. The equipment section will be ordered from Head to Toe in terms of how the gear is layed out with an intro on the gear system. I do want to add the DIR Rules to the article but as of yet cannot find a copy which is dated and from a principle (there are others) Rlynch356 (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I knew George well, he had no respect for the recreational diving world, and frankly from where I stand I can see his point(s). That is not the issue. George's problem (and the ongoing problem with DIR et. al.,) was that they did not see that there were long existing alternate paths that were as least as good (and often, I feel better) paths to extreme underwater excellence and performance. He (and his) never recognized that, and do not recognize that even today. Again, that is not he main issue, it just creates the conundrum. The entire basis of DIR is that it is the "best" think thing since sliced bread, and how do we know that? Just like any religion ... look into their book, it says so right there,in their book. I do not see how you can not get philosophical on the positive points ... but where do you turn to reference that? Why the Good Book of DIR. That is not, I am sorry to say, a valid reference for anything except "how" it is done, "why" is up for argument. But you know what? None of us who know better are wasting our time writing "why DIR is wrong" books, I mean ... why bother? So my recommendation is that we have a small section that talks about the origin of DIR, it's checkered history, it's great safety record, it's evolution into GUE and UTD and then, let it go. If people want to know the details of how to set up a rig, or what an s-drill is, or why you need to have a can light on a bright day at 15 feet in 200 ft viz, point them to the sites and boards where they can find that out, because that is not encyclopedia material, it is, IMHO, better covered elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 07:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what, let's put your first effort on a small section of gear up in a talk area, then let's see if we can come to a consensus before going further. Okay? If we get stuck perhaps we can get Gene Hobbs (who is active on wiki, whom I trust, and who is the WKPP Medicine Man) to offer an opinion. Wiki4Thal (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently working on the Preface and History section (I have changed focus inorder to present a more whole article, since the equipment section alone would be without context), and am seeking feedback from principles whom are/were involved. The motivations behind its creation are something I am looking at as well, which centers on standardizing a system which improves safety in long exploration dives via equipment, procedures, and team work as compared to methodologies in use at that time. Its growth into a diving style and a training agency (GUE) centered on those objectives. The objective is a historical view point of DIR rather than the emotional content up today.
The equipment section I have written will go through a similar offline review before posting it once I am done.Rlynch356 (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might look for some historical feedback from members of three groups, graduates of the Florida based Scientist-in-the-Sea program (list of participant in paper)[1] (e.g., Gregg Stanton, who I think is a critic) and first generation DSOs from what are now AAUS programs (e.g., Somers, Stewart, Austin, Egstrom, Flahan, Me, etc.) and ex-NOAA diving officials.Wiki4Thal (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/8066/AAUS_2000_26.pdf?sequence=1

Sigh.... This is an article on DIR as envisioned by JJ and GI correct? Pretty much sums up the origins and the relevant sources as GI and JJ. Everyone else has a different view and frankly has not published much of anything that I can find that is not looped back to those sources. This is a pretty focused article on what is DIR (and GUE does not use the term anymore due to the negative nature of the public, much like here). If were going to try and tell the correct story why all the BS? Just lay it out the way it was envisioned, and the history of it. I dive as I am trained by GUE does that mean that I follow everything that GI and JJ say as the only way to live my life outside of diving, no. Would I if I were doing 15000ft cave dives at 300 Feet on OC, then yes I would. Frankly I want to enjoy my life and not...be dead. DIR was a way to stop people from dying doing stupid things that the agencies of the time were promoting (such as Deep air, which is still taught today for some reason). Since I have been sitting back and not posting anything here the drive by edits have continued to warp the article with little effect on overall quality. At one point I thought doing this was important but given the "whatever" nature of Wikipedia I'm close to the "why bother" stage other than the fact that it comes up in search so often. Other than that, Wiki is pretty much useless due to ability of everyone who takes the time to get a user name (including me) to make edits, it is not a source that can be relied upon. A good start if your looking for something or need a link to a site, yes... but facts...Well, maybe....but buyer beware, its free and you get what you pay for. The problem I see with the article is that most editors don't practice DIR, primarily don't like the style or the people whom came up with it, and frankly have a negative agenda. I'd rather put my time where it may make a difference, which I have been doing. 98% of the article is crap and given the powers that be it will stay that way. Its a polarizing subject yet the intent (keeping people alive) gets lost in all the posturing. I don't know GI personally, if your wondering. </rant> I'll go ahead and post pictures of the correct equipment setup under open license (my pictures) and rewrite where appropriate when I have time. Rlynch356 (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snorkel

[edit]

The snorkel is not used in DIR diving simply because it conflicts with the use of the long hose. With the long hose routed around behind the head, when it is deployed it will snag on a snorkel and rip the mask off. In general the whole lower section of this article is terrible and is clearly written by a BSAC user with an axe to grind and is not remotely 'encyclopaedic'. The snorkel section is just obviously wrong on the face of it. Lamontcg (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also the argument isn't over "local conditions" the better argument is over if you do the dive or not. If you're considering that a surface swim to the nearest land in rough seas may be called for because you've got blown off the wreck and lost the boat, then the DIR solution is to first not dive. Second it is to have enough skill to be able to find the boat again. Third if conditions on the surface could change without warning then carry an EPIRB. Packing a snorkel is way down the list, and DIR gear config does allow for packing a fold up snorkel in the pocket for use on the surface. Lamontcg (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that the snorkel is not worn clipped to the mask straps during the dive, not that the use of a snorkel at the surface is against DIR? If so then say what you mean. The difference is significant.
Calling for help with an epirb because you cant swim back in a wind chop because you refused to carry a snorkel will get you no kudos from the rescue services. Particularly if there are several other divers routinely using a snorkel at the same place, same time, same conditions.
If you want to improve the article, make suggestions or changes based on reliable references. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with rule number 1 is that you need to carry a crystal ball to implement it. If you know you're going to be blown off the wreck and will lose the boat, then we'd all agree that the sensible course is not to dive. However, in practice, we make a judgement on the conditions - which doesn't always pan out. In those cases an EPIRB isn't a substitute for a snorkel; and a personal flare pack may well be a better solution for not being able to see the boat. The key point of the DIR that we debated endlessly in the 1990s was that you only took the minimum equipment that you realistically needed for a dive. You definitely don't want a snorkel clipped to your mask if you're breathing a long hose underwater, nor is there any case for carrying one for a cave dive; but if you dive regularly in open water in areas where conditions can change quickly, you may find that packing a snorkel in your pocket is a sensible precaution (along with personal flares or an epirb, etc. if you anticipate a use for them). While I think about it, ask yourself how you know your epirb is still working - where I live, setting one off to test it makes you very unpopular with the CG.
Anyway, I don't recognise an inflexibility about gear configuration to be a fundamental tenet of the DIR I watched develop; there was always a recognition that different conditions could call for different items. YMMV of course. --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is all arguments over opinion and not encyclopedic. And I didn't say that an EPIRB was a replacement for a snorkel. You skipped over the major two points that I made which is first that if the dive has severe enough surface conditions you SHOULD NOT DO IT. And secondly, you should always be surfacing with sufficient gas reserves to just swim with your regulator (which is going to be more effective due to breathing better and not having as much dead air space and having no possibility of inhaling water like a snorkel). Even without any gas to breathe off of a regulator I have never been in surface conditions sufficiently poor that I couldn't just swim on my back. I have never needed an EPIRB or a snorkel in 16 years of diving. If the dive actually wound up needing an EPRIB I doubt a snorkel would have changed the outcome, and more to the point that dive should likely never have started at the surface. The case for carrying an EPIRB is when you might not even see the boat due to being blown off and diving in high current, which a snorkel cannot fix. 216.160.65.240 (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense. I didn't skip over your major two points. You simply didn't read what I wrote in reply, although you've had five years to do so. Which bit of "If you know you're going to be blown off the wreck and will lose the boat, then we'd all agree that the sensible course is not to dive. However, in practice, we make a judgement on the conditions - which doesn't always pan out" can't you get your head around? Your stance is apparently that nobody should ever dive at sea because there's always a small chance that conditions will worsen.
Your third solution was to carry an epirb, yet you reject the simpler solution of carrying a snorkel.
You certainly always plan to surface with reserve gas. However, there are times when you or you buddy has an equipment malfunction, or have to solve some problem underwater, and the result is that one or both of you end up using your gas reserve by the time you reach the surface. That's actually what it's there for. In choppy waters the use of a snorkel on the surface is an effective means of making a difficult situation much more tolerable, and a snorkel is simple to carry stowed away for these rare occasions.
If you want to make judgements based on anecdote, then in my 40-odd years of diving, I've found a snorkel valuable at the end of dive on two occasions, and in both cases it turned out to be invaluable. Nevertheless, I dive a long hose, and never have a snorkel equipped underwater. Nor have I ever employed a personal epirb, but I've often carried a personal waterproof flare pack when diving far out at sea, although happily, I've never had the need to use it.
You see, it's all about risk mitigation. You examine the potential risks. Some have very small chances of happening, but if they should, then the consequences could be fatal. If there are simple, effective steps to mitigate those sort of risks, you take them. KISS. --RexxS (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Apologies for being behind in my Wiki monitoring). As RexxS notes, this is most certainly all about risk management and reasonable mitigation, for which the snorkel does have a contextual role, even though it is incompatible to be worn on the mask strap while also deploying a (looped) long hose, but this is readily resolved with a pocket snorkel. And to the points, #1 is to note that Weather changes. What might be perfect conditions at 9AM may be very different when one surfaces an hour later. Similarly, these and other factors may change the dive exit time and/or plan which can exceed the amount of residual air leftover in the tank(s). Ditto for surface conditions which preclude a backfloat with a Wing style BCD. FWIW, these isn't a just theoretical argument - anecdotally, on a dive in Bequia in 2003, I was the rescuer of the no-snorkel diver who was in distress, having fatigued out from trying to maintain their airway after they consumed the last of the air in their tank. What had happened was that the drift dive's chase boat lost track of us and we had a ~30 minute float which took us along a cliffside (no shore exit) where wave swell reflections had 2-3ft combers breaking over our heads -- no "float on back" possible. An extremely close call for the victim and an excellent object lesson in understanding the gear-related factors for drownproofing, since no dive is over until you're completely out of the water. -hh (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doin' It Right which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

image resources giving a bad example

[edit]

as of the (european) interpretation of DIR in 2015 the images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dir_diver_02.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Divers_at_Redondo,_Des_Moines,_Washington_03.jpg should not be consideres to be iconic for DIR style diving.

DIR promotes the use of twin tanks and standard hose lenghts. combined this results in steamlined diving, which is a cornerstone of the DIR philosophy both aspects are not covered in the first picture as this is a single tank diver and oversized hoses for this scenario contradict DIR

the 2nd picture noted down shows a torch cable that is tangled by the main regulator hose. this is a bad example of pseudo tec diving as DIR (and GUE) promotes extensive predive checks and self awareness. this would result in a tangled hose to be a no go situation.

in addition custom, releaseable, weight harness is not valid by the book as it is not a part of the holistic fail safe and standard equipment concept promoted by DIR. it cant be considered a standard for a unified team as for using twin tanks weight is rather placed non-dropable between the tanks to pay tribute to the balance rig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaludwig (talk • contribs) 22:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your dislike for the two images discussed above. I also consider them imperfect, and would prefer better images. There are two circumstances in which I would remove them:
  1. The criticism is supported by a reliable source, showing the content to be incorrect and therefore unsuitable for encyclopaedic use. (Feel free to provide a reliable reference for this "European interpretation"). Your unpublished personal opinion carries the same weight as mine, ie. None.
  2. Better images are made available. You are welcome to upload better photographs to Wikimedia Commons to illustrate your points and for potential use in this article. If such photos become available, removal of existing photos to substitute better ones is not usually a problem. Leave a message here linking to properly licensed images, and they will be given due consideration. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 01:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Doing It Right (scuba diving). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review

[edit]

B
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Doing It Right (scuba diving). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doing_It_Right_(scuba_diving)&oldid=1201541544"