GUE and Sidemount position ?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

One of the worst ideas in the history of ideas, maybe ever.

I agree whole heartedly. It's just dumb. We were taught about it and asked to perform it once simply because it is still being taught by other instructors. It was one of those "you may come across somebody that was taught this, but don't ever actually do it. ".

I've come across several people who were taught to speed match sharing air as their primary oog strategy.
 
"establish control" -- stop a free flow, keep it from dragging in clay, get it ready to give back to the OOG diver, etc.
 
I like the OOG diver in front simply because it's nigh close to impossible for the donor to lose the OOG buddy. Having the OOG diver hanging onto a crotch strap while getting towed out seems like there's a realistic risk of having the OOG diver fall off and the donor not catch it until it's too late.

Additionally if the donor (being in the rear position) does get away from the receiver at least the reg will be in front of and visible to the donor. Easier to establish control of that regulator when you can see it.

Agreed.
Now all we need to do is agree on a good protocol for no-viz when sidemounting:
Rely on every diver swapping to the donatable when entering no-viz, have indies all donatable, or rely on a system that has some drawbacks but is always donatable from the mouth?

I prefer the latter because it also is scalable and consistant, and works well in the open water scenario and facilitates a simple solution in the decompression scenario (two divers, one tank). The additional o-rings and potential failures therein are easily manageable.

Your thoughts?
 
Agreed.
Now all we need to do is agree on a good protocol for no-viz when sidemounting:
Rely on every diver swapping to the donatable when entering no-viz, have indies all donatable, or rely on a system that has some drawbacks but is always donatable from the mouth?

Don't see the issue with donating in zero visibility. Everything can be breathed, if you need a second to switch to the long hose and get into an exit configuration that's acceptable.

There is the question of how did you suddenly run out of gas in sidemount. When has this happened to you?
 
Don't see the issue with donating in zero visibility. Everything can be breathed, if you need a second to switch to the long hose and get into an exit configuration that's acceptable.

There is the question of how did you suddenly run out of gas in sidemount. When has this happened to you?
Being overcome by bad gas will do it.
 
OOG in the front. Being "left" behind unbeknownst by the donor in the front would have to suck.
 
Don't see the issue with donating in zero visibility. Everything can be breathed, if you need a second to switch to the long hose and get into an exit configuration that's acceptable.

I'm not convinced about it because if a team member is on necklace in a siltout and I do tripple-tap-yank, I'm only pulling on a bungee and yoinking my buddy's reg out of his mouth, too.
It'd be a clean donation if we have the longhose in the mouth and a necklace in place for the buddy if I do snatch his reg.
 
This looks like a GUE statement on sidemount:

21370864_2004090456527729_1114616271853157116_n.jpg
 
It's been pointed out that this question - while relevant to an overarching question of where the industry is headed in the face of increased sidemount interest - is of course speculative.
It wouldn't have scuba tabloid value if it weren't :)

I don't know if GUE will end up on a sidemount solution in their curriculum, I don't know if they're testing solutions, and I don't know what the result, if any, will be.

One thing I'd like to pick up on, though - agency affiliation and specific systems aside - is the manifold question. It seems strange to me that there appears to be a deviance in view as to whether manifold is warranted, depending on positioning of the tanks.
Surely, if it makes sense to manifold tanks that are positioned on the back, it would make sense to manifold them if they're on the side (in some way, either HP or LP, in a fashion presently available or unavailable)?
 
http://cavediveflorida.com/Rum_House.htm

Back
Top Bottom