DIR Explorers - View Single Post - DIR Rebreather

Mats Edenfeldt · February 3rd, 2007, 12:35 AM

As I said you have a point in this

Off course you can enhance the technique and the use of the team and the equipment even with the CCR. It is several year ago I last looked at CCR:s and I have no idea about the advances in the technology, but I would be surprised if we will find a CCR under the GUE/Halcyon roof within the next 10 years.

You can still do pretty amazing things with the RB80 and I am sure this will develop in to more advanced units in the future but still with the extreme simplicity it holds today. Maybe some hybrid of a CCR and a RB80…?!?!?

I am not offended by CCR divers or there interest in the type of team oriented diving that DIR stands for, its most welcome. The only thing I object to is the battle and the hard words between OC and CCR divers.

We need to get something straight right away and that is that this is two totally different types of diving and that the RB is primary a tool to get the job done that OC can not provide. I think that you are on thin is if you get the CCR just to do it “simple” and cheap and without fuss and all the stages. It still takes the care and the gas management to use it. Now we can talk about how we can adapt more of a DIR approach to CCR.

Use OC if it can be done on OC
Have enough gas to be able to bail out and do the remaining dive on OC
Team awareness, dive in team and use same gas and same equipment

Now this looks simple but now you have lost a bit of what a lot of CCR divers use the CCR for, small and cheep diving, not a lot of stages and so on and so on. Off course you can dive a CCR according to more of the DIR principle but then this is needed.

I bet you disagree

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase)

Whilst your concerns over old school CCR diving are totally justified IMHO, you have to consider the massive advancement in knowledge and safety in the past five years.

HUDS are now pretty much standard BOVs are widely accepted as necessary safety devices and the understanding of the working of the Galvanic 02 sensor is a scale of magnitude above what it was before Ammers first mentioned the phrase "current limited cell" way back in 2003.

Now there is a strong feeling that standardization and greatly improved teem diving practices would further enhance diver safety.

We look to GUE DIR for a model in this last area.

Whats wrong with that you should be flattered not offended.

Whilst there are CCR divers who just want the gizmo in the same way as there are DIR divers who just want to look like great at 6m in a puddle, you have to remember there are a lot of CCR divers out there for whom the technology opens up vast possibilities in diving that would otherwise be outside their reach.

ATB

Mark Chase

February 3rd, 2007, 12:35 AM	#14 (permalink)
Mats Edenfeldt(Offline) Cave is fun :) Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Sweden - Stockholm Posts: 158	As I said you have a point in this Off course you can enhance the technique and the use of the team and the equipment even with the CCR. It is several year ago I last looked at CCR:s and I have no idea about the advances in the technology, but I would be surprised if we will find a CCR under the GUE/Halcyon roof within the next 10 years. You can still do pretty amazing things with the RB80 and I am sure this will develop in to more advanced units in the future but still with the extreme simplicity it holds today. Maybe some hybrid of a CCR and a RB80…?!?!? I am not offended by CCR divers or there interest in the type of team oriented diving that DIR stands for, its most welcome. The only thing I object to is the battle and the hard words between OC and CCR divers. We need to get something straight right away and that is that this is two totally different types of diving and that the RB is primary a tool to get the job done that OC can not provide. I think that you are on thin is if you get the CCR just to do it “simple” and cheap and without fuss and all the stages. It still takes the care and the gas management to use it. Now we can talk about how we can adapt more of a DIR approach to CCR. Use OC if it can be done on OC Have enough gas to be able to bail out and do the remaining dive on OC Team awareness, dive in team and use same gas and same equipment Now this looks simple but now you have lost a bit of what a lot of CCR divers use the CCR for, small and cheep diving, not a lot of stages and so on and so on. Off course you can dive a CCR according to more of the DIR principle but then this is needed. I bet you disagree Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase) Whilst your concerns over old school CCR diving are totally justified IMHO, you have to consider the massive advancement in knowledge and safety in the past five years. HUDS are now pretty much standard BOVs are widely accepted as necessary safety devices and the understanding of the working of the Galvanic 02 sensor is a scale of magnitude above what it was before Ammers first mentioned the phrase "current limited cell" way back in 2003. Now there is a strong feeling that standardization and greatly improved teem diving practices would further enhance diver safety. We look to GUE DIR for a model in this last area. Whats wrong with that you should be flattered not offended. Whilst there are CCR divers who just want the gizmo in the same way as there are DIR divers who just want to look like great at 6m in a puddle, you have to remember there are a lot of CCR divers out there for whom the technology opens up vast possibilities in diving that would otherwise be outside their reach. ATB Mark Chase __________________ GUE: DIR-Fundamentals, Cave 1, Cave 2 NAUI: Trimix 1, Technical diver, Instructor, DM, Wreck penetration, Oxygen service technician IANTD: Advanced Nitrox, Nitrox Various: Apeks tech, Poseidon tech "Doing it right really means to do it properly. No skimping and no compromises. It sounds easy enough but it is not - it requires balls of steel" Peter Steinhoff