DIR- GUE Thoughts on Halcyon Symbios as an entry point into CCR diving vs a specialized tool?
- Thread starter steinbil
- 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
I think they are right to keep assessing new ideas. It is always a best practice to revisit every part of the training philosophy, and test it every year if it still beneficial, and for each group of divers.
This include for how long should they keep a standardized equipment configuration, and for which group of divers.
- Messages
- 13,948
- Reaction score
- 10,911
- Location
- Port Orchard, Washington State
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
People can self teach these things, not everything needs to be a class. But if you're in a closed community that has fairly rigid perspectives on the point of the lp50s it's like swimming upstream to appreciate that the "just add stages" to lp50s is actually a subpar approach as a cave CCR.
If you can't figure out the KUR approach to backmounting a CCR with onboard suit gas and O2 and offboarded dil and SM BO without a class that's probably a good sign that you're not the cave diver you imagine yourself as. We all start on the left-ish side of the dunning-kruger graphic.
I'm excited to take a closer look at the Halcyon Symbios. The main thing that’s made me less interested in the JJ is the difficulty of traveling with it, especially on planes. It’s not impossible—it just seems like a hassle, and buying two units is a significant cost. The Symbios is much smaller, and for the T1-range dives, I think it would be more than adequate.
In terms of whether this represents a departure from the principles that guide GUE, I don’t think it does. From my perspective, new tools have always been introduced cautiously. When GUE didn’t incorporate dive computers early on, it was during a time when reliable ones weren’t widely available or suited for purpose. The same goes for CCRs—initially, helium was easier to get and RB80s met most needs so there wasn't a strong logistical need to move to something more efficient on gas, specially given the increase in risk and complexity. As CCRs became more reliable and better supported, they were brought into the training system. Over time, as more classes were taught and more divers gained experience, the prerequisites were adjusted—from post-T2 to post-T1, and now CCR Fundamentals.
It’s also always seemed to me that GUE’s focus has been on creating robust, well-defined procedures for rank-and-file members—giving them safe bounds to operate within while they’re learning and building experience, and is intentionally slow to change.
At the same time, I’ve seen people in the organization who are actively involved in exploration using a variety of tools based on the needs of the project. That doesn’t mean the tools need to be added to standards or courses right away.
In terms of whether this represents a departure from the principles that guide GUE, I don’t think it does. From my perspective, new tools have always been introduced cautiously. When GUE didn’t incorporate dive computers early on, it was during a time when reliable ones weren’t widely available or suited for purpose. The same goes for CCRs—initially, helium was easier to get and RB80s met most needs so there wasn't a strong logistical need to move to something more efficient on gas, specially given the increase in risk and complexity. As CCRs became more reliable and better supported, they were brought into the training system. Over time, as more classes were taught and more divers gained experience, the prerequisites were adjusted—from post-T2 to post-T1, and now CCR Fundamentals.
It’s also always seemed to me that GUE’s focus has been on creating robust, well-defined procedures for rank-and-file members—giving them safe bounds to operate within while they’re learning and building experience, and is intentionally slow to change.
At the same time, I’ve seen people in the organization who are actively involved in exploration using a variety of tools based on the needs of the project. That doesn’t mean the tools need to be added to standards or courses right away.
Similar threads
