O.....K......
Personally I think the biggest enemy to UTD is UTD.
There's just too much stuff they take as "doctrine" (or even "religion") that doesn't even remotely correspond to the current best practices in (technical) diving. In particular they have been utterly unable to keep up with deco theory, which to a technical diver is really the foundation of safety. This, in itself, would be reason enough to me to avoid it despite its strong points.
In terms of strong points, the 100% focus on good trim and buoyancy control is valuable and necessary. However, that is no longer the exclusive realm of technical agencies. Even recreational agencies are also moving on this baseline to the point that (and I really do mean this seriously) a decent PADI OW diver who has had a good instructor and a Fundies diver who has had a decent instructor are hard to distinguish in terms of buoyancy control with 10 or 20 post certification dives (even though the fundies diver needs to be certified to start their training).
The problem with "doctrine" or "religion" is that it doesn't easily change. In 1997 DIR was the only statement of best practices we had as divers, which is why it became so popular. In 2017 divers have integrated, innovated and developed and even training agencies have learned and modernized. DIR (and especially UTD) is quickly becoming a throw back to the last course AG took as a student and has failed to keep pace and modernize as the industry has changed.
That's not to say that UTD has no value but that value is waning year on year as the industry develops and UTD does not. In any case, that's my opinion.
R..
Last edited:
