Differences Between UTD and GUE

[radagalf]

It's been a while since I was last really into diving (damn life), and I see a new comer on the block with UTD.

What exactly is the difference between them and GUE? From what I've read to this point they just seem to be less rigid. But how exactly? What perturbed these former GUE folks to start UTD?

Thanks in advance.

 

[JeffG]

One starts with a G, the other with an U.

 

[Blackwood]

What exactly is the difference between them and GUE?

There are a few people active on ScubaBoard who have taken classes with both agencies, including:

Rainer : GUE Tech 1, UTD Tech 2+ Crossover,
limeyx : GUE Tech 1, GUE Cave 1-2, UTD Trimix 1-2,
TSandM : GUE Cave 1-2, UTD Tech 1, and
lobstah : GUE Tech 1, UTD Trimix 1-2 and IDC.

They can probably chime in with their experiences. However, the official answer to your question can be found here:

Standards and Procedures | Global Underwater Explorers
Standards and Procedures - Unified Team Diving

What perturbed these former GUE folks to start UTD?

Facebook - Andrew Georgitsis

 

[cfenton]

I started taking UTD Trimix Diver 1/2 (1/3 of the course) and then because of scheduling problems ended up doing Tech 2 with GUE. There are a number of minor differences in procedures that are pretty much inconsequential. One big difference in procedure is the way that deco is calculated. UTD uses ratio deco exclusively, which is basically deco simplified to the extent that it can be easily calculated mentally on the fly. GUE uses modified Buhlmann, and "designer tables" (ratio deco) as a contingency plan.

As far as the training goes IMO there was a world of difference. With UTD the instructor physically removed masks, turned off valves, removed wing dump valves, etc. etc. With GUE the failures were more simulated - the instructor did not remove our mask or touch our valves. Also, in my experience the UTD course introduced many failures, one on top of the other. With the GUE course there were at most 2-3 failures in a row. Finally the UTD course did not stress good trim nearly as much the GUE course. Andrew seemed more concerned with decision making than how we looked in the water.

I thought that the UTD course was more challenging. We had more time to learn, rather than react with the GUE courses. I don't think you can go wrong with either agency.

 

[Rainer]

I generally agree with cfenton that you'll probably get a good class with either agency, but did note some differences with his impressions.

First, I absolutely LOVED my GUE T1 class with Bob Sherwood. It was an amazing seven days. I really don't think I could have gotten a better course. We were taught and now exclusively use Ratio Deco. At no point was trim stressed more than good decision making, but yes, trim was held to a higher standard in my GUE training than my UTD training. I found my GUE class to be much, much more challenging than my UTD class, but that should be expected given that both classes were similar in content and I was a newer diver when I took the GUE class. The academic material is basically the exact same. I appreciate that UTD is willing to do "custom" classes to suit the needs of its students.

I still think it comes down to instructor. For higher level (GUE T2, UTD Trimix 1-2) classes, you have more options with GUE. Ditto for cave diving. For lower level classes, both agencies appear to have exceptional divers/educators.

 

[cfenton]

I generally agree with cfenton that you'll probably get a good class with either agency, but did note some differences with his impressions.

First, I absolutely LOVED my GUE T1 class with Bob Sherwood. It was an amazing seven days. I really don't think I could have gotten a better course. We were taught and now exclusively use Ratio Deco.

I'm curious if that was before Andrew left GUE? In my Tech 1 with Bob (I think 2005) we were definitely taught modified tables first and ratio deco second. In reality at the T1 level we all ended up using ratio deco for primary planning because it is very accurate in this range and much more versatile. By the time I took Tech 2 (2009) the words ratio deco were not even in the power point and there was a short section on "designer tables."

At no point was trim stressed more than good decision making, but yes, trim was held to a higher standard in my GUE training than my UTD training.

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that my GUE Instructor stressed trim over good decision making. It's just that Andrew didn't seem concerned much at all about trim, as long as you weren't vertical. I think the reason was that he expected us to have established our trim by this level, and was more interested in teaching/testing reaction to failures.

I still think it comes down to instructor. For higher level (GUE T2, UTD Trimix 1-2) classes, you have more options with GUE. Ditto for cave diving. For lower level classes, both agencies appear to have exceptional divers/educators.

I totally agree.

 

[Rainer]

I'm curious if that was before Andrew left GUE? In my Tech 1 with Bob (I think 2005) we were definitely taught modified tables first and ratio deco second. In reality at the T1 level we all ended up using ratio deco for primary planning because it is very accurate in this range and much more versatile. By the time I took Tech 2 (2009) the words ratio deco were not even in the power point and there was a short section on "designer tables."

My T1 was after Andrew was asked to leave. We spent a few hours in class using DP (Buhlmann and VPM) to cut tables, and then comparing them to RD. Once we were satisfied that RD basically mimics verified deco profiles, we stuck with RD for the rest of class (and after). Seems a good way to teach the material.

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that my GUE Instructor stressed trim over good decision making. It's just that Andrew didn't seem concerned much at all about trim, as long as you weren't vertical. I think the reason was that he expected us to have established our trim by this level, and was more interested in teaching/testing reaction to failures.

Definitely agree that AG didn't seem as concerned with trim as Bob. Both stressed making smart decisions equally. They both are excellent instructors/divers/drinkers/story-tellers.

 

[boulderjohn]

My T1 was after Andrew was asked to leave. We spent a few hours in class using DP (Buhlmann and VPM) to cut tables, and then comparing them to RD. Once we were satisfied that RD basically mimics verified deco profiles, we stuck with RD for the rest of class (and after). Seems a good way to teach the material.

My experience has been solely with UTD, and the approach has so far been very different from what is described here. The instructional materials tell what is wrong with Bulmann and why a Buhlmann profile is not followed. There is a graph showing a Buhlmann ascent compared with what Andrew calls a "proper" ascent (RD), and there is a significant difference.

 

[Rainer]

Sorry, the point of the comparisons was mainly to show that you get almost exactly the same run time (ignoring He). Yes, you obviously reshape to make use of high PPO2 at bottle switches. Since I've seen both the UTD and GUE material on RD, rest assured, it's pretty darn similar. If your UTD class, however, is not covering *how* RD relates to verified deco theories, that's a disservice. Hopefully you were allowed to play with software and compare those profiles to RD, and understand why and where the changes come from.

My experience has been solely with UTD, and the approach has so far been very different from what is described here. The instructional materials tell what is wrong with Bulmann and why a Buhlmann profile is not followed. There is a graph showing a Buhlmann ascent compared with what Andrew calls a "proper" ascent (RD), and there is a significant difference.

 

[boulderjohn]

Sorry, the point of the comparisons was mainly to show that you get almost exactly the same run time (ignoring He). Yes, you obviously reshape to make use of high PPO2 at bottle switches. Since I've seen both the UTD and GUE material on RD, rest assured, it's pretty darn similar. If your UTD class, however, is not covering *how* RD relates to verified deco theories, that's a disservice. Hopefully you were allowed to play with software and compare those profiles to RD, and understand why and where the changes come from.

Interestingly enough, I just finished running an RD dive I did this weekend through V-Planner (which I know is not Bulmann). We did have almost exactly the same run time, but the V-Planner schedule had us spend more time on O2, while RD had us spend more time on back gas (25/25) before the O2 switch.

(I was interested in trying to figure if there was any obvious reason my buddy got bent.)