why did GUE , DIR take so long to adopt sidemount.

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!

Status
Not open for further replies.
With GUE, from what I understand the number one thing that has turned them off to sidemount is not being able to donate the primary regulator hose 100% of the time.

Where have you heard this? I have discussed the idea of bringing a standardized sidemount course into the GUE curriculum with someone who is actually employed by GUE and is involved in the process and that was not one of the reasons that came up for why they haven't adopted a sidemount program yet.


Also, I don't understand your eddition. Weren't you doing cave training in 2011? How was that 7 years ago?
 
Last edited:
JJ has an article covering this in Quest 14.3; Fred Devos has an article devoted to sidemount in Quest 13.3. I think many of the points have been hit upon above.

I don't see how "not invented here" could have anything to do with it. GUE didn't invent backmount either.
 
Again, Fundamental long hose DIR/Hogarthian technique has you ALWAYS breathing the long hose primary regulator on bottom mix, unless you've just donated the reg to an out-of-gas buddy in a gas sharing contingency --that's the best practice Scuba Diving paradigm I first learned over ten years ago and still choose to retain.

Development & reasons for the Z-system from Andrew Georgitsis of UTD:
". . .However, all this banter about "failure" points [of the Distribution Block or Isofold], detracts from the core and central issue, which is, if you want a system that is consistent with your previous, current or future Hogarthian/DIR/UTD training and skills, that is scalable from single tank to mCCR rebreather, that is capable of mixed team diving, that has interchangeable components and that also allows you to configure and dive a configuration that is best suited for your diving or exploration needs, then the Z-System is the only one that is capable of that."

I carry both conventional BP/W and the Z-system sidemount while traveling, because I still elect to keep the long hose paradigm & protocol to be consistent between Backmount & Sidemount. I am confident in my previous & current training to handle the extra "failure points" of both conventional manifolded backmounted twinsets as well as the new doubles sidemount Z-system. On my Truk Lagoon trips, I dove conventional backmount 11L doubles & deco bottles on the deeper wrecks 45m & greater in the morning, and used Z-sidemount in the afternoon on the shallower wrecks. Either way, I was compatible with my Chuukese Dive Guide who used DIR/Hogarth long hose configuration with backmount doubles.


(And btw, how ironic that the Halcyon Contour sidemount harness does not mention support for the Z-Distribution block or Z-Isofold, both of which allows and provides the compatibility for the basic Long Hose Paradigm -the best Diving Practice so promoted by GUE for these many years now?)
 
The main opposition against sidemount is simple -- why do you need it? Historically, sidemount was an advanced technique used for getting into tight locations where gear removal may be necessary. Like a rebreather, it is simply a tool to be used for a specific job.
Why not? Going into a place that you shouldn't be in is really not a gear issue but a poor judgement issue imho. BM divers can get themselves in trouble too.
How many dives are really being done these days that you can only safely do in SM or BM? Hardly any.
I don't get why people like you and AJ think that SM diving is not as safe as BM. For most dives, I don't think it makes much difference as long as you are properly trained and have the right mindset. I would love to see GUE getting into SM training... It'll be good for the industry, all these rinky dink agencies out there need more competition.

Now, as for your rebreather point. I don’t think you can compare them to SM at all. Breathers are dangerous and all this 'rec' rebreather stuff is bs but sidemount is not more dangerous than BM.

I would like to do a GUE workshop or course and learn more about ratio deco and project stuff but I don't what to buy a bunch of extra gear that would never use.
 
I dive with a few GUE dives we have "friendly" debates over my decision to dive in open water in sidemount. First of all I know that BOTH of my regulators are working fine because I have been breathing off both of them throughout the dive. I can access all my gas in the event of a first stage problem by feathering the valve which is conveniently located near my armpit. I don't need a team member to do a bubble check since all my hoses and failure points are within sight at all times. If I ever do need to air share with a team member I can not only donate a working regulator but he can have the whole tank if he prefers! I can understand why people continue to dive backmount but what I don't understand is the archaic belief that sidemount is gimmicky or a poor choice.
 
The strength of gue is team and standardization. Sidemount is hard to standardize.

Not really... for an agency, if you direct the agency.

What takes longer (but not more 'difficult') is determining what you think the optimum standardization should be.

I respect the GUE don't rush into decision like that, even if it puts them 'behind the drag curve' with regards market demand for sidemount training etc etc

The main opposition against sidemount is simple -- why do you need it?

There's a bunch of well documented pros and cons for sidemount. However, your point is a valid one.

What I'd say is simply that we need to develop a high degree of equipment familiarity. Even more so if we are using sidemount for the most challenging of overhead dives (extreme restrictions).

As for CCR... same for sidemount.... (or backmount for that matter).... we need to devote 3 or 4 digit in-water hours in a given configuration to really achieve an intimate, ingrained familiarity with the kit and the protocols. That means diving it in the pool, on recreational open-water dives and later in the overhead.

Slinging inherently unfamiliar kit on 'only for dives that need it' seems a recipe for disaster.:wink:
 
Larry, it's an issue if you don't have the hose behind your head. I.e. Lamar's current regulator setup where he has a left handed reg on the left side, and a right sided reg on the right and both come straight up from the tank. Keeping them behind your neck minimized the risk of the reg being pulled from your mouth when your chest is on the floor. It's a minimal issue, and most of us aren't doing really tight passages like that, but it's part of the "standardization" discussion for teams and what not which is relevant to the OP. Plan for the worst, hope for the best and all that.

I have to agree with Larry.but the ideal set up for diving sidemount configuration is the 5ft hose on each side,especially if diving with a backmounter. Personally if you are sidemounting (really entering sidemount situations)in overhead then having a hose around your neck is presenting something that can get hung up, and very difficult to resolve because it is behind your neck. I have seen a hose get hung up in a restriction that was behind someone's neck, and it made getting unentangled quite a challenge.

Basically, most people are diving a sidemount configuration, which is backmount Hogarthian but with the tanks moved to the side, so that is one of the reasons we see the hose wrapped around the neck. But, these people aren't diving in sidemount situtations,just the configuration,so hose wrapped around the neck works.

---------- Post added December 13th, 2015 at 10:52 AM ----------

The main opposition against sidemount is simple -- why do you need it? Historically, sidemount was an advanced technique used for getting into tight locations where gear removal may be necessary. Like a rebreather, it is simply a tool to be used for a specific job.

.

I have to agree,I see GUE/WKPP adapt to something when needed, not bow to market forces. I remember eating supper with Casey McKinley at the NSS convention in Lake City,FL, and his attitude was there were some leads that needed alternate configurations, and they were studying it. He had some very good thoughts at that time on how to do the exploration and keep the team dynamics. I have a feeling when you see a sidemount program it will not be something in haste, and the instructors teaching it will do more than a weekend course,but be highly proficient.
 
I don't get why people like you and AJ think that SM diving is not as safe as BM. For most dives, I don't think it makes much difference as long as you are properly trained and have the right mindset.

I think there are distinct downsides to SM. The reg switching does add complication (however slight it may be), certain failures result in loss of half your gas, and donating gas means the receiver only has access to half the remaining gas volume. Fixing that requires switching to the other bottle at some point during exit/ascent and stowing the other hose. Ain't nobody got time for that.

I do not buy for a second the idea of swapping regs underwater, and I barely accept feathering. Those are both great pool techniques, but in real life? Naw dawg. Sometimes its tough to get a DIN lined up and threaded sitting on the surface at my truck. Folks expect me to think you're gunna get it right on a breath hold under water in the dark? Please. Same with feathering. Cute till you need two hands to deal with something.

Now, I DO think that SM is a fine option when the dive requires it (like a SM cave, for instance), similar to how I think a rebreather is a fine option if its needed.
 
Not directly addressing the original question, but it's occurred to me that there may be issues for a diver who wants to dive traditional singles as well as doubles. Not every dive boat is happy with a boat full of sidemount divers, and some divers may just prefer the freedom of a single tank. I like that my GUE training is just as applicable to diving singles from a boat on a tropical reef as it is to doubles in some other environment. I started with GUE in a single-tank rec configuration, and have been happily diving that way for a couple of years. I will soon be taking a GUE course to add doubles to my repertoire, and the transition should be relatively seamless. Except for a more complex valve drill, the major components of the GUE system are already embedded in my brain. So long as GUE continues to encourage single-tank divers to join the fold, I can't see GUE also advocating sidemount for them.
 
I think there are distinct downsides to SM. The reg switching does add complication (however slight it may be), certain failures result in loss of half your gas, and donating gas means the receiver only has access to half the remaining gas volume. Fixing that requires switching to the other bottle at some point during exit/ascent and stowing the other hose. Ain't nobody got time for that.

I do not buy for a second the idea of swapping regs underwater, and I barely accept feathering. Those are both great pool techniques, but in real life? Naw dawg. Sometimes its tough to get a DIN lined up and threaded sitting on the surface at my truck. Folks expect me to think you're gunna get it right on a breath hold under water in the dark? Please. Same with feathering. Cute till you need two hands to deal with something.

Now, I DO think that SM is a fine option when the dive requires it (like a SM cave, for instance), similar to how I think a rebreather is a fine option if its needed.

I agree with what you are saying,but I tend to look at sidemount as a good tool in your tool box. I think being proficient in backmount and sidemount is good, and using the correct tool for the dive as needed. For example in caves where there are fissure crack type passages, then back mount has that narrow profile which works best. Conversely in bedding plane, sidemount has an advantage. Of course you will get the sidemount diver who will say I can handle the fissure crack because I will get on my side,but in reality so few are practiced at it, that they turn back to horizontal, or leave hand marks from holding themselves sideways. A perfect example is upstream Black lagoon, that fissure area at the start looks like the hull of the Titanic now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom