What's with the UTD haters?

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!

Status
Not open for further replies.
However, the reason why I don't think it's a critical disadvantage: It can be overcome with training/practice.

This, I think, is a crucial part of your argument that was under-emphasized. Your issues were due to your lack of practice/training in SM. At any point in any dive I can tell you exactly which reg I'm breathing off of, how much air is in the other tank, and about how much air is in the tank I'm breathing off of....especially in the overhead. So, your 4-6 second delay should drop dramatically due to not having to think about it....you just know. The other crucial factor is that my long hose is on a breakaway. If I'm wearing gloves, or it's cold and I've lost dexterity, I just yank on it and break my tiny little zipties. Actually, in an OOA situation, my practice is to tear it off....I don't even fiddle with the clip. It's the SAME time lapse as pulling from my mouth.

Also, as I've said, OOA in training scenarios are VERY unrealistic. Nobody "randomly" goes OOA. Whether in SM or BM, you see it coming. In IndySM, even if you have an unnoticed critical failure at the worst possible moment, you should EASILY be able to switch to your other tank and then let your buddy know your issue. Typically, I'd recommend switching to air share at that point. That way, in good vis, open cave you can share the gas, and save your remaining onboard gas for emergency situations or tight passages. In BM, something catastrophic has happened and your buddy should be aware WELL before you ever signal OOA. No responsible OW diver should EVER be surprised by running OOA. No overhead diver should EVER be surprised by running OOA.

SDS: The only point I'll grant you is flexibility with surface supplied air. If you own your own surface supplied air station, and you dive it regularly on standard trips, and you have the need to switch to it quickly (like no SI), and you don't want to just use the typical surface supplied techniques, and you insist on maintaining the same rig through it all.....there is some benefit. For >99% of divers, this doesn't apply.

As for gearing up in the water, we've had this discussion before and I believe the difference in time to gear up to be VERY marginal. Both systems have to clip on neck clips (if applicable to particular diver), tail clips, neck bungee, and two LPI hoses. With IndySM, you also have to put a necklace on and then route a long hose.
 
Hi Victor,

Although I do understand what you mean, you consider divers competent and what is worse in my ears, you sound a bit like ...
the .."No worries...You will be fine instructor....."

"No responsible OW diver should EVER be surprised by running OOA "" ??? ..Please check the DAN statistics !!

I don`t think that people can always find there second stage, especially not when there is more equipment involved, drysuits, gloves
lights and stage tanks, there are bad divers and good divers.

Divers don't always know what they have in their mouth, maybe you..
All instructors I have had and I know, emphasize on finding a way to do that.

I think you should have a good look at youtube and see what the average level is, that's the same for donating cylinders
in case of OOG.
I think personally I wouldn't have a problem with that, but than again, I a full time Instructor.,,but what a bout the guy that has
an job and goes sidemount every other weekend? 20 times a year? done 200 dives..or 10 dives...???
I also think that you under estimate the importance of having proper OOG procedures, OOG is not only OOG..

People NEED good training....and minimalizing the need of that is a bad idea.
Equipment doesn't kill divers generally.....human error and lack of training does...

Regards
Mike

---------- Post added June 17th, 2014 at 04:31 AM ----------

Victor,
You clearly have a problem.
I always am open to discussing things, but it just looks like you
want to say what you think and don't want to reason.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt once more.
Regards
Mike

---------- Post added June 17th, 2014 at 04:39 AM ----------

Thanks, this is what I was trying to explain Victor, this is why we use the longhose, I also have a problem with the UTD and GUE dogma and this is why I am
on this forum and unlike many try to explain the why and how..
Regards
Mike
 
Hey Mike, your post is TRULY hard to read. However, I'll respond to what I can.

I'm absolutely NOT a "No worries, you'll be fine" instructor. First of all, I'm not an instructor. Second of all, that's the exact opposite of my attitude towards diving. My wife is OW only with like 40 dives under her belt, but we drill to maintain proper neutral buoyancy, horizontal trim, non-silting techniques, and a clean, uncluttered dive gear setup. My philosophy towards everything in life is "Work hard, play hard." I believe that no hobby or sport should be taken lightly, and that skill and proficiency are the ONLY ways of truly enjoying something.....especially when your life is at risk.

Concerning finding your second stage. It should either be in your mouth, or clipped to your shoulder. A second stage is NOT a small piece of equipment, and your chest should be clutter-free enough to find it quickly. With a d-ring in the right location (as it should be) and your second stage clipped off (as it should be), finding it should be as simple as bending your elbow. I say that as a diver that dives with stages, deco bottles, gloves, drysuit, and multiple lights. I can ALWAYS find my second stage.

About knowing what's in your mouth....I don't understand how hard that is for people to get their heads around. Why would you be breathing something if you didn't know for sure what it was? When you're in the UTD Z-manifold, aren't you aware of which tank you're breathing off of? Or do you just randomly fiddle with valves until air starts flowing? I'd hope not!

As for the DAN statistics, I'm not saying divers don't run out of gas.....I'm saying a responsible diver SHOULDN'T. A responsible diver keeps track of their SPGs, keeps an eye on their gas consumption, and generally knows how quickly they should be using their gas. It's certainly not rocket science. Irresponsible divers run out of gas, and if your training methodology produces irresponsible divers that frequently run out of gas, you should look at yourself for the flaw.

My point was that, especially when diving with two independent tanks, running totally out of gas should NEVER happen. If you run one tank out of gas, you switch to your other. That SHOULD make you more aware of your gas consumption, and you should let your buddy know that something has gone wrong enough to cause you to be OOA on one side. If you're diving single tanks, then you're breathing off of just your long hose at all times with a bungeed spare, identical to the Z-SM setup and identical to a typical BPW setup. There's no difference there.

As for me not thinking one needs proper OOG procedures, you're clearly putting words into my mouth as I NEVER said that. My point was that, despite NEEDING OOG procedures, one should never NEED to use them in real life. Needing to use OOG procedures in real life is purely indicative of a failure on the part of the OOG diver.....any disagreement there TRULY concerns me.

Now, here comes the best question: Why would a diver unskilled and irresponsible enough to be surprised by an OOG situation be carrying multiple stages? Why would they be diving SM in the first place?? My wife was better than that from Dive 1 onwards.

As far as me not wanting to reason, I have clearly provided a logical progression for EVERYTHING I have stated. Nothing I've said has been without reasoning. Even a very pro-UTD user on here (who shall remain nameless) has admitted to. I'm an engineer, I think in nothing but logic. That's what bothers me about the UTD system....I simply cannot comprehend it. I have read and read and read, and I have yet to envision a series of circumstances (other than surface supplied air) in which the UTD system is worth it.

Like you said, people NEED good training. That training should encompass emergency procedures. I've been trained by inarguably one of the best cave divers in the world (arguably THE best), and he did nothing but drill emergency procedures. I feel truly confident that I could handle any series of plausible emergencies and exit any cave into which I have entered in a safe and controlled manner, alone or in a team....mixed teams or not. I know that because I DO risk my life on that assumption.
 
So... this thread has devolved some. What exactly does running out of gas have to do with UTD and their goofy Z-system? Solo or otherwise?

Thus far we've heard a lot of reasonable arguments as to why the Z system isn't favorable (which I believe was the OP's initial question) and a lot of UTD divers claiming that they "just like it better"

Seems like the question has been asked and answered. The cult will continue to march on and the rest of us will dive in a manner we find more sensible.
 
I think it has to do with one of the main justifications for it being standardized procedures for OOA.


I agree with your reasoning Victor but can say that I did go OOA in one tank while backmounting ID's. This was due to the over zealousness of recently starting to shoot video and forgetting to make a planned gas switch. I was so focused on capturing the images I wanted that I plain forgot. In the end it was a non event as I switched and ended the dive but a good wake up call regarding the dangers of cameras/taskloading.

Sometimes people just make mistakes and I have always seen the value in completely redundant systems as a way to mitigate that.

As a solo diver I also like the fact that, if things have gone wrong with one system, I can go off it and use a completely separate functional one. I prefer this (even though it allows a bit less gas for the dive) than to be committed to trying to work one malfunctioning system. Team divers may not see the same need as their second functional bailout system is being carried by their buddy/ies.
 
I think it has to do with one of the main justifications for it being standardized procedures for OOA.

I think this is why it's such a pivotal argument. One of the main points of the UTD system is that you can always donate out of your mouth. If one can safely assume that, especially with ID's, nobody will run completely out of gas out of both tanks without knowing, then it really starts hurting them at their ONE main benefit.


I agree with your reasoning Victor but can say that I did go OOA in one tank while backmounting ID's. This was due to the over zealousness of recently starting to shoot video and forgetting to make a planned gas switch. I was so focused on capturing the images I wanted that I plain forgot.
Since you forgot due to taskloading that was beyond your comfortable level of practice, I can safely say you weren't being a truly responsible diver. You were being a fairly responsible diver in that you mitigated that risk by having a redundant air source. You should've been able to quickly and easily switch to your other tank and make it a non-issue. If diving with a buddy, you could've notified him of the situation and ended the dive. In a cave, your buddy would need to make a more conscious effort of assisting you with gas if necessary as it becomes a much more real possibility. If in OW, conditions dictate the protocol (end the dive, go shallower to finish the dive, or proceed as normal with a little additional caution).

In the end it was a non event as I switched and ended the dive
This is the point I was getting at. In IndySM, there's NO reason to run fully out of gas. You run one tank dry, call yourself an idiot, switch to your other tank, call yourself an idiot again, and throw that big, fat thumb in the air....er, water.

Sometimes people just make mistakes and I have always seen the value in completely redundant systems as a way to mitigate that.
People absolutely make mistakes.....but the higher the stakes, the less mistakes should be allowable. In perfect, clear conditions, in warm water, on a bright day with a lake-smooth surface, on a 20ft dive, you can be a lot less attentive than a "normal" dive. In caves, you need to be more attentive. In a deep cave, even more so. Huge penetration numbers in a deep cave with a couple scooters and stages? VERY attentive. A fully redundant system helps my mind.....but I can see where a manifold in backmounted doubles would be nice, for all the arguments GUE divers use. But in SM especially, I want my systems 100% independent.

As a solo diver I also like the fact that, if things have gone wrong with one system, I can go off it and use a completely separate functional one. I prefer this (even though it allows a bit less gas for the dive) than to be committed to trying to work one malfunctioning system. Team divers may not see the same need as their second functional bailout system is being carried by their buddy/ies.
Absolutely. Any time the two systems touch is a possible point of total failure. Solo or not, I think any diver should be able to complete any dive at any time under any circumstances, including buddy separation. My quote to my wife (OW only, <50 dives) is: Were you comfortable enough on that dive that if I (or the guide, or whomever) got shot with a speargun you'd be able to make it to safety without me (or the guide, or whomever).

PS- Dale, it might sound like I'm disagreeing with you....I'm really not. I'm simply using you as an example to illustrate what I mean.
 
Last edited:
Victor,
Thank you for your explanation.
I do understand you better now, thanks for taking your time.
I think you look at this very black and white, also regarding who you think was the best instructor in the world. (Who was it, if I may ask), very personal I would think.
Again, I understand the independent SM system, I have been trained on indep. Sm, by one of the worlds most "famous" Instructors btw.
And you wont hear me saying it is all bad...
The z system is a system for divers that want to dive in another fashion.
I like to teach it, and it works.
Obviously, when you don't embrace the teaching and diving philosophy that comes with it, it becomes hard to understand the Z.
The strength can be found in consistency and scalability of the system and the DIR way of teaching, a tool for divers with a DIR background.

Have a look at the video of this 16 year old kid, he can switch from backmount to sidemount without any issues, and has no trim problems on backmount neither on sidemount. (One of the reasons people should dive sidemount according to many famous instructors)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uptWjy_ObJo

Think about this ; UTD produces highly skilled divers and instructors , I am not being arrogant but this is common knowledge,
The UTD didactic's go way way beyond your standard technical agency's way of doing things, there is a whole playbook full with information, for students and instructors that take it all a step further.
This is an awesome tool for an instructor...and I am talking from rec to full cave...and it is all consistent..how cool is that?
Now I can do an "advanced" course on the z system and the last dive my student goes back to backmount....zero issues...you see it ?
There must be a reason why these people want to dive the Z system, not?
If people are not able to see further, well than that's their loss.

Un saludo
Mike
 
. . .
I do understand you better now, thanks for taking your time.
I think you look at this very black and white, also regarding who you think was the best instructor in the world. (Who was it, if I may ask), very personal I would think.
Again, I understand the independent SM system, I have been trained on indep. Sm, by one of the worlds most "famous" Instructors btw.
And you wont hear me saying it is all bad...
The z system is a system for divers that want to dive in another fashion.
I like to teach it, and it works.
Obviously, when you don't embrace the teaching and diving philosophy that comes with it, it becomes hard to understand the Z.
The strength can be found in consistency and scalability of the system and the DIR way of teaching, a tool for divers with a DIR background.

Have a look at the video of this 16 year old kid, he can switch from backmount to sidemount without any issues, and has no trim problems on backmount neither on sidemount. (One of the reasons people should dive sidemount according to many famous instructors)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uptWjy_ObJo

Think about this ; UTD produces highly skilled divers and instructors , I am not being arrogant but this is common knowledge,
The UTD didactic's go way way beyond your standard technical agency's way of doing things, there is a whole playbook full with information, for students and instructors that take it all a step further.
This is an awesome tool for an instructor...and I am talking from rec to full cave...and it is all consistent..how cool is that?
Now I can do an "advanced" course on the z system and the last dive my student goes back to backmount....zero issues...you see it ?
There must be a reason why these people want to dive the Z system, not?
If people are not able to see further, well than that's their loss.

Un saludo
Mike
Saludos y que tengas un buen buceo!

Common ideas to above --and recitation yet again for the Haters:

The objective for myself is again to keep consistency with the Long-Hose Paradigm that I first learned in GUE Fundamentals of Better Diving Course well over ten years ago, and in keeping to that firm foundation and best practice as it applies to sidemount, I have accommodated the learning curve of the Z-system distribution block, and incorporated its contingency procedures to make any rare occurrence "failure points" a benign & manageable event.

The Z-Distribution Block is a Low Pressure block with 8 static o-rings. The chances of failure are considerably less than let's say an Isolator Knob on a conventional backmount doubles manifold (High Pressure and dynamic), so I am not concerned, especially since that Distribution Block is relatively tiny and buried between my shoulder blades, compared to an exposed conventional crossover backmount manifold --so chances of smacking/fracturing it on an overhead ceiling are slim.


Every concept and technique of DIR/Hogarth as it applies to past courses on Tech/Deco Diving, Scooter/DPV, Cavern and Advanced Wreck Diving that I've taken over these ten years --it all applies similarly to Z-system sidemount: No need to configure with breakaway clips for regulators or other such machinations & convolutions of classical independent doubles sidemount diving; no need to learn incompatible or confounding techniques & procedures with that already inculcated in my "muscle memory."
 
Saludos y que tengas un buen buceo!

Common ideas to above --and recitation yet again for the Haters:

The objective for myself is again to keep consistency with the Long-Hose Paradigm that I first learned in GUE Fundamentals of Better Diving Course well over ten years ago, and in keeping to that firm foundation and best practice as it applies to sidemount, I have accommodated the learning curve of the Z-system distribution block, and incorporated its contingency procedures to make any rare occurrence "failure points" a benign & manageable event.

The Z-Distribution Block is a Low Pressure block with 8 static o-rings. The chances of failure are considerably less than let's say an Isolator Knob on a conventional backmount doubles manifold (High Pressure and dynamic), so I am not concerned, especially since that Distribution Block is relatively tiny and buried between my shoulder blades, compared to an exposed conventional crossover backmount manifold --so chances of smacking/fracturing it on an overhead ceiling are slim.


Every concept and technique of DIR/Hogarth as it applies to past courses on Tech/Deco Diving, Scooter/DPV, Cavern and Advanced Wreck Diving that I've taken over these ten years --it all applies similarly to Z-system sidemount: No need to configure with breakaway clips for regulators or other such machinations & convolutions of classical independent doubles sidemount diving; no need to learn incompatible or confounding techniques & procedures with that already inculcated in my "muscle memory."


I've had static orings on 1st stages fail a bunch (extruded pre-dive, during a stage switch, etc). I've had a manifold oring fail once.

Convolute. You're doing it.
 
"The z system is a system for divers that want to dive in another fashion"

Meth amphetamine is a system for people who want to socialize in another fashion...

Can we argue a justification for using meth?

"....and it works"

So does this...

bad-sidemount-diving.jpg


.... but does it work well?

"...when you don't embrace the teaching and diving philosophy that comes with it,.."

from UTD's 10 Covenants':

Minimalist Approach – Only take what you need for the dive.

I only need two independant cylinders/regulators. I don't need a 'Dr. Octopus' contraption with extra meters of hose, numerous connections and a shut-down valve located (thoughtfully) between my shoulder blades where I cannot see it.

5067.gif


Why does UTD need more?

The 'covenant' says "what you need for the dive".... not "what you need for compatibility on other dives..."


Holistic – All components of the system are thought out, work together and have a solid reason behind their use and placement.

People have already questioned, legitimately, the reasoning behind the z-system and it's design. This has been raised repeatedly, but never answered adequately.


Streamlined and Accessible Equipment Configuration – All components can be stowed, yet are convenient to access.


Putting valves and connectors behind the shoulders is neither convenient, nor easily accessible.


Situational Awareness – Manage the environment, equipment and team...

Situational awareness of indie sidemount is far higher than that z-system or backmount. Unless you have eyes behind your head. Yes, the team plays a role in problem solving/dealing... but the individual benefits from greater awareness... and there is none greater than having your equipment and most critical failure locations where you can see them.

"...it becomes hard to understand the Z"

Except many of those involved in this thread ARE well aware of UTD's (DIR) principles... and it is THAT inconsistency that makes the z-system so hard to understand.

"...DIR way of teaching, a tool for divers with a DIR background"

Let's be honest. There's nothing 'DIR' about the z-system. Any more so than putting superfluous hoses and QR attachments onto back-mounted doubles would be...

Have a look at the video of this 16 year old kid, he can switch from backmount to sidemount without any issues, and has no trim problems on backmount neither on sidemount.

Irrelevant to the discussion. Most, if not all, fundamentally well-trained backmount divers can switch to sidemount and retain those solid fundamentals. That is equally true with independent or 'Dr.Octopus' approaches to hose routing...

"... UTD didactic's go way way beyond your standard technical agency's way of doing things, there is a whole playbook full with information,..."

A history of good decisions can never justify a later mistake.

Complacency... being 'good' before, doesn't excuse doing something bad now... nor to think that it would, nor to ignore the community in it's warning on this...

Also "standard technical agencies" (ie IANTD, TDI, ANDI etc...) don't manufacture their own branded equipment and write spurious standards and procedures (and twist philosophies) to make such equipment mandatory to students.

This is an awesome tool for an instructor...and I am talking from rec to full cave...and it is all consistent..how cool is that?

No cooler than indie-sidemount; with which I can progress a student from open-water to full cave, advanced sidemount, trimix, technical wreck and beyond....

There must be a reason why these people want to dive the Z system, not?

1. Do they 'want' to? Or is it enforced by standards?
2. Some people want to take part in cult-suicides. They also believe what they are told, unquestioningly.


Note: No divers were killed or injured in the dive portrayed below..

technical sidemount course philippines.jpg

Note: A UTD qualified diver (below) undertaking sidemount class with indie cylinders (he wasn't killed or injured either). And for the record...that's at least one UTD-trained diver that abandoned UTD to learn sidemount elsewhere (because of the z-system). I wonder how many others there are?

You never mentioned how many don't choose to continue with UTD into sidemount because of the z-system...

Sidemount-diving-courses-subic-bay-philippines.jpg

Note: A PADI qualified diver (below) also undertaking sidemount class with indie cylinders (nope...he's still alive too... and has no problems transferring between sidemount and back-mount whenever he likes.... or diving in mixed-teams.... because he's well trained to do so...

sublevel-2.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom