Can't post in DIR as I'm not a member. But there is a sidemount diver on the cover of the latest Quest magazine.
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...=a.1281118144808.2041685.1135695492&source=48
---------- Post added November 25th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ----------
Panos Alexakos
GUE emerged out of the demands of exploration and exploration remains a core value of the organization. When wrecks got deeper, logistics more difficult and helium much more costly projects required a new tool to be executed efficiently--hence CCR. As caves become more remote, smaller and with more complicated logistics many of us sought a new tool--hence SM. I think too many people conflate the organization with a configuration, and in my opinion this is a mistake. None of the founding members would forgo exploring a new wreck or a new cave because it could not be done in back mount.
---------- Post added November 25th, 2015 at 10:47 AM ----------
The quote from
Panos is from the FB thread.
A couple comments in general.
I agree with Kevin's post above.
The difference between DIR and GUE is that DIR was originally actually an evolving process where DIR divers could innovate and evolve the system within the primary tenets of the philosophy. It was a much more egalitarian arrangement. GUE was established for exploration purposes and had then been it, there would not have been any real problem - follow their rules and you can go on their dives. However it also became a training organization and as such took DIR, wrote standards and solidified it, eliminating the evolution of DIR by practitioners as only the GUE governing class was deemed worthy of making any changes. Since then, there has always been a great deal of bureaucratic resistance to making changes or allowing the unwashed members to deviate from the standard configuration.
As a result I've seen some truly stupid suggestions and practices over the years, such as one very loyal GUE diver suggesting that a finger spool was the only acceptable way to tie into an assent line in a strong current on a deep north Atlantic wreck dive. When I pointed out that the salt and barnacle encrusted anchor line would at times be pulling up and down in 6-8 ft seas, and that even wreck line would not stand up to that for long, he suggested he would then just "scooter the deco". Talk about a complicated solution to a simple problem, where a jon line is a much more effective and elegant solution. The same basic argument ensued that if you return to the anchor line and it's not there - you need to shoot an ascent line, and a finger spool or primary real with wreck or cave line on it, won't be the right tool for the job.
That's the kind of lock step thinking you see in the small percentage of very new or overly persistent GUE divers who give the rest a bad name. Often, those are divers who saw GUE compliance as a path to immediate acceptance in an "elite" group. The smart ones get over it once they gain enough experience to understand that as flexible and versatile as the basic Hogarthian/DIR/GUE configuration is, there are times when it just has to be adapted to meet the demands of specific conditions.
As Kevin suggests above however, you have to get to a fairly rarified level in GUE before there is even informal recognition or approval of this, and it remains very mission specific. Consequently, most of the GUE trained divers I've seen and dove with who deviate from accepted practices do it quietly. Maybe they should start calling it DIQ rather than DIR.
One positive effect of seeing GUE accept side mount for some "missions" is that it does send the message that one size really doesn't fit all and that should flow downhill.
-----
In that regard it is noteworthy that Halcyon is now selling a side mount rig given the very close GUE tie. I know there was at least one person in Halcyon developing a side mount system 5 years ago. It was something done quietly, and it was ultimately suppressed when it was discovered. At least they are moving forward now.
---
Andrew Georgitsis originally developed his Z side mount system with its gas distribution manifold as a solution for single tank monkey divers who he observed doing single tank side mount dives with only a single second stage. I spoke with him at DEMA as his system was just coming out and he explained it's origins as a means to allow single tank side mount divers to use the very DIR familiar long hose and bungee back up hose arrangement. It was not actually intended as a technical diving system as the original distribution manifold was not isolatable and a failure in a low pressure hose would result in complete gas loss. We discussed that shortcoming at length, as well as his concern that some divers might potentially mis-use the system for technical diving.
The current cave/tech iteration uses a distribution block that incorporates a isolator valve, and other than the expense of all the QC6 fittings it's a very good, if different, system that would allow a side mount diver to use the standard DIR configuration. Off board travel and deco gasses could be plugged in, or the diver could access them in the conventional manner.