Subscribe to North America's Longest Established Scuba Diving Magazine
Rebreathers Tech Diving Training

Marketing Rebreathers

Jarrod Jablonski talks with Michael Menduno

GUE’s Jarrod Jablonski prepares to dive. Photo: © David Rhea


Credit Where Credit Is Due
In my interview with explorer Jarrod Jablonski in DIVER Vol. 37 Number 1, I incorrectly stated that Jablonski and his team from Global Underwater Explorers were the first to video the USS Atlanta in 430 feet (130m) off Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands. In fact, tech diving pioneers Terry Tysall (USA), Kevin Denlay (AUS) and their team videoed the USS Atlanta during their 1997 and 1998 expeditions after making their first exploratory dives on the wreck in 1995. Sorry guys!


In the current issue of DIVER Magazine (Volume 37 Number 1), I spoke with Jarrod Jablonski, the 42-year old explorer, educator and entrepreneur about his aquatic conservation membership organization, Global Underwater Explorers. GUE’sunique diver training program and operational standards have given rise to an enviable safety record and an impressive list of underwater discoveries by group members. Jablonski is the Chief Executive Officer of GUE and for gear manufacturer Halcyon Dive Systems and scuba retailer, Extreme Exposure Inc. He holds numerous records for the longest cave penetration, and the longest dives.

In this exclusive follow-up interview for, I spoke more with Jablonski about the marketing of rebreathers to the technical and recreational diving communities.

I find it interesting that the GUE leadership and explorers are using the Halcyon RB80 semi-closed rebreather for exploration, but unlike most agencies, it seems like you are not actively promoting or marketing the rebreather or your training. In fact, looking at the GUE website or talking to people in the local organization here in Northern California you have to do some digging to realize that GUE even offers rebreather training, though you only offer it to individuals who are already very accomplished open-circuit technical divers.

I would say the pursuit of profit represents the primary motivator driving the promotion of rebreathers. Rebreather manufacturers and training agencies are looking to boost their revenues. This is somewhat understandable but I don’t feel like that’s our job at GUE. Our job is to safeguard the quality of education and the safety of the divers who entrust their lives to us as an organization. That’s really our only responsibility. That doesn’t mean I think rebreathers can’t be used safely. It just means that we take a really cautious approach to things that create greater risk; such risks must be balanced by meaningful benefit. Unfortunately the benefit is often lacking while using rebreathers for recreational purposes.

Jablonski’s company manufactures Halcyon rebreathers.


We talked about the concept of adding risk with little orno benefit—what you called “pointless risk”in the DIVERMagazine interview with regard to GUE’s ‘Doing It Right’ (DIR) standards. You said that’s the reason GUE doesn’t advocate the use of nitrox or air beyond 100 feet (30m), for example.

The logic is the same. If I’m average Joe Scuba Diver and most of my diving is in 50 feet (15m) of water and I go diving 10 times a year, what the hell do I need a rebreather for? I don’t and it’s just a huge expenditure that may significantly increase my risk. This is particularly true for someone who is barely active enough to remain proficient on general scuba gear. In my opinion, rebreathers are much more dangerous for that class of diver.

In fact, I believe that by and large the overwhelming numbers of people don’t really have any use for rebreathers. This is even true for many of my own dives. I own four rebreathers, but when I go down to Ginnie Springs to do an hour dive I rarely take my rebreather. Why? I don’t need it. It’s of no value to me on that dive. So that creates a really interesting psychological question. What is the efficacy of using something that doesn’t really add value but does add additional risk?

At the OZTek conference in May, Dr. Andrew Fock, head of hyperbaric medicine at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, said that his best estimate, from all existing data, is that rebreathers are 10 times as risky as open circuit scuba in terms of fatalities. In other words you are 10 times more likely to die on a rebreather than on open circuit scuba.

Yeah, and so think about that and how you would feel if your best friend or your wife was killed in 33 feet (10m) of water using a rebreather. You’d have to ask yourself, “why?” What happened? Does this make sense?

Why does a guy with tremendous experience like Wes Skiles (a veteran cave diver, filmmaker and photographer who died during a National Geographic film project in 2010 while diving a rebreather) die in 60 feet(18m) of water? Okay, fair enough it may not have been a rebreather failure, per se. But the fact a very experienced individual gets killed during a trivial dive in a way that would not happen while using open circuit, forces us to ask ourselves, does this make any sense? And unfortunately, Wes isn’t the only one.

PADI is now marketing rebreathers to recreational divers. As you know, they hosted a meeting at the annual Diving Equipment & Marketing Association (DEMA) show last year for all the rebreather manufacturers to spec out their requirements for a ‘recreational’ rebreather, the so-called Type R machines, as opposed to units suitable for tech divers, (Type T machines). They are in the process of rolling out their training program for recreational divers. To qualify, divers must have logged 25 dives with 10 of them on nitrox. They also launched rebreather courses for tech divers.

The situation seems very different than when PADI entered the tech diving market because back then, in 2000, there was a burgeoning market. Currently, there isn’t a market for recreational rebreathers; PADI is hoping to create one.

My guess is that PADI is watching its revenues decline, with fewer certifications and continuing drop out rate, and they’re trying to figure out how to pay for their infrastructure. So they are asking the question, what’s the best growth segment and everybody is telling them its rebreathers.

But there’s really not a recreational market? All right, let’s create one. We’ve got enough strength to do it.

So with PADI’s marketing muscle, manufacturers are going to create Type R-machines—there is already at least one on the market—and PADI centers and instructors will be there to train recreational divers in their use. Other agencies like the International Association of Nitrox & Technical Divers (IANTD) also offer recreational rebreather courses.

But basically PADI is creating this market, developing thousands of students who will be learning on a unit that has very little operational time. That’s problematic in my opinion. I appreciate the fiscal urgencies more than most but that doesn’t justify this sort of risk. What’s more is that they are targeting the bottom of the market. I mean these are the divers that we see putting their regulator on backwards. That’s the market they’re going after. That’s who they think is the customer. I strongly disagree with this strategy and I think it’s going to have negative consequences for the industry.

Because they risk leading the innocent to bad outcomes?

I have always been a champion of people’s individual rights, even when I think what they are doing is damn fool stupid. But, I strongly believe you have a responsibility to limit the exposure of people who don’t know better. And that applies to organizations as well as individuals. It’s one thing to do something yourself, but it’s another to promote it, because now you’ve taken on a different mantle of responsibility and I take that as a much stronger responsibility.

So you advocate caution?

Yes. I think we, as an industry, have to take a hard look at ourselves and say, “Really? That’s what this has come to? We’re going to push this technology on a group of people who are wholly unprepared to manage a rebreather, and we’re going to promote it because we can make money doing it.” You know, that really bothers me and I think it’s unethical.

Now I’m hardly against the free market. I run a for-profit manufacturing business and a retail dive store. I believe in making a profit. And I have every reason to promote rebreathers. My company sells a rebreather. But in this case, I see interesting parallels between our recent financial crisis that resulted from pushing mortgage-backed securities and the peddling of recreational rebreathers. Selling something people can’t afford (from a financial or personal risk point of view) or don’t really understand results in nice short term benefit but creates long term unsustainable risks that contaminate the entire industry.

People could end up dying instead of just losing their 401Ks.

Sadly, yes. The issue is one of appropriateness. There’s a low end of the market and the high end, which we clearly embrace. But I take a strong stance against supplying the casual diver with rebreathers.

I am not motivated to discourage capable and experienced divers from making their own decisions. These people have reached a level of experience, knowledge and capacity where they do, or should, know the risks they’re subjecting themselves to.

So where do you draw the line?

The hardest part for us as an organization is to figure out where that middle is, and that’s really what we’re doing. And we’re moving slowly because of rule number one. GUE’s job is to support the safety of the individual, notboost industry economics. Another reason that it has taken us some time, frankly, is that the rebreather industry is still relatively new. It’s taken more than a decade for rebreathers to start shaping up and I would say the top few rebreather companies are now legitimate, solvent, capable organizations. But even these companies are small and don’t sell more than a few hundred units a year.

So it’s not important to us that everyone is racing into rebreathers. What’s important is to carefully and slowly and methodically evaluate where that middle should be. I like to start at the top and work my way down because I think it’s safer to start with explorers and work our way from there.

So what specifically are your doing as an organization?

I have brought up the issue of rebreathers at our bi-annual training council meeting in each of the last three or four years. I have taken the pulse of the council, asked everybody what they’re seeing, what they’re hearing, what they feel, what requests they’re getting and we have discussed the issue. I also authorized the training council to start diving closed circuit rebreathers (CCRs). In fact, I have encouraged it. I said, look we’re trying to make decisions about the organization and what we need to do. So our job is to develop an internal experience base and use it to determine how far down the line we want to go. So we’ve all been doing that.

When you say CCR, you mean closed circuit rebreathers instead of the semi-closed rebreather that GUE explorers have been using?

Correct. All of our top people have already been using the Halcyon semi-closed system. But realistically semi-closed as it exists now isn’t really an appropriate tool for recreational diving because of the inherent oxygen drop in the system. Only a very experienced technical person should use it in shallower water. I wouldn’t put anyone who’s really recreationally inclined in 30 feet (9m) on a semi-closed rebreather. It just doesn’t make sense.

Briefly explain what you mean by oxygen drop?

Yes. A semi-closed system vents gas from the breathing loop. So for example with our unit, we have a ten-to-one ratio, so roughly 10 percent of that gas in blown off every breathing cycle and fresh gas is added. So the diver rebreathes some of the gas in the loop, and as a result, there is an oxygen drop from what’s in your gas supply to what the diver actually breathes from the loop and the amount of that drop is greater, the shallower you are. This decline occurs over time and relates to breathing rate, gas vented from the loop and depth, but as a rough example you might see a 10 point or greater oxygen drop in shallow water. So if you’re using 30 percent oxygen, it’s 20 percent oxygen at my mouth. But by the time I get to 300 feet (91m) it’s only a couple of percentage points. For deep diving it’s more or less irrelevant, but for shallow diving it’s pretty important.

Closed circuit units, which add oxygen directly to the loop, are more dangerous in some ways because they are more complicated, but they’re generally less dangerous in shallow water because they don’t have that particular oxygen problem. So CCRs are a more viable contender for shallow water diving.

So, as individuals you’re exploring closed circuit diving to inform your decisions as an organization?

That’s right. They’re taking classes, making dives, diving with others and gaining experience on different units. So our goal as an organization is to figure out, ultimately, if we want to condone rebreathers, how far down the chain are we going to condone them?

Currently we allow only those divers who have completed our Tech 2 course, which is a pretty high level of proficiency, to dive the Halcyon rebreather. We’re considering lowering that but we’re doing it through careful and progressive experience and trials and trying to decide if we want to move in this direction, and if so, then exactly how we might do it.

So for us, I think that you will see GUE very slowly migrate from providing rebreathers to individuals with a ‘very high’ level of expertise, to individuals with a ‘pretty high’ level of expertise. But it’s unlikely you’ll ever see us go any lower.

8 Comments Leave A Reply

8 Responses to “Marketing Rebreathers”

  1. Ken

    ” Okay, fair enough it may not have been a rebreather failure, per se. But the fact a very experienced individual gets killed during a trivial dive in a way that would not happen while using open circuit, forces us to ask ourselves, does this make any sense? And unfortunately, Wes isn’t the only one.”

    What an irresponsible statement! We don’t know what happened, but it wouldn’t have happened on open circuit????? How can you possibly be so ignorant and disrespectful? When trash like that comes from the mouth of someone in a position of authority and (I thought) respect, it does a tremendous disservice to the whole industry.

    • Peter Southwood

      Don’t you think you are grossly overreacting to that statement? This is a transcript of an interview, That does not generally give the person interviewed the time to make a carefully considered reply, with every detail tailored to avoid unintended offense. You had that option for your response, and do not appear to have taken the opportunity.

  2. Zdenek Nagl


    It was a real pleasure for me to read an article that openly criticises unethical practices of the “Pay And Dive Immediately” scuba “certifying” agency.
    While two decades ago, it took six months to be certified by CMAS as an open water diver, these days some resorts offer a certificate in as little as three days, which in my opinion is absolutely ridiculous. I was thinking many times how it is even possible that people accept such a low level of education, especially if their lives ultimately depend on it, until I entered a post-secondary educational institution as a full-time employee, and had a chance to better understand this issue. With every new generation the world appears to spin faster and faster, and there seems to be some kind of unethical competition going on among colleges and universities in who will “collect” more tuition fees, particularly in tougher economic times, and when there is less funding from the government to compensate for lower profits. The most favourite/efficient way is lowering enrolment prerequisites, usually followed by lowering standards to successfully pass a class and to receive a degree/diploma.
    For anything we do, there must be two parties that agree with certain conditions or rules, just like in a successful marriage. Generally, lowering standards and their acceptance by the public create a suitable market for those who do not want to give the full 100{c383baab7bef8067e8c9786a45d8006c492489841a98fe37723e304bb1ddd030} of their effort. It is easy to predict which route most students would choose, if they had two options – a mark of above 80{c383baab7bef8067e8c9786a45d8006c492489841a98fe37723e304bb1ddd030} or barely managing 50{c383baab7bef8067e8c9786a45d8006c492489841a98fe37723e304bb1ddd030}. There are not too many who would pick the more challenging way.
    So, can we really blame only the PADI system for providing a training full of shortcuts, resulting in certified divers without basic knowledge, or is also a big part of the problem the natural human tendency to take the easiest way, rather than spending more time, money and effort on proper education, and be rewarded for it with a good feeling of achievement?
    While there was a period of time, when scuba diving was a passion for just a small group of dedicated people, these days it is a fad for thousands because it is so easy to get another card in the valet.

    Zdenek Nagl (CMAS, NACD, … and yes, also PADI)

  3. Manny

    All repsonses can be viewed as corect. But overallI firmly beleive , it is the INDIVIDUAL Instructors that should add to the standard to ensure that the student leaves with the ability to perform effectively and have the ocnfidence to not only chalellenge themselves but dive effectively with other. I am a Padi instructor (but trained as a USMC/USN diver, the vast majority of my students have gone to extend their training outside of myself and have alwas gotten kudos for their abilities. I CHOSE to give them more the basics, I can understand if instructors themselves never challenge ther abilities as they should (Iwould rather dive with a cave diver who isn’t an instrucor thana CD who has only dove reefs).

    Its all on th einstructor to “instill’ the sense of exploration and desire to be better in the student. I feel I know a bit more about GUE and its leader’s mindset, and quite frankly , he and I thinsk alike adn I fully support ands look forward to know more about GUE. KUDOS for the read Mr , Jablonski.

    Emanuel Stephens

  4. Lee Selisky

    When I purchase my rebreather, 10 years ago, I was extremely concerned about the high death rate of rebreather divers. I took the time to review the background leading up to these fatalities, as I didn’t want to be on that list. I found the results to be largely operator error.

    As someone who has been diving deep wrecks for years, it was obvious that the same errors I had observed by open circuit divers were occurring with CCR divers. The only issue being that CCR’s are not very forgiving. Complacency kills!

    All that said, it doesn’t mean I won’t do something stupid, but I am much more aware.

  5. SupSonDiver

    Well, agencies view their Instructors as Sales Managers. So, as long as their instructors do not record any mishaps of their trainees, then they are in good standing. That said, certification is not a clean cut line between a good/safe diver or vice versa. The problems is misconception, and then encouraged by irresponsible motivation. ie. P**I offers open diver to become “advanced” just after 5 dives. Should their sales manager decide to cash in while the newly certified diver is still “hot,” I am sure they will encourage them to do their advanced as soon as possible. Now here comes the marketing; which In My Opinion is what makes of the diver-in-ceritification’s attitude. If the instructor is careful enough to explain in details the hazards of diving and the word “advanced” does little to give a person immunity against hazard then it is the least he could do. If the OW person can’t even hold 30minutes with a tank in 20m, then he shouldnt even be discussing the possibility of doing AOW (although he diver do have 5logged dives or more.) If the instructor goes the way of “do advanced, you are doing just fine, and with AOW you can go DEEPER” without properly accessing their trainees, then this is the greatest risk of all.

    How is this related to rebreathers? In simple terms;

    1. There should be an industry standard
    Gear wise, I would back the way DIR is progressing. I cannot see my buddy and AI having different gear configuration. I should be able to put on his set of gear (barring the wet/dry suit) as if I am putting on mine.

    2. The industry should instill integrity into their instructors and not patronize the industry with just a piece of lip service.
    Obviously there is a need to draw a line between doing business ethically and drawing profits as well. Do it right, and reduce fatalities, and the industry will grow. The pie will be bigger to be shared amongst.

    3. Closed circuit or not, it is up to the CCR sales rep or trainer to train their users properly and stress on complacency as Lee Selisky has mentioned. Obviously many out of air situation happened with single tank shallow water divers happens as well because of some busted valves and/or regs. Just because its casual open water and single tank shallow dives, doesnt meant that there are no hazard present and are immune to fatality. So, it is up to the trainer to instill these values and for the individual to heed them.

  6. Leo

    Hi folks,

    I have been diving for around 30 + years on OC. It is now an opportunity for me to become an instructor. I do want to instruct rebreather use as well as OC. And yes I am PADI trained in the last 10 years. I was originally trained by NASDS in the 70’s. I am interested in the Hollis line and a little curious about Poseidon. I do agree with you that the rapidity of cert level increase is a problem, I have been a dive master for a long time and have seen the results of this more often than I care to remember.

    • ahmed ismail

      Dear Leo
      i do recommend the Poseidon seven it is much better than the Hollis
      the Hollis is a semi close rebreather limited to 40 m
      but the the Poseidon seven with the black battery can go to 120m is fully closed electronic rebreather
      for more info u can email me


Leave a Comment

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.