I'm not teaching Fundamentals any more... - GUE Standards Version 10

[@wkolcz]

Hate the new Rec names. Now it just faded into the naming of all the other courses from all the other agencies which GUE is well above in training standards....but smarter minds than me I guess

[@RoboCNCnl]

financial driven changes.... always a great way of improving education :)

[@DoktorBEN]

I think it’s mostly education improving focused

[@pi-squared]

Thanks Ben, great insight! I too wonder what the renaming is for (maybe acceptance in holiday dive centers where GUE Rec1 was not always recognized? Or the alignment with the corresponding ISO standards?) One thoug: I think the final standards, as you say in your disclaimer in the end of the video, may have been adapted in terms of the CCR curriculum, which (at least my reading of the latest published version) can be accessed without the Tech1 and now also include a CCR Fundamentals (which, as you point out, may be the smart route in times of helium prices soaring)

[@benjaminbeier4036]

This change absolutely makes sense.

[@DoktorBEN]

Yes indeed. I’m making a separate video for this!

[@pi-squared]

@@DoktorBEN looking forward to it! Especially, since this is meant to be a basic CCR course, I'd love to get your thoughts on the obvious catch 22 (at least in some regions): you need to have a unit to do the GUE course, but you cannot buy/rent a CCR unit unless you are qualified already (or get the qualification as part of the unit purchase). So, either the GUE CCR fundamentals is offered with the vendor of the unit (presumably we are talking JJ and maybe, in a not to distant future, Halcyon) as the initial qualification course, or the GUE CCR fundamentals cannot be that basic and builts on an existing CCR qualification (i.e., more like what the Fundamentals is to the OWD/AOWD)... even though, by the very nature of CCR diving, I would argue that any qualification course has to be very (!) solid

[@s.s.1810]

I think renaming Rec 3 to "Master Diver" is horrible. In most agencies, "Master Diver" is a worthless title. A participation trophy, obtained by presenting x amount of dives in their logbook or completing x amount of specialties. Why not something like "Extended Range Diver"? But overall,i like the changes very much!

[@nradov]

Some other agencies have used the "extended range" name for their deep air courses so I think GUE wouldn't want to create confusion that way.

[@DoktorBEN]

Master Diver is certainly the worst name 😃

[@DoktorBEN]

Especially to avoid confusion when it comes to deep air diving

[@nielsrad]

What happened to the Tech endorsement? Coming from GUE rec or Fundamental Rec pass? And for people with current REC 2 or Rec pass can they still upgrade with a simple tech endorsement?

[@twoknife]

Interested in this as well. A full 4-day course instead of a tech endorsement would sting pretty badly.

[@DoktorBEN]

I’ve to look this up in the standards but I’m pretty sure you don’t have to retake a full class

[@gregbenson314]

GUE have said that the tech upgrade will still be an option for "the foreseeable future". As to how long that is, I'm not sure.

[@nielsrad]

​@@DoktorBEN Apparently there's a 6month grace period for standards v9.2 to still obtain a tech rating through endorsement.

[@DoktorBEN]

Yeah right

[@VK-hv9bb]

I am SSI Advance Diver with 15 Trainings dive and 26 non dives (Max dives 30 meter) and interesting to take GUE fundamentals program, now I have to decide where to start? So before I start the fundamentals course? Do I have to take a double primer or dry suit primer before enrolling the fundamental course? Due to my dive experience Do I have to start performance diver or basic fundamentals? I may also consider to take a technical course in the future ? If you are reading this comment please help me thanks

[@Chogogo717]

Have they updated the gear configuration to allow sidemount on tec fundies or is GUE still intransigent?

[@DoktorBEN]

Sidemount is still considered a tool for cave diving

[@asecret900]

@@DoktorBEN which is total nonsense... and the main reason I walk away from GUE.

[@DoktorBEN]

@@asecret900 It makes sense in a way...on the other hand, I see that there is a demand in the community to do open water side mount. But in this regard, GUE can't make it right. If they don't create an open water sidemount class, GUE is stubborn. If they do it, GUE is betraying their principles for the sake of making money. From my personal perspective - especially when it comes to open water sidemount, it's not really rocket science. If you know how to dive, why do you need a class for it?

[@asecret900]

@@DoktorBEN No additional class expected, or required. Just why must we continue any further growth along GUE path with MB twins only? IMHO the majority of the globe is adopting technical SM.

[@luckastudena5611]

​@@DoktorBEN I feel that sidemount also has an argument of inclusivity. For some, it may be the only way they can realistically dive two or more tanks and have redundancy - eg. when they had shoulder surgeries or have back problems. It seems those people are now not really allowed to progress within GUE but there isn't necessarily an objective reason why they would not be able to do technical diving to the same level of safety as their backmount buddies.

[@patrick_diving_de]

Hmm, As a Tech 1, I’m planning to do a CCR1 once the house is finished and the toddler requires less intensive care. To achieve this, I understand I need to attend now an additional course first, as CCR1 isn’t possible without completing CCR-Fundi beforehand. Is that correct? (SOPs 10.1)

[@DoktorBEN]

According to the standards, yes, prerequisite for CCR-1 is CCR-F. But the question is very good and I assume it applies to a number of T1 students. So I’m not sure if there is again a grace period for that. I can ask HQ about that.

[@pbillings808]

CCR is very different from OC, so CCR-F is the basic starting point to learn that (30 m, MDL dives). It is effectively the old CCR1 class, just renamed. After that, there is a CCR Tech 1 Upgrade that you can do when you feel ready. Given your OC Tech 1 background, you'd need less time than someone without that experience/training.

[@DubaiDiver]

Renaming a very poor marketing decision lost the its uniqueness and copying rarely works. GUE brand has been devalued.

[@Chogogo717]

The rescue course is always a good one to have. Personally I think it should be taught sooner rather than later by all agencies. It’s disappointing to see that GUE still doesn’t allow for sidemount configuration even at tec fundamental level.

[@asecret900]

+1 to this, and I repeat myself again "its total nonsense and the main reason I walk away from GUE"

[@benjaminbeier4036]

Ich finde es ist schwer zu sagen, ob die Umbenennung der REC Kurse einen positiven oder negativen Einfluss hat. Die vielen Extrawürstchen haben der GUE ja immerhin auch einen teilweise abschreckenden Ruf als "Sekte" eingebracht. Auf manche wirkt es anziehend Teil einer "elitären" Gemeinschaft zu werden und auf manche wirkt es eher abschreckend. Ich persönlich vertrete die verbreitete Ansicht, dass die Qualität eines Kurses hauptsächlich vom Instruktor abhängt und nicht vom Verband. Es gibt Tauchlehrer die Abkürzungen nehmen und die Kurs Vorgaben teilweise ignorieren und es gibt ebenso Tauchlehrer die in ihren Kursen weit über die Vorgaben hinaus gehen mit einem persönlichen Qualitätsanspruch. Solange die GUE sich den Ruf bewahrt, dass ihre Instruktoren sehr viel Wert auf eine Qualitativ hochwertige Ausbildung legen und dies auch konsequent sicherstellen, dürfte die Umbenennung der Kurse eher einen positiven Effekt haben.

[@pi-squared]

Am Ende des Tages wird es sicher eine Abwägung gewesen sein, gerade im REC Bereich. Mal sehen, ob es irgendwann ein Video oder Artikel gibt in dem die Überlegungen ausgeführt werden. Die Qualität ist in der Tat in erster Linie vom Instruktor abhängig (und hier stellt GUE als Organisation, soweit meine Erfahrung bisher, einen durchwegs hohen Standard sicher), aber die ist natürlich für Aussenstehende schwierig zu sehen, gerade bei Einstiegskursen (und in wie weit Leute heutzutage überhaupt noch bereit sind für Qualität zu bezahlen sei hier einmal dahingestellt). Und wenn der OWD bei GUE dann doch das doppelte wie bei PADI, SSI usw. kostet ist das erst einmal eher abschreckend. Und GUE ist deutlich konservativer und anspruchsvoller: wenn ich möglichst schnell für 40m zertifiziert (was nicht unbedingt qualifiziert heissen muss) sein will mache ich bei PADI oder SSI den AOWD und Deep Diving Kurs; bei GUE muss es da schon der REC3 sein (Deep Primer geht nur bis 30m wenn ich es richtig sehe), der schon mal 75 Tauchgänge und Doubles voraussetzt. Sinnvoll und sicherer? Absolut! Attraktiver? Hängt vom dann von der einzelnen Person ab. Es mag zwar oft das Gleiche draufstehen, aber m.E. ist nicht das Gleiche drin.

[@benjaminbeier4036]

@@pi-squared Ich denke solange man für sein Geld auch mehr bekommt, kann man den höheren Preis sehr gut verargumentieren. Die von dir angesprochenen Tiefenlimits dürften da eher zum Problem werden, weil man dann das Gefühl hat mehr zu zahlen und trotzdem weniger zu bekommen. Vor allem die weiter steigenden Helium Preise werden den GUE REC3 / Master Diver langfristig komplett unattraktiv machen. Offenbar hat man das Problem auf TEC Seite erkannt und der TEC1 ist keine Voraussetzung mehr für den CCR1, aber auf REC Seite scheint das Dilemma weiterhin ungelöst? Akzeptiert man doch 40 Meter mit Luft? Oder wird recreational CCR diving der neue Trend? Oder akzeptiert man einfach, dass die GUE REC Kurse an Attraktivität verlieren werden, weil sich niemand mehr das Helium für 40 Meter Tauchgänge leisten kann/möchte?

[@pi-squared]

@@benjaminbeier4036 Stimmt, sehe ich auch so. Ich kenne ehrlich gesagt niemanden der oder die heute für einen "normalen" 40 Meter Tauchgang ernsthaft über Trimix nachdenkt und nicht Luft nimmt, viel zu teuer sonst. Daher wäre der logische ökonomisch sinnvolle Schritt nach Luft wirklich CCR, wobei dann natürlich die Frage ist wo man die Basis für Bailouts aufbaut wenn man bei der CCR Ausbildung zum ersten Mal eine Stage in der Hand hat. Am Ende des Tages gibt es keine Lösungen, nur Abwägungen...

[@DoktorBEN]

Bei GUE ist es weniger vom instructor abhängig aufgrund des sehr strikten QM

[@JA33333-x]

@@benjaminbeier4036der CCR1 entfällt in 6 Monaten komplett! So gibt es dann nur noch erst CcrF und dann kann man sich entscheiden zum CCr Tech 1. Für bis dato bestehende Tech1 Taucher gibt’s es den Weg CcrF->Ccr Tech 1 Upgrade von 3 Tagen hab ich gelesen.

[@TheBigEasy1100]

To me the reason for the re-naming of the REC classes is quite obvious. GUE wants to sell more courses. Open Water Diver, Advanced Open Water Diver etc. is more or less self explaining. REC1, REC2 etc. wasn‘t and needed a lot of explaining…

[@DoktorBEN]

Yeah that’s true. With more recreational divers coming in it might make sense.

[@DanielRicardo42]

Ben, I think there was one major change between your video and the released v10 standards - in the new curriculum T1 is no longer a prerequisite for CCR1, instead there is the new CCR Fundamentals course

[@DoktorBEN]

Yes! I’ll cover that in a separate video!

[@kitzyowo1319]

The new names are horrid, I get it... GUE is part of a world where you have to mass produce divers to stay afloat, so they are trying all they can to get more people coming in whilst not dropping the quality of their training... But blegh But there are some good changes too!

[@ChrisShaferKTM]

The new names for the rec programs are horrible.

[@DivingDutchman]

It's all about ISO norms and it's naming conventions. Nothing more.

[@mikevondebag]

Looks like a fun way to extract more money from customers 😂

[@DoktorBEN]

The prices stay the same though. But attracting more people to take a scuba class is not a bad thing at all