What's with the UTD haters?

[Kevrumbo]

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



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....

To reiterate again:

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 (and the Z-Isofold) 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.

 

[gearhound]

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.



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.



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.



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.)

A quick look at the UTD website shows that they are still selling the distribution block. So UTD can now have 2 different procedures to deal with failures within the same team. That contradicts what UTD has been saying about consistency.
I brought up one hand clipping/unclipping because it was one of the arguments against independent sidemount. That it wasn't an easy procedure. Yet it's one that UTD practices everyday.
And I don't have to have a discussion with GUE about independent sidemount. That's the luxury of this side of the argument. We're not making the claim that our gear is 100% compatible with GUE. An interesting note is that GUE did have Steve Bogaerts give them a presentation on sidemount when they had their conference in the Mayan Riviera a couple of years back. If a GUE diver were to ever want to dive with me, during our pre dive gear check and S-drills, I'm sure I could demonstrate that my procedures could be similar to his.

I'm going to side with Vic on another point also. I totally respect that you chose your gear for the reasons you did. And I respect that you and Alain have kept an open mind about things. With regards to an independent sidemount course, I'm not sure that you would learn a whole lot more. Our two systems are more alike than many would have you believe. We attach tanks in much the same way, we trim out in much the same way, we dive in the exact same way and we can donate air in much the same way. To me, this isn't a Hatfields vs McCoys feud, but more of a squabble between brothers.

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

A quick look at the UTD website shows that they are still selling the distribution block. So UTD can now have 2 different procedures to deal with failures within the same team. That contradicts what UTD has been saying about consistency.

True that's on the site, but these days, the block is only recommended for single tank recreational divers.

The block is definitely not appropriate for doubles, since it leaves you with both regs unusable in an LP failure. That's expected for singles -- backmount or sidemount -- but defeats one of the purposes of having doubles in the first place.

That said, valve failure procedures have always been a weak point of the UTD "consistency" argument, since they are totally different for each configuration: BM single, BM doubles, SM single or doubles w/block, BM doubles with manifold, and CCR. All the variations fill up many pages of the Procedures Manual.

With regards to an independent sidemount course, I'm not sure that you would learn a whole lot more. Our two systems are more alike than many would have you believe. We attach tanks in much the same way, we trim out in much the same way, we dive in the exact same way and we can donate air in much the same way. To me, this isn't a Hatfields vs McCoys feud, but more of a squabble between brothers.

Still, I still wouldn't want to re-rig my setup and try diving this way without a mentor. Maybe the class can be nice and short, so we can move on to the fun dives. Bro.

 

[victorzamora]

If a GUE diver were to ever want to dive with me, during our pre dive gear check and S-drills, I'm sure I could demonstrate that my procedures could be similar to his.

I've actually done this. A guy and I started talking at the surface before a dive, and we decided to dive together. He was a GUE-only, BM doubles diver. He has not had any training past OW that was through anybody but GUE. He was new to the Marianna caves, and was unfamiliar with SM in practically every way. That's one reason we chose to dive together....I wanted to see a GUE diver in action, and he was curious about SM. Before the dive, it was mostly talking about emergency procedures. After the dive, we talked about everything concerning our configuration. He agreed completely that my SM setup was incredibly compatible with his system. He surprised me mid-dive with a mock OOA scenario. I responded as I had trained. When we got to the surface, he was interested in playing with SM......not to replace his doubles, but out of curiosity. We were 100% compatible, despite his hesitation.

 

[DevonDiver]

I don't see compatibility as any sort of issue. I've taught GUE divers to sidemount, I've taught UTD (sidemount) divers to dive wrecks. It's simply a non-problem if the divers communicate and work effectively as a team. Any team of properly trained divers will take the necessary steps to plan and conduct an effective, safe dive... mitigating hazards and resolving contingencies as necessary.

GUE Diver (Tech Pass Fundies) learning sidemount with me

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I've actually done this. A guy and I started talking at the surface before a dive, and we decided to dive together. He was a GUE-only, BM doubles diver. He has not had any training past OW that was through anybody but GUE. He was new to the Marianna caves, and was unfamiliar with SM in practically every way. That's one reason we chose to dive together....I wanted to see a GUE diver in action, and he was curious about SM. Before the dive, it was mostly talking about emergency procedures. After the dive, we talked about everything concerning our configuration. He agreed completely that my SM setup was incredibly compatible with his system. He surprised me mid-dive with a mock OOA scenario. I responded as I had trained. When we got to the surface, he was interested in playing with SM......not to replace his doubles, but out of curiosity. We were 100% compatible, despite his hesitation.

That has been my experience as well. I took my sidemount training at Jackson Blue and Hole in the Wall, and have since dived with several GUE and UTD trained divers both in caves and here at home in non-overhead environs, and have never had a compatibility issue.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[decompression]

So to comprehend things for myself I just spent several hours watching AG's YouTube posts on the Z system.
I believe the major issues most (including myself) have with the actual equipment (dist block and ISO manifold) and not agency/personality were;
1) additional failure points
2) complexity of drills
3) cost
I thought through the first point, for both manifolds, I'm satisfied that they don't increase failure points significantly. Reason being is the failure points (hose o rings are just relocated from the first stages to the manifold) being static/low pressure, no worse than BM doubles. Same with the ISO valve, one additional point but no worse than the tank valves on your sides. Location is away from eyes but other failures still in front. The block/manifold is well protected and in no significant risk for roll-off or catastrophic failure.

The 9 failure drills don't seem overly complex and are very similar to BM. Flow checks and drills are logical and sequenced.

I do remember the "second stage in a pocket" when the system was first offered before the ISO and I believe the block should only be used with single tank SM. Not sure of AG's take on this. That does make SM consistent with the other set ups.
OOA drill same as BM and long hose/necklace consistent. Easy for students to progress from one style to another.

The QC6's
Well, I think time will tell for reliability although for 15 years or so of use I haven't heard of many failures other than human. So far, a decent track record.

Cost? Yup.

The requirement to manage gas by turning off valves vise reg switches is different but not prohibitive for most people. A benefit is the consistent muscle memory of deploying the long hose in an OOA. I do think it fits with the team concept of mixed team diving and consistency (longhose/necklace).

Probably lots of room for more debate which is how I learn from seeing others points of view with differing experiences.
Am I a convert? Not sure. I do see the value for students/agency using similar equipment and protocols throughout its levels.

My background;
20yrs diving
5000+ dives (90% cold water, low vis)
14 yrs instructor
Tech 1/rebreather/OHP
not "full" cave
4 yrs Independent SM (200+ dives, inc deco)
ANDI/TDI/SDI/PADI

I do have a z system (amongst others) that I'm spending more time with, I like to see what benefits/fault all systems have. I hope the discussion progresses as an equal debate and not deteriorate into us v.s them as I've seen in other posts.

Back on topic, I think both GUE and UTD can be seen as something different than the big boys (I remember the early days of DIR and dive nazis). The main figures of this movement are strong personalities and can polarize people (we used to say " they drank the koolaid"). Therefore, opinions are heartfelt and deep seeded. I hope we take the best from all aspects through a logical thought process and increase the safety and fun of this sport.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

Super like, @decompression. A great contribution to this thread.

Location is away from eyes but other failures still in front. The block/manifold is well protected and in no significant risk for roll-off or catastrophic failure.

I would add to this that UTD doesn't teach solo diving, so a number of the failure procedures include a buddy inspection of the manifold. (Same as 9 failures in backmount doubles.) Z System is not intended to be as self sufficient as independent SM. Independent SM is more appropriate for solo divers, because there are no failures that can happen out of sight or in unreachable places.

I do remember the "second stage in a pocket" when the system was first offered before the ISO and I believe the block should only be used with single tank SM. Not sure of AG's take on this. That does make SM consistent with the other set ups.

Anyone can buy whatever UTD gear they want, but the most up to date opinion is that you should be using the iso manifold with doubles.

The isolator also eliminates the need for the pocket reg. The only scenario it might be needed is a complete manifold failure, but UTD procedure in that case is to share gas with your buddy. If your buddy has a Z also, he could theoretically swap and plug in your gas as well for sharing, but this shouldn't be necessary if you're following proper Rock Bottom gas planning.

A benefit is the consistent muscle memory of deploying the long hose in an OOA. I do think it fits with the team concept of mixed team diving and consistency (longhose/necklace).

Another practical benefit for UTD instructors is the ability to teach mixed classes of backmount and sidemount divers.

UTD has almost no "sidemount specific" certifications. Instead, sidemount is treated as one of the possible "gear configurations" that any UTD course can be taken with. So a student does "Open Water" in "sidemount single configuration", or "Tech 1" in "sidemount doubles configuration". The C-Card at the end just says "Open Water" or "Tech 1".

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

xkcd: Duty Calls

 

[victorzamora]

That flashes VIVIDLY in my mind every time one of these types of threads starts. Randal Munroe really is a genius.