DIR and Weight Belts
icediver
integrated into the BC, is a fundamental safety precaution.
DIR recommends that a diver who wears a weight belt wear
it beneath the BC harness strap. Not only is this a
fundamentally bad recommendation, for obvious reasons,
it demonstrates once again that the inflexible DIR system
of diving is not applicable to a majority of divers,
especially those who prefer to wear a weight belt.
Jason O'Rourke
--
Jason O'Rourke j...@best.com www.jor.com
Rec.scuba strokes pics page: www.jor.com/strokes
Aquashot page: www.jor.com/dive/aquashot
Popeye
>Date: 11/1/01 3:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <21ee0662.01110...@posting.google.com>
The rocks in your head are non-ditchable weight.
Poor little Mikey, struggling for attention.
Popeye
Never underestimate the power of
very stupid people in large groups.
Charlie Hammond
iced...@chorus.net (icediver) writes:
>Being able to ditch one's weights, whether on a belt or
>integrated into the BC, is a fundamental safety precaution.
>DIR recommends that a diver who wears a weight belt wear
>it beneath the BC harness strap. ...
Wearing a weight belt beneath the BC harness will not prevent
ditching the weight belt. It may take a little more effort,
but not much more.
On the other hand, wearing a weight belt beneath the BC harness
may prevent the weitght belt from being lost unintentionally,
especially if the harness includes a crotch strap.
Now in my personal experience, I have seen three unintentional
weight belt losses -- including one from myself. But I have
*NEVER* seen a situation in which it was desirable to ditch
weight. I am NOT saying it never happens, only that it appears
to me that unintended loss is a lot more common than intentional
ditching.
So, it might be argued that the DIR recommendation is optimized
for the more common situation.
Now some will repsond that the extra time to ditch could make the
difference between life and death in some difficult situation.
I agree. But unintentional loss of weight could also result
in injury or death. Since you cannot have it both ways, which
do YOU want to optimize. Wear your weight belt accordingly,
but understand the pro and con trade-off.
Even if you reject them, careful consideratin of new ideas often
leads to enhanced understanding.
--
Charlie Hammond -- Compaq Computer Corporation -- Pompano Beach FL USA
(hammond@not@peek.ppb.cpqcorp.net -- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.
shaftone
Bob Cooper
> Being able to ditch one's weights, whether on a belt or
> integrated into the BC, is a fundamental safety precaution.
Who told you that? Your "instructor"? The guy at the dive store?
> DIR recommends that a diver who wears a weight belt wear
> it beneath the BC harness strap.
Who told you this? (see above).
If your rig is properly *balanced* you will only ever need to ditch a
minimal amount of weight to swim up from depth. In a dry suit, wear you
weight belt under the crotch strap. In a wet suit, wear it over the crotch
strap.
> Not only is this a
> fundamentally bad recommendation, for obvious reasons,
What exactly are these "obvious reasons"?
> it demonstrates once again that the inflexible DIR system
> of diving is not applicable to a majority of divers,
> especially those who prefer to wear a weight belt.
So what point are you trying to make here? If you consider DIR is *not
applicable* to you or to your diving, then don't adopt it - simple. Don't
come on here knocking it for no reason other than to start an argument. DIR
advocates the use of a properly balanced rig - it's simple.
MHK
"icediver" <iced...@chorus.net> wrote in message
news:21ee0662.01110...@posting.google.com...
<snip a bunch of nonsense that only makes sense on Pluto>
Hey BLACK,
Do you have any idea how to BALANCE your rig??????
Then ask yourself the following series of questions:
1) Am I an idiot??? if yes, see 2
2) Am I a moron??? if yes, see 3
3) Am I stupid???? if yes, see 4
4) Am I totally incapable of grasping the simplest of concepts?? if yes,
Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!! Because you just received the idiot of the year
award...
Later
Clifford Beshers
> DIR recommends that a diver who wears a weight belt wear
> it beneath the BC harness strap.
No, it doesn't.
________________
Clifford Beshers
Randy F. Milak
Hmmmmm?
This appears to be the methodical approach to diver learning?
Not sure though.
Lets see...
Starts with a lesson on what can be found on other planets in our
universe. Ok!
Then identifies a particular student by name. Good!
Asks a series of questions which follow with flowchart precision. Very
nice!
Which then leads to a positive reinforcement statement. Excellent!
Finally ends with a tangible reward for completing the exercise.
Fantastic!
Yup, very methodical.
I like it.
--
Randy F. Milak
~Why is oxygen a lot like sex? Cuz neithers a big deal til ya ain't
gettin any!~
WreckRat
This is why there are so many dive accidents, because there are jerks like
you with obese and absolutely dysfunctional brain.
DIR was introduced by cavers.
Got this, CAVE. That is where "No direct access to surface", dumb ice-ass.
So whether you ditch your weight or not it would not help you anyway.
Suggestion to wear weight belt under crotch strap makes a lot of sense from
the point of not to loose it in the cave.
Here on NE we are diving and penetrating wrecks, where ditching weights make
no sense as well as in the cave. I personally stopped wearing belt and used
V-weight. Now I don't need any weights, my gears are heavy enough.
Besides, surface is not a solution in most of the cases, since all our dives
are way past NDL. (Read "Deep descend")
One of the DIR's rules is: "All underwater problems must be solve
underwater."
Don't try to understand what is over your head, get your "Pool Diver"
certification and quit with diving.
Wreck Rat.
icediver <iced...@chorus.net> wrote in message
news:21ee0662.01110...@posting.google.com...
Ashley Kramer
I have never seen a set of circumstances where ditching a weight belt was
required. I have however seen 4 separate incidents where a loose or dropped
weightbelt became a problem.
I dive with my weightbelt under my harness. I've never had a problem
removing it when required.
Ashley
WreckRat <wrec...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:QrpE7.400$3w3....@typhoon1.gnilink.net...
Brian Nadwidny
> Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!! Because you just received the idiot of the year
> award...
You'll have to find a new recipient. Idiot of the year rules say no one
person can win in consecutive years.
Brian
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Lee Bell
> I can't read this. This is just too much. This is why there are so many
dive accidents,
> because there are jerks like you with obese and absolutely dysfunctional
brain.
> DIR was introduced by cavers. Got this, CAVE.
It's apparent that you also did not read any of the history that led to this
thread either. There were no conflicts between recreational divers and the
developers of DIR while DIR was still a cave issue. It was not until the
system was almost forced on the recreational community that this kind of
stuff started. It was not until recreational divers that were perfectly
happy with their "stroke" gear, sometimes optimized for the individual owner
were told that their way was the wrong way and that DIR was the only way
that the conflicts began.
While you are correct that DIR was introduced by cavers, DIR is no longer
only a cave, cave and wreck or cave, wreck and decompression diver issue.
If DIR is to be the answer for all divers, like we've repeatedly been told
it is, then it's going to have to address issues like this . . . and why a
diver that will never take a stage with him would need a bolt snap on his
primary . . . and why a diver that never dives in current cares more about
streamlining than about the convenience of pockets . . . and why a daylight
only diver needs a very expensive canister light . . . and why it's wrong to
have a D ring on the right side of the waist but not wrong to have on on a
crotch strap . . . and why what almost every recreational diver was told by
his instructor, that the weight belt goes on last, is wrong, if it is always
wrong.
Don't get me wrong. The DIR system has a lot to offer to divers at all
levels, but only if it's advocates can learn to quit preaching and follow
their own advice . . . learn what works for their audience, what doesn't and
why. DIR, confirguration and phylosophy are being shared by those that have
and being constrained by those that haven't.
Lee
Lee Bell
> I have never seen a set of circumstances where ditching a weight belt was
> required.
> I dive with my weightbelt under my harness. I've never had a problem
> removing it when required.
Which is it, never been required or never been a problem when it was
required? The fact that you have not seen an instance when ditching a
weight belt was required does not mean there has never been one or that
there never will be. I've never seen circumstances that require a long
hose, but that does not mean I don't recognize and plan for the risk. It is
pretty sure that those with a hard overhead would be more at risk from lost
weight than from an inability to get buoyant and relatively sure that those
who have have a soft overhead (deco) have similar risks. That, however, is
a relatively small portion of the diving population.
> I have however seen 4 separate incidents where a loose or dropped
> weightbelt became a problem.
What were the circumstances? What diver error or equipment defect allowed
this to happen? Can you conceive of any solution other than putting a
weight belt on the inside of a harness element that would have prevented the
event?
Lee
Udo aka Chaoswolf
> OK - I'll bite.
> So what point are you trying to make here? If you consider DIR is *not
> applicable* to you or to your diving, then don't adopt it - simple. Don't
> come on here knocking it for no reason other than to start an argument. DIR
> advocates the use of a properly balanced rig - it's simple.
>
Hey Bob;
You may be relatively new in here... and you took the bait laid out by the good
doctor...
Ignore those threads, then do a Google search about "icediver" and "mjblack" and
see his argumentation. He hates DIR and knows that by posting those questions he
will inspire long threads of controversy.
See, he posted ONE question and 14 posts followed up, including mine, which goes
to you not to him... and he is sitting in front of the screen and laughs his ass
off.
Take care
Udo
Bob Crownfield
>
> MHK wrote:
>
> > Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!! Because you just received the idiot of the year
> > award...
>
> You'll have to find a new recipient. Idiot of the year rules say no one
> person can win in consecutive years.
can he win every other year? he surely is qualified.
>
> Brian
> Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
John Jordan
usually takes several weeks and hundreds of long winded, name calling,
confusing posts. Isn't this against some rec.scuba rule? :-)
Where in FL do you live?
John Jordan
--
www.stubbylathe.com
Lee Bell <lee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9ru1pc$6nj$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Ashley Kramer
I never said there won't be a time when I will need to ditch a weightbelt. I
am not blind to the fact that it is sometime needed in an emergency.
I said that I have never seen a time when myself or any of the people I was
diving with needed to ditch their weightbelt in an emergency, either
underwater or on the surface.
I think that it's far more likely that a diver will have a problem with the
inadvertent loss of a weightbelt than with a very minor delay in getting rid
of it in an emergency.
I did most of my diving in South Africa from RIBs. The procedure when
getting back onto the boat on the surface is remove and pass up your
weightbelt, then remove and pass up your BC. Getting the weightbelt off when
worn under the harness has never been a "problem when required" under those
circumstances. I can remove the belt without a hang-up every time. I know
that I will be able to do the same if I need to in an emergency.
The 4 seperate incidents I mentioned took place when I was diving off the
East Coast of South Africa. The diving there is drift diving in groups of
8-12 or more divers off RIBs.
In 2 of these cases, upon getting to the bottom, a diver in the group had
their weightbelt come off and they became positive. Both of the divers were
rescued by their buddies and others in the group who managed to get the
belts back on while keeping them negative.
Another time was while diving in strong surge. A diver had his belt come
loose during a dive. It seems that he scraped over some rock and popped the
buckle open. The belt dropped and caught around his legs. It took 4 people
to get everything sorted out in the surge and led to the diver in question
getting quite uncomfortable. When I spoke to him afterwards, he said he was
going to buy a weight integrated BC so he didn't have to worry about it
happening again.
The last incident was when a diver who had left the group with their buddy
lost her weightbelt on the way up. She ended up blowing her safety stop as
she bobbed to the surface. She was OK but the idea of missing a safety stop
and doing a fast ascent over the last 7m or so doesn't thrill me.
You asked about diver error or equipment defects. You could say all 4 were
diver error as the weightbelts were all put back into service (we recovered
the last diver's belt). The buckles were working fine. If the divers had
been wearing the belts under a harness. it's possible that the belts
wouldn't have fallen off completely and that the divers could have sorted
themselves out quickly and easily, causing no problem or potential
emergency.
Other methods of preventing this type of incident? Of course. More vigilance
when doing predive checks. A 2nd buckle on the belt. Checking the buckle
when you hit the water, when you get to the bottom and whenever you bump
anything that could conceivably have opened the buckle. The reality is that
most divers are there to have fun, they kit up on the RIB, do a cursory
buddy check and roll off when the skipper says so. Sometime in rough
conditions, all they want to do is get off the boat. Sometimes double
checking stuff doesn't happen. The backplate and harness has advantages
underwater. For me, one of these is the retention of the weightbelt.
It works for me. Might work for others if they gave it a chance.
Best regards
Ashley
Lee Bell <lee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9ru28n$she$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Lee Bell
than one occasion. I'm in Davie, just SW of Ft. Lauderdale.
Lee
John Jordan <johnj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9rv18q$sa7$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
WreckRat
I have to agree with you. Learning curve never been easy for anybody, and
off cause there are peoples who are more acceptable to learning and who,
unfortunately, less.
It is just sad that there are some people who are badmouth system, which
saved a lot of lives, indeed.
Let's take "No metal to metal connection" rule for example.
My tech wreck instructor, who teach me how to penetrate and navigate in
unknown areas of the wreck, ones saw my Scout lights attached on the line to
snap bolt, smiled, and asked whether I can't afford SS rings. When I explain
him that in case of hopeless entanglement I can cut myself free, he left
without a word. Then he returned and mentioned: "You would be surprised how
many lives it could save."
My point is: there is a lot of thinking, trying and errors behind DIR.
Does this rule apply to divers who dive reefs, walls? Yes, because where
water is, there is fish, where fish is there are fishing nets and fishing
lines, and where fishing line are there is entanglement.
Looking back at my experience, I am a bit upset that my instructor did not
introduce DIR to me from the very beginning; it would defiantly save a lot
of money on equipment that now collects dust. Thought it could be two
reasons for that: 1) As a dive shop they have to try to sell as much dive
equipment as they can to stay afloat. 2) Diving DIR (less comfortable but
more functional) equipment could freak me out and could force me to quit
with diving all together.
I guess, one have to grow up to DIR level or blindly trust to DIR
instructors as one would trust to the doctor, knowing that doctor cares
about his/ here well being.
Everyone chooses his/her own way.
Wreck Rat.
Lee Bell wrote in message news:9ru1pc$6nj$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Fiona Watson
Lee Bell wrote in message <9ru28n$she$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>Ashley Kramer wrote
Lee,
It is fairly normal practise ( around here anyway) not to have any ditchable
weight at all when hardboat diving. We use dry suits rather than your
tropical skins which means we have to carry proportionatly more weight. It
also means that we will always have 2 sources of bouyancy, the suit plus a
wing/bc, a properly balanced rig will enable you to get back with one or the
other. The dry suit inflation comes from the left hand post or a separate
argon cylinder, the wing from the right hand post - therefore there should
never be a case where you are not able to be positively bouyant, so having
ditchable weight is a moot point.
Several years ago I used to have one of those nice quick release weight
belts - one day we'd had a pleasant dive on the Breda in Oban, we were back
on top of the wreck, just a minute or so of stops to do when I managed to
hook the quick release and ditch to whole thing accidentally - a loss of
around 24lb at the time - I grabbed a beam, but had to fight to stay down,
we were in a 3, one buddy held me down, the other retrieved my weight belt,
and all ended well. Since then I've seen several similar happenings.
F
when it was
>required? The fact that you have not seen an instance when ditching a
>weight belt was required does not mean there has never been one or that
>there never will be. I've never seen circumstances that require a long
>hose, but that does not mean I don't recognize and plan for the risk. It
is
>pretty sure that those with a hard overhead would be more at risk from lost
>weight than from an inability to get buoyant and relatively sure that those
>who have have a soft overhead (deco) have similar risks. That, however, is
>a relatively small portion of the diving population.
>Lee
Dennis
> Hi Lee,
> I have to agree with you. Learning curve never been easy for anybody, and
> off cause there are peoples who are more acceptable to learning and who,
> unfortunately, less.
> It is just sad that there are some people who are badmouth system, which
> saved a lot of lives, indeed.
> Let's take "No metal to metal connection" rule for example.
> My tech wreck instructor, who teach me how to penetrate and navigate in
> unknown areas of the wreck, ones saw my Scout lights attached on the line
to
> snap bolt, smiled, and asked whether I can't afford SS rings. When I
explain
> him that in case of hopeless entanglement I can cut myself free, he left
> without a word. Then he returned and mentioned: "You would be surprised
how
> many lives it could save."
>
> My point is: there is a lot of thinking, trying and errors behind DIR.
>
> Does this rule apply to divers who dive reefs, walls? Yes, because where
> water is, there is fish, where fish is there are fishing nets and fishing
> lines, and where fishing line are there is entanglement.
>
> Looking back at my experience, I am a bit upset that my instructor did not
> introduce DIR to me from the very beginning; it would defiantly save a lot
They may not've known about it.....?
> of money on equipment that now collects dust. Thought it could be two
> reasons for that: 1) As a dive shop they have to try to sell as much dive
> equipment as they can to stay afloat. 2) Diving DIR (less comfortable but
> more functional) equipment could freak me out and could force me to quit
> with diving all together.
>
> I guess, one have to grow up to DIR level or blindly trust to DIR
> instructors as one would trust to the doctor, knowing that doctor cares
> about his/ here well being.
One should not 'blindly trust' either DIR or Strokes (small-s strokes should
simply be ignored).
Perform your own evaluation by studying the relevant material.
It isn't rocket science, or medicine. ;-)
Anyone who can pass an OW class can read & understand the arguments for (and
against) DIR.
>
> Everyone chooses his/her own way.
Yep.
icediver
penetrated more wrecks than you in my twenty-five years
of diving. And every one of those dives were made with
my weight belt securely fastened but readily ditchable,
whether in the open water outside the wreck or the
overhead compartment inside the wreck.
And just because you need the edification about your
failing DIR system of diving, digest these pearls:
http://x62.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623789486
http://x56.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=581971410
"WreckRat" <wrec...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<GeLE7.1222$Ic1.1...@typhoon2.gnilink.net>...
Lee Bell
As I suspect you know, I"m not a dry suit diver, and since I dive that way
myself, I don't have a problem with no ditchable weight under the right
conditions. Your post, however, makes me question the wisdom of not having
weight to ditch in the diving you describe.
> It is fairly normal practise ( around here anyway) not to have any
ditchable
> weight at all when hardboat diving. We use dry suits rather than your
> tropical skins which means we have to carry proportionatly more weight. It
> also means that we will always have 2 sources of bouyancy, the suit plus a
> wing/bc, a properly balanced rig will enable you to get back with one or
the
> other.
Probably the most catastrophic problem divers have is loss of gas through
personal or equipment failure. Setting the use of argon aside for a moment,
If you can't swim your kit to the surface without inflation gas, your
decision on ditchable weight might be worth revisiting. Those using a
separate argon tank would seem to have one more level of redundancy. I
think it's very, very unlikely that someone would have no gas for filling a
BCD and no argon for filling a drysuit.
FWIW, when diving warm water, I use no weight at all with my stainless plate
and 18 lb lift wing. This is no problem at all because I'm close to
neutral no matter what happens. I can always swim myself to the surface.
With my normal tanks, my wing is really only necessary at the surface. With
my new HP 100 steel tanks, the 1.4 lbs of extra negative buoyancy plus the
weight of 25% more gas are enough to get me to put gas in the wing, and have
to deal with the compression and expansion issues that go with doing so.
When I add my 3mm wetsuit, I have to add 4 lbs as well. In this case, I use
ditchable weight rather simply because the extra 4 lbs, on top of the few
lbs of negative buoyancy from the full tank, while still swimable, is more
than is necessary or comfortable. I use weight pouches threaded onto my
waist belt making it easy to ditch, but harder to do so by accident.
> Several years ago I used to have one of those nice quick release weight
> belts - one day we'd had a pleasant dive on the Breda in Oban, we were
back
> on top of the wreck, just a minute or so of stops to do when I managed to
> hook the quick release and ditch to whole thing accidentally - a loss of
> around 24lb at the time - I grabbed a beam, but had to fight to stay down,
> we were in a 3, one buddy held me down, the other retrieved my weight
belt,
> and all ended well. Since then I've seen several similar happenings.
I've heard a couple of solutions to the accidental weight belt disconnect,
most which I find less than satisfactory. The most obvious method for
people who do not believe dumping everything on the belt quickly, which
probably includes most who think the issue through, is to select a fastener
or system that can be ditched, but is not a quick disconnect. That's pretty
much what my weight pockets on the waist strap are. Another solution that I
know has been used by some is a double buckle, so that accidental release on
one buckle does not drop the belt. I suppose this works, but it seems to be
overly complicated to me, i.e. not the best option. The final method is one
I thought up for myself. Others may have had the same idea, but I thought
it up independently.
The most likely way for a belt to come loose is for something to hook and
pull the buckle open. In the old days, when I wore lead instead of a plate,
the current was strong enough to open and lift my felt from me at the start
of a dive. That's the only time I ever dropped my weight belt. At any
rate, my idea comes from the DIR use of inner tube sections. It's simply to
thread a piece of tube onto the belt and when the buckle is in place, pull
the band over the end of the quick release. This ensures the buckle will
not be easy to open accidentally but will still allow a reasonably quick
exit if/when it's ever necessary.
Lee
Popeye
>It is very likely, WreckRat, that I have dived and
>penetrated more wrecks than you in my twenty-five years
>of diving.
Yeah, but we're not talking about your dating practices here.
Bob Crownfield
>
> >From: win...@chorus.net (windbag)
>
> >It is very likely, WreckRat, that I have dived and
> >penetrated more wrecks than you in my twenty-five years
> >of diving.
>
> Yeah, but we're not talking about your dating practices here.
>
> /\ /\
> ( \\ // )
> \ \\ // /
> \_\\||||//_/
> """" \/ _ _ \
> "" \/|(-)(-)| Hi babe
> || \/ | | Wanna go out?
> \\ __________________\/ \ /
> \\ / // |____|
> \/ M J B || / \
> | \| \ | | /
> \ ) V / \\__/
> \ / ( / ()
> \ /_________| |_/
> / /\ / | || (\___
> / / / / \ || @@@@@@@@.@@@. @@ x )
> | | | | ____| || @@@@@@@@.@@@@@@@___/\ baaaa
> | | | | /_|____|| @@ MUFFY @@@.@@@ dive
> |_| |_| |_| @ @@.@@@@@.@@@@@ me
> \_\ \_\ \_\ @ @@..@@@.@@@@@@
> || @@@ ||
> ~~ ~~
Fiona Watson
Lee Bell wrote in message <9s168s$u67$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
>Fiona Watson wrote
>>Probably the most catastrophic problem divers have is loss of gas through
>personal or equipment failure. Setting the use of argon aside for a
moment,
>If you can't swim your kit to the surface without inflation gas, your
>decision on ditchable weight might be worth revisiting. Those using a
>separate argon tank would seem to have one more level of redundancy. I
>think it's very, very unlikely that someone would have no gas for filling a
>BCD and no argon for filling a drysuit.
The normal set up here is either isolated twins or a 12/15+3, with one
direct feed coming off each first stage, this makes it very unlikely you are
going to lose all your gas in one go. Since your bouyancy will be split
between the dry suit and wing, and it should be properly balanced, since you
are more or less neutral at any point during a dive, it should be possible
to swim back up. About 70-80% of my dives include some sort of 'ceiling' and
I consider the accidental loss of up to an hours deco more of a hazard than
keeping all my weight unditchable.
F
Iain Smith
> on his primary
He doesn't. Although it makes it that much easier to avoid him, or anyone
else, standing on his second stage while kitting up/dekitting.
> and why a diver that never dives in current cares more about
> streamlining than about the convenience of pockets
One can purchase sew on/glue on pockets for shorties/skins/whatever. No-one
ever said that a DIR diver doesn't need pockets, just that having them where
a conventional jacket has them is not as good as other options. Current, by
the way, has nothing to do with it. (The question is one of the diver's
relative speed and when compared with that of the water and the work rate
required to achieve that.)
> . . . and why a daylight only diver needs a very expensive canister
> light
They don't. A loop of hose under the belt (or belt-mounted pocket) works as
well
> and why it's wrong to have a D ring on the right side of the waist but
> not wrong to have on on a crotch strap
Front crotch strap ring is only needed if scootering. The best argument I've
seen for a right waist ring is for lobstering, for which it seems entirely
sensible.
> . . . and why what almost every recreational diver was told by his
> instructor, that the weight belt goes on last, is wrong, if it is always
> wrong.
Similar reasons as to why you and I both believe that it is better to hand
off the primary, despite what almost every recreational diver was told by
his instructor?
And the weightbelt goes on _before_ the BCD. I've never seen it taught
otherwise (except with an ABLJ) because it's a right bugger getting it on
after the BCD.
Iain
Lee Bell
> > why a diver that will never take a stage with him would need a bolt snap
> > on his primary
> He doesn't. Although it makes it that much easier to avoid him, or anyone
> else, standing on his second stage while kitting up/dekitting.
Glad you brought this up. You are quite correct that a bolt snap on the
second stage helps keep kit organized on the boat. I find the weight of the
bolt clip and the inconvenience of securing it or letting it remain free to
be less desirable than a plastic hose clip left on the right D ring.
> > and why a diver that never dives in current cares more about
> > streamlining than about the convenience of pockets
> One can purchase sew on/glue on pockets for shorties/skins/whatever.
No-one
> ever said that a DIR diver doesn't need pockets, just that having them
where
> a conventional jacket has them is not as good as other options. Current,
by
> the way, has nothing to do with it. (The question is one of the diver's
> relative speed and when compared with that of the water and the work rate
> required to achieve that.)
Pockets on lycra suits aren't a real practical item. Current has quite a
bit to do with it for some dives, less on others. When I'm diving locally,
where there is often no current or very little, streamlining is of almost no
significance. I'm diving because that's what I want to do and I'm in no
hurry to get from point a to point b. When there is a current, including
the current of water exiting a cave, streamlining takes on a much higher
priority. Many of the people who dive worldwide, never dive in significant
current, never care how fast they move and might care quite a bit more about
the convenience of pockets than they do streamlining. Some even like to
carry useless things along just because they like to.
> > . . . and why a daylight only diver needs a very expensive canister
> > light
>
> They don't. A loop of hose under the belt (or belt-mounted pocket) works
as
> well
You need to go back and talk to some of the hard core advocates on this one.
I've never heard anyone suggest that the reason a canister light is carried
on all dives is to loop a hose under it. FWIW, I don't loop my long hose (6
foot) under anything and it works just fine. Most claim to need the
canister light to look into dark places (overkill) and to signal others
(which they claim works in daylight and I've got no reason to deny.) Some
mention the fact that it's part of their buoyancy and trim setup, which is
probably the best reason of the bunch.
> > and why it's wrong to have a D ring on the right side of the waist but
> > not wrong to have on on a crotch strap
> Front crotch strap ring is only needed if scootering. The best argument
I've
> seen for a right waist ring is for lobstering, for which it seems entirely
> sensible.
Careful, you're likely to be tossed from the DIR ranks directly into the
purgatory of strokedom. That and spearfishing are exactly why there's a D
ring on my right side. My more strict DIR friends put these things on the
left D ring which also holds the guage. Particularly since I use a small
console that holds my computer, compass and SPG, I think putting other
things on the left side is doing it wrong for me.
> > . . . and why what almost every recreational diver was told by his
> > instructor, that the weight belt goes on last, is wrong, if it is always
> > wrong.
> Similar reasons as to why you and I both believe that it is better to hand
> off the primary, despite what almost every recreational diver was told by
> his instructor?
As near as I can tell, the majority of newly certified divers are being told
to hand off the primary. You and I have different reasons, but the
popularity of the combination inflator/alternate pretty much ensures that,
if there's one way better than the other, that handing off the primary is
that way.
> And the weightbelt goes on _before_ the BCD. I've never seen it taught
> otherwise (except with an ABLJ) because it's a right bugger getting it on
> after the BCD.
It would be interesting to take a poll on this. I was trained before there
was such a thing as a BCD, but I can recall quite clearly hearing others
told that the weight belt always goes on last. This may be something that
differs depending on the side of the Atlantic your instruction was done on.
My position on where the weight belt goes is purely theoretical. I don't
wear a weight belt. When I add weight to compensate for my wetsuit (3mm), I
add the smallest possible weight pockets to my waist belt. Brownies, more
or less the Halcyon factory store, now sells some that use plastic quick
connects to hold soft or hard weights in place. They're much, much less
bulky than the Halcyon ACB system (which I own and dispise). At any rate,
my position is pretty much that those who recognize a need to ditch weight
quickly, should either get rid of the crotch strap or wear the belt on top
of the crotch strap. Those who do not recognize a need to ditch weight
quickly should not be using such an easy to accidentally release buckle on
their weight belt. BTW, crotch straps are far from a new idea. My first
two backplates both had them. It did not take long to get rid of them
either time. When I find a suitable substitute from my back crotch strap D
ring, I'll probably remove the strap from my present kit as well. I've
never had a problem adjusting things so that my kit stays firmly in place
without a crotch strap.
Lee
chilly
Lee Bell <lee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
(snip)> > Similar reasons as to why you and I both believe that it is better
to hand
> > off the primary, despite what almost every recreational diver was told
by
> > his instructor?
>
> As near as I can tell, the majority of newly certified divers are being
told
> to hand off the primary. You and I have different reasons, but the
> popularity of the combination inflator/alternate pretty much ensures that,
> if there's one way better than the other, that handing off the primary is
> that way.
>
I was in the dive shop a while back and a class was going on. The
instructor was a friend of mine. He's been teaching for many years, worked
Club Med :^), takes tours and certs people while away, blah, blah, blah. He
was teaching a PADI OW class, the classroom portion. I quite distinctly
heard him say, that while it is intended that they hand off their octo in an
OOA situation, in reality it is more than likely that the first thing that
is going to happen is that the OOA is going to snatch your primary right out
of your mouth. He then went on to say that they should be prepared for
that.
(snip)
Iain Smith
> second stage helps keep kit organized on the boat. I find the weight of
> the bolt clip and the inconvenience of securing it or letting it remain
> free to be less desirable than a plastic hose clip left on the right D
> ring.
What size of boltsnap are you using??? Mine are the second smallest SS size
I've seen, and I don't notice them at all... (the smallest were just
ridiculously small)
I can see the plastic hose clip being a perfectly workable solution, with
the sole exception of it being harder to untangle if necessary (a tangle on
the boltsnap on a hose can be worked on in front of your eyes. I suspect
right shoulder would be a bit more of a PITA). Then again, if you don't have
net/line hazards, it's irrelevant (and in good viz, you probably tend to get
more warning than I do, even if there is something there)
> Pockets on lycra suits aren't a real practical item.
Then hand a cargo pouch of the waist strap (I think DR do something that
works)
> Many of the people who dive worldwide, never dive in
> significant current, never care how fast they move and might care quite
> a bit more about the convenience of pockets than they do streamlining.
"Convenient" is not a word I would ever have used in the context of BCD
pockets. I knew they were a PITA, but only realised how much this was true
when I started using leg pouches.
> Some even like to carry useless things along just because they like to.
Which is something it is entirely sensible to discourage. I think every
entry-level course suggests that an attack of the danglies is not a good
move.
> > > . . . and why a daylight only diver needs a very expensive canister
> > > light
> >
> > They don't. A loop of hose under the belt (or belt-mounted pocket)
> > works as well
>
> You need to go back and talk to some of the hard core advocates on this
> one.
Someone thinks you need a canister on a well lit, good viz dive? I assumed
that this was so obviously ridiculous that the only possible reason for
having it was to put a hose under!
> Most claim to need the canister light to look into dark places
> (overkill)
Yep.
> and to signal others (which they claim works in daylight and I've got no >
reason to deny.)
It would work...but it's not exactly difficult to signal OKs to each other
in great viz...!
> Some mention the fact that it's part of their buoyancy and trim setup,
> which is probably the best reason of the bunch.
OTOH, it doesn't take that much effort to add a couple of blocks of lead to
a weightbelt.
> > > and why it's wrong to have a D ring on the right side of the waist
> > > but not wrong to have on on a crotch strap
>
> > Front crotch strap ring is only needed if scootering. The best
> argument I've seen for a right waist ring is for lobstering, for which
> > it seems entirely sensible.
>
> Careful, you're likely to be tossed from the DIR ranks directly into the
> purgatory of strokedom. That and spearfishing are exactly why there's a
> D ring on my right side. My more strict DIR friends put these things on
> the left D ring which also holds the guage.
Which clearly also seems to work...
> Particularly since I use a small console that holds my computer,
> compass and SPG, I think putting other things on the left side is doing
> it wrong for me.
Well, one could argue (and I'm sure some have) that the problem starts with
having the console and that adding the right hip ring is a convolution to
deal with something that could be done better. OTOH, if I were regularly
diving to hunt, I'd have a right ring as well.
> > > . . . and why what almost every recreational diver was told by his
> > > instructor, that the weight belt goes on last, is wrong, if it is
always
> > > wrong.
>
> > Similar reasons as to why you and I both believe that it is better to
> > hand off the primary, despite what almost every recreational diver was
> > told by his instructor?
>
> As near as I can tell, the majority of newly certified divers are being
> told to hand off the primary.
Not a hope. I don't know of another BSAC Branch that does it other than
mine, and no-one comes to us as OW/AOW/RD/DM having heard of it before.
> You and I have different reasons, but the popularity of the combination
> inflator/alternate pretty much ensures that, if there's one way better
> than the other, that handing off the primary is that way.
I have to confess that I've never seen a great number of these in the UK,
Red Sea or Caribean, although I've not dived in your part of the world.
> > And the weightbelt goes on _before_ the BCD. I've never seen it taught
> > otherwise (except with an ABLJ) because it's a right bugger getting it
> > on after the BCD.
>
> It would be interesting to take a poll on this. I was trained before
> there was such a thing as a BCD, but I can recall quite clearly hearing
> others told that the weight belt always goes on last. This may be
> something that differs depending on the side of the Atlantic your
> instruction was done on.
Possibly. AIUI, the belt had to go on last with an ABLJ because there was a
crotch strap, and these tended to be attached with a fairly secure (non QR)
fitting. This obstruction isn't there with a BCD. You may well be right
about differences between the US and UK.
> At any rate, my position is pretty much that those who recognize a need
> to ditch weight quickly, should either get rid of the crotch strap or
> wear the belt on top of the crotch strap.
By "quickly" you seem to be meaning "instantly". To undo both buckles (with
the belt worn underneath) takes minimal extra time, and certainly counts as
"quickly".
> Those who do not recognize a need to ditch weight quickly should not be
> using such an easy to accidentally release buckle on their weight belt.
I see no situation where I am likely to want to dump weight during a dive. I
can, however, see myself wanting to remove weight in a hurry on the surface,
either in an emergency, or just to get back on the boat.
> When I find a suitable substitute from my back crotch strap D
> ring, I'll probably remove the strap from my present kit as well.
Why not run the strap from the backplate through a non-toothed weightbelt
slide, round a ring, then back though the slide? (Ahh, the heresy!)
Iain
Adam Helberg
in San Diego we all know and one in BC Canada.
Adam
"Ashley Kramer" <ash...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:cQpE7.188$Ph3....@news02.tsnz.net...
Adam Helberg
not safe. There is a better design from Seaquest which solves this problem;
or you can use integrated weights.
Let's not "throw the baby out with the bathwater". I still like the option
of ditching some weight when all else fails.
Adam
"Fiona Watson" <fiona....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3be3ae62$0$29...@news.zetnet.co.uk...
HLAviation
>not safe. There is a better design
Yeah, Millers. The standard weight belt in the commercial dive industry.
http://www.aquaairind.com/Index/Harness-Weights/miller.htm#millercommercia
lweightbelt
Most guys don't wear the shoulder harness.
http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/
Lee Bell
> What size of boltsnap are you using??? Mine are the second smallest SS
size
> I've seen, and I don't notice them at all... (the smallest were just
> ridiculously small)
What made mine noticable was not the weight but it's frequent contact with
my secondary when I was vertical or close to it, which is often for a
photographer. While it never actually tangled in anything that, too was a
reasonably constant worry. It was suggested that a bit of inner tube or
similar on the hose would allow it to be secured, but I already had the
plastic clips and they seemed a better solution for me.
> I can see the plastic hose clip being a perfectly workable solution, with
> the sole exception of it being harder to untangle if necessary (a tangle
on
> the boltsnap on a hose can be worked on in front of your eyes. I suspect
> right shoulder would be a bit more of a PITA). Then again, if you don't
have
> net/line hazards, it's irrelevant (and in good viz, you probably tend to
get
> more warning than I do, even if there is something there)
To be honest, I had not considered a tangle. Presuming whatever I was
tangled in could be cut, that is a likely way out for either configuration.
I've never been entangled in anything, perhaps, as you suggest, because I
can see the risk before I encounter it.
> > Pockets on lycra suits aren't a real practical item.
> Then hand a cargo pouch of the waist strap (I think DR do something that
> works)
I considered this and even tried it. The fact is that I like the
streamlining and simplicity of the plate and wing, particularly my stainless
plate and 18 lb lift wing more than I like the convenience of a pocket. The
issue was not necessarily a personal one but, rather, a trade off that those
considering the system have to deal with, one way or another. As soon as
you start putting pockets and the stuff most of us have, at one time or
another, carried around in them, you're probably already non-DIR or soon to
be.
> > Many of the people who dive worldwide, never dive in
> > significant current, never care how fast they move and might care quite
> > a bit more about the convenience of pockets than they do streamlining.
> "Convenient" is not a word I would ever have used in the context of BCD
> pockets. I knew they were a PITA, but only realised how much this was true
> when I started using leg pouches.
That's because you use a suit where it's convenient ot have pockets on your
dry suit. I suspect that most warm water divers, which probably makes up a
pretty substantial majority of all divers, don't wear anything that a pocket
would be good on during most of the year. I could be wrong. When I used a
jacket style BCD, I had a UK-40 light in each pocket and the small size
magnetic slate in one pocket. Now I have scout lights on my shoulder straps
but no good way to carry the slate. I miss that slate. As a native and a
former aquarium stocker (my own, not commercial), I have lots of
opportunities to point out things and name them for those who haven't had
the advantage of growing up around and in the water. It was very handy,
much better than a slate or even wetnotes simply because it could be used as
many times as you like on one dive or on many. Clip it on the outside and
kiss that streamlining goodbye. I also find that, while my somewhat large
lift bag/safety sausate/DSMB fits in the plate pocket well enough, it's a
darned inconvenient place for it when I'm doing a lot of dives a day. On my
annual Tortugas trips, every dive is a drift dive without a buoy and I do 6
or 7 of them a day. That means stowing and removing the DSMB 6 or 7 times
and, with relatively short surface intervals, that gets old in a hurry. A
pocket would be better. In this case, I've learned to put up with the
relatively minor anti-streamlining involved in clipping it off to my rear
crotch ring but it took me a while to get used to it touching my rear end
unexpectedly. When you're spearfishing many miles from the nearest land and
the boat is not close enough for a quick exit, knowledge that speared fish
attract sharks keeps one a bit on edge and being touches anywhere from
behind unexpectedly can increase the hear beat a bit.
> > Some even like to carry useless things along just because they like to.
> Which is something it is entirely sensible to discourage. I think every
> entry-level course suggests that an attack of the danglies is not a good
> move.
I think I could find pros and cons to the idea. This is supposed to be a
fun sport and, within reason, I'm not sure there's a solid basis for the
hogarthian approach to all diving as long as everyone understands the
tradeoffs. I've already mentioned my magnetic slate. I'd also prefer to
have my safety spool somewhere other than clipped behind me and, on my
diving trips would really like to be able to stick a powerhead and a few
extra rounds in a pocket somewhere. Earlier this year, a very persistent
shark convinced me that discretion was the better part of valor. If he had
been just a bit more insistent, things might have gotten ugly. I never
thought I'd need a power head, but after that encounter, I'm not so sure. I
think I'd rather have one and not need it than not have it and need it
badly.
> > and to signal others (which they claim works in daylight and I've got no
>
> reason to deny.)
>
> It would work...but it's not exactly difficult to signal OKs to each other
> in great viz...!
You don't have to convince me.
> Well, one could argue (and I'm sure some have) that the problem starts
with
> having the console and that adding the right hip ring is a convolution to
> deal with something that could be done better. OTOH, if I were regularly
> diving to hunt, I'd have a right ring as well.
You are correct. They have. While I decline to give up my computers,
except when lobstering, I wear one on my wrist too, the fact that I have a
console there is only a small increase in my preference to keep the left d
ring clear. When I want to check my gas, I want to do that easily too. It
might be different if I could see the d rings while diving but the Big Eyes
mask that let me do so, leaks like a sieve on me. Interestingly, the
Halcyon ACB system has a D ring on the right side.
> > As near as I can tell, the majority of newly certified divers are being
> > told to hand off the primary.
> Not a hope. I don't know of another BSAC Branch that does it other than
> mine, and no-one comes to us as OW/AOW/RD/DM having heard of it before.
Interesting. As far as I know, SSI now teaches handing off the primary and
at least some PADI instructors do as well. It's a certainty that anyone
using a combination inflator/alternate does it that way simply because they
have no choice. I'd still like to see a poll on this one.
> > You and I have different reasons, but the popularity of the combination
> > inflator/alternate pretty much ensures that, if there's one way better
> > than the other, that handing off the primary is that way.
>
> I have to confess that I've never seen a great number of these in the UK,
> Red Sea or Caribean, although I've not dived in your part of the world.
The Caribbean is pretty close to my part of the world. I see them quite a
bit, here and there. Even more than that, however, I see a massive increase
in the number of people breathing long hoses with plate and wing setups.
> > It would be interesting to take a poll on this. I was trained before
> > there was such a thing as a BCD, but I can recall quite clearly hearing
> > others told that the weight belt always goes on last. This may be
> > something that differs depending on the side of the Atlantic your
> > instruction was done on.
> Possibly. AIUI, the belt had to go on last with an ABLJ because there was
a
> crotch strap, and these tended to be attached with a fairly secure (non
QR)
> fitting. This obstruction isn't there with a BCD. You may well be right
> about differences between the US and UK.
Perhaps that's where the rule came from. I know it was a rule when I
started diving, but back then, the plates (no BCDs) came with crotch straps
too. Back then, we also beleived that ditching weight was the first step in
controlling almost any problem. It's surprising more didn't die. Maybe
they did and we just didn't hear about it.
> > At any rate, my position is pretty much that those who recognize a need
> > to ditch weight quickly, should either get rid of the crotch strap or
> > wear the belt on top of the crotch strap.
> By "quickly" you seem to be meaning "instantly". To undo both buckles
(with
> the belt worn underneath) takes minimal extra time, and certainly counts
as
> "quickly".
The DIR method is to run the buckle through the loop in the waist belt to
allow the canister to be ditched quickly. This means that the buckle, which
most divers can't see well, if at all, has to be run back through the loop
to release the crotch strap. While one could remove the weight belt without
releasing the crotch strap, it would not take much of a slip to let the belt
drop and hang from the strap between one's legs, again, in a position that
is not easy to see. It would seem to be that the chances such a release
would not be quick would be pretty high, even if it is quick enough when
everything goes right.
> > Those who do not recognize a need to ditch weight quickly should not be
> > using such an easy to accidentally release buckle on their weight belt.
> I see no situation where I am likely to want to dump weight during a dive.
I
> can, however, see myself wanting to remove weight in a hurry on the
surface,
> either in an emergency, or just to get back on the boat.
Then I would think you would want it somewhere other than under your crotch
strap unless you are also removing your kit before getting back into the
boat. If you are, then the only change I would make is to thread the strap
rather than the buckle through the crotch strap to make everything quicker
and easier to remove. If I were worried about being able to ditch a
canister light, I could find another way, perhaps the same way that is built
into the Halcyon ACB system, a strap and buckle that attaches to the belt
and services only the light. BTW, mine came with a right side D ring which
it looks like would have to be removed to attach a light.
> > When I find a suitable substitute from my back crotch strap D
> > ring, I'll probably remove the strap from my present kit as well.
> Why not run the strap from the backplate through a non-toothed weightbelt
> slide, round a ring, then back though the slide? (Ahh, the heresy!)
I'm thinking about doing just that. I've also considered using zip (nylon
wire ties) ties to hold a D ring in place but rejected the idea because I'm
just not sure it's secure enough. If I could find them, I might also
consider a couple of stainless clips or shackles, the kind that are a smooth
oval (or similar shape) with a piece that screws over the opening (to ensure
nothing could get caught inside them. I'm in no hurry. Sooner or later,
I'll find something I like . . . until I find something I like better.
Lee
Lee Bell
> I recall 2 deaths last year likely preventable by weight belt ditching:
one
> in San Diego we all know and one in BC Canada.
I'm sure that different diving has different demands, so I'll not be the one
to say never, but I will say that I have trouble imagining a situation where
I'd want to ditch an entire weight belt (I no longer wear one). I can
conceive of times when I might want to ditch some, which in my mind, makes
easily accessed weight pockets more sensible than an easily ditched or
worse, easily accidentally ditched weight belt. YMMV.
Lee
Adam Helberg
tried unsuccessfully to dump lead from an old style BC. It was not really a
"weight belt". The point is, there are times when it is helpful to dump at
least some weight and rarely when it is a life saver.
Adam
"Lee Bell" <lee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9scp7n$kjr$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Dominic Humphries
<9scp0n$uap$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>:
*snipped*
>As soon as you start putting pockets and the stuff most of
>us have, at one time or another, carried around in them, you're probably
>already non-DIR or soon to be.
>
I find that an odd statement, since one of the most useful things I ever
found on the WKPP website (at http://www.wkpp.org/equip_moreimages_2.htm)
was the thigh pocket photos - it solved my problem of how to keep things
organised in pockets (bit of bungee across the top, and everything bolt
snapped to it).
So long as you only carry in them the things you actually need, why are you
"probably non-DIR"?
Not that I'm DIR myself, but I like to understand the concepts...
FWIW, in my pockets, I have:
Left - spare mask, spare fin strap (Yes, I know about DIR & fin straps),
sea snips, strobe
Right - spare dSMB+reel, slate, backup torch
Lee Bell
> >As soon as you start putting pockets and the stuff most of
> >us have, at one time or another, carried around in them, you're probably
> >already non-DIR or soon to be.
> I find that an odd statement, since one of the most useful things I ever
> found on the WKPP website was the thigh pocket photos . . .
You missed part of the discussion and have taken this out of context,
leading to misunderstanding. We had already established that pockets on
lycra suits, which is what I wear, don't work well and were discussing
pockets that can be attached to the waist belt, very non DIR. You also
missed "and the stuff most of us have, at one time or another, carried
around in them" which is not only non DIR, it's probably non Hogarthian as
well.
> So long as you only carry in them the things you actually need, why are
you
> "probably non-DIR"?
Because, a clearly stated by both George Irvine and Jarrod Jablonski, there
is only one DIR. Either you are or you are not. They get to say what you
need. I have a right side D ring, a small sharp pointed knife on one side
and a small blunt pointed one on the left because I find each of them useful
for particular situations. Both are behind the D rings in the original hard
sheaths instead of one, up front, in a soft sheath I just don't feel
comfortable with. I gave one of mine back to Brownies and will give them
the other one when it turns up. They're expensive and I hope someone who
likes them will get use from them. I would imagine that GI and JJ would
agree that these changes alone make me non DIR, but that does not mean I'm
not taking advantage of other aspects of the system, or that I disagree with
them in the context of WKPP diving. BTW, I use a computer and a backup for
my multilevel diving, including dives with short decompression obligations.
I know, without a doubt, that this makes me non DIR. I can live with that.
> Left - spare mask, spare fin strap (Yes, I know about DIR & fin straps),
> sea snips, strobe Right - spare dSMB+reel, slate, backup torch
You are definitely non DIR. 8^) I think the non DIR straps do it by
themselves and I'm reasonably sure that your dsmb reel in a pocket and
backup torch in a pocket are non DIR as well.
The point is not to insult anyone by the fact that they are non DIR. That's
already been done far to many times, almost always to the detriment of the
system's acceptance outside of the cave diving community. Quite the
contrary, the initial point of this entire thread is that there are lots of
things that lots of people take and use for perfectly good reasons, that are
not DIR and don't make them any less of a diver of less safe. My approach
to the DIR system, which I've called DIR-L for DIR-Like, is that
understanding the system is an important first step to chosing what is right
for you and what is not and I'd much rather see someone with a long hose and
necklaced secondary and a jacket style BCD for the right reasons than see
them in strict DIR configuration for the wrong ones.
I dive with an individual on this list who is as anti-dir as pretty much
anyone, well anyone logical, looks nothing like a DIR diver, who is doing it
as right for his own diving as anyone I can think of. His equipment is
getting old and is likely to have to be replaced before he's too old to dive
any more. It will be interesting to see what he choses next . . . right
Mike?
Lee
Dominic Humphries
*snipped*
>You missed part of the discussion and have taken this out of context,
>leading to misunderstanding. We had already established that pockets on
>lycra suits, which is what I wear, don't work well and were discussing
>pockets that can be attached to the waist belt, very non DIR.
I didn't miss that part. I probably should, tho, have mentioned that since
my drysuit came without pockets, my thigh pockets are, in fact, hanging off
my waist belt :o)
It seemed that you were saying that by adding pockets, you were making
yourself non-DIR, which I found strange as I'd seen plenty of pix of DIR
divers with thigh pockets.
>> Left - spare mask, spare fin strap (Yes, I know about DIR & fin
>> straps), sea snips, strobe Right - spare dSMB+reel, slate, backup
>> torch
>
>You are definitely non DIR. 8^) I think the non DIR straps do it by
>themselves and I'm reasonably sure that your dsmb reel in a pocket and
>backup torch in a pocket are non DIR as well.
Not to mention the shoulder clips, plastic backplate, six D-rings, pistol-
grip torch...
:o)
I'll probably replace the straps with springs when I get around to it - my
budget for new dive gear was all blown on getting the twinset, wing, long
hose, new first stage, new dSMB, thigh pockets, etc - fin springs just
didn't make it onto the priority list :o)
Where DOES dir put dSMBs, anyway? My main dSMB+reel currently lives on my
left waist D-ring (The self-inflating type, too big for a pocket) and the
backup in my right pocket (my spares go on the opposite side to the
primaries) Don't think I've ever actually seen an SMB on a DIR diver photo.
DeuxBees
<lee...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>. If I could find them, I might also
>consider a couple of stainless clips or shackles, the kind that are a smooth
>oval (or similar shape) with a piece that screws over the opening (to ensure
>nothing could get caught inside them.
Quick-Links - Don't tighten them with a wrench as some people are tempted to
do, or you will need a wrench to open them after a while. There are other
shapes available, I have seen them for mountain climbers- I think triangular
and perhaps D-shaped. Of course these might be of a larger size and guage than
is needed for securing a cannister or other device.
Cheers
Douglas
Iain Smith
> me non DIR,
No - ACB pockets are _not_ promoted as being DIR.
> > Left - spare mask, spare fin strap (Yes, I know about DIR & fin
> > straps), sea snips, strobe Right - spare dSMB+reel, slate, backup
> > torch
>
> You are definitely non DIR.
>
> I'm reasonably sure that your dsmb reel in a pocket and
> backup torch in a pocket are non DIR as well.
Incorrect. With all due respect, Lee, may I suggest a review of the
Equipment Images on the WKPP site before you start saying that these things
make one non-DIR.
Iain
Iain Smith
> to allow the canister to be ditched quickly.
In caves, some still do it this way. For OW, a second buckle is threaded
onto the free end of the waist strap and holds the canister in place. This
is definitely DIR. (Not that I really care whether it is or not - after all,
the last thing I want to see happening when getting back into a small boat,
is the canister heading into the depths because I undid my waist buckle!
> This means that the buckle, which most divers can't see well, if at all,
> has to be run back through the loop to release the crotch strap.
I have seen people who run the waist-securing buckle through the loop. I
can't see what the point of this is when the need for it to secure the
canister has been removed.
To summarize: The way I (and a number of others) dive is to have the
canister on the right hip. This is held in place by a buckle which is not
attached to anything else, but merely threaded over the free end of the
waist belt. The lever goes to the front, so that the canister cannot block
the release if it is necessary to ditch the 6lbs or so that the canister is
negative. The free end of the waist strap passes through the crotch strap
loop and into the buckle which never has to pass through the loop.
> > I see no situation where I am likely to want to dump weight during a
> dive. I can, however, see myself wanting to remove weight in a hurry on
> the surface, either in an emergency, or just to get back on the boat.
>
> Then I would think you would want it somewhere other than under your
> crotch strap unless you are also removing your kit before getting back
> into the boat.
I do enough rescue teaching/training to be confident that the time
difference is insignificant.
> If you are, then the only change I would make is to
> thread the strap rather than the buckle through the crotch strap to make
> everything quicker and easier to remove.
I'm sure we've discussed this at least three times in recent weeks. This is
_precisely_ what I do.
> If I were worried about being able to ditch a canister light, I could
find another way, perhaps...a strap and buckle that attaches to the belt
> and services only the light.
um...exactly. I've done it this way as long as I've been using a canister
(I've been borrowing one for about two years, and now have my own)
> BTW, mine came with a right side D ring which it looks like would have
> to be removed to attach a light.
I've not seen the ACB system, but I've not heard many people say they like
it. I've also heard a certain cave diver comment on what a POS it is. ACB is
one of two Halcyon products I can think of that I wouldn't touch with a
bargepole.
> I've also considered using zip (nylon wire ties) ties to hold a D ring
> in place but rejected the idea because I'm just not sure it's secure
> enough.
It's not. I used zip ties only on things that I specifically wanted to be
able to break away. I now use a o-ring/line attachment, because the zip ties
kept breaking when I didn't want them to.
> If I could find them, I might also consider a couple of stainless clips
> or shackles, the kind that are a smooth oval (or similar shape) with a
> piece that screws over the opening (to ensure nothing could get caught
> inside them.
Karribiners (?sp) You should be able to get them in most mountaineering
shops. I have a couple, but use them for non-diving purposes, otherwise I'd
send you one.
I also have no idea where you get the idea that having pockets equates to
non-DIR. There's a picture on the WKPP site of what GI carries in his
pockets. There are some items which need pockets to be carried in (eg
wetnotes, line arrows, backup spools, yellow "distress" DSMBs, spare
mask...)
Iain
Lee Bell
> > I would imagine that GI and JJ would agree that these changes alone make
> > me non DIR,
>
> No - ACB pockets are _not_ promoted as being DIR.
So that would be non DIR, right?
> > > Left - spare mask, spare fin strap (Yes, I know about DIR & fin
> > > straps), sea snips, strobe Right - spare dSMB+reel, slate, backup
> > > torch
> >
> > You are definitely non DIR.
> >
> > I'm reasonably sure that your dsmb reel in a pocket and
> > backup torch in a pocket are non DIR as well.
>
> Incorrect. With all due respect, Lee, may I suggest a review of the
> Equipment Images on the WKPP site before you start saying that these
things
> make one non-DIR.
Lighten up, Iain, we're just having fun here. As far as I know, backup
lights go on the shoulder straps, not in a pocket and reels are normally
clipped outside of a pocket. These would seem to be non dir as well. Did
you think I was saying that these things were DIR?
Lee
Lee Bell
> To summarize: The way I (and a number of others) dive is to have the
> canister on the right hip. This is held in place by a buckle which is not
> attached to anything else, but merely threaded over the free end of the
> waist belt. The lever goes to the front, so that the canister cannot block
> the release if it is necessary to ditch the 6lbs or so that the canister
is
> negative.
So far, this is consistent with pictures in Jarrod's new book "Doing It
Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving."
> The free end of the waist strap passes through the crotch strap loop and
into the
> buckle which never has to pass through the loop.
This is not how any of the pictures of the fathers of DIR show it. All of
them have the buckle passed through the crotch strap. In discussions with
George and Jerrod, it is clear that they both accept only one way on this,
the buckle through the strap.
Having looked through the book, there's something I really find interesting.
George Irvine recently made a real point of telling everybody that Scuba Pro
regulators are garbage, not suitable for primary or secondary regulators
because the intermediate pressure can't be reduced to the level he likes.
He does report using them on safety tanks and maybe stages (I don't recall).
At least one of the hangers on at TechDiver was real quick to criticize my
choice of Scuba Pro which I thought I did because of DIR, not in spite of.
Guess what kind of regulator is in almost every picture in the book. Yep,
Scuba Pro. Imagine that.
Lee
> I've not seen the ACB system, but I've not heard many people say they like
> it. I've also heard a certain cave diver comment on what a POS it is. ACB
is
> one of two Halcyon products I can think of that I wouldn't touch with a
> bargepole.
That may be, but it's made by his buddy and included in Doing It Right: The
Fundamentals of Better Diving. I don't like the system because it adds back
pretty much all the bulk I got rid of when I gave up my jacket style BCD.
> Karribiners (?sp) You should be able to get them in most mountaineering
> shops. I have a couple, but use them for non-diving purposes, otherwise
I'd
> send you one.
Similar, but I specifically want the kind that has the piece that screws
over the opening. Otherwise, I'm looking at what I've heard called a
suicide clip because things can press against the opening to enter but not
escape as easily.
> I also have no idea where you get the idea that having pockets equates to
> non-DIR. There's a picture on the WKPP site of what GI carries in his
> pockets. There are some items which need pockets to be carried in (eg
> wetnotes, line arrows, backup spools, yellow "distress" DSMBs, spare
> mask...)
I have the book Doint It Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving. There
isn't a pocket on the belt or anywhere on the harness to be found anywhere.
Since this is the manual for entry level DIR, written by the CEO of Halcyon
and GUE, I think it's a reasonably reliable source. George is so
inconsistent from one year to the next that I'm quite cautious about his
advice. No matter what his current opinion is, it's absolutely right . . .
until he changes his mind.
I don't know why we're focusing so much on what is DIR or not. As I think
you mentioned neither of us cares a lick whether we are DIR by someone
else's standards. Both of us have clearly considered the options and
decided what is best for us, no matter what others think. Personally, I
think that's a good thing.
Lee
Adam Helberg
diving with my buddy, but was told of the location of her spare second. I
gave the out of air signal and instinctively reached for her octopus second.
If you discuss before hand it does not matter which you hand over. If you
don't discuss the natural thing is to grap the octopus which is normally
assumed to be for emergency use. The octopus, as well as the primary, is
tested prior to diving.
Adam
"chilly" <sla...@home.com> wrote in message
news:%JSF7.6966$bb.2...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
chilly
Adam Helberg <helb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_GFG7.25653$S4.23...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I was once in an out of air situation, but had not discussed this prior to
> diving with my buddy, but was told of the location of her spare second. I
> gave the out of air signal and instinctively reached for her octopus
second.
Good for you, glad it worked out.
BTW, I'm curious . . .when you say she told you where her octopus was, did
you mean she'd shown you where her octopus was during the buddy check prior
to entering the water? Aand did she check your air during the buddy check
before entering the water?
>
> If you discuss before hand it does not matter which you hand over. If you
> don't discuss the natural thing is to grap the octopus which is normally
> assumed to be for emergency use. The octopus, as well as the primary, is
> tested prior to diving.
Yes, I certainly check my primary and my octo every time before every dive.
And if I were you, I'd be prepared for someone else to be grabbing the
primary out of my mouth, whether it has ever been discussed or not. There's
also a very good chance that the OOA going after the primary won't even be
*your* buddy but the buddy of another. Not everyone will have your
instincts for locating octos that you've been told where they are.
Jason O'Rourke
>I was once in an out of air situation, but had not discussed this prior to
>diving with my buddy, but was told of the location of her spare second. I
>gave the out of air signal and instinctively reached for her octopus second.
>
>If you discuss before hand it does not matter which you hand over. If you
>don't discuss the natural thing is to grap the octopus which is normally
>assumed to be for emergency use. The octopus, as well as the primary, is
>tested prior to diving.
>Adam
Well, a lot of people out there have found it's natural for the victim to
grab the primary, because they know that's working and exactly where it
is. For that reason, it's just as important for you to know where your
own octo is, and a leading reason for putting it on a necklace around the
neck.
The closer the buddy pair stays together, the more likely it is to be
resolved the way you did, by the book.
--
Jason O'Rourke j...@best.com www.jor.com
Rec.scuba strokes pics page: www.jor.com/strokes
Aquashot page: www.jor.com/dive/aquashot
Jason O'Rourke
>> No - ACB pockets are _not_ promoted as being DIR.
>
>So that would be non DIR, right?
And well they shouldn't. Sadly, they remove a good amount of the
streamlining and gains against kelp snagging that the backplate provided.
Unfortunately, you have to compromise somewhere in cold water. I've
already moved most of the ballast to the plate and Scott's STA. I have
10lbs of ditchable weight in the pockets. If I put it on a weightbelt, it
doesn't mesh so well with the plate and my hips. Alternatively, I could
end up with no droppable weight, but who hear thinks that's a good idea in
the ocean?
Jason O'Rourke
>Having looked through the book, there's something I really find interesting.
>George Irvine recently made a real point of telling everybody that Scuba Pro
>regulators are garbage, not suitable for primary or secondary regulators
>because the intermediate pressure can't be reduced to the level he likes.
>He does report using them on safety tanks and maybe stages (I don't recall).
>At least one of the hangers on at TechDiver was real quick to criticize my
>choice of Scuba Pro which I thought I did because of DIR, not in spite of.
>Guess what kind of regulator is in almost every picture in the book. Yep,
>Scuba Pro. Imagine that.
SP might have been mentioned in the DIR 2 video. Certainly it was a
popular choice. So what's the new one? I know it's not the titanium
choices.
Dan Bracuk
> I dive with an individual on this list who is as anti-dir as pretty much
> anyone, well anyone logical, looks nothing like a DIR diver, who is doing it
> as right for his own diving as anyone I can think of.
Very few of us on Team Stroke are anti-DIR. We simply reject it for
our own diving. Others have the same right to choose that we have.
Dan Bracuk
Toronto, Canada
Standard Womanism #1 - Don't crap in the bathroom, it'll stink.
Best of Rec.Scuba http://www.chaoticarts.com/~scuba/
Iain Smith
> > > make me non DIR,
> >
> > No - ACB pockets are _not_ promoted as being DIR.
>
> So that would be non DIR, right?
That's what I said, is it not?
> Lighten up, Iain, we're just having fun here. As far as I know, backup
> lights go on the shoulder straps, not in a pocket
Scouts, yes. It's not unknown for a small third backup to be carried in the
pocket. (a la George Irvine)
> reels are normally clipped outside of a pocket.
Exploration reels, yes. DSMB reels, no, because they're not going to be
needed until the end of the dive, so one might as well store them somewhere
that they're out of the way of stages/SPGs/scooters/whatever.
> These would seem to be non dir as well. Did you think I was saying that
> these things were DIR?
No - you said they're not DIR, and I'm pointing out that I think you're
wrong, based in pictorial evidence on the WKPP and GUE sites, and anecdotal
evidence from various fora.
Iain
Iain Smith
> to diving with my buddy, but was told of the location of her spare
> second. I gave the out of air signal and instinctively reached for her
> octopus second.
>
> If you discuss before hand it does not matter which you hand over. If
> you don't discuss the natural thing is to grap the octopus which is
> normally assumed to be for emergency use. The octopus, as well as the
> primary, is tested prior to diving.
Adam,
You cannot extrapolate from one incident and define a general rule. The
majority have had experiences which say differently.
Iain
Iain Smith
> popular choice. So what's the new one? I know it's not the titanium
> choices.
Apeks DS4/TX40 for backgas and DST/TX40 for stages, IIRC.
IAin
Iain Smith
> Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving."
Including the double buckle?
> > The free end of the waist strap passes through the crotch strap loop
> > and into the buckle which never has to pass through the loop.
>
> This is not how any of the pictures of the fathers of DIR show it. All
> of them have the buckle passed through the crotch strap. In discussions
> with George and Jerrod, it is clear that they both accept only one way
> on this, the buckle through the strap.
What is the rational for this? I can't think of any sensible reason for not
doing it that way, but I'm happy to be enlightened.
> George Irvine recently made a real point of telling everybody that Scuba
> Pro regulators are garbage, not suitable for primary or secondary
> regulators because the intermediate pressure can't be reduced to the
> level he likes.
> He does report using them on safety tanks and maybe stages (I
> don't recall).
Just safeties, I think.
> At least one of the hangers on at TechDiver was real quick to criticize
> my choice of Scuba Pro which I thought I did because of DIR, not in
> spite of.
> Guess what kind of regulator is in almost every picture in the book.
> Yep, Scuba Pro. Imagine that.
Guess what regs are used by a lot of the WKPP? Yep, SP, Imagine that. They
route a bit better than Apeks. I went for Apeks rather than SP, primarily
because they're a) British b) are rock solid regs and c) I got a superb deal
on them. My two "even more pro-DIR than I am" buddies both use SPs.
> > I've not seen the ACB system, but I've not heard many people say they
> > like it. I've also heard a certain cave diver comment on what a POS it
> > is. ACB is one of two Halcyon products I can think of that I wouldn't
> > touch with a bargepole.
>
> That may be, but it's made by his buddy and included in Doing It Right:
> The Fundamentals of Better Diving.
At times, I have to confess, I found Fundamentals to be a little bit too
much like a sales catalogue.
> I don't like the system because it adds back pretty much all the bulk I >
got rid of when I gave up my jacket style BCD.
Exactly.
> Similar, but I specifically want the kind that has the piece that screws
> over the opening. Otherwise, I'm looking at what I've heard called a
> suicide clip because things can press against the opening to enter but
> not escape as easily.
Screw-gate Karribiners
> > I also have no idea where you get the idea that having pockets equates
> > to non-DIR. There's a picture on the WKPP site of what GI carries in
> > his pockets. There are some items which need pockets to be carried in
> > (eg wetnotes, line arrows, backup spools, yellow "distress" DSMBs,
> > spare mask...)
>
> I have the book Doint It Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving.
> There isn't a pocket on the belt or anywhere on the harness to be found
> anywhere.
See the picture on page 54 - about the only good view of the LHS of a diver.
The oval on the leg, just below the bottom of his tank, is a Halcyon badge
on a leg pocket.
See also page 60. Marked "pocket".
It is reasonable to conclude that pockets are DIR.
Notice that both of these divers are wearing full suits. Assuming that a)
pockets can be DIR, as evidenced by the above we can conclude that b) there
is a reason for them. If the suit being worn does not accomodate pockets, we
cannot necessarily discard that reason. The logical place to put them is on
the harness. I can't, from a brief search, find a reference for this, but
perhaps MHK could confirm or deny that pockets can be put on the right hip?
> I don't know why we're focusing so much on what is DIR or not. As I
> think you mentioned neither of us cares a lick whether we are DIR by
> someone else's standards. Both of us have clearly considered the
> options and decided what is best for us, no matter what others think.
> Personally, I think that's a good thing.
Indeed. However, I think it's safe to say that I self-identify more with DIR
than you do? I'm certainly reluctant to let misconceptions pass...
Iain
HLAviation
>
>You cannot extrapolate from one incident and define a general rule. The
>majority have had experiences which say differently.
>
Uhhh, I believe thats a bit misstated. It should say the majority who have had
such experiences would say differently. I seriously doubt the majority of
divers have ever dealt with an OOA situation either on the donor or receiver
end. Any guess on a percentage? I'd bet it's under 5%.
http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/
Jason O'Rourke
>Notice that both of these divers are wearing full suits. Assuming that a)
>pockets can be DIR, as evidenced by the above we can conclude that b) there
>is a reason for them. If the suit being worn does not accomodate pockets, we
>cannot necessarily discard that reason. The logical place to put them is on
>the harness. I can't, from a brief search, find a reference for this, but
>perhaps MHK could confirm or deny that pockets can be put on the right hip?
The ACB includes a zipout pocket on the left. Wouldn't make sense on the
right with the canister light there.
Lee Bell
Iain Smith <im...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:mrYG7.3164$Sf6.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > > > I would imagine that GI and JJ would agree that these changes alone
> > > > make me non DIR,
> > >
> > > No - ACB pockets are _not_ promoted as being DIR.
> >
> > So that would be non DIR, right?
>
> That's what I said, is it not?
That's what I said too, which makes your "No - " confusing. I guess we're
saying the same thing but in a way that seems to be disagreeing. Actually,
however, the ACB system is included in Jarrod's new fundamental book.
> No - you said they're not DIR, and I'm pointing out that I think you're
> wrong, based in pictorial evidence on the WKPP and GUE sites, and
anecdotal
> evidence from various fora.
I lost track of what this refers to, but anecdotal evidence is not real
reliable when it comes to DIR. There have been lots of people talking about
what is and is not DIR, but the primary individuals, George and JJ, have
been quite clear that there is only one. I have a bit of an advantage on
this one since I have Jarrod's book on DIR fundamentals right here to look
at. If there is a definitive document, this has to be it.
Lee
Lee Bell
> > So far, this is consistent with pictures in Jarrod's new book "Doing It
> > Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving."
>
> Including the double buckle?
I don't know if it talks about the double buckle, but it is pictured just as
you described it.
> > This is not how any of the pictures of the fathers of DIR show it. All
> > of them have the buckle passed through the crotch strap. In discussions
> > with George and Jerrod, it is clear that they both accept only one way
> > on this, the buckle through the strap.
>
> What is the rational for this? I can't think of any sensible reason for
not
> doing it that way, but I'm happy to be enlightened.
I can't swear to this, but I believe it was to allow the canister light to
be removed easily. They seem confident that they could remove their weight
belt if necessary. On the other hand, they've also said that there is no
reason for them to do so because dumping weight is not normally an advantage
for a cave diver. Things kind of get mixed up when the discussion moves
back and forth between cave, wreck, deep and open water recreational. I
have not had a chance to complete the book, so I can't swear that what you
ask is not covered. If I see it, I'll let you know.
> > George Irvine recently made a real point of telling everybody that Scuba
> > Pro regulators are garbage, not suitable for primary or secondary
> > regulators because the intermediate pressure can't be reduced to the
> > level he likes.
>
> > He does report using them on safety tanks and maybe stages (I
> > don't recall).
>
> Just safeties, I think.
You may be right. I was a bit taken aback as at least one of his regulars
was. Apparently there were at least two of us who purchased Scuba Pro
regulators because we believed they were favored by WKPP. It's hard to beat
top ratings in the dive magazines and an endorsement by some of the most
extreme divers in the world. My information was most likely some of that
anecdotal stuff that I'm now a bit timid about believing without evidence,
so I can't really blame George one way or the other. Tthe other diver did
and, believe it or not, George appologized for misleading him. Fortunately,
JJ and I still seem to like the Scuba Pros. I have no complaint except they
were damned expensive.
> > At least one of the hangers on at TechDiver was real quick to criticize
> > my choice of Scuba Pro which I thought I did because of DIR, not in
> > spite of.
> > Guess what kind of regulator is in almost every picture in the book.
> > Yep, Scuba Pro. Imagine that.
> Guess what regs are used by a lot of the WKPP? Yep, SP, Imagine that. They
> route a bit better than Apeks. I went for Apeks rather than SP, primarily
> because they're a) British b) are rock solid regs and c) I got a superb
deal
> on them. My two "even more pro-DIR than I am" buddies both use SPs.
I'm not sure I ever want to try an Apeks. I would hate to find that I
really do like them better. I have enough regulators now. At any rate, it
looks like there is dissention in the WKPP ranks. Since JJ is much more
likely to discuss the reasons for his choices rationally, I prefer to work
from his products. The fact that GUE is his as well simply reinforces my
opinion.
> > > I've not seen the ACB system, but I've not heard many people say they
> > > like it. I've also heard a certain cave diver comment on what a POS it
> > > is. ACB is one of two Halcyon products I can think of that I wouldn't
> > > touch with a bargepole.
I've probably called it a POS myself, but that's probably an overstatement.
Part of the attraction of the plate and wing setup, even for recreational
divers, is the reduced complexity and drag. The ACB system, in my opinion,
pretty much negates that, making the end result not much better than the
jacket style BC I had before. It's basically to weight pockets and handles
that go inside two quick release closed pockets on the waist belt that
fasten to the plate. Internally, they have a stiff plastic piece to try to
shape everything to the body. It complicates things while kitting up, but
once on, isn't all that bad except for those that carry a canister light.
The light goes on top of the right pocket on a strap included just for that
purpose, moving it about 3 inches away from the body.
Just recently, Brownies came up with much smaller weight pockets that thread
on the tank straps or on the waist belt. They are not much larger than a
hard weight alone, and allow weights to be removed quickly by opening a
quick release. They're much better, in my opinion, than the ACB and not
nearly as expensive, $21 U.S. for two.
> > Similar, but I specifically want the kind that has the piece that screws
> > over the opening. Otherwise, I'm looking at what I've heard called a
> > suicide clip because things can press against the opening to enter but
> > not escape as easily.
> Screw-gate Karribiners
Sounds right.
> > > I also have no idea where you get the idea that having pockets equates
> > > to non-DIR. There's a picture on the WKPP site of what GI carries in
> > > his pockets. There are some items which need pockets to be carried in
> > > (eg wetnotes, line arrows, backup spools, yellow "distress" DSMBs,
> > > spare mask...)
> >
> > I have the book Doint It Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving.
> > There isn't a pocket on the belt or anywhere on the harness to be found
> > anywhere.
>
> See the picture on page 54 - about the only good view of the LHS of a
diver.
> The oval on the leg, just below the bottom of his tank, is a Halcyon badge
> on a leg pocket.
Unless I'm missing something, these pockets are part of the dry suit. They
do not appear to be attached to the harness at all. At least twice now,
I've indicated that these are not an option for us lycra only divers. If
you're telling me that pockets on a dry or wetsuit are DIR, I agree. That's
never what I've been talking about and have tried to make that clear,
apparently without a lot of success.
> > I don't know why we're focusing so much on what is DIR or not. As I
> > think you mentioned neither of us cares a lick whether we are DIR by
> > someone else's standards. Both of us have clearly considered the
> > options and decided what is best for us, no matter what others think.
> > Personally, I think that's a good thing.
>
> Indeed. However, I think it's safe to say that I self-identify more with
DIR
> than you do? I'm certainly reluctant to let misconceptions pass...
I don't think that's a safe statement at all. Like a lot of others, I once
claimed to be DIR. Over a few years of using the equipment and being told
that there is only one DIR, I began to realize that I was not, in fact, that
one and only DIR diver and, more importantly, I did not wish to be. I
wanted to take, from both worlds, what suited my diving best, which I have.
That's when I coined the term DIR-L, DIR-Like. Someone else coined the term
DIR-Lite which, to me, doesn't work. I'm not lite, I'm different but
similar. I'm quite DIR like, but close observation will show differences
that keep me from being the one and only DIR. I can live and dive with
that.
Lee
chilly
>
(snip)which I have.
> That's when I coined the term DIR-L, DIR-Like. Someone else coined the
term
> DIR-Lite which, to me, doesn't work. I'm not lite, I'm different but
> similar.
LOL . . . Bud-lite is still beer!! I'm sticking with the DIR-Lite term.
:^)
Lee Bell
> > That's when I coined the term DIR-L, DIR-Like. Someone else coined the
> > term DIR-Lite which, to me, doesn't work. I'm not lite, I'm different
but
> > similar.
> LOL . . . Bud-lite is still beer!! I'm sticking with the DIR-Lite
term.
Bud-lite is beer indeed. It's also a bit lite in certain respects compared
to Bud-regular, making the name quite appropriate. I have no problem with
DIR-Lite here in our extended family group, but on a broader scale, I still
don't think it expresses the extent of similarity as well as DIR-Like.
DIR-lite does, however, have a better feel to it. 8^)
Lee
chilly
OK, Lee, as long as we can still laugh together. You can call it whatever
you like. You are the one diving it, after all. I'm just the one getting a
kick out of it. :^)
BTW, it's awfully late in your time zone, isn't it? I know it's past my
bedtime way over here.
Lee Bell
> OK, Lee, as long as we can still laugh together. You can call it whatever
> you like.
For as long as we both (or our computers) shall live. Laughter is habit
forming.
> BTW, it's awfully late in your time zone, isn't it? I know it's past my
> bedtime way over here.
It was late. Jayna and I were over at the boat club, as we are on almost
all Friday nights and I just couldn't seem to get to sleep, so . . . .
Lee
Chuck Tribolet
prefer wine and the CEOs of Coors, Anhauser-Busch, and Guinness
went out to lunch to discuss how to sway the yuppie generation back
to beer. Coors ordered Coors, AB ordered a Bud, and Guinness
ordered a Coca-Cola. "What, you aren't going to have a beer?"
chorused Coors and AB. Guinness: "Well, you aren't, so I'm not
having one either."
;-)
--
Chuck Tribolet
tri...@garlic.com
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/people/triblet
Silicon Valley: Best day job in the world.
chilly
Chuck Tribolet <tri...@garlic.com> wrote in message
news:9sk43b$169q$1...@gazette.almaden.ibm.com...
Adam Helberg
octopus. The implication of this is: if you need it it is here. No, she did
not check my air supply nor did I check hers. I checked my own equipment and
she checked hers.
What actually happened there was my mouthpiece came off the regulator but I
was not aware of it. After breathing off her octopus it became clear what
the problem was and I switched over to my own octopus.
The point is as long as you have an understanding before hand what to do
when out of air it does not matter which gets handed over, and in my
experience in diving with strangers the assumption is: the octopus is there
for the buddy.
Adam
"chilly" <sla...@home.com> wrote in message
news:KYFG7.12184$bb.6...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
Rob Turner
R..
"icediver" <iced...@chorus.net> schreef in bericht
news:21ee0662.01110...@posting.google.com...
> Being able to ditch one's weights, whether on a belt or
> integrated into the BC, is a fundamental safety precaution.
> DIR recommends that a diver who wears a weight belt wear
> it beneath the BC harness strap. Not only is this a
> fundamentally bad recommendation, for obvious reasons,
> it demonstrates once again that the inflexible DIR system
> of diving is not applicable to a majority of divers,
> especially those who prefer to wear a weight belt.