Quote:
Originally Posted by alias
I, too have come across this more often lately and it's not just limited to RB training....
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by alias
I, too have come across this more often lately and it's not just limited to RB training....
I am not a cave instructor. I do believe that SM cave instruction and certification should be allowed from cavern on up. I also agree that mixed team diving should be taught with a 7 foot hose. I often dive mixed teams and have found the 7 foot hose is easy for BM divers to use and understand. I also agree that the instructor does not need to be in SM as long as they do dive it regularly and know it well. I also feel that removal of SM cylinders should be part of the course. I teach this in Intro to Tech and Adv. Nx & Deco procedures classes. For BM I feel it helps the student better understand their gear configuration and builds confidence. For SM I believe it is crucial because backing out in SM from a jam can be impossible without removing at least one cylinder at times.
We have CCR taught from cavern on up, why not SM? I also believe that some configurations may add to safety for the instructor and students. Such as an instructor diving CCR when teaching mix classes. As long as the instructor is completely familiar with CCR and dive it regularly it can add to their options if their students have issues.
Bobby
It seems to me that SideMount is a valid 'starting' point for getting into technical training. For that reason, it seems logical to train in that configuration. I know at least two people that dive SM and have never dove BM doubles.
Instructor configuration...It sure helps me a whole lot to observe someone doing things in the water. When ever I am in the water with instructors, every second that I don't have my hands full is generally spent watching the movements and actions of the instructor or competent diver that may be along for the dive. I'd certainly prefer to have my side mount instructor in side mount.
Mixed team...Seems like everyone on the team should be able to dive all of the configurations within the team to be able to adapt to potential problems.
It amuses me that in "mixed team" scenarios, SM people need to know how to deal with weaknesses in the BM setup, but not vice versa.
Which leads one to ask...
Isn't a more interesting question, why the hell are we still teaching backmount?
Still being in the transition from one to the other, my impression is that in backmount you are going to wedge yourself in from going further long before you will get into a situation where you cannot simply back out. In contrast, in sidemount are a swimming wall anchor and need to know how to remove a tank in tight quarters.
So...backmount still makes sense as it is well suited to a large number of caves in FL and it is arguably more "idiot proof" than sidemount.
As for training you can look at it both ways:
1. Backmount makes a great set of "training wheels" while you master the many other skills needed in cave diving, or
2. If you can dive sidemount you can handle backmount - therefore teach students in the more difficult configuration.
To use an aviation analogy, if you learn to fly a tail dragger you can fly a tri-cyle geared aircraft with no more instruction. Similarly, if you learn to fly a multi engine aircraft, no extra instruction is needed to go "backwards" to an easier to fly singel engine aircraft. However, no one is required to learn in a multi engine aircraft, mostly due to high cost, but that is not an issue in sidemount diving where the costs are arguably no higher than backmount.
In terms of mixed team diving, the long hose configuration makes sense and works well regardless of whether you are with another sidemount diver or with a backmount diver.
I bet if you could provide a single scenario to the agency boards where BM caused a death due to a gas loss, you could convince the agencies to change things. I'm completely unaware of such a scenario other than a story told of Sheck and a buddy of his diving deep air, so I can't be of much help.Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
Fact is, no one is dying from a sudden and complete loss of gas, and the training agencies aren't enforcing the standards currently on the books, so what benefit would we gain by adding more?
Why would two sidemount divers have long hoses? Seems like more crap to get tangled to me. With backmount there's the extremely small (approaching impossible) chance that one diver is completely OOA. With sidemount it would take some really poor gas plan execution and unequal SAC rates to even remotely imagine the 7ft hose helping.Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
See my comment in the other thread. I've personally seen someone wedge in pretty well in BM - and be unable to manoeuvre the tanks behind him to get out.Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
Arguably. Very arguably.Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
How is a configuration you can't get your hands on good "training wheels"? SM is way simpler in OOG situations. Other than Bobby's argument that a lost reg in very low gas situations may be better on BM (and that's only in pretty specific situations), it's universally easier to sort out a viariety of situations when you can actually get your hands on the components.Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
I hate these flying analogies. They're just not applicable. I agree with your comments about tail-draggers, but suggesting that SM is the "taildragger" of cave diving is nuts. If anything it's the tricycle gear. No idea where you're going with ME.Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
Yep, proving the idiocy of BM. It's excess redundancy with SM, but needed with BM because it's such a dangerous system.Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
I still argue for a long hose on sidemount. It is so much easier to hand off the long hose to the oog buddy than to remove a sidemount tank, hand it to oog diver, who then unclips his/her empty to replace with other, or now carries three tanks....ugg! Just hand over a long hose and be done with it. I can also imagine a tight place in which handing a long hose is possible but handing a tank may not be.
To say complete OOG is unlikely or even darn near impossible is no reason to assume it has or never will happen. I agree that BM or SM, the total loss of all gas is remote. But planning for the remote possibility and teaching what to do not only teaches what to do, but adds confidence, and makes one think further ahead. After class (and certification) you can dump your long hose if you decide...they won't revoke the c-card.
Teaching and setting training standards involves more than just dealing with "likely" scenarios.
I've also seen divers go from single to backmount to sidemount in about 2 months, never becoming proficient at any configuration. So before I'd teach cavern/cave in sidemount (I am not an instructor, but if I were...) I'd want to see a log book with number of dives in sidemount noted, and of course do a trial dive to see proficiency.
I would like to hear from some cave instructors who dive sidemount, but teach in backmount. Their perspective is perhaps more insightful.
-skip
Skip states it well.
One thing to consider is that the issue is not just whether an individual prefers a long hose or not, rather it is seeking NACD approval for training in a sidemount configuration.
Given the potential for the sidemount divers trained under those standards to find themselves in mixed teams, a configuration that works in all settings where gas sharing may be needed is essential when you scale a practice up to the agency level.
People can argue their own individual sidemount preferences till the cows come home, but if mainstream approval is what is desired, then some compromise and standardization is in order. The same move toward standardization occurred in back mount and people kicked and screamed then. Sidemount is no different today and the standardization of sidemount will be just as loud and contentious.
There are three other merits of having a long hose when diving SM.
One is that you never know who is going to be in the system and need help. Assuming that only the people in your team could be in need of gas can be a bad thing.
The second is that in a true OOG situation having someone a few inches from you that is very anxious can make dealing with the situation difficult.
The last is that when someone has had a gas situation keeping them on a leash to control their exit is not such a bad thing either.
Bobby