GUE's stance on CCR

[rjack321]

I agree that anybody who NEEDS a CCR for the dives they are doing, is probably quite capable of acquiring a unit and appropriate training to use it. The value of a GUE class would be to standardize the unit and the policies and procedures.

A CCR is like buying a boat. Some are good at some things, others at other things - a continuous series of compromises. Over the shoulder counterlungs, WOB, backmounted counterlungs, onboard dil, offboard dil, redundant O2, blah blah blah.

Anyone who actually needs a CCR can decide for themselves how to configure it. In many ways, not all that different from sidemount.

 

[mathauck0814]

A CCR is like buying a boat. Some are good at some things, others at other things - a continuous series of compromises. Over the shoulder counterlungs, WOB, backmounted counterlungs, onboard dil, offboard dil, redundant O2, blah blah blah.

Anyone who actually needs a CCR can decide for themselves how to configure it. In many ways, not all that different from sidemount.

So by that logic, if GUE is going to endorse one rebreather (coincidentally manufactured by JJ) they're making the decision for you, "If you want to dive GUE CCR you'll do it with our unit."

Seems foolish. There are certainly aspects of certain rebreathers that I can see being segmented via doctrine but it's a very bold statement to say that any one unit is the "best unit" given the current state of the technology.

 

[rjack321]

So by that logic, if GUE is going to endorse one rebreather (coincidentally manufactured by JJ) they're making the decision for you, "If you want to dive GUE CCR you'll do it with our unit."

Seems foolish. There are certainly aspects of certain rebreathers that I can see being segmented via doctrine but it's a very bold statement to say that any one unit is the "best unit" given the current state of the technology.

If you want to dive a CCR on one of their (official GUE) projects it probably will be optimal or close to optimal.

But there are a lot of other dives (or approaches/logistics) it'll probably suck at.

 

[mathauck0814]

If you want to dive a CCR on one of their (official GUE) projects it probably will be optimal or close to optimal.

But there are a lot of other dives (or approaches/logistics) it'll probably suck at.

Maybe, though their projects run both long (cave) and deep (ocean wreck). That's not usually the same unit. I reject the idea that SCR is ever the desired tech for deep, as AJ suggested.

 

[PfcAJ]

I reject the idea that SCR is ever the desired tech for deep, as AJ suggested.

Meanwhile, on 14hr bottom times at 300'...or on the Atlanta in 400'...

 

[lv2dive]

So by that logic, if GUE is going to endorse one rebreather (coincidentally manufactured by JJ) ...

Just to be clear for those who may be confused on the subject - with regards to the JJ rebreather - the initials are in fact coincidental... JJ stands for Jan Jorgensen.

 

[mathauck0814]

Meanwhile, on 14hr bottom times at 300'...or on the Atlanta in 400'...

I'd still prefer CCR to SCR. But I'm also not interested in a GUE rebreather course, so I guess my preference is moot.

My point remains that GUE does a great job of training divers to do long penetrations and deep dives on open circuit up until the point where they are the thinking diver and can then diverge from the GUE doctrine (which I see as appropriate - at that point in time).

If GUE's statement about prioritizing diver safety (in the previously linked article) is truly the priority then adherence to a strict diver education to 100m OC dives seems to be where their doctrine ought to limit out. Beyond 100m OC is the world of test pilots which is inherently unsafe. The UTD guys are learning that opening that box is a nightmare wrought with questions that are hard to answer and a system that is inherently full of inconsistencies.

Sometimes it's best if people stick to what they do best. In this case, I'd say GUE is reaching.

 

[nadwidny]

Meanwhile, on 14hr bottom times at 300'...or on the Atlanta in 400'...

If you find yourself doing the former then the RB80 may be right for you. As for the latter, there are a lot of units out there that have done the job just as well and do it more efficiently.

 

[huwporter]

So by that logic, if GUE is going to endorse one rebreather (coincidentally manufactured by JJ) they're making the decision for you, "If you want to dive GUE CCR you'll do it with our unit."

Seems foolish. There are certainly aspects of certain rebreathers that I can see being segmented via doctrine but it's a very bold statement to say that any one unit is the "best unit" given the current state of the technology.

It's a little different from stating that a particular unit is "the best" - it's more that one of the cornerstones of GUE's approach is standardisation, not down to the level of brand, but certainly down to specifics of what goes where. Example, I have jumped in for an OC hypoxic trimix dive with a T2 diver I've never dived with before, and known where every one of their hoses goes, what first stages are connected to what, what each tank contains, where their dump valves are etc (as well, of course, as procedural things like how to run the deco, make gas switches etc) and had a relaxed and enjoyable dive as if we'd dived together for years. From what I know, it seems difficult to imagine that level of similarity in equipment configuration between two different brands/models of rebreather. It's not so much that "this rebreather is the best", as, "this rebreather (or, these rebreathers) permits a standardised configuration in such a way that it is applicable in the widest number of situations while making the least number of compromises."

Sounds like I'm arguing for GUE CCR, which I'm not really - I share the concerns of PfcAJ and LiteHedded. Just trying to get into the heads of the people deliberating the decision.

Cheers,
Huw

 

[LiteHedded]

why is this better than when AG tried to do it out west? (answer: it isn't)