What's with the UTD haters?

[SanDiegoSidemount]

Pluses compared to what? Also, I have yet to see a cohesive list. Please show otherwise.

I've discussed the versatility I like at least once in this thread and more in other places. "Diving tech doubles, rec singles, and surface supplied all in the same day without leaving the water." This matters a lot to me, as I do a wide range of dive profiles when I boat dive with my family, from 10-20 foot Zuba with my 10 year old, to 40 foot recreational with my older son, to deeper, longer dives with my wife and other buddies.

Also, I really like the ease of donning. Your hoses are already routed after the harness is on. I usually don the tanks in the water, off a clip line. One QC-6 plug, one bolt snap, bungee, (repeat for doubles) flow check, and go. Again, convenience is a big deal for me, as I'm often in the water all day.

Another nice thing, but not a major one, the switchover from backmount took me about 5 minutes of tutelage. Probably wouldn't be much more for independent SM, though.

I don't do critical or overhead dives, so the failure potential doesn't matter as much to me personally, and I know all the procedures to deal with them. Mostly it comes down to "isolate and breathe off the good side". And finally, my buddy is always nearby if things really go south. "Solo diver" is not one of the UTD certifications.

---------- Post added February 16th, 2014 at 05:26 PM ----------

One last item: recreational single-tank sidemount is a pretty big deal at UTD. It's an option that's available to every UTD open water student, and quite a few choose to do their OW certification this way instead of using a BP/W.

I don't know if this type of sidemount diving is even on the radar of any other training groups.

 

[victorzamora]

I've discussed the versatility I like at least once in this thread and more in other places. "Diving tech doubles, rec singles, and surface supplied all in the same day without leaving the water." This matters a lot to me, as I do a wide range of dive profiles when I boat dive with my family, from 10-20 foot Zuba with my 10 year old, to 40 foot recreational with my older son, to deeper, longer dives with my wife and other buddies.

I will admit the surface supplied thing is really cool, but switching to/from doubles doesn't interest me in the least. However, it isn't an option with the way I do things. That IS a benefit of the UTD system. Whether it's worth it is up to the diver. I didn't realize doubles were so easily compatible. Do you really use QC6s on your doubles setup? Is that a UTD teaching??

Also, I really like the ease of donning. Your hoses are already routed after the harness is on. I usually don the tanks in the water, off a clip line. One QC-6 plug, one bolt snap, bungee, (repeat for doubles) flow check, and go. Again, convenience is a big deal for me, as I'm often in the water all day.

If you're switching tanks often and not getting out of your exposure protection or harness then it does make it quicker, but going from out-of-your-harness to underwater is similar between the two systems.

Another nice thing, but not a major one, the switchover from backmount took me about 5 minutes of tutelage. Probably wouldn't be much more for independent SM, though.

With indy SM, the only hassle is getting tanks trimmed right. The "procedures" are a piece of cake, it's the aesthetics that's hard....which you'd have with the UTD system....so yeah, very similar.

I don't do critical or overhead dives, so the failure potential doesn't matter as much to me personally, and I know all the procedures to deal with them. Mostly it comes down to "isolate and breathe off the good side". And finally, my buddy is always nearby if things really go south. "Solo diver" is not one of the UTD certifications.

As for solo, it's definitely nice to have that option when you've got a fully redundant and independent system and nothing behind your back, but it's not the only reason to lose the hoses. As for "isolate and breathe off the good side" it's the same with indySM.....but you actually feather if needed to get the last bit of gas out of the "bad" side until you either kill the tank, get off balance, or need both hands....then you switch to your good side. Very similar procedure, but one less knob and several fewer failure points that would cause you to have to deal with an issue.

One last item: recreational single-tank sidemount is a pretty big deal at UTD. It's an option that's available to every UTD open water student, and quite a few choose to do their OW certification this way instead of using a BP/W.

I don't know if this type of sidemount diving is even on the radar of any other training groups.

I don't know about training, but single tank sidemount is something I do very frequently. I'm glad an agency is embracing it.

 

[Jeproks]

Hi Victor, QC6's are an integral part of UTD Z sidemount along with the much debated/hated/loved distribution block OR Isolatable Manifold.

Part of the philosophy of UTD is to create thinking teams the smallest unit of the team is a self sufficient thinking diver, not to be misunderstood as a solo diver because we still hold the safety being within a team. So we hold firm the idea that the team is our backup (brain, equipment, etc).

Again, we don't push that everyone who dives side-mount must subscribe to our solution, however UTD sidemount has that specific requirement because of the team principles we hold dearly as core.

If you look at it from a business sense, it would be much easier for all of us UTD instructors to sell sidemount training without the added expense to our student, however, because our end objectives go back to the unified team, we have to use a Z compatible sidemount system for that very reason.

It might not be for everyone, but within our agency, apart from the benefits of scalability, etc, it is our way of keeping consistent in training and in the team.

Kind regards.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[DevonDiver]

Part of the philosophy of UTD is to create thinking teams the smallest unit of the team is a self sufficient thinking diver, not to be misunderstood as a solo diver because we still hold the safety being within a team. So we hold firm the idea that the team is our backup (brain, equipment, etc).

This is no different than any technical diving agency/training. UTD (and GUE) simply introduce the concept at the earliest recreational levels as part of the 'begin with the end in mind' approach. Recreational focused agencies don't do that - they introduce philosophies/approaches at the necessary stage of development. There are pros and cons to either approach. I, personally, prefer to 'begin with the end in mind' when teaching.

That said, UTD remains the only agency teaching sidemount (including technical/overhead sidemount) that uses a manifold/QC6 system as standard/mandatory.

I don't see any inherent link between being a 'self-sufficient team diver' and an insistence upon sidemount manifold. Or am I mis-understanding the point you are trying to make?

There are thousands of effective sidemount divers around the world, who dive in self-sufficient teams, that don't use a manifold.

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

It might not be for everyone, but within our agency, apart from the benefits of scalability, etc, it is our way of keeping consistent in training and in the team.

To be honest @Jeproks, the longer we've discussed this, the more I'm inclined to agree with folks like @victorzamora and @DevonDiver, and dismiss the "consistency in the team" argument for the Z manifold that is promoted by AG. There are other things to like about the Z, but I don't think "consistency" in a "mixed team" is actually a very strong argument. Having a "like minded" team is way more important.

Furthermore, I'm not really so sure that Z sidemount is any more or less consistent with UTD team procedures than an independent SM system would be. The "9 failures" procedures for Z doubles are totally different from those in backmount doubles, flow checks are different, and plugging in stage/deco bottles via QC-6 is totally different from any other backmount procedure, UTD or otherwise.

So if you take the UTD Student & Diver Procedures Manual at face value, there are a ton of inconsistencies and exceptions in there that only apply to the Z configuration. Those procedures could just as easily be amended in similar ways to enfold independent SM.

 

[DevonDiver]

SDS... as a UTD person... how much do you think 'dogma dictates best practice', versus 'best practice dictating dogma'?

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

SDS... as a UTD person... how much do you think 'dogma dictates best practice', versus 'best practice dictating dogma'?

I'll answer as myself, not "as a UTD person".

In my book, there's no place for dogma. I'm a fan of "best practices", but in my experience (and in my professional life as a software engineer) I've seen way too many "best practices" get mis-applied as dogma. This happens when the practice doesn't suit the situation at hand. In these cases, it helps to back up the truck, and try to understand the reasoning behind the practice, to see if it truly suits the situation.

Kind of like what I was hoping to do within this thread. Thanks.

 

[rjack321]

To be honest @Jeproks, the longer we've discussed this, the more I'm inclined to agree with folks like @victorzamora and @DevonDiver, and dismiss the "consistency in the team" argument for the Z manifold that is promoted by AG. There are other things to like about the Z, but I don't think "consistency" in a "mixed team" is actually a very strong argument. Having a "like minded" team is way more important.

I would have to review the whole thread but this might be the first statement of yours I agree with.

I dive with a long hose on my sidemount rig (its on the right tank, short bungied hose on the left), but I only dive SM when nothing else will fit (or the are the only rental tanks available). So far NOT having a manifold has been a complete non-issue. If I had one of those manifolds it would have created vastly more of a consistency issue than its absence. (Since none of the SM divers I know and buddy up with would ever use one).

 

[victorzamora]

Furthermore, I'm not really so sure that Z sidemount is any more or less consistent with UTD team procedures than an independent SM system would be. The "9 failures" procedures for Z doubles are totally different from those in backmount doubles, flow checks are different, and plugging in stage/deco bottles via QC-6 is totally different from any other backmount procedure, UTD or otherwise.

NOW you're seeing what I'm seeing. I hope you understand that my insistence wasn't trying to berate you, but truly trying to understand the viewpoint. SM is different from BM whether or not you've got a Z-manifold. You're still mostly compatible with a BM or CCR/SCR diver if you're diving independent or Z-manifolded sidemount. The procedures actually change a little less with independent SM for some things. Think about BM doubles gas switch procedure. You do your NOTOX drill to verify you're switching to the right bottle, then you clip it off to you, pull the hose over you, switch regs. Same as ever. Same with indy-SM. With the Z-manifold, you do your NOTOX drill, plug it in to your QC6, turn off your OTHER bottle, breathe the residual gas out of the system, turn on your deco bottle. It's different. Issues handled are different. Benefit of the Z-manifold there is that you can share your deco gas more easily.

Jeproks: The UTD advertising data mentions changing over to BM doubles MUCH easier with the Z-manifold. My question is:
Do you use QC6s in the standard UTD BM doubles configuration?

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I'll answer as myself, not "as a UTD person".

In my book, there's no place for dogma. I'm a fan of "best practices", but in my experience (and in my professional life as a software engineer) I've seen way too many "best practices" get mis-applied as dogma. This happens when the practice doesn't suit the situation at hand. In these cases, it helps to back up the truck, and try to understand the reasoning behind the practice, to see if it truly suits the situation.

... and that's exactly what I was getting in in my reply #102 when I said "My issue with both GUE and UTD is that while they both purport to train "thinking divers", their emphasis on standardization tends to do exactly the opposite, by promoting a thought process that encourages acceptance of an approach without really examining the merits of the rationalization behind it or how it applies to specific circumstances ... and they discourage examining alternative solutions to problems where their standardization isn't really a good fit, with rationalizations why that approach is still the best way to go."

While it doesn't always apply, it often does ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)