UTD Z-side mount with isolatable manifold

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!

Kev, I'm not the one needing clarification. You continue to ignore the main point brought up. Let's say we're in a cave and you go out of air. Understood? I have air, you don't. Still with me? You should instantly start signalling an emergency. I see your emergency and extend my long hose. You swim to me, I swim to you. I give you my long hose. Do you know if I had to switch to my shorthose? HOW would you know? Most importantly, do you care? If I were the OOA diver, and I got a 2nd stage that had a breathable gas coming out of it, I wouldn't care if it was JUST in his mouth or had been in his mouth several minutes ago. I'm just glad I have air. In ALL PRACTICAL TERMS, it's the same procedure: Buddy goes OOA, you donate longhose to buddy.

The point I'm getting at and the point you (and all other proponents) have consistently avoided is: Why add the cost, complication, workload, and failure points of the "manifold" just so you can be breathing off of your longhose when your buddy goes OOA?

(Note: running totally out of air despite good planning and proper execution is attributable ONLY to manifolded tanks.)
(Note 2: I think you've made like 3 posts total without mentioning SEA/Truk/Chuuk. You might want to increase that number)

To recap once again for your understanding:

It's a solution -albeit more complex and diverging from orthodox DIR and even conventional sidemount practice- for those divers like myself who dive with mixed international UTD/GUE teams (btw -always using the metric system), and elect to keep fundamental long hose diving paradigm, technique & protocol . . . other than learning the new mechanics of QC6 connections and alternating independent tank switching & gas management, all my previous base knowledge, training and diving experience in long hose tech/deco/wreck overhead was perfectly consistent --quickly, seamlessly, and intuitively applied. . .

Fundamental long hose DIR/Hogarthian technique has you ALWAYS breathing the long hose primary regulator on bottom mix, unless you've just donated to an out-of-gas buddy. In sidemount Z-system, the virtue of the distribution block [or the new isofold/manifold] is that you never have to switch out regs as you alternate breathing off of left & right tanks --i.e. alternating between shutting down one tank valve and opening the other in Z-system sidemount diving, you are always breathing the primary long hose regulator.

Z-system integrates perfectly with my backmount team of SE Asia/Indo-Pacific Wreck Divers; we use scooters to help get down in current on the deep WWII wrecks in the South China Sea (as well as getting out of the way of the big container ships in the busy shipping lanes to Singapore) --another one of the reasons why I went with the Z-system SM is that you always breath the long hose primary in normal diving situations on bottom mix. All I have to do when alternating tanks is turn one on and shut down the other --all easily done on-the-fly & on-the-trigger while scootering in open water at depth. IOW --I don't have to swap/deploy/stow regulators if I went with a traditional/conventional independent SM set-up, which would be an inconvenient juggling act to perform on-the-fly and on trigger.

Used Z-system SM for the first time after initial training in Truk Nov 2011. Then was in Truk/Palau for Oct-Nov 2012, and Vanuatu Nov-Dec diving the SS President Coolidge transport wreck from shore --all on Z-system sidemount; Finally returned to Truk to close out 2012 diving both Z-system sidemount and conventional hogarthian/dir long-hose doubles backmount.

Just returned from Bikini Atoll (backmount only) and Truk (backmount & Z-system sidemount) this past 29June thru 20July and have decided to retain the Z-distribution block instead of upgrading to the Z-isofold (isolatable manifold) --I never did like having that isolator knob, even on a conventional backmount manifold, jabbing the back of my head & neck whenever I was looking upward. . .

So far no such "QC6 accidents" or "Distribution/Manifold Block Single-Point-Failures waiting to happen" have occurred and I didn't & still don't expect any to happen: I am confident in the training I've received to deal with such rare contingencies (btw --QC6 diluent changes are done all the time on CCR: Where are the reports & instances of major QC6 failures in that implementation???)

And no long hose trapping on Z-system sidemount with two tanks because I either tuck the excess length in my waist belt in front, or now with the larger Z-plus 23kg/50lbs wing, I just tuck the excess loop in between the Z-harness & wing on my back (AG taught these options during the training course) --and no, I have not cut the long hose yet on jagged metal sliding into engine rooms, crew-spaces and other confined areas of the WWII wrecks I've been diving on including getting momentarily stuck inside the I-169 submarine in Truk this last trip (vulnerability of the long hose is the only thing I'm really worried about on Z-system & careful in preventing).

This is practical reality --anecdotal perhaps but objective, adaptive & actual experience diving for weeks at a time with initial basic training on the Z-system, but now out there overseas on my own with minimal support diving on hazardous/in situ, sunk-in-action WWII wrecks; and not just the idle speculation or specious arguments [from VictorZamora] of worst case & unlikely scenarios like in most of the rebuttal posts & rhetoric above.
 
You can't read long paragraphs can you? I read and understood everything you wrote, there was simply no logic there. So now, to make it simple, I have three questions and want a Yes/No answer for each of them.

1) If you and I are diving together as buddies, and for some reason you run out of air....do you care if the longhose I give you came off of my shoulder instead of out of my mouth?

2) Other than retrieving the long hose reg from your shoulder, is there a difference between handing off the reg in your mouth and the reg on your shoulder (assuming they're both attached to your longhose)?

3) Are you proposing that switching regulators is more difficult and/or more time consuming than manipulating tank valves with the same frequency?
 
You can't read long paragraphs can you? I read and understood everything you wrote, there was simply no logic there. So now, to make it simple, I have three questions and want a Yes/No answer for each of them.
The logic is there within the system/paradigm that is my choice; if you think it illogical then that's your problem . . .not mine.

Simple answers for you with yes qualification:

1) If you and I are diving together as buddies, and for some reason you run out of air....do you care if the longhose I give you came off of my shoulder instead of out of my mouth?

2) Other than retrieving the long hose reg from your shoulder, is there a difference between handing off the reg in your mouth and the reg on your shoulder (assuming they're both attached to your longhose)?
Hypothetically, if I'm diving with you on open circuit and signal OOG, and you don't donate immediately because you're futzing with a clipped-off long hose, I'm grabbing whatever regulator is in your mouth. That's all I care about. . .
3) Are you proposing that switching regulators is more difficult and/or more time consuming than manipulating tank valves with the same frequency?
On Scooter, on trigger on-the-fly: Yes.
 
you don't donate immediately because you're futzing with a clipped-off long hose,

$800 manifold versus 2 cent o-ring breakaway.

Why would you assume anyone would 'futz' with a clipped off long hose. This is an instance of 'willful blinkers', I think.

Making up problems to justify a solution that was never needed in the first place...
 
Kev, I think you are one of the few cases that would be better off diving the z-system. If you are switching back and forth between backmounted doubles and sidemount during the same trip and your buddies are doing likewise then you would all probably respond instinctively quicker during an emergency. I do however suggest upgrading to the isolation manifold. The Omni shut-off valves will solve a free flow situation but what about a cut hose or a blown o-ring? I know it is highly unlikely but it is possible, even more so when performing wreck penetrations. How do you plan to respond in that scenario? I am hoping you don’t say you carry a spare second stage with a quick-connect fitting, that just seems extremely difficult to perform quickly especially when adding in factors like cold water, strong current, zero vis, etc. (which is why AG designed the isolation manifold). At least with the isolator the potential problem is solved. That scenario is primarily why I ditched my non-isolation manifold, amongst the many other reasons.
 
Kev, I think you are one of the few cases that would be better off diving the z-system. If you are switching back and forth between backmounted doubles and sidemount during the same trip and your buddies are doing likewise then you would all probably respond instinctively quicker during an emergency. I do however suggest upgrading to the isolation manifold. The Omni shut-off valves will solve a free flow situation but what about a cut hose or a blown o-ring? I know it is highly unlikely but it is possible, even more so when performing wreck penetrations. How do you plan to respond in that scenario? I am hoping you don’t say you carry a spare second stage with a quick-connect fitting, that just seems extremely difficult to perform quickly especially when adding in factors like cold water, strong current, zero vis, etc. (which is why AG designed the isolation manifold). At least with the isolator the potential problem is solved. That scenario is primarily why I ditched my non-isolation manifold, amongst the many other reasons.
Thanks for the concern (and these are real issues and not the reactionary hyperbole above). . .yeah I still have that QC6/Spare Aqualung Octo Reg clipped in the pocket; and last month's Truk trip where I got stuck in the I-169 Sub -with both arms pinned-down at my sides and my dismounted tanks floating freely about my head- really had me thinking about a "what-if" cut hose contingency at that instant --There would've been no way to plug in the spare QC6 Reg, or even operate an Isofold manifold if there was one on my back instead of the Distribution Block for that matter. . .:confused: (Don't think I'm traversing out the Sub that way again on the next Truk Trip this 01-09Dec 2013 :wink:)
 
I have no interest in caves but have been in my fair share of tight spots. Yes it is certainly true that bubbles may not be heard or felt, but my point was; if the cave is that tight you're never going to be able to get your hands on the donor's 22" hose anyhow so the benefit of the z-system is what again?

Your wallet's too fat and its inducing a pressure sore on your ass?
 
The z-system is founded on an absurd assumption that mixed teams work, period. This is simply not possible unless you disadvantage divers with optimal equipment to manage and handle divers with suboptimal equipment. Further, the only way for UTD's ratio deco to work in practice (in a mixed team scenario) is for the CCR member of the "mixed team" to forego most of the advantages of diving CCR to benefit the open circuit divers' in his team.

So the whole system from the ground up is entirely flawed in my mind.

There are good things that UTD teaches, none of which are unique to UTD. The things which are unique to UTD make no sense to me whatsoever.
 
The z-system is founded on an absurd assumption that mixed teams work, period. This is simply not possible unless you disadvantage divers with optimal equipment to manage and handle divers with suboptimal equipment. Further, the only way for UTD's ratio deco to work in practice (in a mixed team scenario) is for the CCR member of the "mixed team" to forego most of the advantages of diving CCR to benefit the open circuit divers' in his team.

So the whole system from the ground up is entirely flawed in my mind.

There are good things that UTD teaches, none of which are unique to UTD. The things which are unique to UTD make no sense to me whatsoever.


Here's how a mixed-team works in general for wreck diving on a large ship:

You have the CCR divers be the "Pathfinder Team" --lay a reel-line on a long traverse from bow to stern and designate that as a working Mainline. Then you have other divers in backmount & sidemount doubles go explore other places in the superstructure by running spool guide lines off the Mainline (i.g. crew's quarters, cargo holds, engine room, Bridge etc), or take pictures/video with a member of the Pathfinder Team on CCR guiding as needed. Then after a week's time or so exploring, you have the Pathfinder CCR divers go in and reel-in/clean-up the Mainline. . . (That would've been the plan in Bikini Atoll on the 900' long USS Saratoga Aircraft Carrier --except now the Flight Deck has collapsed & pancaked most of the underlying Hangar Deck, from the Bridge/Island to the stern).

Nothing absurd or "disadvantageous" for CCR divers in this example. . .:wink:

---------- Post added August 28th, 2013 at 02:38 AM ----------

Your wallet's too fat and its inducing a pressure sore on your ass?
No rjack . . . you can't take it with you when you die so you might as well spend it while you're still alive and of able health -mind & body.
 
Last edited:
Here's how a mixed-team works in general for wreck diving on a large ship:

You have the CCR divers be the "Pathfinder Team" --lay a reel-line on a long traverse from bow to stern and designate that as a working Mainline. Then you have other divers in backmount & sidemount doubles go explore other places in the superstructure by running spool guide lines off the Mainline (i.g. crew's quarters, cargo holds, engine room, Bridge etc), or take pictures/video with a member of the Pathfinder Team on CCR guiding as needed. Then after a week's time or so exploring, you have the Pathfinder CCR divers go in and reel-in/clean-up the Mainline. . . (That would've been the plan in Bikini Atoll on the 900' long USS Saratoga Aircraft Carrier --except now the Flight Deck has collapsed & pancaked most of the underlying Hangar Deck, from the Bridge/Island to the stern).
Really? Another post about nothing more than your dives at Chuuk? Seriously?

Nothing absurd or "disadvantageous" for CCR divers in this example. . .:wink:
What he was saying wasn't that they shouldn't be laying line....but if they were to complete a dive in a mixed team, they would have to follow team diving protocol of staying with the team the whole way up, while the OC guys used ratio deco. That's a lot of money to have on you for no real advantage over the OC guys in terms of deco time. So, yes, you're right....nothing "disadvantageous".....but they also weren't diving in a "mixed team", then. Like, even if they had a failure....you and your fancy iso-fold-o-matic wouldn't be there to donate your longhose.

No rjack . . . you can't take it with you when you die so you might as well spend it while you're still alive and of able health -mind & body.

Well, rjack...it seems you're right. It IS all about spending money. He wants to blow money so he won't have to leave anything behind.
Kev, if you REALLY need to part with your money....I know a recent grad with a wedding in a month that would LOVE a DiveX scooter. I'll send you my address! :D

---------- Post added August 28th, 2013 at 07:29 AM ----------

$800 manifold versus 2 cent o-ring breakaway.

Why would you assume anyone would 'futz' with a clipped off long hose. This is an instance of 'willful blinkers', I think.

Making up problems to justify a solution that was never needed in the first place...

The other thing to mention is that unclipping a reg shouldn't require "futzing"....it should be trained better than that. If it's not, you have a training issue...that UTD is solving with equipment. If you haven't practiced unclipping your reg enough, then the $.02 o-ring or $.002 ziptie are an easy way of surviving the realization that you were trained poorly.

---------- Post added August 28th, 2013 at 08:23 AM ----------

The z-system is founded on an absurd assumption that mixed teams work, period. This is simply not possible unless you disadvantage divers with optimal equipment to manage and handle divers with suboptimal equipment.

I think that in some scenarios, mixed teams DO work. Diving big cave or recreational OW, there's no reason why it shouldn't work. If a CCR diver doesn't want to go to OC for a few dives while his CCR buddy is busy, and meets up with an OC diver to dive JB....then all the power to him. The OC diver in JB will turn the dive. The CCR diver is trading the hassle/danger of the CCR for the ease of not needing to switch from primary setup. As long as you're not going into deco, the same argument can be made in the OW. In JB, the CCR diver might decide to dive Trimix as the cost isn't super high and they had might as well make sure there was no narcosis. The OC diver only has a little hassle (He stops).

For OC mixed-teams where BM and SM divers dive together, I think even more of the hassles are mitigated....as long as you're in OW or a big cave. For tight restrictions and/or penetrations, or deco dives with a CCR/OC mixed team.....I agree completely: Mixed teams are a hassle for whoever has the optimal setup.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom