UTD and GUE protocol and procedural differences

[Sloth]

Since I completely railroaded the V-planner thread I figured I would spin this off and see if we could have a discussion about the differences between the two. I want to see how many think its minor and can be addressed in an above water discussion or if the differences are so great that when the stuff hits the fan it becomes disastrous.

My personally background in this is my TDI instructor was Tech 1 certified by Joe Talavera so I learned a "team diving" approach similar to what AG would teach. Now I have recently passed GUE Tech 1 so Ive gotten a direct GUE perspective. The only things I saw different were:

30/30 instead of 25/25.
change from s-curve to linear on RD
change in ascent plans at GUE Tech 1 levels (this was apparently new within GUE)
difference lost deco plan

Drills - I dont know what differences (if any) in drills UTD would have but I cant see them being relevant from a deco dive standpoint. At least want cant be covered during pre-dive.

OOA- The only true emergency response needed is for an OOA. I don't see major differences there.

Valve failures - Once a diver sorts out whats going on and asks his buddy to take a look its pretty basic at that point and I dont see how one agency can look at valve failure troubleshooting differently enough to make a difference underwater.

Lost deco - Probably the only difference that might lead to issues underwater. The reality is though that lost deco procedures have changed so much over the years that this is an issue within agencies.

Deco planning - Linear, S curve... who cares? Both work, both come from the same philosophy. This has always boiled down in my mind to preference. Do I want to be lazy and make the profile easy to remember or do I want to shape to optimal gradient? No biggie here.

So theoretically if a GUE Tech 1 diver and a UTD Tech 1/2 diver wanted to dive to 150' I don't see major issues that would suddenly destroy team dynamics.

From what I see the big differences are training philosopies. UTD splitting Tech 1 into Tech 1/ Tech 2 and Tech 2 becoming Trimix 1 and Trimix 2. I really wish GUE was setup this way. Much better progression in my mind.

So... UTD divers, what am I over looking here from a UTD standpoint? Anything obvious that would make team integration difficult?

 

[rjack321]

Well on the one hand everything seems so "minor", on the other hand your own post has a laundry list of issues that need to be covered beforehand. Some of these things would need to be covered by 2 GUE (or UTD if they had been around longer) divers trained in different "eras" so its not like this is unique to these 2 agencies.

I'll mention 25/25 issues since I brought that up before...
Even within UTD 25/25 issues are bouncing around alot. The deco planning for a 120ft on 25/25 is not really the way I would teach it and not the way I plan deco dives (GUE trained but by AG). Its not really compatible with how a 80ft deco dive would be planned, nor with decoplanner based methods, and the EAD actually changes between Rec3 (MDL) and Tech1 (planned deco). So that is an area ripe for confusion.

I can tell you that at the trimix1+ level AG will hammer you for not doing "expedition deco" (assuming he thinks you can handle it). That is, no pre-planned stops at all. You have a max deco time which is based on the volumes of gas carried and a MOD - that's all. No software, no pre-written plan in wetnotes, nada. He expects you to know RD, trust your understanding (under his initial supervision), and apply it on the fly below the 150ft setpoint. Conversely, I have heard a fair number of GUE tech2 divers (mostly on DIRexplorers I guess) say that they pre-plan their deco with decoplanner and a big sitdown team meeting kind of atmosphere (although I could easily have misinterpreted this). An also say things like they are happy to do RD around the 150ft setpoint but deeper they "don't trust it". To me, that is a pretty big difference in perspective.

I'm not saying any one thing is deal killer, or even in aggregate. But the assumption that "everyone" can seamlessly trade buddies etc is a bit optimistic beyond the recreational level. I have no knowledge of the UTD cave program although 1 of my friends is taking UTD Cave1 this fall so I can hopefully hear a first hand account after that.

 

[Sloth]

I can tell you that at the trimix1+ level AG will hammer you for not doing "expedition deco" (assuming he thinks you can handle it). That is, no pre-planned stops at all. You have a max deco time which is based on the volumes of gas carried and a MOD - that's all. No software, no pre-written plan in wetnotes, nada. He expects you to know RD, trust your understanding (under his initial supervision), and apply it on the fly below the 150ft setpoint. Conversely, I have heard a fair number of GUE tech2 divers (mostly on DIRexplorers I guess) say that they pre-plan their deco with decoplanner and a big sitdown team meeting kind of atmosphere (although I could easily have misinterpreted this). An also say things like they are happy to do RD around the 150ft setpoint but deeper they "don't trust it". To me, that is a pretty big difference in perspective.

This is interesting, I didn't realize that this wasn't the norm in GUE circles. Most of our dives are drift dives in current so depending on current we may average out somewhere between 130 and 150. I guess we do dive this way as we track average depth and then the deco capt calls out the deco that corresponds to the required deco time. Pre-planning we just go over what our profile would look like if we had 15, 20 or 25 minutes of deco to make sure everyone is on the same page. This is also what Gideon taught us in the Tech 1 class.

I am curious if Tech 2 divers puts a higher emphasis on Deco Planner or if they do what you call expedition deco. I could see it being stressed for new Tech 2 divers but once you get a feel for the shape of the profiles in that range using expedition deco should be trivial. I guess there is some risk here, I have heard about people making drastic dive plan changes mid-dive and then screwing up the deco plan.

Maybe KMD will comment on what he was taught in Tech 2.

 

[rjack321]

This is interesting, I didn't realize that this wasn't the norm in GUE circles. Most of our dives are drift dives in current so depending on current we may average out somewhere between 130 and 150. I guess we do dive this way as we track average depth and then the deco capt calls out the deco that corresponds to the required deco time. Pre-planning we just go over what our profile would look like if we had 15, 20 or 25 minutes of deco to make sure everyone is on the same page. This is also what Gideon taught us in the Tech 1 class.

I certainly per-planned my Tech1 120-160ft dives for a long time (3+ yrs). Those are where you build skills and experience with minimal risk.

I am curious if Tech 2 divers puts a higher emphasis on Deco Planner or if they do what you call expedition deco. I could see it being stressed for new Tech 2 divers but once you get a feel for the shape of the profiles in that range using expedition deco should be trivial.

We didn't do as many "experience dives" as is normally done, we did extra critical skills dives playing a bit of catchup. So I'm not sure how applicable my experiences might be... But in my trimix class, AG required my buddy who was least confident to come up with a plan on the fly UW. Write it out on wetnotes after the 70ft switch and show the other 2 of us. A 200ft dive that had a small amount of multileveling and another 170ft dive that had more. We talked about how the deep stops leading up to the switch were a bit off - always something to learn.

I guess there is some risk here, I have heard about people making drastic dive plan changes mid-dive and then screwing up the deco plan.

That particular individual was diving air (not the smartest move) and has no GUE nor in-water UTD training either, just AG's older NAUI ratio deco seminar. So its not too surprising that drastic errors might be made. For me, I rely on my buddies to avoid bogus schedules (which are also quite possible diving computers or tables I might add - incorrect gas mixes entered, different conservatisms, different GFs, etc.)

 

[Blackwood]

UTD's current valve drill is: test purge necklace, shut down RP, breathe down and stow primary, turn on RP, shut down and turn on Isolator, test purge primary - unclip if desired, shut down LP, breathe down necklace, switch to primary, turn on LP, flow check, gas check.

GUE, I believe, goes back on the long hose after turning the RP back on. But that's a drill difference and doesn't matter on real dives.



UTD routes the light cord under the long hose, I think. Either that or UTD doesn't care so long as the team agrees. My usual team routes under. Same goes for pocket contents: team agrees.

I am second-generation AG trained (albeit my UTD tech instructor - who was also my TDI and IANTD tech instructor - was GUE trained through T1 and C2) and I figure deco schedules in the same way as Rainer (GUE).

 

[RTodd]

The big "difference" is that GUE has a strong cave background and UTD does not. Ratio Deco only works for a relatively short time frame band. So, it isn't useable on most cave dives. This means, in my experience, that most cave divers are going to put more emphasis on knowing how to shape what decoplanner gives you. Over time, after doing the same dives, most people create ratio deco like shortcuts but this takes longer to get comfortable with for longer bottom time stuff. I really don't know what the official GUE stance on this is. But, I know when it came out, those of us doing primarily cave dives never adopted it because it just isn't useable for longer dive times.

Since I rarely do deep dives anymore, particularly open water ones, I never rememer all of the RD rules and instead shape deco planner profiles. It isn't rocket science, I can still change profiles on the fly and often don't actually pull out my wetnotes during deco. Diving with someone that wants to use RD isn't a big deal. A short discussion on the beach on how they are going to calc deco and make sure I am comfortable with the profile and then it is easy for the team to follow that. Personally, I prefer to have something in the wetnotes as an approximation because when a dive really goes sideways, it often adds comfort to the team to look at a schedule.

Having said all of that, most cave deco in the 150-80 range I have done has involved a fair bit of "negotation" between the dive team once you get to the non-deep stops, particularly the shallow ones. The amount of deco you do on long bottom times like this often depends as much on how people are feeling, whether they are getting cold, the conditions in which you are decoing, gas available, etc. as it does on the generally agreed schedule.

Finally, while I don't want to start a bashing thread of AG's organization, go the GUE route if you want cave training. Heck, GUE has slightly more than a half dozen people I know and could recommend for cave training. (I think they have more cave instructors than that, I just don't know them all now.) What are the chances that UTD has any strong cave instructors yet?

Other than cave, the training organization between these two really doesn't matter.

 

[Blackwood]

What are the chances that UTD has any strong cave instructors yet?

Nick Toussaint's Page - Unified Team Diving

 

[Rainer]

A single instructor hardly a program makes...

UTD sort of needs to address the issue of having three times as many cave classes as cave instructors (ditto for the "wreck program").

 

[Blackwood]

A single instructor hardly a program makes...

I was replying to the word "any."

 

[rjack321]

Personally, I prefer to have something in the wetnotes as an approximation because when a dive really goes sideways, it often adds comfort to the team to look at a schedule.

1st page of my wetnotes as a "fill in the blank" table made with a sharpie. Depth to use, setpoint factor to use, BT, total deco time, and stop times down to 70ft. If we need to have a discussion about the schedule we can fill in the blanks fairly quickly and see what the others are thinking.

Other than cave, the training organization between these two really doesn't matter.

Agree.
1) I think UTD cave 1 is a bit convoluted on gas limits

Gas consumption: 1/3 of doubles or 500 psi (35 bar) for cave penetration, whichever comes first. Minimum reserve exit is 2/3rds of gas in high-flow or 3 diver teams, 2 diver teams must exit when reserve is 3/4.

2) Also needs a broader base of cave instructors with respected track records to be considered a "cave agency".