What's with the UTD haters?

[Kevrumbo]

I think you are wrong in believing there are many UTD haters. In backmount they actually seem to have quite a good reputation.

For myself I always have to remind myself when watching the UTD z-system videos on youtube that this is not meant satirically.
I simply cannot believe what I am shown there

The mentioned thread seems to me like a misunderstanding.
All the questions are about things that do not require strict standardization.

Speaking for myself I am mostly uninteressed in the hose lengths of fellow divers that do not use exactly identical first and second stages.

Its like standardizing octopus hose length or first stage placement on y-valves, impossible and in my opinion unreasonable.

Fair enough & good diving to you . . .!

 

[mathauck0814]

I'm very familiar with the agency and its equipment. I'm also quite vocal in objection to many of its merits in the SD dive community. I see the issues with UTD very specifically though (all of which are my opinions and you're free to disagree):

1. The rebreather system makes no sense whatsoever.
2. The z-manifold has no practical application that required its development. It's a piece of equipment that was necessary to facilitate...
3. Team diving. There is no way for this concept to work without disadvantaging the CCR diver in the team.
4. The way that UTD is presenting the SM system to new divers as, "less work, less lifting, etc" has resulted in a sizeable group of divers who show up to local boats expecting to be catered to. If you're not physically capable of lifting your AL80 into the water and attaching it yourself, ought you be diving in the first place?

Those caveats aside, they train excellent divers. I'm sort of constantly amazed that we don't see any of them on the expedition depth trips, but then I suppose they keep to their own crews (who are admittedly more apt to go down to Mexico and cave dive than to go out and hit the wrecks @ ~370fsw in the channel islands) and don't mix with ours, but they do seem to have great success with new divers.

If all UTD ever did was improve the quality of basic recreational and technical diver education, I think that's a great thing. I'm willing to overlook their misguided notions on CCR/Mixed teams and just not participate in those aspects of their curriculum or divers who do.

 

[Razorista]

Fair enough & good diving to you . . .!

Likewise.

 

[Kevrumbo]

... and that's exactly what I was getting in in my reply #102 when I said "My issue with both GUE and UTD is that while they both purport to train "thinking divers", their emphasis on standardization tends to do exactly the opposite, by promoting a thought process that encourages acceptance of an approach without really examining the merits of the rationalization behind it or how it applies to specific circumstances ... and they discourage examining alternative solutions to problems where their standardization isn't really a good fit, with rationalizations why that approach is still the best way to go."

While it doesn't always apply, it often does ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Bob, that was a splendid post . . . right up to the point where you state that GUE's insistence on standardization defeats the idea of creating a thinking diver, by not encouraging people to develop a rationale for their equipment choices. I know you took your GUE training a LONG time ago, Bob, and I think to some degree things are different. In all the classes I have taken, we go through the equipment and talk about the options one could have (within reason -- I mean, if you went through ALL the options you'd never get to anything else in the class!) and why GUE has chosen the option it has. And sometimes, it's made clear that there wasn't really superiority in one choice, but something had to be chosen to maintain standardization. JJ has been very frank, in public communication, that standardization is one of the core tenets of the system, and although small details are likely unimportant in the majority of lower stress diving, they may very well be important if you are spending 5 hours underground at 300 feet, or penetrating a WWII wreck at 400 feet. I don't know -- I don't do those dives, and I never will.

But my point is that any GUE diver should be able to explain a cogent rationale for the gear setup he is using. And the agency is beginning to accept that not all diving can be done with the core equipment, and although I believe they will always restrict the use of other configurations to their highest level trainees, they ARE doing it.

... but it also produces those who can only repeat what their instructor told them, without really understanding the "why" behind it. We see those conversations taking place in here regularly, and while they are not representative of the intent of the agency, they are a product of them.

You can't really be a thinking diver and be dismissive, out of hand, of alternative approaches to problem-solving. That your solution works doesn't mean other solutions don't.

Throughout this entire conversation, for example, those who are promoting the merits of the Z-system dismiss ... without really considering the merits of the argument ... those who have attempted to explain the weaknesses.

GUE isn't really any different ... there are those like yourself who examine alternative approaches, even if you ultimately decide it's not for you ... and there are those who simply deride those approaches as somehow inferior. Both are a product of the same training ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

The objective for myself is again to keep consistency with the Long-Hose Paradigm 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."

 

[Razorista]

In my opinion the failure potential people see is not the distribution block itself, but rather the low pressure hoses (which are known to fail sometimes) and tiny o-rings compared to a high pressure backmount manifold (that can shrug off hammer blows).

Its hard to ignore that you wrap about double hose length around your body compared to a 'long-hose-short-hose sidemount' or a backmount setup and more than three times as much compared to a short hose only system.

There are a lot of inconsistencies that have not been cleared up by the explanations available to me.
For example you can isolate just like a backmount system in case of failure, but you cannot isolate and equalize pressures every few minutes, you have to reroute your quick connects.
I found posts in forums and blog comments here and there that point out other aspects what require completely different solutions compared to every other system.
But I do not want to seem to be 'bashing' anything.
I would really like to read an explanation sometime that clears up some of the questions for me.

There is also the thing with the quick-connects that no one dares to criticize anymore to avoid the wrath of well connected rebreather users

 

[decompression]

I'll see what I can do to address any questions that I can with the limited knowledge I have.

The low pressure hoses are identical to ones on BM and traditional SM. Same with the O rings, the plugs on the manifold again are identical to the ones on Standard first stages.
There are more hoses but I don't think that's much of a concern for me.
What are the inconsistencies that you're unsure of?
The isolate feature- as it's a low pressure manifold it doesn't equalize like a HP BM manifold. There is no requirement to reroute the QC 6's. Each tank is controlled independently (valves) similar to reg switches for gas management. Please feel free to pm me if you have any other questions, I'll answer what I can.
Cheers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Razorista]

Please feel free to pm me if you have any other questions, I'll answer what I can.

Lets try it here first, so everyone can read along.
For myself I am not really interested, I prefer 'cheap' first and foremost - as long as that is absolutely foolproof already.
But others might need that information more than me. Not every UTD User receives formal UTD training.

I assume you are using the 'isolation manifold'?

What are the inconsistencies that you're unsure of?

I mentioned one above.
When you isolate, it is not identical to backmount.
You do not have the same benefits when isolating.
In backmount you can isolate temporarily to solve the problem without loosing more than half of the total of the gas volume, you have one tank turned off anyway and do not have to do anything half of the time (and might not even realize the problem before the next valve turn-on-off routine).
Or leave tanks isolated permanently, equalizing every few minutes, something you cannot copy.

In your case you have a fifty-fifty chance of stopping a gas-loss only in the regulators by isolating (and have to turn on the other valve to be able to breathe again), the backmounter can only save half his gas by this action alone.
You also loose half your inflation devices and (if I understood correctly) one of your regulators.
The backmounter does not see any change in those at this point.

The backmounter now has to shut off one of his valves to get to the same point you already reached - you have to turn one on now, probably, or do nothing (but you still don't have access to half your regulators and inflation devices, before some major rerouting of hoses).
I think learning tank-feathering backmounted is also much less complicated than what you face in that situation.

Quite different from backmount standards in my opinion. But perhaps I am misunderstanding something there?

The low pressure hoses are identical to ones on BM and traditional SM. Same with the O rings, the plugs on the manifold again are identical to the ones on Standard first stages.

That's exactly the point I tried to make.
Nobody trusts those ;-)
Hoses are known to fail quite often.
You have several hoses where a blow-off at the fitting or a ruptured hose can be very hard to solve, don't you?

There is no requirement to reroute the QC 6's.

How do you access the second tank when isolated? In case you have an unsolvable failure in the hoses on one side?

______________
I do not like the idea of 'muscle memory' myself, but I am only a recreational diver.
You do not need any muscle-memory for routine tasks like regulator switches.
But it helps in emergencies, I am sure.
I do not see how you could ever solve any of the tasks required in case of problems connected to the distribution block with muscle-memory and under any kind of pressure.

 

[Kevrumbo]

Lets try it here first, so everyone can read along.
For myself I am not really interested, I prefer 'cheap' first and foremost - as long as that is absolutely foolproof already.
But others might need that information more than me. Not every UTD User receives formal UTD training.

I assume you are using the 'isolation manifold'?


I mentioned one above.
When you isolate, it is not identical to backmount.
You do not have the same benefits when isolating.
In backmount you can isolate temporarily to solve the problem without loosing more than half of the total of the gas volume, you have one tank turned off anyway and do not have to do anything half of the time (and might not even realize the problem before the next valve turn-on-off routine).
Or leave tanks isolated permanently, equalizing every few minutes, something you cannot copy.

In your case you have a fifty-fifty chance of stopping a gas-loss only in the regulators by isolating (and have to turn on the other valve to be able to breathe again), the backmounter can only save half his gas by this action alone.
You also loose half your inflation devices and (if I understood correctly) one of your regulators.
The backmounter does not see any change in those at this point.

The backmounter now has to shut off one of his valves to get to the same point you already reached - you have to turn one on now, probably, or do nothing (but you still don't have access to half your regulators and inflation devices, before some major rerouting of hoses).
I think learning tank-feathering backmounted is also much less complicated than what you face in that situation.

Quite different from backmount standards in my opinion. But perhaps I am misunderstanding something there?


That's exactly the point I tried to make.
Nobody trusts those ;-)
Hoses are known to fail quite often.
You have several hoses where a blow-off at the fitting or a ruptured hose can be very hard to solve, don't you?


How do you access the second tank when isolated? In case you have an unsolvable failure in the hoses on one side?

______________
I do not like the idea of 'muscle memory' myself, but I am only a recreational diver.
You do not need any muscle-memory for routine tasks like regulator switches.
But it helps in emergencies, I am sure.
I do not see how you could ever solve any of the tasks required in case of problems connected to the distribution block with muscle-memory and under any kind of pressure.

The donation technique and procedure in Z-system sidemount for an OOG victim is no different from the original backmount DIR/Hogarth method first introduced in the Long Hose paradigm I first learned in GUE Fundamentals well over ten years ago --and have fully learned, & accommodated as an automatic reactionary response.

Compare to this method in a current thread involving non-standardized, classical sidemount doubles diving:

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ad...80587-question-about-sidemount-protocols.html

Lastly, on z-system with catastrophic distribution block and/or supply hose leak, you can disconnect from both source tanks and either plug-in a pocket stored back-up QC6 2nd stage reg, or switch to optionally installed auxiliary 2nd stage regs stowed on the source tanks (which is my current set-up).

With the Isofold you can isolate the working non-malfunctioning gas supply pathway, and plug-in via QC6 connectors your source tanks as needed on that remaining viable pathway. . .

 

[Razorista]

as an automatic reactionary response.

If you want to...
I prefer thinking dive partners, not automatons.

Is a split second that important when swinging a longhose over your head and presenting the regulator?

Compare to this method ...
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ad...80587-question-about-sidemount-protocols.html

I do not understand the problem in the thread.
Wrong handling of the regulator by the sidemount diver. But she surely won't make that mistake twice - that what drills are for.

you can disconnect from both source tanks

I actually hoped there was another way and had only misunderstood...

With the Isofold you can isolate the working non-malfunctioning gas supply pathway, and plug-in via QC6 connectors your source tanks as needed on that remaining viable pathway. . .

What happens if the root cause is a broken first stage internal valve?
Normally the full blow would then only reach one second stage, leaving you with a working one.
You might have blown out both at the point you isolate.
You do not have a 'viable pathway' then.
Now knock your thigh pocket against one cylinder the wrong way and have some plastic crack and you get into serious trouble.

 

[Kevrumbo]

If you want to...
I prefer thinking dive partners, not automatons.

Is a split second that important when swinging a longhose over your head and presenting the regulator?.

To an OOG panicking victim . . .yes! Rob McGann -Tech Wreck Instructor & Dive-Ops Mgr at Truk Lagoon Dive Center- gives barely twice as long recognition & reaction time to his students in a drill, otherwise as the simulated OOG Victim, he will deliberately rip the Long Hose Primary from the students mouth. That "burns" proper technique & procedure into the human "once programmable read-only" reactionary & reflexive memory.

I do not understand the problem in the thread.
Wrong handling of the regulator by the sidemount diver. But she surely won't make that mistake twice - that what drills are for. .

Well from a fundamental pedagogy to start, the sidemount diver was "certified" and trained to use that particular configuration, hence the problem right now in classical independent sidemount instruction of standardization across mixed backmount & sidemount teams. . .

What happens if the root cause is a broken first stage internal valve?
Normally the full blow would then only reach one second stage, leaving you with a working one.
You might have blown out both at the point you isolate.
You do not have a 'viable pathway' then.
Now knock your thigh pocket against one cylinder the wrong way and have some plastic crack and you get into serious trouble.

In Z-system, there are OPV's installed on the first stages of the bottom mix source tanks (and any QC6 pluggable deco/stage tanks as well) to mitigate such an unlikely cascading catastrophic failure of this type.

Good & Safe Diving karma again as always. . .