The only people I have ever seen promoting the Z-System are UTD instructors. Go figure... it's the only system you're allowed to teach/dive in... and it's a system manufactured and sold by your agency. That constitutes a very vested interest.
The system you're not allowed to teach in, your competition, you're bashing vigorously - talking about interests.
The point being that a diligent technical diver educates themselves from the latest, and most respected sources, not just gulping down a single ideology or agency-imposed dogma.
The words seem nice enough, but what you're really doing, is calling a rig an "ideology or agency-imposed dogma" because you don't agree with it.
It really comes across as though you can't imagine anyone disagreeing with you on this for any other reason than
them being a zealot...
I'm not saying the Z system is the universal truth to the sidemount question.
I'm saying I see benefits to that configuration - and I'm not bashing divers who opt for other configurations.
As you speak of dogma, you're actively teaching and seemingly advocating deep air.
Referencing "latest, and most respected sources", it really doesn't get an aweful lot more dogmatic than deep air.
It's just a worn page in some book from when nitrox and trimix were "voodoo".
GUE took onboard and adopted the findings of more contemporary studies into gas density issues. As have I.
What has GUE got to do with this?
And which studies are you talking about?
I say 5g/L gas density is a reasonable limit, equivalent to 30m on air. That's based on scientific study.
You teach close to 8g/L. Where did that come from?
The reason I mention your practice is because 1) you're slantering mine on baseless personal views, and 2) because the agency you teach for (by extention, and more relevant, you) prescribe diving to 50m on air (look in your standards and tell me that's not a
doctrinary demand rather than
guideline), which is well in excess of reasonable, unless you're using the phrases "more contemporary studies" and "flannel" interchangeably.
I don't believe that technical diving is exemplified by regurgitating what agencies disseminate. Perhaps so at a rudimentary level of novice tech diving, but experienced technical divers should have the motivation and inclination to do their own research and adopt their own value systems.
You're taking digs at divers for using a specific configuration, but if you run the 50m course you advertise, you're required to do it on air, to 44m-50m depth.
You're either "regurgitating what agencies disseminate", or breaking their standards.
Reversely, if I want to dive indies, there's noone stopping me - I'm free to pursue training in that configuration as much as I like - UTD just don't offer indies training is all.
Dan, you seem preoccupied with PADI. It's currently my teaching agency of choice; for a number of reasons. I've had 3 teaching agencies before that. And there'll be a new agency soon. What's most significant is that my diving beliefs and teaching practices haven't changed between agencies. This is technical diving, not open water courses...
I'm not preoccupied with that organization - rather, I'm taking to retort in conversation with a person who bashes left and right the way I dive, and effectively calls me a "spoonfed drone".
An organization is not at the core of what I'm saying - what you practice compared to what you preach, is.
Do I use air for 40-50m dives?
Yes, I do - when the dive warrants it. And Dan.. I've done more 40-50 air decompression dives than you've done dive in total.. and then some. I've also done dives, long ago, far beyond 50m using air...
Take note: this is quintessential Turkey's Logic.
Dives don't flipping well warrant hypercapnia - just because you can bring your learning drivers to a closed cirquit and pull off a few laps with them blind drunk behind the wheel doesn't mean drunk driving and having survived makes you the big banana.
And it doesn't make your learning drivers capable of pulling it off on the motorway, either.
There's a vast difference between saying "what I was told is..." and saying "what I believe is..."
If you don't really believe in what you're being told, I get why you'd come out with a statement like that.