ok fair enough. i understand your point of view.
in what comes next, i will explain my point of view on the Z-system. but it is in no way an attack on independent SM, nor am i trying to convince anyone into using the Z-manifold.
this is simply my take on the points raised (not necessarily by you personally) in this thread (and others) and nothing more. and i will try to keep it simple without going into much details, while trying to stay as clear as possible in conveying my ideas.
these are the main problematic areas i found please feel free to add in case i missed something:
1 - "when going into tight holes inside caves, it usually is a solo dive so no need for team diving procedures, hence no need for the Z-manifold":
Sidemount was invented to go in tight holes. I'm not sure why it has become such a fad outside tight caves.
i personally would never want to be in a solo diving situation. as simple as that. maybe some day i will feel the need to go solo diving into a tight passage in a cave, that day we will see what to do.
one of the things that attracted me the most to the DIR philosophy, was the concept of team diving: meaning in an emergency scenario, every diver has a role and everyone knows what to do. so i don't want to be in a situation where i am alone underwater.
i totally understand people who want to do it, and i also value their explorations. but i would never want to say to any of my students "yes you may go solo diving just this once". the risk is simply not worth it to me…today
2 - qc6 might fail:
there has been no statistics on qc6 failing, and it has been used for ages. the probability of a QC6 failing are similar, if not lower, than a first stage failing…so to me, this is acceptable risk to take if it might happen once in a blue moon, not that big of a deal especially all the other added value it is giving me
Actually AG experienced a number of QC6 failures when he was trying to use a meg for his Kavorkian experiments and was told by the manufacturer to stop wet connecting the QC6 because it was causing the failures. He stubbornly refused to accept the manufacturers advice and they eventually stopped supplying equipment to UTD
3 - switching regs is easier and more practical than switching tanks:
maybe but how much harder is it to switch tanks? it's not a deal breaker, all it takes is 2 extra seconds…so again: i am willing to make the extra effort for the added value the Z-manifold is giving me
4 - the Z manifold has more failure points:
true. but within the same logic, why not have independent cylinders on double BACKmount? aren't we adding 2 failure points (manifold right and left)?
Many of us did dive independent backmount for many years. Although some divers felt it was an automatic death sentence
with backmount, it was a natural evolution to link the system to keep access to both tanks in case of regulator failure, and the same applies to sidemount.
now of course, the Z-manifold has more failure points than 2, but where do you draw the line? 2 is acceptable? how about 3? why not 4? it follows the same logic.
5 - "if your buddy is well trained and manages his gas correctly, he should never get OOG…so the argument of donating the long hose isn't valid":
yeah sure, but the same logic applies to backmount too. so why train on S-drills and OOG scenarios if this is never to happen? in this same logic, it is better to lose the long hose to begin with then (sarcastic
)
Very good question. Site one case of a diver being renderered completely out of gas when using double tanks in any configuration that uses two 1st stages. I have NEVER heard of one...
6 - "even in independent, i can still easily donate gas":
maybe some individuals would succeed in donating in some way (either donating the short necklage, or breaking the o-ring on the long hose or smthg of the sort). but we can all agree that the easiest way is to donate from the longhose while you're breathing on it.
in an emergency, i don't want to lose even a fraction of a second when someone is giving the OOG signal. to me, this is a big deal and it matters a lot.
Again when would it come up?
within the keeping the end in mind, the most extreme scenario is "OOG in zero vix". procedure is "tap on the regulator and then take it". if the diver donating was on his necklace, i am not saying the OOG diver is definitely gonna drown, but it WILL complicate things.
i have many friends who dive independent SM (i used to be independent SM, remember?). and i did give the OOG test to all of them during fun dives, and i assure you even the most trained among them failed to donate 9 out of 10 times. of course i am not gonna generalise this rate, but i simply won't dive with someone who has a 1 in a million chance of not being able to donate if i EVER run out of gas because he was on his necklace.
anyways, those are not that important to me really. what is important to me the most is staying within what i believe to be the best practise in diving which is the hogarthian system, and how UTD is evolving this system.
i cannot be teaching people all those hogarthian/DIR/UTD principles and then come up and say "ah ok if you're gonna dive sidemount now, forget about half of what you leanred…oh yes in sidemount it is sometimes ok to be solo diving (just one example out many)".
i believe it is a system that works in all of its components and i like to remain consistent within it.
this was really hard for me to write cause i have so much to say but at the same time don't wanna keep writing forever
to recap: i dont see UTD as trying to reinvent the wheel, i believe that i am providing the best education to my students, and that i am creating a community of responsible, competent, and thinking divers…at the end of the day, diving is not rocket science and this is all that matters to me…
and my personal conclusion from this thread is: what's with the utd haters? answer is: the Z-manifold
(oh yes and the rebreather thinggy…don't go there with me, i am not a rebreather diver yet so i am not informed about it)
