DIR- GUE Why are non-GUE divers so interested in what GUE does?

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Don't forget standardization (of gases, equipment, procedures, etc.). Some of that may overlap with team-based diving, but not all. Like true team-based diving, standardization goes beyond what I believe you're getting at when you refer to open water training. These facets of the GUE system are definitely not generic to all OW training. It's easy to focus too much on the buoyancy/trim/propulsion/control skills, because that's what everyone who has not (or not yet) taken Fundies is curious about. But I try not to forget the broader picture of what Fundies teaches: the GUE system.

yes, that is more theory though, not skills related. I should have clarified.

 

[PfcAJ]

No.

Not all "tube" style rebreathers can be modified for mounting a pair of 7 litre cylinders plus Oxygen and suit inflate. They get unwieldy and heavy.

Normal rebreathers are dived with the appropriate bailout cylinders attached and 3 litre oxygen and diluent so are smaller and lighter. GUE's JJ modifications — the twin 7 litre diluent with soft manifold and longhose — appear to have come straight out of certain styles of cave diving and is quite rare in the rebreather community, I.e. the community outside of GUE.

Smaller and lighter till you add bailout. Which the GUE config already has.

 

[Subcooled]

seeing the same people interject the same, uh, counterpoints in discussions about how GUE approaches some aspect of diving wears on me.

I get your point. It can become annoying.

Maybe these people have a different background that explains it all... but it can still be quite annoying.

A guy repeatedly asked me to purchase BM doubles and to attend the fundies, while my goal was to fit through 30cm blindfolded. So, yeah, I know how you feel

Sometimes there is too much focus on mememe and too little focus on the actual task at hand.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think non-silting kicks should be part of open water training. Anyone who's dived in a quarry has seen why it should be taught.

This is somewhat, but not totally off topic, but this brings up a different educational concept: just in case instruction v. just in time instruction.

Just in case instruction is when we teach something that students should know well and be able to perform it in the event that it happens. Much of scuba instruction is like that--OOA being the obvious example. Just in time instruction is for special cases that may arise in the future and for which the student will have time to prepare. In that case, it is usually best to leave that for when the student anticipates such a need. Whether a specific skill falls into one category or the other may depend upon circumstances. Here are three examples:

1. I have completed many dives over my career, but in fewer than 1% of them have I had the need to consider tides. I am pretty sure it was somewhere around dive #850 that I did my first dive that required planning for tides. Tides are barely mentioned in standard scuba instruction for that reason, but any student in the Seattle area will have to be aware of tides to complete the dive planning requirements for OW certification.
2. In teaching my local diving, OW through tech, I must be certain that my students take altitude into consideration. Altitude is barely mentioned in the OW standard course, but it should be a part of the training for students learning at altitude.
3. I would bet that the overwhelming majority of OW divers will never be on a dive in which silt is a real issue. On the other hand, some people will find themselves in silty environments from the start, evn in their OW certification dives, and those people should get at least some training regarding that. (It is true of the students in my area.)

The reason to make decisions like that relates to interference theory. In all instruction, time spent learning things students do not need to know interferes with their ability to learn the more important parts of a course. If I had had to spend time learning how to read the tide charts and plan dives for the dive sites in Seattle as part of my OW training course taught in Mexico, it would have interfered greatly with my ability to learn the required course materials, and by the time I needed that information for my 850th dive, I would have forgotten it all anyway. It was better that I waited until I was in Seattle and worked with friends there to plan our dives.

A well planned curriculum categorizes the potential content and plans according to importance. Instruction focuses on that which is essential for the course, stresses that which is important, puts less emphasis on what is good to know, barely touches on what is nice to know, and eliminates that which is not needed. A poorly planned curriculum spends too much time on non-essential learning and overwhelms students with trivia.

 

[crofrog]

Clearly, the standards are adequate as evidenced below.


Nothing like laying on coral to get the shot of your buddies touching a sea turtle

Hey guys if everyone could just stand over here for a second we'll review this next skill.

A less egregious but more typical bicycle kicking because of lack of buoyancy control

Let me just set down over here to get this photo real quick

and two more from a PADI TEC50 class

 

[Barefoot_Lawyer]

I think non-silting kicks should be part of open water training. Anyone who's dived in a quarry has seen why it should be taught.

From what I have seen, you would need some buoyancy control and “don’t swim with your hands” lessons thrown in to round out the non-silting lessons.

 

[boulderjohn]

Let's do some quick comparison

• No time limit on WRSTC swim test, no breath hold swim.
• GUE trains and requires demonstrated proficiency in pre-dive checks (GUE EDGE) and debriefing
• Requires demonstrated buoyancy and trim throughout the dive and skills
• Requires non-silting kicks
• Safe ascent procedures (GUE min deco ascent strategy)
• Safe descent (maintain team unity on descent)
• The beginning of a back kick (not just a parlor trick it's required for team unity)
• SMB deployment.

1. What is the benefit to a typical OW diver to having a time limit on the required swim?
2. Predive checks are also required for other agencies. They don't use GUE EDGE, but predive checks are absolutely required.
3. Buoyancy and trim are very much part of the current PADI requirements.
4. Safe ascent procedures are absolutely taught in all standard course. There is absolutely no research whatsoever that the GUE min deco ascent strategy is any bit superior to the one taught by the rest of the world. A couple of years ago I contacted GUE headquarters and asked for a specific explanation of the rationale for the min deco approach, and I got a detailed response. I can provide that for you if you wish. My quick summary for this is simply to repeat that GUE has no research to cite indicating it is a safer ascent strategy than any the standard one used by just about everyone else.
5. The standard buddy system calls for divers to stay together, which would include during descent.
6. Current PADI standards include SMB.

 

[flymolo]

No.

Not all "tube" style rebreathers can be modified for mounting a pair of 7 litre cylinders plus Oxygen and suit inflate. They get unwieldy and heavy.

Normal rebreathers are dived with the appropriate bailout cylinders attached and 3 litre oxygen and diluent so are smaller and lighter. GUE's JJ modifications — the twin 7 litre diluent with soft manifold and longhose — appear to have come straight out of certain styles of cave diving and is quite rare in the rebreather community, I.e. the community outside of GUE.

Sorry, but you're speaking from a place of little/no experience on this. Having dove a rebreather in both a backmounted bailout and sidemounted bailout config, I would argue the backmounted bailout config is better suited for boat/wreck diving than it is for cave diving, but works well enough for both.
While I can't speak to the weight of the JJ, my Fathom in backmounted bailout configuration is very similar in weight to a set of hp100s, so not really that heavy at all. In fact, when you compare the backmounted BO configuration to a sidemounted BO config, once bailouts are on it's almost a wash in terms of weight and size, the main difference being the backmounted configuration is slightly taller whereas the sidemounted configuration is wider. I find it's far easier getting on and off a boat in my backmounted BO config with deco gasses clipped off on the left side, than it is for guys waddling with two tanks bungeed on each side, and I have more bailout gas than they do with their "appropriately" sized cylinders. Not to mention my bottom bailout is in a set of manifolded doubles that I can shut down and/or isolate in the event of a problem.

 

[jadairiii]

I am very confident that the OW divers I certified over my career were more than ready to be successful on the OW dives they were about to take. That was my job. I expect much more in the Trimix class I am teaching now.

Are you suggesting that all divers at all levels should be judged on the same level of performance? Do you mock new OW students who you deem not ready for cave certification?

Not suggesting anything, just relaying observations of over 40 years of diving and diving on cattle boats (when it cannot be avoided) and not to mention my earlier years as a DM and AI. And I am judging OW students on how I was originally taught in 1975 and how my daughter was taught 2 years ago (attached picture is of her, on her very first open water dive during her Rec 1 class). But both she and I had to earn our certifications, it was not an automatic pass, just, as I would assume, you dont just pass everyone that you teach, regardless of skill.

You are a professional that cares and it is reflected in your students that become divers. You are on the one end of another Bell Curve, then you have the instructors that are careless and care less about teaching a quality course. I even once met a resort "instructor", at a large and well known Caribbean Resort, that upon checking my C-Card and seeing that I was an AI, asked me to certify him, since he was not actually a certified diver....clearly the other end of my Bell Curve. A tech instructor letting a student dive with one fin on a 180' deep wreck is another kind of instructor. Observing a cave diver on a RB in Mexico with the trim of a seahorse, kicking silt with every fin kick....well, I'm betting his RB instructor, cave instructor, tec instructor (basic scuba instructor?) did not really care about his performance.....yet he had lots of C-Cards. I literally have 100's of these observations.

I cannot count how many really bad instructors I've seen and listened to while on dive boats, horrified at what they were telling their students or how they were teaching, you really need to spend some time on cattle boats.

 

[boulderjohn]

Well, my only goal in participating in this thread was to correct some mistaken beliefs about instructional theory. It is plain that this thread has reached the point of some many before this, so I will sign off by agreeing that the lowliest rec pass GUE Fundamentals student is far superior to the finest of technical divers trained by other organizations. The next time I am blessed to be in the presence of such a diver, I will bow to his or her vast superiority, admit that I am but I am but pond scum in that exalted presence, and hope to be rewarded for my groveling with a condescending pat on the head.