GUE (and other non-PADI) Open Water Standards for No-Deco Limits

[diver42]

What are GUE and the other non-PADI open water classes teaching for no-deco limits now? I understand that PADI now teaches “follow your computer,” with or without the old tables as a backup.

What else?

 

[eelnoraa]

When I took GUE fundamental, we use table. Unless things have changed, I think they remain the same. Following computer blindly was never taught

 

[tursiops]

When I took GUE fundamental, we use table. Unless things have changed, I think they remain the same. Following computer blindly was never taught

But apparently it is ok to follow the tables blindly?

 

[diver42]

When I took GUE fundamental, we use table. Unless things have changed, I think they remain the same. Following computer blindly was never taught

Which tables?

 

[eelnoraa]

But apparently it is ok to follow the tables blindly?

By not blindly, I mean we were required to be aware of dive time and average depth. The table

But apparently it is ok to follow the tables blindly?

The table number serve as the upper limit.of dive time at specific depth. I think you are right, that part is a blind trust based on supposed accumulated data.

What I was trying to say is the " let's splash and see what the computer says" was not the way taught in the class.

 

[eelnoraa]

Which tables?

GUE 32% and 30/30 min deco table. It should be easily found on Google.

 

[tursiops]

By not blindly, I mean we were required to be aware of dive time and average depth. The table


The table number serve as the upper limit.of dive time at specific depth. I think you are right, that part is a blind trust based on supposed accumulated data.

What I was trying to say is the " let's splash and see what the computer says" was not the way taught in the class.

I hope the point is to plan the dive....which can be done with the computer too.
Thinking that dive planning can only be done with printed tables and not software or computers is so last century.

 

[1atm]

At the GUE fundamentals level, we were taught on the basis of the GUE minimum deco table (MDL - minimum deco limit), same as eelronaa described above. What is important to understand, is that in GUE style, this works differently from how you imagine table based planning from other agencies (say PADI’s RDP - recreational dive planner).

First, the MDL table is constructed in such a way, that it is extremely easy to memorize, both for Nitrox32 (which would be GUEs preferred standard gas for such a dive), Trimix 30/30 (same table as EAN32), as well as for air (different table, contrary to common belief air isnt banned, its just not used when there is a better gas available). So a GUE trained diver would not carry a table with them, or look up runtimes in a table. They would have the table memorized and be able to determine MDL (minimum deco limits), as well as emergency deco in case of unplanned MDL violation, on the fly.

Secondly, the GUE way has you monitor average depth (as well as air consumption and a few other things), so you can determine MDL on the fly during a multilevel dive. It isnt the approach of “look up the number before the dive and stick to it”.

This approach is similar, to how decompression is taught at the Tech1 (normoxic trimix) or Tech2 (hypoxic trimix) levels. At these levels, divers also learn how to determine decompression on the fly based on time and average depth. That doesnt mean you dont plan the dives - quite the contrary, you always plan. But it enables you to make moderate adjustments to your plan based on changing environments.

As far as GUE’s current stance on computers, the SOPs (standard operating procedures) state the following:

For completeness, of the five GUE instructors I’ve taken classes with, three or four had a computer on their wrist, and usually not in gauge mode. But the point was to use the computer as an auxiliary tool, not as the primary tool. So at any point in time, you can pass a sound judgement, if what the computer is telling you makes sense. And to have a solid grasp on dive planning.

Edit: to the OP - I have not taken an open water class with GUE, but given GUEs level of standardization, I am assuming that the same approach is taught in Rec1 (open water) as is taught in Fundamentals

 

[tursiops]

I would think that today's computers overcome many of the objections listed above.
More importantly, computers don't make the unjustifiable and incorrect assumption that average depth is the determinant of ongassing and offgassing. This is wrong from first principles and useful only in a narrow range around the point of the tangent approximation. But it is not rationally discussable without appearing to be a troll.

 

[1atm]

Well my main take away from the above is, that you should have an understanding of how the process works, and be able to judge whether what your computer says is of the right order of magnitude. Trusting any number it gives on the other hand, appears less prudent to me (cf recent Suunto lawsuit ...).

Regarding average depth, yes if applied in the wrong way, it will yield a too aggressive result. I’ll leave it at that, if you are interested I suppose you can always take a class.

Other than that - dive and let dive I suppose? I have no issue if you use your computer as primary planning tool, so long as you let me do my thing