>> Wow. slow time of year. Not many posts since my last one. I havn't been
>> in here in awhile.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> While it's fresh on your mind, why don't you elaborate for some of the
> newer posters what your change-over motivations and experiences are/were?

Signature
~Rick
www.BrethrenoftheCoast.net
On Mar 8, 7:39 am, "Rick - BrethrenoftheCoast.net"
<n...@brethrenofthecoast.net> wrote:
> If I had doubles, I could have switched to my other reg, and cut the faulty
> supply.
> Or
> If I had a single with an H-valve, could have cut faulty reg and used other.
If you had either, you still could have died. All the redundancy in
the world can't make up for idiocy. If you penetrated an overhead
space and weren't even sure how you got there, you're lucky you made
it out at all.
> Drifting along the St. Clair River bottom it was time to ascend, so, I add
> air to my jacket style BC...Nothing.
> The Air2 had failed, and air added was simply coming out of the air2
> mouthpiece. The BC would not inflate.
There's no way to manually inflate the BC with an Air2? Failure of a
power inflator is one of the easiest gear problems to handle and
shouldn't result in calling a dive.
> Also the weight of tank(s) is shifted and much easier to carry above water.
Ease of use above water should not be a consideration for DIR-styled
gear configuration.
> After researching configurations, I've learned that tech and DIR have many
> similarities. I didn't go DIR but have adapted some DIR principles that work
> for my dives here in Michigan. DIR is a little rigid and cave oriented, and
> unrealistic in dependence on buddies (who can disappear downstream quickly
> in 3 foot viz).
You are mixing terms that have no business being compared to each
other.
"Tech" has many definitions, but it's basically a mental step beyond
recreational diving, some added characteristic that adds at least
another level of danger to the dive. The term used to encompass all
mixed-gas diving, including nitrox, but now is primarily relegated to
dives involving significant penetration (beyond "cavern" limits),
depth (beyond 130' ?), or mandatory decompression (except for European
divers who do plenty of rec deco), or any combination of the above.
You can do all these things "rec" style, but when done as technical
diving, the diver hopefully has proper training and equipment to make
the dives safely. It's the proper training and equipment that really
differential "tech" from "rec".
DIR is a philosophy of diving that was originally developed by
technical divers for technical diving. It stresses a standard gear
configuration (based on Hogarthian configuration, with emphasis on
streamlining/minimalism), buddy or team diving, and a commitment to
skill development and maintenance and physical health. Plenty of
divers try to apply DIR principles to recreational diving. Some even
succeed.
> I do like the redundancy aspect but the minimalism of DIR isn't possible
> here in the great lakes.
Sure it is. The question is how much do you benefit from streamlining
and standardization versus having all your "danglies" at hand.
Rick - BrethrenoftheCoast.net - 08 Mar 2007 22:03 GMT
> On Mar 8, 7:39 am, "Rick - BrethrenoftheCoast.net"
> <n...@brethrenofthecoast.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
> Sure it is. The question is how much do you benefit from streamlining
> and standardization versus having all your "danglies" at hand.
- - -
> If you had either, you still could have died. All the redundancy in
> the world can't make up for idiocy. If you penetrated an overhead
> space and weren't even sure how you got there, you're lucky you made
> it out at all.
I agree, although the idiot on the dive was the new guy that silted us out.
We stayed our course, which turned out to be correct, and we were fine. We
never penetrated the wreck.
The experience only made me a better diver.
> There's no way to manually inflate the BC with an Air2? Failure of a
> power inflator is one of the easiest gear problems to handle and
> shouldn't result in calling a dive.
It was a 2nd Air/Air 2, not a power inflator. If I recall, manually
inflating it it wouldn't hold air either. all air would just exhaust through
the mouthpiece.
And, I was in the process of ending the dive. I wouldnt have called it for a
faulty BC.
> Ease of use above water should not be a consideration for DIR-styled
> gear configuration.
That's why I'm not "DIR" as I do consider ease of transport above water to
be an issue to some extent.
Not to the extent that it may sacrifice anything beneath the water.
We don't simply gear up on a dive boat and jump in. We often walk blocks to
get to a spot to enter.
> You are mixing terms that have no business being compared to each
> other.
Probably am
I'm not professing to know it all...actively learning though.
It's all interesting to me. Thanks for your input.

Signature
~Rick
www.BrethrenoftheCoast.net
Greg Mossman - 09 Mar 2007 00:07 GMT
On Mar 8, 2:03 pm, "Rick - BrethrenoftheCoast.net"
<n...@brethrenofthecoast.net> wrote:
> The experience only made me a better diver.
What doesn't kill us . . .
Unfortunately there will never be an adequate instructional substitute
for near-death experiences, even those where the "near death" part may
be exaggerated. No video or CD-ROM can reinforce safety concepts as
well as actually experiencing the results of ignoring the teachings.
> It was a 2nd Air/Air 2, not a power inflator. If I recall, manually
> inflating it it wouldn't hold air either. all air would just exhaust through
> the mouthpiece.
I suppose you could kink the hose after manually inflating to keep the
air in, but why damage a good hose? That may be a situation worth
aborting over, unless you have a drysuit or dual-bladder system for
redundant inflation.
> And, I was in the process of ending the dive. I wouldnt have called it for a
> faulty BC.
For an overweighted diver wearing lots of compressible neoprene, a BC
that doesn't hold air would keep the dive short anyway since the diver
will be constantly kicking just to stay level.
> That's why I'm not "DIR" as I do consider ease of transport above water to
> be an issue to some extent.
The DIR types insist that they can travel just as easily with their
rigs, but none of the rest of us believe them. We saw what happened
to the followers of Jim Jones. Blindly following anyone with the
initials JJ is bad karma.
Still, if they shorten the primary hose a bit, and trade the heavy
backplate and bands for a more streamlined soft back and straps and
inclusive "wings", their recreational gear configuration looks
remarkably like mine except that mine is made even more streamlined by
ditching a superfluous HP hose and dangling gauge in favor of a
hoseless pressure transmitter and wrist gauge/computer. By being more
streamlined than DIR, I am DIBTR(tm).
> Not to the extent that it may sacrifice anything beneath the water.
> We don't simply gear up on a dive boat and jump in. We often walk blocks to
> get to a spot to enter.
Here we can walk a couple blocks, then hike down (and later up) six or
seven flights of stairs. I prefer boats, but would settle for a nice
escalator.
Grumman-581 - 09 Mar 2007 04:02 GMT
> The DIR types insist that they can travel just as easily with their
> rigs, but none of the rest of us believe them. We saw what happened
> to the followers of Jim Jones. Blindly following anyone with the
> initials JJ is bad karma.
Oooooh... I like that one... You might have a point there... Jim
Jones, Jessie Jackson...
Rick - BrethrenoftheCoast.net - 09 Mar 2007 23:22 GMT
> On Mar 8, 2:03 pm, "Rick - BrethrenoftheCoast.net"
> <n...@brethrenofthecoast.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
> seven flights of stairs. I prefer boats, but would settle for a nice
> escalator.
Good points - thanks again.

Signature
~Rick
www.BrethrenoftheCoast.net