What's with the UTD haters?

[victorzamora]

alainnajm, you still haven't given me a reason to use the manifold.

these are the main problematic areas i found please feel free to add in case i missed something:

So, you're not adding anything to why the manifold.....just knocking indySM.

1 - "when going into tight holes inside caves, it usually is a solo dive so no need for team diving procedures, hence no need for the Z-manifold":

That's not my argument at all, but since tight holes is the main reason for SM....it's valid.

2 - qc6 might fail:

Just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't. Also, they have. Either way, the DIR way is to reduce failure points as aggressively as possible....why add any, even if the chances are low?

3 - switching regs is easier and more practical than switching tanks:
maybe but how much harder is it to switch tanks? it's not a deal breaker, all it takes is 2 extra seconds…so again: i am willing to make the extra effort for the added value the Z-manifold is giving me

It's not two seconds. Cycling two tanks on/off is a LOT longer than switching regs, yet it's touted as much easier than switching regs. Absolutely crazy.

4 - the Z manifold has more failure points:
true. but within the same logic, why not have independent cylinders on double BACKmount? aren't we adding 2 failure points (manifold right and left)?
with backmount, it was a natural evolution to link the system to keep access to both tanks in case of regulator failure, and the same applies to sidemount.
now of course, the Z-manifold has more failure points than 2, but where do you draw the line? 2 is acceptable? how about 3? why not 4? it follows the same logic.

The difference with BM doubles is you can't see the valves. Without being able to see the valves, your response time is increased and your accuracy is decreased. The manifold is a way to mitigate that. With sidemount, it's a non-issue, so there's no need to add failure points as there's no risk to mitigate.

5 - "if your buddy is well trained and manages his gas correctly, he should never get OOG…so the argument of donating the long hose isn't valid":
yeah sure, but the same logic applies to backmount too. so why train on S-drills and OOG scenarios if this is never to happen? in this same logic, it is better to lose the long hose to begin with then (sarcastic )

I've not said this. However, to your point, independent SM is MUCH less likely to suffer a critical gas failure wiping out both tanks. Any tech diver won't do that crap. Any rec diver that does that crap isn't in the same situation.

6 - "even in independent, i can still easily donate gas":
maybe some individuals would succeed in donating in some way (either donating the short necklage, or breaking the o-ring on the long hose or smthg of the sort). but we can all agree that the easiest way is to donate from the longhose while you're breathing on it.
in an emergency, i don't want to lose even a fraction of a second when someone is giving the OOG signal. to me, this is a big deal and it matters a lot.
within the keeping the end in mind, the most extreme scenario is "OOG in zero vix". procedure is "tap on the regulator and then take it". if the diver donating was on his necklace, i am not saying the OOG diver is definitely gonna drown, but it WILL complicate things.
i have many friends who dive independent SM (i used to be independent SM, remember?). and i did give the OOG test to all of them during fun dives, and i assure you even the most trained among them failed to donate 9 out of 10 times. of course i am not gonna generalise this rate, but i simply won't dive with someone who has a 1 in a million chance of not being able to donate if i EVER run out of gas because he was on his necklace.

This is the crux of it. Yet I don't see how long it takes to donate in independent SM. I've done it before.....both by unclipping and by breaking the ziptie. By the time my buddy realizes he's in trouble, I start unclipping....long before I get the sign. With a not-so-vigilant-or-well-practiced buddy, I spit my reg out and gave the "emergency/OOA" signal. I got his clipped-off longhose before I ever ran out of gas.

i cannot be teaching people all those hogarthian/DIR/UTD principles and then come up and say "ah ok if you're gonna dive sidemount now, forget about half of what you leanred…oh yes in sidemount it is sometimes ok to be solo diving (just one example out many)".
i believe it is a system that works in all of its components and i like to remain consistent within it.

You don't HAVE to dive solo in SM. When you switch from SM to BM, you have to lose a lot of what you learned, anyway. It's absurd to think that just because there's a manifold on your back you don't lose anything? Wrong. Your NoTox procedure is different. Your trim procedure is different. Gear setup is different. Reg setup is different. Emergency drills are in a different location. It's all different, regardless of whether or not you have a manifold on your back. UTD keeps teaching/pretending that the manifold makes SM the same as BM. It doesn't. It just means you've got a manifold on your back.

i have so much to say

Then please, tell me what's GOOD about your system....not what's bad about mine.

and my personal conclusion from this thread is: what's with the utd haters? answer is: the Z-manifold (oh yes and the rebreather thinggy…don't go there with me, i am not a rebreather diver yet so i am not informed about it)

Yes. Most of the haters are over the Z-manifold and the mCCR. With SO many divers being so vehemently against it, you'd think that if it made sense there would be more converts not more opponents.

 

[gearhound]

ok fair enough. i understand your point of view.
in what comes next, i will explain my point of view on the Z-system. but it is in no way an attack on independent SM, nor am i trying to convince anyone into using the Z-manifold.
this is simply my take on the points raised (not necessarily by you personally) in this thread (and others) and nothing more. and i will try to keep it simple without going into much details, while trying to stay as clear as possible in conveying my ideas.

these are the main problematic areas i found please feel free to add in case i missed something:

1 - "when going into tight holes inside caves, it usually is a solo dive so no need for team diving procedures, hence no need for the Z-manifold":
i personally would never want to be in a solo diving situation. as simple as that. maybe some day i will feel the need to go solo diving into a tight passage in a cave, that day we will see what to do.
one of the things that attracted me the most to the DIR philosophy, was the concept of team diving: meaning in an emergency scenario, every diver has a role and everyone knows what to do. so i don't want to be in a situation where i am alone underwater.
i totally understand people who want to do it, and i also value their explorations. but i would never want to say to any of my students "yes you may go solo diving just this once". the risk is simply not worth it to me…today

2 - qc6 might fail:
there has been no statistics on qc6 failing, and it has been used for ages. the probability of a QC6 failing are similar, if not lower, than a first stage failing…so to me, this is acceptable risk to take if it might happen once in a blue moon, not that big of a deal especially all the other added value it is giving me

3 - switching regs is easier and more practical than switching tanks:
maybe but how much harder is it to switch tanks? it's not a deal breaker, all it takes is 2 extra seconds…so again: i am willing to make the extra effort for the added value the Z-manifold is giving me

4 - the Z manifold has more failure points:
true. but within the same logic, why not have independent cylinders on double BACKmount? aren't we adding 2 failure points (manifold right and left)?
with backmount, it was a natural evolution to link the system to keep access to both tanks in case of regulator failure, and the same applies to sidemount.
now of course, the Z-manifold has more failure points than 2, but where do you draw the line? 2 is acceptable? how about 3? why not 4? it follows the same logic.

5 - "if your buddy is well trained and manages his gas correctly, he should never get OOG…so the argument of donating the long hose isn't valid":
yeah sure, but the same logic applies to backmount too. so why train on S-drills and OOG scenarios if this is never to happen? in this same logic, it is better to lose the long hose to begin with then (sarcastic )

6 - "even in independent, i can still easily donate gas":
maybe some individuals would succeed in donating in some way (either donating the short necklage, or breaking the o-ring on the long hose or smthg of the sort). but we can all agree that the easiest way is to donate from the longhose while you're breathing on it.
in an emergency, i don't want to lose even a fraction of a second when someone is giving the OOG signal. to me, this is a big deal and it matters a lot.
within the keeping the end in mind, the most extreme scenario is "OOG in zero vix". procedure is "tap on the regulator and then take it". if the diver donating was on his necklace, i am not saying the OOG diver is definitely gonna drown, but it WILL complicate things.
i have many friends who dive independent SM (i used to be independent SM, remember?). and i did give the OOG test to all of them during fun dives, and i assure you even the most trained among them failed to donate 9 out of 10 times. of course i am not gonna generalise this rate, but i simply won't dive with someone who has a 1 in a million chance of not being able to donate if i EVER run out of gas because he was on his necklace.

anyways, those are not that important to me really. what is important to me the most is staying within what i believe to be the best practise in diving which is the hogarthian system, and how UTD is evolving this system.
i cannot be teaching people all those hogarthian/DIR/UTD principles and then come up and say "ah ok if you're gonna dive sidemount now, forget about half of what you leanred…oh yes in sidemount it is sometimes ok to be solo diving (just one example out many)".
i believe it is a system that works in all of its components and i like to remain consistent within it.

this was really hard for me to write cause i have so much to say but at the same time don't wanna keep writing forever

to recap: i dont see UTD as trying to reinvent the wheel, i believe that i am providing the best education to my students, and that i am creating a community of responsible, competent, and thinking divers…at the end of the day, diving is not rocket science and this is all that matters to me…

and my personal conclusion from this thread is: what's with the utd haters? answer is: the Z-manifold (oh yes and the rebreather thinggy…don't go there with me, i am not a rebreather diver yet so i am not informed about it)

I am enjoying this lively and peaceful debate.

1. Independent sidemount is not just for crawling into tight holes in caves or even wrecks. But it does give you the option. And it doesn't automatically make you a solo diver. However, isn't one of the core principals of every tec course, regardless of agency, the principal of self sufficiency? Is that not a principal of DIR philosophy? To have redundancy and to be able to deal with problems on our own? The buddy is the back up brain?

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?

3. covered

4. Independent back mount is a completely different animal than sidemount. This is where you get your apples and oranges. Sidemount puts everything within sight to deal with failures. The Z puts it into the back again.

5. Both systems have a fail safe for OOA. If I run out of air with one tank and don't turn around, well then I'm just being an idiot. I always thought that the Z manifold would expose your complete gas supply. But if you have one tank turned off, then I'll score this one a draw.
I will ask this, in the event of a catastrophic failure, is your fall back position not independent sidemount? Let's say you're going through a wreck and one of the hoses on your back gets cut and blows. You shut down both tanks and go to your pocket for your extra second stage. At which point you'll be switching this second stage between each tank (Assuming it wasn't one of the QC6 hoses that got cut, in which case you're limited to one tank unless you switch the first stages). Are you not on independent sidemount? Are you now not one of us? In the event of a failure, you have to become one of us. And it's much easier for me to switch second stages than for you to pop them off and connect to another connector. Not saying it can't be done proficiently, but my way is easier. And when you're task loaded, easier is better.

6. In either system, Z or independent, there will be a warning before OOA, in that if one tank runs out, you should still have access to the other for air. There should not be any surprises OOA. If you didn't inform your buddy and turn the dive when the first tank went OOA, then you're and idiot. But we still do s-drills.

One of the main principals of Hogarthian is KISS. The Z system goes the other way. It complicates things and then turns around and says its simpler. It's ironic. Even within your own UTD system, you are going to have to teach two different procedures. You have some UTD sidemount divers that can isolate and you have some that cannot. Surely the emergency procedures would be different for each.

 

[DevonDiver]

4. Independent back mount is a completely different animal than sidemount.

For me, this is a crux point. I can't help but think that UTD based the z-manifold on an argument against independent (backmount) doubles, rather than against independent sidemount.

It is a continuation of the performance/accident analysis that spawned the modern (hogarthian) backmount configuration, that does not take account of the actual capability and protocol options inherent with sidemount configuration.

It was adopted early, so proponents generally don't have access to the experience-base that would otherwise show them that the perceived critical failings in independent sidemount are actually already covered more than satisfactorily and mitigated just as effectively as with the manifold - but without compromise to the other key tenets of the 'hogarthian' philosophy; those being simplicity and minimized failure points.

Now, if someone can show me some intelligent accident analysis that highlights a need for sidemount manifold, I'd be prepared to reconsider. To date (and with great interest in sidemount performance), I've seen nothing of the sort. There is simply no problem that needs to be addressed.

Configurations and approaches should evolve from proven need - from analysis of the real. It strikes me that UTD evolved their manifold from the theoretical, from the hypothetical - it is a perceived need. That perceived need isn't being supported by actual events, incidents and fatalities.

Hogarthian and DIR didn't evolve from hypothetical perceived needs. It evolved from actual accident analysis and real experience.

The z-manifold debate goes in circles because, unlike the hogarthian isolated manifold, nobody supporting the manifold can produce critical substantiation from analysis of a real lesson learned.

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.

 

[Kevrumbo]

For me, this is a crux point. I can't help but think that UTD based the z-manifold on an argument against independent (backmount) doubles, rather than against independent sidemount.

It is a continuation of the performance/accident analysis that spawned the modern (hogarthian) backmount configuration, that does not take account of the actual capability and protocol options inherent with sidemount configuration.

It was adopted early, so proponents generally don't have access to the experience-base that would otherwise show them that the perceived critical failings in independent sidemount are actually already covered more than satisfactorily and mitigated just as effectively as with the manifold - but without compromise to the other key tenets of the 'hogarthian' philosophy; those being simplicity and minimized failure points.

Now, if someone can show me some intelligent accident analysis that highlights a need for sidemount manifold, I'd be prepared to reconsider. To date (and with great interest in sidemount performance), I've seen nothing of the sort. There is simply no problem that needs to be addressed.

Configurations and approaches should evolve from proven need - from analysis of the real. It strikes me that UTD evolved their manifold from the theoretical, from the hypothetical - it is a perceived need. That perceived need isn't being supported by actual events, incidents and fatalities.

Hogarthian and DIR didn't evolve from hypothetical perceived needs. It evolved from actual accident analysis and real experience.

The z-manifold debate goes in circles because, unlike the hogarthian isolated manifold, nobody supporting the manifold can produce critical substantiation from analysis of a real lesson learned.

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.

Disagree Andy . . .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 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 techniques & procedures with that already inculcated in my "muscle memory."

Now for a concrete example --the “ease” of switching regs while scootering. Here’s a method quoted by a poster on another thread by which the classical independent tank sidemounters perform this skill:

First of all - i can actually change regulators while scootering - not that difficult! unclip one 2nd stage from your necklace, switch, and clip the other second stage to the necklace - very very easy, and can be done all with the left hand - so you don even have to change hands . . .thirdly - i have never had more problems with freeflow on my sidemount regulators that on my doubles ? both 2nd stages are clipped to a bungee necklace that goes around my neck, so they sit pretty much in a same spot as your backup regulator does in backmounted doubles - no need for a shut off valve!

But by the above example on independent tanks & regs, you would have to de-tune that 2nd stage you just swapped-out to prevent it from free-flowing – And what if it did start free-flowing and you didn't have an in-line shut-off at the second stage? –Especially while scootering on-trigger in open water with heavy current, conditions conducive for free-flow?

On Z-system, you're always breathing the long hose, and your necklaced back-up is generally de-tuned beforehand to begin with to ensure it won’t free-flow –the same 2nd stage regs configuration that I've consistently had since day one of GUE Fundy's over ten years ago. I'd rather not be switching between individual regulators as described above with both their long hoses un-stowed & flapping away clipped-off under the chin whilst on-the-fly scootering. All I have to do is turn on one tank cylinder valve, and turn off the other --always breathing the long hose nominally.

Here again is the simple process of switching tanks on Z-sidemount while on-the-fly-scootering (Right Tank currently open to start):

--Turn on Left Tank valve with your left hand;
--Take your left hand and replace your right hand that was operating the scooter trigger, continue trigger operation with left hand;
--Turn off your Right Tank with your right hand.
--Replace left hand trigger with your right hand as needed. . .

 

[DaleC]

Is thay a good thing?

Yes

There are two things that are true:
a.) people will always argue over equipment
b.) if we are open minded and honest (with ourselves) we might learn something from the discussions

 

[gearhound]

deleted

 

[alainnajm]

For me, this is a crux point. I can't help but think that UTD based the z-manifold on an argument against independent (backmount) doubles, rather than against independent sidemount.

It is a continuation of the performance/accident analysis that spawned the modern (hogarthian) backmount configuration, that does not take account of the actual capability and protocol options inherent with sidemount configuration.

It was adopted early, so proponents generally don't have access to the experience-base that would otherwise show them that the perceived critical failings in independent sidemount are actually already covered more than satisfactorily and mitigated just as effectively as with the manifold - but without compromise to the other key tenets of the 'hogarthian' philosophy; those being simplicity and minimized failure points.

Now, if someone can show me some intelligent accident analysis that highlights a need for sidemount manifold, I'd be prepared to reconsider. To date (and with great interest in sidemount performance), I've seen nothing of the sort. There is simply no problem that needs to be addressed.

Configurations and approaches should evolve from proven need - from analysis of the real. It strikes me that UTD evolved their manifold from the theoretical, from the hypothetical - it is a perceived need. That perceived need isn't being supported by actual events, incidents and fatalities.

Hogarthian and DIR didn't evolve from hypothetical perceived needs. It evolved from actual accident analysis and real experience.

The z-manifold debate goes in circles because, unlike the hogarthian isolated manifold, nobody supporting the manifold can produce critical substantiation from analysis of a real lesson learned.

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.

this is a reply to your comments and the couple other replies i received on my "long" explanation of why i went with the Z-manifold.

oh my, i will have many haters after i post this.

let me start by saying: i am NOT a cave diver, YET!
what you guys wrote kind of made me think, and yes i might agree that i am more comparing the Z-manifold to the BM more than independent SM. when i think about its application (be it set up, to failures, to consistency, to applications within a team and/or mixed team), i am not really focused on the cave diving aspect of it.
that in mind, in open water (and especially when diving with my students), the z-manifold works great for me; where independent SM woulndt work (for the same reasons i stated earlier, mainly keeping consistency with the UTD principles).

so first off, thank you guys for taking the time to challenge my ideas, well done i guess.
now it is my turn to start thinking about it in a different way, challenge the ideas that i have in my head…and i promise, i will have a looooooong discussion about this with some people at UTD.
keep in mind that my ideas don't reflect the agency's nor other UTD CAVE divers.

now that i have given you credit where credit was due, could you please (just for my sake) confirm that this is the only take you guys have against UTD? if there is anything other than the Z-manifold, i am VERY interested in learning it.

 

[DevonDiver]

now that i have given you credit where credit was due, could you please (just for my sake) confirm that this is the only take you guys have against UTD? if there is anything other than the Z-manifold, i am VERY interested in learning it.

I can't speak for others, but my only contention is with the z-manifold... and that's an equipment/philosophy issue, not an agency issue. As long as UTD doesn't actively encourage 'elitism' in it's participants, then I think the agency has a pretty good image publicly. GUE also... now that it recovers from the tarnish some representatives caused in the early years.

I don't see any elitism in yours, or SDS', posts.

 

[Kevrumbo]

I can't speak for others, but my only contention is with the z-manifold... and that's an equipment/philosophy issue, not an agency issue. As long as UTD doesn't actively encourage 'elitism' in it's participants, then I think the agency has a pretty good image publicly. GUE also... now that it recovers from the tarnish some representatives caused in the early years.

I don't see any elitism in yours, or SDS', posts.

To reiterate:

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 there should be no concern, especially since that Distribution Block is relatively tiny and buried between the diver's shoulder blades, compared to an exposed conventional crossover backmount manifold --so chances of smacking it on an overhead ceiling are slim.

 

[victorzamora]

alainnajm, I'm glad that you're beginning to see some issues. I hope you understand that my issues with the Z-manifold ARE the main problem I have with UTD, and that I don't believe that a cave is the only place you'd need proper gear. I also don't believe a cave is the only place where independent SM doubles function better than the Z-manifold. Now, the one thing you said that concerns me is the following:

in open water (and especially when diving with my students), the z-manifold works great for me; where independent SM woulndt work (for the same reasons i stated earlier, mainly keeping consistency with the UTD principles).

The reasons you stated earlier weren't based in solid logic, as most of the facts you presented were either wrong or invalid. There have been several posts that support that. The other thing that really concerns me in this sentence is you said that indy-SM won't work in Open Water. This goes back to the training you've received, and is a clear sign that you're diving the Z-manifold due to agency dogma and not due to your own logical progression. The reason there are so many people from different backgrounds so aligned in beliefs against the Z-manifold is that we're using our own logical progression. You can ask me why I have ANYTHING on my gear set up the way I do, and I can tell you in a manner that nobody can argue with. It may not be optimized under someone else's paradigm, there may be a better place to put it on myself, but every piece of gear I've got is intentionally the way it is due to my decision....not the decision of another.

So, 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 don't agree with them, but they're there. I don't understand the Z-manifold, and there hasn't been one cogent reason for it yet.