What's with the UTD haters?

[DevonDiver]

...if you could post a logical reason for why independent sidemount won't work in OW, I'd really love to hear one. BTW, I totally understand the argument for indyBM doubles and manifolded BM doubles and those are decisions each diver must make

I agree. The logic seems to be nothing more than:

If Manifold Backmount is better then Indie Backmount, thus Manifold Sidemount must be better than Indie Sidemount.

That's a very flawed premise - in two totally different configurations, the same pattern of pros and cons do not apply.

I believe that initially flawed premise saw some tunnel-vision in the construct of sidemount philosophy; one that rejects the wider community knowledge and, ultimately, forces compromise on several key UTD/DIR principles...

The difference is.... backmount manifold is born of community consensus. Sidemount manifold rejects community consensus. That should ring alarm bells...

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

Clearly not in a cogent manner. I have asked multiple times for it to be explained to me. I have yet to see any GOOD reasons for it. I have yet to see anything that wasn't fully contradictory.

I have explained my own reasons for liking the manifold system, they come down to flexibility and convenience. If these are not "good" reasons for you, that's fine, but I have posted them numerous times here and on other threads.

My point-of-view, until someone can prove otherwise, is that the Z-manifold is the product of a flawed need-analysis. In abandoning the real for the hypothetical, UTD has set itself upon a track that now compromises other known... real... proven... hogarthian principles.

Thus, both the method of analysis, the proposed problems and the identified solution are fundamentally incorrect.

Much like with @victorzamora, this is because your priorities are different from mine. If your "needs" are 100 percent about safety, then yes, the Z is not the right solution for you, and I totally respect that.

You dive some heavy duty stuff. My diving is advanced recreational open water. The needs are different, as are the safety margins, as are the solutions.

If flexibility and convenience are important issues, then the Z System does solve some problems for the diver. And as I've said before, I can accept the added failure points, given the kind of diving I do, and I know the procedures for handling the failures.

---------- Post added February 18th, 2014 at 07:58 AM ----------

I am enjoying this lively and peaceful debate.

2. The QC6 might be very robust, but it is still attached to a hose. Hoses fail. Let me ask you this, if you are on a dive trip and your QC6 hose fails, how easy is it to replace? If one of my hoses fail, I can go to just about any dive shop and get a reasonable replacement and keep diving. Is your dive trip over?

To address this one issue, the QC6 is just a connector. Male and female ends are attached to standard regulator hoses. I haven't heard of QC6 failing, but yes, to be absolutely safe on a remote trip, you'd probably want a spare connector in your save-a-dive box. (They're not cheap either, which accounts for some of the added expense of the Z system.)

If one failed and you had no spare, then you'd have to dive single. If the female side failed shut, you could just ignore the plug on that side. If the female side failed open, you'd have to pull the hose and put an LP plug in the input port on that side.

If any of the hoses fail, it's just a standard regulator hose you need to replace.

 

[DevonDiver]

If your "needs" are 100 percent about safety, then yes, the Z is not the right solution for you, and I totally respect that.

You dive some heavy duty stuff. My diving is advanced recreational open water. The needs are different, as are the safety margins, as are the solutions.

With all due respect, that could almost be translated as an abandonment of the 'begin with the end in mind' approach which tends to define DIR?

If flexibility and convenience are important issues, then the Z System does solve some problems for the diver. And as I've said before, I can accept the added failure points, given the kind of diving I do, and I know the procedures for handling the failures.

I'm still confused over these purported benefits to flexibility and convenience? I see nothing more convenient than two simply configured regulators attached to two cylinders. It's very convenient and flexible, both in-water and out.

Failure points aren't just about "you're gonna die"... they also ruin dives. The less failure points, the less there is to fail - regardless of the frequency of failure - more kit simply means more can go wrong. If you don't need it, then don't use it. The discussion on z-manifold is about need, not want.

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

With all due respect, that could almost be translated as an abandonment of the 'begin with the end in mind' approach which tends to define DIR?

You have a point here. But I can only speak for myself, and the benefits I see. I can't make a safety argument for the Z in critical environments, because I'm not trained at that level. I have to leave that for others to debate. UTD does promote it as an "end in mind" solution, and the weak points of this assertion have been pointed out.

I'm still confused over these purported benefits to flexibility and convenience? I see nothing more convenient than two simply configured regulators attached to two cylinders. It's very convenient and flexible, both in-water and out.

I have found it useful (in my thinking and my dive practice) to be able to separate the gas source from the gas delivery. The "source" can be a single tank, double tanks, a surface supply, or an alternate gas. Any of these can be changed on the fly with the Z System.

The "delivery mechanism" -- my second stages, inflators, and all the hose routing -- stays the same regardless. These are configured and ready before I even hit the water, and don't change as my gas sources change.

This may be a "want" or "like" instead of a "need", but I find it useful.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

i cannot speak on behalf of GUE, but i am a UTD instructor and i can definitely vouch for one of the UTD teaching pillars: law of readiness.
which simply stands for "there is a reason behind EVERYTHING we do and why we do it the way we do"…so you see, it is never "cause i said so".

and what i personally do during my courses, and this is what i was encouraged to do during my IDC, is to encourage people to challenge any idea or protocol in our system. this way, we ensure that people understand why we do things the way we do; or better yet: they might challenge one of our ideas and we might end up enhancing our procedures. so it's a win-win on all levels.

i totally understand your concern about standardisation, and it's a very valid one. but once again, it is the instructor's approach that defines either he's developing procedure-following robots or actual "thinking divers".

i hope i have answered your concern.

... not in any way that makes sense to me. Based on the responses I've seen in this and other threads about the value of standardization as it applies to the Z-system, and the out-of-hand dismissal of any arguments questioning its real merits, I'd say that a great deal of what I've read is what I'd categorize as "dogma" ... it makes sense as an intellectual exercise, but it doesn't hold up well to the scrutiny of real-world application.

In effect, I understand the reason behind it ... but I question that the reason is really as advantageous as many would claim it to be. And at least from my perspective, the drawbacks have not been given the same degree of consideration as the advantages. It's as though the arguments were drawn from the conclusions, rather than the other way around ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

---------- Post added February 18th, 2014 at 09:15 AM ----------

ok i see your point. before i write my reply, i just have a quick question for you: do you consider independent SM to be 100% compliant with the hogarthian system? just a quick answer for me to know how to approach this matter that's all…no challenge nor anything

No ... but I don't see 100% compliance to be as big of an issue as UTD apparently does.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[gearhound]

Can a lot of this be traced back to the fact that UTD is both a training agency and an equipment distributor? And statements made for sales purposes are taken as gospel. UTD students are required to buy the z system in order to take their course. Otherwise there would be very few sales.

With regards to being Hogarthian, they seem to pick and choose. UTD is focused on the donating the long hose and thrown out the other tenets of being Hogarthian such as simplicity and reducing failure points. But by focusing on that one point, they are claiming to be Hogarthian. When does a Hogarthian diver have to carry an extra second stage in his pocket?

They also seem to question their own intelligence. In every S-Drill and basic 6 drill, are they not taught to clip off the long hose with one hand? Yet they are saying they lose this ability when they are in sidemount? And they have the wherewithal to pop off and connect a second stage during an emergency but can't figure out how to yank a hose on a breakaway clip? Even in Dive 1 of a basic open water course I teach students to yank an alternate air source from their buddy's bcd. They don't seem to have an issue performing the skill.

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

Can a lot of this be traced back to the fact that UTD is both a training agency and an equipment distributor? And statements made for sales purposes are taken as gospel. UTD students are required to buy the z system in order to take their course. Otherwise there would be very few sales. .

For sidemount, this is true. However, nearly all UTD courses can also be taken in backmount configuration, in which case you have your choice of gear. (My BP/W is Dive Rite.)

I have said this a number of times before: at no point in any of my experiences with UTD have I gotten a "hard sell" about their gear.

But yes, if you want to train sidemount with UTD, you need to use a Z System, because their sidemount standards and procedures are based around it.

When does a Hogarthian diver have to carry an extra second stage in his pocket?

This is only true for the distribution block, not the manifold. Most LP failures that used to require the spare reg can now be taken care of by isolating.

They also seem to question their own intelligence. In every S-Drill and basic 6 drill, are they not taught to clip off the long hose with one hand? Yet they are saying they lose this ability when they are in sidemount?

UTD teaches one handed Basic 6 from the start for everyone, and it works exactly the same with the Z System or backmount.

The only very minor difference is that in S Drills, there's no over-the-shoulder step to fully deploy the long hose. The long hose comes from under the armpit, so you just untuck it from the waist strap.

And they have the wherewithal to pop off and connect a second stage during an emergency but can't figure out how to yank a hose on a breakaway clip?

Again, the spare reg is not used much anymore, since we can isolate.

The breakaway clip and necklace are certainly good safety adds to independent SM, but it's not a configuration that fits within UTD at the moment.

The good thing about UTD as an organization is that these things are open for discussion/inclusion moving forward if there's a strong case to be made. At least the founders and board are open to such discussions.

Can you have such discussions about independent sidemount with GUE? (It's a serious question I don't know the answer to, not trying to be facetious.)

 

[victorzamora]

I have explained my own reasons for liking the manifold system, they come down to flexibility and convenience. If these are not "good" reasons for you, that's fine, but I have posted them numerous times here and on other threads.

First of all, that comment was made towards alainnajm....but it's a fair point, flexibility is something to be calculated. However, besides surface supplied which is pretty cool, I don't think it's a "good reason" at all, based upon follow up questions. In terms of doubles vs singles and SM vs BM flexibility.....I see no added flexibility here. I've asked follow-up questions that have gotten skirted, so I could be wrong....but this is my understanding:
1) If you're switching tanks you still have to change your regs over
2) If you're taking your harness off you have the same amount of work (maybe more) with the QC6s compared to indySM.
3) Also, when you switch to backmount there's no crossover at all and you have to fully swap your regs around.

Much like with @victorzamora, this is because your priorities are different from mine. If your "needs" are 100 percent about safety, then yes, the Z is not the right solution for you, and I totally respect that.

My needs ARE all about 100% safety. And it's funny that you mention that you're trading to a system with more flexibility at the cost of safety....when the main selling point of the Z-manifold is about how safe it is and how dangerous indy-SM is. I would've never thought that a student of DIR would say they traded safety for convenience. It seems to be the opposite of DIR.

You dive some heavy duty stuff. My diving is advanced recreational open water. The needs are different, as are the safety margins, as are the solutions.

My perspective on this is as follows: If it's safe enough for a serious cave dive, it's safe enough for the reef. Why should I give up safety just because I'm not in a cave right now? Why would I purchase a system that limits me to the absolute bare minimum capabilities of a similar system, at a vastly increased price? Seven seconds once every couple of months (or days, or weeks...how often do you really go from indySM to surface supplied without taking your harness off?) isn't worth it to me.I can't imagine it being worth it to anybody....especially when it adds taskloading on every dive (turning on/off tanks) and provides more failure points AND a less robust system on every dive? Also, it doesn't even save that much time compared to surface supplied from indySM.

If flexibility and convenience are important issues, then the Z System does solve some problems for the diver at the cost of safety. And as I've said before, I can accept the added failure points, given the kind of diving I do, and I know the procedures for handling the failures.

This may be a "want" or "like" instead of a "need", but I find it useful.

It's absolutely a "want" or a "like" and it's absolutely not a "need".....but that's your choice to make. I just don't see how any responsible diver could make the decision that saving a few seconds is more important than safety.

Just to give an example of how little sense the whole "flexibility" position makes to me: It's quicker to just unplug a QC6 to switch between STSM and DTSM. Fair enough. However, if you're planning the dive ahead of time you should be planning whether you'll be diving STSM or DTSM. I always do. It takes me 2 minutes to switch my regs around. If you don't because plans change drastically at the last moment, it still shouldn't be that big of a deal. Example: I was planning DTSM dive. First stage o-ring cracked, causing my second stage to free flow. The first diver on the boat was getting in the water. I pulled out an allen wrench and a crescent wrench and, with one tank attached to me on a rocking boat with no help, switched over hoses for a STSM dive and I wasn't the last diver in the water. Another time, the plan changed due to weather and instead of paying for both tanks I just took the one. I mounted my longhose tank/reg on my left side (more confident with STSM on left) and dove with a single second stage. My wife was my buddy, and we've practiced buddy breathing. Max depth was also like 30ft, so I was confident we'd be fine. Zero time, low risk. In neither scenario did I delay anything. Both scenarios were nearly "worst case." Heck, I considered diving with a leaking right post in the first scenario and just feathering it while I was breathing off of it .

Either way, it's clear you don't see a safety benefit. UTD's main selling point on it is how safe it is and how unsafe indySM is. Their other selling point is consistency. It's very clear there's little or no consistency between platforms (other than STSM, DTSM, and surface-supplied). And it's my opinion that the flexibility and speed you keep referencing is not worth the additional failure points (even for rec-only diving) nor is it as pronounced as you make it sound. It also seems clear to me that the only reason you're diving it is because UTD said you had to to receive their SM training. However, it seems like you're starting to think about things on your own now.....which is great, regardless of which path you choose. If you are aware of the pros and cons of your system and you still choose to dive it, then that's MUCH better than not knowing and diving whichever system I think is best. I'd respect you more for diving the Z-manifold because of a decision you made than indySM based on a decision I made, no matter how much better I think indySM is.

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

1) If you're switching tanks you still have to change your regs over

Not if you have additional first stages with male QC-6.

2) If you're taking your harness off you have the same amount of work (maybe more) with the QC6s compared to indySM.

Probably the same, since at that point the tanks are already off in either case. Taking tanks off with the QC6 is marginally easier, since there are no hoses to un-route or first stages to stow.

3) Also, when you switch to backmount there's no crossover at all and you have to fully swap your regs around.

Of course. I never asserted that there's any convenience when switching from Z to backmount. This is not something I typically do on the same day: I generally decide when I'm packing my dive bag whether my day will be backmount or sidemount.

My needs ARE all about 100% safety. And it's funny that you mention that you're trading to a system with more flexibility at the cost of safety....when the main selling point of the Z-manifold is about how safe it is and how dangerous indy-SM is. I would've never thought that a student of DIR would say they traded safety for convenience. It seems to be the opposite of DIR.

I guess that's because I have not been fully DIR indoctrinated yet.

My perspective on this is as follows: If it's safe enough for a serious cave dive, it's safe enough for the reef.

Absolutely, point taken.

It's absolutely a "want" or a "like" and it's absolutely not a "need".....but that's your choice to make. I just don't see how any responsible diver could make the decision that saving a few seconds is more important than safety.

Every diver has their own perception of safety margins and "acceptable risk". If I were really obsessed with safety, I'd never leave my couch. And then I'd probably die of a coronary.

I'm just saying that the safety scale is relative, not absolute. It's not about "safe vs unsafe", it's about degrees of safety.

Either way, it's clear you don't see a safety benefit. UTD's main selling point on it is how safe it is and how unsafe indySM is. Their other selling point is consistency.

UTD has never criticized independent sidemount as "unsafe". The Z System was primarily AG's effort to make sidemount as fully "DIR compatible" as possible, so that UTD could teach it under the organization's "10 covenants".

At the same time, AG was trying to make CCR side-mountable and compatible as well. Don't ask me to comment about any CCR stuff, though. I have no experience with it, and I realize there's a lot of criticism about that as well.

I think the CCR influence is how the Z ended up with QC-6 connectors. Their presence may make more sense if viewed from that perspective.

I'd respect you more for diving the Z-manifold because of a decision you made than indySM based on a decision I made, no matter how much better I think indySM is.

I think this is my situation. As I've already mentioned, a major reason I chose the Z system was the availability of training 10 minutes from where I live, and the lack of IndySM instructors around SoCal.

I originally became interested in sidemount because my spine can't handle backmount doubles. I've come to appreciate the many pleasures of sidemount that have nothing to do with the Z, and the flexibility and conveniences that are specific to the Z. I do believe I have my eyes open to the additional failure points, and know how to minimize the risks associated with those.

 

[DevonDiver]

I have said this a number of times before: at no point in any of my experiences with UTD have I gotten a "hard sell" about their gear.

But yes, if you want to train sidemount with UTD, you need to use a Z System, because their sidemount standards and procedures are based around it.

IMHO, that kinda counts as a 'hard sell'... let's not think otherwise

The Z System was primarily AG's effort to make sidemount as fully "DIR compatible" as possible, so that UTD could teach it under the organization's "10 covenants".

10 Covenants of UTD


6. Minimalist Approach – Only take what you need for the dive.
7. Holistic – All components of the system are thought out, work together and have a solid reason behind their use and placement.
8. Streamlined and Accessible Equipment Configuration – All components can be stowed, yet are convenient to access.

We've talked about need versus want. We've talked about failure points. People have questioned placement of the manifold and the complexity of the drills needed.

Personally, I'd question the z-manifold as appropriate for an organization that had these covenants....