Greetings,
I am sorry to be late to the party. I have been expecting some speculation regarding
GUE’s
CCR evaluations and I appreciate reading some of your ideas. Contrary to the insinuation of some, my personal
interest in
CCR is not
financially inspired. I have been interested in
CCR as long as
rebreathers in general, having started in 1995, diving
SCR and
CCR units since that time. I can understand how people with no personal
rebreather experience (and/or CCR) can struggle to rationalize
legitimate motivations for diving
CCRs but this lack of experience makes some assertions appear
naive. Of course that lack of experience doesn’t necessarily make their concerns irrelevant but it does complicate productive conversations. Creating a platform where our experiences can be shared in a useful way is one of several reasons for
GUE’s beta
CCR program.
As pertains to the risk of our considered path, we must
acknowledge a
trade-off with most choices. ALL RB diving (
CCR and
SCR) immediately increases complexity which is
debatably useful depending on the dive in question. The value of RB diving becomes more obvious in long or deep dives but can also vary with a range of other parameters. As a person with significant RB80 experience, I can speak from real-world experience about the benefits of that system. In my opinion many claims against the RB80 are as
naive as those made against
CCR. In any case, even lots of RB80 experience is
insufficient when comparing
SCR to
CCR as they are different systems with attendant risks and benefits.
An
oversimplified view is to profess that
CCR is extremely complicated. A
CCR is actually a pretty simple device when you take the time to learn about its operation. A more useful basis for evaluation would be to consider the reliability of
CCR. This latter aspect regarding a proper evaluation of reliable, safe operation during
CCR diving is the primary reason we expanded beyond covert
experiments with
CCR.
Robust
CCR experience was not a priority in the past because we had many other
projects to complete. We were busy building a global infrastructure and found semi-closed units very capable while targeting a range of projects. Moreover, long and deep caves with mostly square profiles promise the least compelling value for
CCR. Cheap Helium and robust support teams as well as an immature
rebreather industry further discouraged
CCR as a priority during the late 1990s and early 2000.
The
rebreather industry still has some growing pains ahead but the potential value of
CCR for an organization with long-term global exploration /conservation projects is obvious to anyone with knowledge and experience in their use. The various reasons this is true will take time to outline capably and they are part of another article I am currently drafting. For the time being I will stick with an overview of
GUE’s current evaluations.
From my perspective the most useful opinions are grounded in robust knowledge and experience. So, for the last five years we have been very carefully studying the
CCR industry along with various RB units and, of course, the accidents. Nearly four years ago I requested our senior trainers begin openly exploring
CCR diving. After hundreds of hours of diving we agreed the experience has been positive. But we have taken a long view and I decided that a larger user base would be needed in order to evaluate during more
expansive testing. Richard
Lundgren graciously volunteered to spearhead a
CCR beta program which we have been developing and testing over the last 18 months.
We used the GUE CCR beta program to test convictions formed from many years of diving. The students were
carefully selected, using
GUE instructors who were also able to nominate experienced tech 2 divers. I picked novice RB users and experts as well as
advocates and detractors. These evaluations are helping build small communities of experienced
GUE CCR divers. This
developing group is well positioned to help the organization evaluate the value, safety and integration issues associated with
CCR diving.
It is true these test classes are using the
JJCCR but it would not be accurate to say we have “selected” this unit. We have solid experience diving the unit and it represents a good collection of several key ingredients (more on this later) including
JJCCR reps that are friendly and supportive. It is hard to envision
GUE classes (and resulting global projects) that do not include
reasonable standardization so we are have been testing our classes on one unit. Meanwhile, we continue to evaluate the details and scope of possible
CCR standardization.
Some might say we are moving too fast and others will complain we are moving too slowly. Some people prefer we do not move at all. Regardless of your opinion I hope you can see that we are trying to move
responsibly. Many hundreds of hours have gone into our
evaluations and many hundreds more will follow.
To this day I continue diving my RB80 and maintain it is a powerful tool. I would argue
CCR is also a powerful tool. I suspect the risks of both systems can be more or less managed. The “more or less” part of that qualification lies at the heart of our efforts. Either way I would assert that making uninformed decisions in either direction is irresponsible.
I hope to be doing demanding and unique dives over many years to come. Any tool that enables these dives or supports our global mission is something I take seriously. I also take seriously my
responsibility to our community and am inclined to move methodically when making such
assessments.
Best wishes to everyone,
Jarrod
