GUE and Sidemount position ?

[bamafan]

Does anyone know of a fatality or serious incident where the Z system would have prevented the fatality or helped the incident be less serious? I have never heard of one. With proper gas planning things would have to be really bad to have to share air. Especially when you start adding stages and multiple deco gases. I think this is a solution in search of a problem.

 

[DevonDiver]

Does anyone know of a fatality or serious incident where the Z system would have prevented the fatality or helped the incident be less serious?

In technical diving (this thread is in the tech area of SB), we use accident analysis to establish principles, practices and approaches that improve safety.

That practice removes the need to wait for a specific brand/model of equipment to fail and cause a fatality that we can learn from... and vice-versa, to prove itself.

It's important to note that most of those lessons were learned from OC backmount diving. Sidemount differs to backmount and it's not possible to apply every backmount 'ideal' principle equally. That causes sidemount divers to make some important decisions.

With sidemount (and the Z-system especially) , there's two opposing principles that we understand:

1. The benefit of donating gas from the mouth only. A method that should remain consistent regardless of configuration or phase of a dive.

2. The benefit of simplicity and minimalising equipment and protocols. The K.I.S.S. principle. The reduction of system failure points and task loading and operating stress.

Technical sidemount divers have to choose which one of those agreed principles is most critical; either minimalist and simple independent cylinders, or a mega-complicated manifold approach that allows consistent donation from mouth.

I'd suggest that the vast overwhelming majority of technical sidemount divers prioritise #2.

Only UTD divers, a tiny minority, put #1 ahead of all else. That's a product of developing in a system that only accepts a solitary 'unified' way of diving in mixed teams. (btw, good luck with making CCR consistent! lol)

Either way, sidemount forces technical divers to make a compromise, to some greater or lesser degree.

I get the impression that GUE, in contrast, won't let themselves get drawn into being forced to decide between two, known and agreed, safety principles. That's why there's no sidemount training with GUE yet... they aren't willing to make that compromise.

 

[Darghu]

(Thank you everyone for all your comments I do really really appreciate
I am still around, listening, reading any comments / infos about a standardized Sidemount system
I am not a Sidemount diver I cannot answer but I 'm taking into account anything).

 

[Dan_P]

Does anyone know of a fatality or serious incident where the Z system would have prevented the fatality or helped the incident be less serious?

I think it's often injust to say "this or that would have changed the outcome", so I'm not going to go down that road.
But I will say that the Z has an excellent safety record, which in my view stands in stark contrast to posts crying wolf about it.

As for the applicability of the Z-system, I find it scales and adapts exceptionally well while integrating into the training and diving of its users.
My point on it is I find it rather more useful in my personal diving, and moreover, I certainly haven't yet seen any valid indication - let alone documentation - that it's any less safe than any other solution, perhaps rather the contrary considering UTDs safety record (albeit a smaller data sample than that of other organizations/solutions, in fairness).

 

[Patoux01]

But I will say that the Z has an excellent safety record, which in my view stands in stark contrast to posts crying wolf about it.

So does the Patoux Diving System (tm). That doesn't make it safe.

 

[kensuf]

To be fair, my opinions on the Z system were only formed after spending a weekend co-teaching a cavern course to a student

I solely ask to establish whether you know the Z-system because that's the subject at hand.

I spent two days playing with a Z system (the original version), and I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last week while on vacation. In my opinion, it's convoluted.

 

[tbone1004]

I think it's often injust to say "this or that would have changed the outcome", so I'm not going to go down that road.
But I will say that the Z has an excellent safety record, which in my view stands in stark contrast to posts crying wolf about it.

As for the applicability of the Z-system, I find it scales and adapts exceptionally well while integrating into the training and diving of its users.
My point on it is I find it rather more useful in my personal diving, and moreover, I certainly haven't yet seen any valid indication - let alone documentation - that it's any less safe than any other solution, perhaps rather the contrary considering UTDs safety record (albeit a smaller data sample than that of other organizations/solutions, in fairness).

the big problem with arguing for the Z-systems safety record is the lack of hours that it really has in a cave environment since almost no-one uses it. You can have all sorts of issues in OW that won't cause a problem, and any problems that have happened are likely not reported since there is almost no one diving the thing and AG is too pompous to actually post something in contrast to his beliefs *if you want proof that that is a fact and not an opinion, go watch his response to the complete and utter bullsh!t that is his decompression theory, that was disproven by experiments and what we currently understand about decompression, but he says it's better anyway and that it is because he says it is*

 

[Dan_P]

I spent two days playing with a Z system (the original version), and I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last week while on vacation. In my opinion, it's convoluted.

That's an opinion that you're most entitled to, of course. I'm not saying there's anything wrong in arguing that one finds a system too complex for one's liking in application to their diving. Quite the contrary.

My argument is there's a vast difference between trying out something new and not liking it for one's own diving application, and blabbering on about how it's a death trap without even giving it a go first.
If the "it's dangerous" is presented in the same sentence as "how do you use it?", that's a pretty good indication to the latter.

So does the Patoux Diving System (tm). That doesn't make it safe.

Haven't trained on one, haven't dived it, and I'm not aware of any safety record for it.
That's all I can fairly say about that.

 

[PfcAJ]

Safe and without incident are not the same thing.

 

[Darghu]

Safe and without incident are not the same thing.

Please, elaborate.