PfcAJ
Contributor
I've done a number of dives with metric folk in Italy, Philippines, Hong Kong, and Thailand. Usually I'm conversant with metric enough and them with imperial enough that we sort out the units issue pretty darn quickly.
Limits of standardization.
- Thread starter kr2y5
- Start date
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
We did our Cave 1 with a guy from Norway, so Danny had us alternate between Imperial and metric for our dives. We didn't find it very difficult, actually, either way.
The only place where it gets more annoying is in figuring out gas supplies and reserves. That's primarily because none of us in the US have any idea what the capacity of our "x cubic foot" cylinder is in liters.
The only place where it gets more annoying is in figuring out gas supplies and reserves. That's primarily because none of us in the US have any idea what the capacity of our "x cubic foot" cylinder is in liters.
PfcAJ
Contributor
Ive got a unit converter app on my iphone. Worst case I put in cuft and have it put out liters.
eelnoraa
Contributor
I don't believe this is a GUE issue, but America issue in general. Diving industry as a whole is so small, let along GUE, to make a change in the units usage. Enforcing a units system that is NOT endorsed by the general public is very inconvenient. I think if one day, US turn into a metric country, everyone will be using metric, including GUE.
Having the above said, I have never has issue communicating with fellow GUE diver in water.
SillyQuestions
Contributor
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 60
- # of dives
- 200 - 499
Thirds is thirds is thirds.
I think the metric system is inherently better for most things, but, as many have said, use what you're comfortable with.
I'll dive M, you'll dive feet.
I'll calculate gas in free litres and bar, you'll calculate in PSI and cuft (somehow...)
Everything will be fine. It's not hard to remember "well if my buddy goes in on 3000psi, he's turning on 2000psi"
Neither is it hard to say "if my buddy goes in with 230bar, he's turning on 160bar."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the metric system is inherently better for most things, but, as many have said, use what you're comfortable with.
I'll dive M, you'll dive feet.
I'll calculate gas in free litres and bar, you'll calculate in PSI and cuft (somehow...)
Everything will be fine. It's not hard to remember "well if my buddy goes in on 3000psi, he's turning on 2000psi"
Neither is it hard to say "if my buddy goes in with 230bar, he's turning on 160bar."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LiteHedded
Contributor
My rb80 class was with one diver from Finland and one from the Netherlands. We managed the gas calculations fine
PfcAJ
Contributor
to be fair, there's more to gas management in the DIR would than thirds.
WhiteSands
Contributor
- Messages
- 668
- Reaction score
- 79
- # of dives
- 200 - 499
I believe the problem comes with the MOD stickers on the deco tanks.
So, for every possible set of circumstances, or any aspect of a particular dive that one might consider, three possibilities exist:
A) Disallow diving in these circumstances; consider them outside the scope of the system (e.g., low-viz sump diving in tight caves, solo diving, etc., not within the scope of GUE).
B) Permit diving, and deliberately not standardize (e.g., mixing metric and imperial system by team members, not perceived as an issue by any agency).
C) Permit diving, and establish a standard to simplify communication, avoid any surprises, and to provide a degree of predictability (e.g., mixed-team diving, embraced by UTD).
In each individual case, one could argue whether A, B, or C is the right approach.
A would be better than B or C, if there is a strong argument that any variant of B or C must be unsafe. On the other hand, finding a way to embrace B or C makes for a system that would extend its benefits to more situations, which seems like a plus. One might argue that it's irrelevant, since it's unsafe, after all... then again, judging something as "unsafe" sometimes seems to be rather subjective.
One could argue that C is better than B because it never hurts to make things more predictable. If nothing else, it reduces the need for communication, eliminates misunderstandings, makes for a safer dive overall. On the other hand, choosing C over B may sometimes be practically infeasible...
...and in addition, there appears to be a concern about the number of possible standards/protocols/procedures that a diver needs to be familiar with, which would suggest a bias in favor of either A, or B, and against C. After all, the more standards, protocols, variants, the easier to forget, the more training required, the more a mistake is likely, which defeats the purpose of having a standard to begin with (the presumed increase in the safety of the dive).
Some would even go as far as saying that having more than a single standard is undesirable, although it seems like that ship has already sailed... since there are differences, e.g., in GUE, with regard to light stowing, or to accommodate rebreathers (then of course, one might debate whether that counts as a single standard, or not... from the perspective of complexity, it sounds like more of the latter).
There are some interesting tradeoffs. I wish more of the thinking process behind those tradeoffs was public, so that we can all understand them better. Also, clearly, there are limitations to how much can or should be standardized, which I don't perceive as a bad thing... everything has limitations, and IMHO asking about limitations should be a part of a learning process in any domain. The purpose of the OP was to explore them, not to criticize any particular system. I found all the posts in this thread educational, thank you for sharing.
A) Disallow diving in these circumstances; consider them outside the scope of the system (e.g., low-viz sump diving in tight caves, solo diving, etc., not within the scope of GUE).
B) Permit diving, and deliberately not standardize (e.g., mixing metric and imperial system by team members, not perceived as an issue by any agency).
C) Permit diving, and establish a standard to simplify communication, avoid any surprises, and to provide a degree of predictability (e.g., mixed-team diving, embraced by UTD).
In each individual case, one could argue whether A, B, or C is the right approach.
A would be better than B or C, if there is a strong argument that any variant of B or C must be unsafe. On the other hand, finding a way to embrace B or C makes for a system that would extend its benefits to more situations, which seems like a plus. One might argue that it's irrelevant, since it's unsafe, after all... then again, judging something as "unsafe" sometimes seems to be rather subjective.
One could argue that C is better than B because it never hurts to make things more predictable. If nothing else, it reduces the need for communication, eliminates misunderstandings, makes for a safer dive overall. On the other hand, choosing C over B may sometimes be practically infeasible...
...and in addition, there appears to be a concern about the number of possible standards/protocols/procedures that a diver needs to be familiar with, which would suggest a bias in favor of either A, or B, and against C. After all, the more standards, protocols, variants, the easier to forget, the more training required, the more a mistake is likely, which defeats the purpose of having a standard to begin with (the presumed increase in the safety of the dive).
Some would even go as far as saying that having more than a single standard is undesirable, although it seems like that ship has already sailed... since there are differences, e.g., in GUE, with regard to light stowing, or to accommodate rebreathers (then of course, one might debate whether that counts as a single standard, or not... from the perspective of complexity, it sounds like more of the latter).
There are some interesting tradeoffs. I wish more of the thinking process behind those tradeoffs was public, so that we can all understand them better. Also, clearly, there are limitations to how much can or should be standardized, which I don't perceive as a bad thing... everything has limitations, and IMHO asking about limitations should be a part of a learning process in any domain. The purpose of the OP was to explore them, not to criticize any particular system. I found all the posts in this thread educational, thank you for sharing.
- Messages
- 20,665
- Reaction score
- 15,196
- # of dives
- I'm a Fish!
the main advantage to using metric is the ease of mental math for recalculating thirds or time remaining. Whole lot easier when using the metric system....
Regarding the last post. You have to remember the origin of the term as well as the origin of the team and what caused those guys to found GUE. They needed a way to formally train divers to become part of their team so the integration was seamless. Pluck Diver A out of team, find Diver B at the same or higher training level, and you can drop them right into the team and there is no need to worry about anything. Part of that also includes the Hogarthian rig configuration so in 0 viz you can use touch contact to fix any issues. You also have to remember the last major revamp of the standards were over 10 years ago, computer technology was nowhere near the levels it is today, rebreathers certainly weren't anywhere near where they are today either. I think their adoption of the JJ as well as the release of the Halcyon Contour from GUE is going to show us a big overhaul of their current standards in the next few years. This being the DIR forum, you also have to look at UTD who is the current "user" of the term, and they have embraced both sidemount and rebreather diving fully and that is quite interesting because it is a huge deviation of the original standard. We're going to see something big break in the next couple of years, and it will be very interesting regarding acceptable gear configurations.
Regarding the last post. You have to remember the origin of the term as well as the origin of the team and what caused those guys to found GUE. They needed a way to formally train divers to become part of their team so the integration was seamless. Pluck Diver A out of team, find Diver B at the same or higher training level, and you can drop them right into the team and there is no need to worry about anything. Part of that also includes the Hogarthian rig configuration so in 0 viz you can use touch contact to fix any issues. You also have to remember the last major revamp of the standards were over 10 years ago, computer technology was nowhere near the levels it is today, rebreathers certainly weren't anywhere near where they are today either. I think their adoption of the JJ as well as the release of the Halcyon Contour from GUE is going to show us a big overhaul of their current standards in the next few years. This being the DIR forum, you also have to look at UTD who is the current "user" of the term, and they have embraced both sidemount and rebreather diving fully and that is quite interesting because it is a huge deviation of the original standard. We're going to see something big break in the next couple of years, and it will be very interesting regarding acceptable gear configurations.
Similar threads
