I'm mad at Dive-aholic

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!

Isn't GUE's inflexibility a primary reason UTD formed? Help me out here . . . :idk:
That's pretty much what I've been told. More specifically it was done to provide a place for "thinking" divers interested in the team diving concept.

My first exposure to "DIR" was pre-GUE, and what GUE did was solidify DIR into an agency philosophy. An element of that was to "freeze" things and only allow evolution and changes approved by the mopvers and shakers in GUE. That is oddly enough not how DIR originally developed and operated. It was passed more diver to diver and indiviudal divers were the peopel trying new things.

The sad part here is that now, you can get into arguments with a small percentage of GUE zealots who will reject good ideas well developed and based on hard learned lessons (like Jersey uplines or Jon lines in NE wreck diving) just because GUE does not endorse them. Thus I tend to agree with AG on the need to put the "thinking" back in.

Kind of takes the "explorers" out of GUE, huh? Maybe rename it GU....Well I cant think of anything now.
Global Underwater Large Passage Divers - GULPD. People could then gulp the kool-aid not just drink it! Just kidding. Sorta.

As for incorporating it into the GUE curriculum, I'm happy that GUE doesn't just jump on the "band wagon" when gear or practice becomes popular. It seems to me that the changes that *are* made - within the GUE system - come about after requests for change *as well as* careful consideration and extensive testing in order to make sure these changes are actual improvements. I personally see that as a good thing, while I understand that it may make the organization seem stagnant.

I would be very surprised if GUE were not looking into side mount options and how it might fit the system. But I don't see them including it in the curriculum and coming out with gear for it until they're absolutely certain it adds anything to what they already have and does so safely and in compliance with the system.

Henrik
I got the impression that AG is doing that with UTD, with significant concerns that he'll get beat up by the DIR crowd - and I think his efforts to standardize some things will result in the effort getting beat up by the sidemount crowd - but I like his very thoughtful approach to the issue.

Quite a bold statement for someone with zero experience with SM and cave diving.

Many SM caves are SM due to a single restriction such as a bedding plane, where two divers can swim side by side, and a team can still function.
James, I know this will ruin your day again, but once again I agree with you.
 
I think GUE and UTD may fall on opposite ends of the bell-shaped curve -- one too ready to go in multiple directions, and the other perhaps a bit too conservative about change. But the core of DIR diving is a system that scales without major alteration, and I really don't see how sidemount fits into that without changing very basic principles.

It's okay; sidemount doesn't have to be DIR, and I don't have to be DIR, at least not all the time. But the principles I've been taught, of consistency and simplicity and avoidance of failure points, of balanced rig and considering the utility of a setup in multiple environments and situations, will serve me well in embarking on this new path, I think.
 
plenty of "DIR" divers dive sidemount. it's not a big deal. the scuba police aren't going to come confiscate your cards or anything.

be safe and have fun
 

Back
Top Bottom