GUE and Sidemount?

[Dr. Lecter]

Is utd going to make me use that manifold thing?

Yep, just like GUE won't let you dive a CCR or SM if you're not doing dives they think warrant that gear. DIR diving sure is fun

 

[00wabbit]

I guess I'll just wait 5 years for the standards to come out.

 

[JohnN]

Yep, just like GUE won't let you dive a CCR or SM if you're not doing dives they think warrant that gear. DIR diving sure is fun

And if you go deeper than 100' without He, you're gonna die

 

[decompression]

Is utd going to make me use that manifold thing?

Yup.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---------- Post added August 28th, 2014 at 05:36 PM ----------

I am pretty sure that Brian neither dives nor teaches sidemount. But he is, indeed, an excellent instructor.

Lynne is right, I'm hoping he could put you in touch with an SM inst. while you're there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[flots am]

One of the core values of GUE is standardized equipment. Backmounted doubles suffice for at least 90% of the diving out there to be done, so that is what GUE has standardized on.

That seems to be more a case of Effort Justification than any sort of objective evaluation.

They already have a ton of divers and instructors using manifolded doubles, so it must be the best possible solution, even if it isn't.

flots.

 

[robertarak]

Get ahold of Robert at scubatude in LA area...he can sort you out. He also hangs out here on scubaboard.

This Robert guy sounds pretty cool.

 

[rjack321]

That seems to be more a case of Effort Justification than any sort of objective evaluation.

They already have a ton of divers and instructors using manifolded doubles, so it must be the best possible solution, even if it isn't.

flots.

No its a case of not diving SM (because its new a kewl) when BM is perfectly functional. Diving the wrecks out of Morehead City is not an environment where a unique and specialized gear configuration is warranted. And SM requires a significant amount of non-standardized stuff, from hose routing to tanks, to trim weights.

Is utd going to make me use that manifold thing?

Yes UTD loves that stupid brass block of crap.

I guess I'll just wait 5 years for the standards to come out.

If you want to learn SM find someone else, GUE may never release a program or if they do the prerequisites are likely to be highly selective and steer you to backmount unless you have an actual bonafid rational/environment requiring SM.

I am pretty sure that Brian neither dives nor teaches sidemount. But he is, indeed, an excellent instructor.

He does not, but gets asked about it all the time. I told him its his new market

 

[00wabbit]

I dove sidemount in morehead. Wasn't a problem. Got on all my gear on the rocking boat and just hung out until the last minute. Clipped in my tanks and hopped in. Getting out I went right up the ladder. This was no deco, but I was happy to have the lower center of gravity went walking on the rolling deck of the tall dive boats out there.

Steel tanks / no trim weights. I dove my own tanks the first time out then rented their larger steels later. Just slid my straps off my tanks and onto theirs. On the last trip I even took 3 tanks so I could dive 1.5 tanks each dive. Buddy was on 130s so we had some nice long dives. The versatility of the system is why I like it. I can't have manifolds doubles all the time for some very specific reasons, so sidemount gives me the ability to scale up and down with existing equipment.

 

[Trace Malinowski]

Go where the GUE guys I know went for sidemount training - Edd Sorenson.

 

[flots am]

No its a case of not diving SM (because its new a kewl) when BM is perfectly functional. Diving the wrecks out of Morehead City is not an environment where a unique and specialized gear configuration is warranted. And SM requires a significant amount of non-standardized stuff, from hose routing to tanks, to trim weights.

I was talking about their requirement to use the bizarre manifold/block thing on sidemount, not wheter it was appropriate for any particular dives.

In fact, the hose manifold would seem to contradict their basic underlying premise of not bringing along anything that introduces additional failure points and isn't needed.