Who has the best procedures for diving??

jluttichau · December 13th, 2006, 02:23 PM

Inspired but a previous thread and popular demand i will ask the question is DIR doing it that much better then PADI or other organisations? I mean even DIR divers have died in the past and as it is now there aren't really any statictics that point towards DIR as a superior framework. But we do tend to think that it is.

Cheers

Chrisch · December 13th, 2006, 03:59 PM

I think one of the great things about the DIR philosophy is the commitment to safety and the safety attitude of the divers involved. In that, DIR is often superior to other diving protocols. The silly arguments about equipment trivia (as opposed to generally accepted equipment configurations like long hose donation) often seem to me to miss the point.

Since PADI does not teach penetration cave diving it would be an odd choice to compare IMO. As you point out without the relevant statistics its difficult to accurately suggest whether any particular protocol is inherently safer than any other.

I like the safety attitude of DIR and I like most of the DIR divers I know. I cannot say the same for those recreation agencies (including PADI) that I have experience of.

Chris

Janos · December 13th, 2006, 04:33 PM

The problem with dive statistics is that:
a) The data is of poor quality
and
b) The sample size is (thankfully) too small to give any statisically significant result.

For example. Taking point (b) first.
I am an Advanced Abbot [1] in the The Brotherhood of Underwater Monks. As far as I know, there have been no fatalties of underwater monks, even at Novice level. Therefore we are the safest training agency around.

On the quality of data front, there are no reliable estimates of the number of divers in the UK, let along the number of dives undertaken. It might be different in other countries.

Janos

[1] - Qualified to dive to 3214m

Adrian Kelland · December 13th, 2006, 04:59 PM

Quote: (Originally Posted by Janos)

[1] - Qualified to dive to 3214m

Bit close to the 100 Diggeroo deco limits there for me Janos.

On a serious note, it is extremely hard to prove that any procedure has in fact prevented any problems that might otherwise have occured. In other words you have an absence of information. Neither can you prove that one procedure was better than another procedure for preventing an incident that has not yet happened.

The fact that all should be using the same procedure is possibly more important that what the procedure is, as long as it is an effective procedure. Of which there may be many.

Adrian

Janos · December 13th, 2006, 06:10 PM

Quote: (Originally Posted by Adrian Kelland)

Bit close to the 100 Diggeroo deco limits there for me Janos.

Don't be silly. Digger has never been a member of the Brotherhood, and never will be.

But I agree with your point about the commonality of approach being more relevant than the approach.

Janos

Ahmed Adly, Marlin Inn DC · December 13th, 2006, 06:50 PM

PADI for sure leads the dive industry. They have a VERY comprehensive educational system and the operation to support it.
Their goals are simple: sell books and pics. Which is great!

They will always be the ones expanding, as they are marketing to the proper audience which are non divers. Much more of them than there are of us you know.

Also, PADI is what made diving the safe sport it is today.

DIR is fine and all, but I don't really see it making anything safer than it already is. Maybe for some of the technical cave stuff, although I really don't know, but surely not for the recreational diving side.

MarkT · December 13th, 2006, 07:05 PM

I think the original question stops too soon, it needs qualifying in some way.

Who has the best procedures for diving ... as a team of 3 or more

or ... for divng at all depths not just recreational diving

etc.

boomer · December 13th, 2006, 08:52 PM

DIR is fine and all, but I don't really see it making anything safer than it already is. Maybe for some of the technical cave stuff, although I really don't know, but surely not for the recreational diving side.[/quote]

I have to disagree The only reason I moved to doubles was becase the idea of buddy diving in the northeast US is being in the water together. The ability to isolate my air was was buddy. most of these divers had Padi, Naui , etc... certs. Now that I am diving in the DIR mindset I feel that my buddy knows his responsability, as do I.

**Alastair** · December 13th, 2006, 10:05 PM

Quote: (Originally Posted by jluttichau)

Is DIR doing it that much better then PADI or other organisations?

My view is yes and that is why I chose DIR. As I see it the whole point is simplicity and efficiency underwater while at the same time coming up with a higher level of safety. The roots of DIR are in cave diving - an unforgiving environment which requires a higher level of skill than you're average 25m open water dive. This standard though is taken across to the recreation level which should lead to safer more competant divers.

Take buoyancy control as an example - DIR fundamentals is a basic class yet the standard for buoyancy control is higher than other agencies deco courses. The requirement to be able to conduct skills off the bottom of the water is another key skill - how many people in a problem situation need to kneel on the bottom to solve it?

DIR may not be the perfect solution to every situation but there is more focus in DIR on looking at the whole of diving and presenting a system than under any other agency. While many people enjoy working out what works best for them it can mean a lot of variation between divers which makes dealing with problems much harder.

The way I look it is if one of my family wanted to dive what would I suggest they do?

Cheers
Al

Ahmed Adly, Marlin Inn DC · December 13th, 2006, 10:34 PM

Quote: (Originally Posted by boomer)

DIR is fine and all, but I don't really see it making anything safer than it already is. Maybe for some of the technical cave stuff, although I really don't know, but surely not for the recreational diving side.

I have to disagree The only reason I moved to doubles was becase the idea of buddy diving in the northeast US is being in the water together. The ability to isolate my air was was buddy. most of these divers had Padi, Naui , etc... certs. Now that I am diving in the DIR mindset I feel that my buddy knows his responsability, as do I.[/quote]

I have taught close to a thousand PADI Open Water divers. I know for a fact that "buddy system" is so practiced that there is no excuse for you diving with doubles for independance and doing that makes you the same as the guys you dived with. So why did you need a DIR guy to tell you about the Buddy System?

The fact that millions and millions of recreational dives are done the way you described each year without any noteable extra incidents, dose not surprise me. Because the training is what it needs to be.

December 13th, 2006, 02:23 PM	#1 (permalink)
jluttichau(Offline) Custom User Title Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Denmark Posts: 437	Who has the best procedures for diving?? Inspired but a previous thread and popular demand i will ask the question is DIR doing it that much better then PADI or other organisations? I mean even DIR divers have died in the past and as it is now there aren't really any statictics that point towards DIR as a superior framework. But we do tend to think that it is. Cheers

December 13th, 2006, 04:33 PM	#3 (permalink)
Janos(Offline) "Two Sheds" Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Surrey Posts: 400	The problem with dive statistics is that: a) The data is of poor quality and b) The sample size is (thankfully) too small to give any statisically significant result. For example. Taking point (b) first. I am an Advanced Abbot [1] in the The Brotherhood of Underwater Monks. As far as I know, there have been no fatalties of underwater monks, even at Novice level. Therefore we are the safest training agency around. On the quality of data front, there are no reliable estimates of the number of divers in the UK, let along the number of dives undertaken. It might be different in other countries. Janos [1] - Qualified to dive to 3214m __________________ You can lead a horse to water but you can't climb a ladder with a large bell in both hands - Vic Reeves www.hellfins.com/shed

December 13th, 2006, 04:59 PM	#4 (permalink)
Adrian Kelland(Offline) Can't remember Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Exeter - Team of 1 Posts: 267	Quote: (Originally Posted by Janos) [1] - Qualified to dive to 3214m Bit close to the 100 Diggeroo deco limits there for me Janos. On a serious note, it is extremely hard to prove that any procedure has in fact prevented any problems that might otherwise have occured. In other words you have an absence of information. Neither can you prove that one procedure was better than another procedure for preventing an incident that has not yet happened. The fact that all should be using the same procedure is possibly more important that what the procedure is, as long as it is an effective procedure. Of which there may be many. Adrian __________________ The Diving Encyclopaedia Exeter BSAC Royal National Lifeboat Institution UK Transplant Register

December 13th, 2006, 06:10 PM	#5 (permalink)
Janos(Offline) "Two Sheds" Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Surrey Posts: 400	Quote: (Originally Posted by Adrian Kelland) Bit close to the 100 Diggeroo deco limits there for me Janos. Don't be silly. Digger has never been a member of the Brotherhood, and never will be. But I agree with your point about the commonality of approach being more relevant than the approach. Janos __________________ You can lead a horse to water but you can't climb a ladder with a large bell in both hands - Vic Reeves www.hellfins.com/shed

December 13th, 2006, 06:50 PM	#6 (permalink)
Ahmed Adly, Marlin Inn DC(Offline) New Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: hurghada Posts: 849	PADI for sure leads the dive industry. They have a VERY comprehensive educational system and the operation to support it. Their goals are simple: sell books and pics. Which is great! They will always be the ones expanding, as they are marketing to the proper audience which are non divers. Much more of them than there are of us you know. Also, PADI is what made diving the safe sport it is today. DIR is fine and all, but I don't really see it making anything safer than it already is. Maybe for some of the technical cave stuff, although I really don't know, but surely not for the recreational diving side. __________________ It has just dawned on me.... We are all just recycled stardust Ahmed Adly, www.deepvoyage.com

December 13th, 2006, 03:59 PM	#2 (permalink)
Chrisch(Offline) Hogarthian Heretic Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Brighton Posts: 104	I think one of the great things about the DIR philosophy is the commitment to safety and the safety attitude of the divers involved. In that, DIR is often superior to other diving protocols. The silly arguments about equipment trivia (as opposed to generally accepted equipment configurations like long hose donation) often seem to me to miss the point. Since PADI does not teach penetration cave diving it would be an odd choice to compare IMO. As you point out without the relevant statistics its difficult to accurately suggest whether any particular protocol is inherently safer than any other. I like the safety attitude of DIR and I like most of the DIR divers I know. I cannot say the same for those recreation agencies (including PADI) that I have experience of. Chris

December 13th, 2006, 07:05 PM	#7 (permalink)
MarkT(Offline) New Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Aylesbury Posts: 233	I think the original question stops too soon, it needs qualifying in some way. Who has the best procedures for diving ... as a team of 3 or more or ... for divng at all depths not just recreational diving etc.

December 13th, 2006, 08:52 PM	#8 (permalink)
boomer(Offline) New Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Alabama Posts: 30	DIR is fine and all, but I don't really see it making anything safer than it already is. Maybe for some of the technical cave stuff, although I really don't know, but surely not for the recreational diving side.[/quote] I have to disagree The only reason I moved to doubles was becase the idea of buddy diving in the northeast US is being in the water together. The ability to isolate my air was was buddy. most of these divers had Padi, Naui , etc... certs. Now that I am diving in the DIR mindset I feel that my buddy knows his responsability, as do I.

December 13th, 2006, 10:05 PM	#9 (permalink)
Alastair(Offline) DIRX Supporter Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: UK Posts: 693	Quote: (Originally Posted by jluttichau) Is DIR doing it that much better then PADI or other organisations? My view is yes and that is why I chose DIR. As I see it the whole point is simplicity and efficiency underwater while at the same time coming up with a higher level of safety. The roots of DIR are in cave diving - an unforgiving environment which requires a higher level of skill than you're average 25m open water dive. This standard though is taken across to the recreation level which should lead to safer more competant divers. Take buoyancy control as an example - DIR fundamentals is a basic class yet the standard for buoyancy control is higher than other agencies deco courses. The requirement to be able to conduct skills off the bottom of the water is another key skill - how many people in a problem situation need to kneel on the bottom to solve it? DIR may not be the perfect solution to every situation but there is more focus in DIR on looking at the whole of diving and presenting a system than under any other agency. While many people enjoy working out what works best for them it can mean a lot of variation between divers which makes dealing with problems much harder. The way I look it is if one of my family wanted to dive what would I suggest they do? Cheers Al __________________ Helium is our friend - GI3

December 13th, 2006, 10:34 PM	#10 (permalink)
Ahmed Adly, Marlin Inn DC(Offline) New Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: hurghada Posts: 849	Quote: (Originally Posted by boomer) DIR is fine and all, but I don't really see it making anything safer than it already is. Maybe for some of the technical cave stuff, although I really don't know, but surely not for the recreational diving side. I have to disagree The only reason I moved to doubles was becase the idea of buddy diving in the northeast US is being in the water together. The ability to isolate my air was was buddy. most of these divers had Padi, Naui , etc... certs. Now that I am diving in the DIR mindset I feel that my buddy knows his responsability, as do I.[/quote] I have taught close to a thousand PADI Open Water divers. I know for a fact that "buddy system" is so practiced that there is no excuse for you diving with doubles for independance and doing that makes you the same as the guys you dived with. So why did you need a DIR guy to tell you about the Buddy System? The fact that millions and millions of recreational dives are done the way you described each year without any noteable extra incidents, dose not surprise me. Because the training is what it needs to be. __________________ It has just dawned on me.... We are all just recycled stardust Ahmed Adly, www.deepvoyage.com