Cave Diving Survey

Hello Cave Divers!

I am trying to collect the opinions of cave divers and instructors about whether or not they believe cave diving students should be allowed to utilize sidemount configuration during training. The information collected will be presented by myself to the NACD board of directors and to the training committee.

FYI, the NACD is one of the few remaining organizations that do not allow cave students to learn in sidemount. I believe this is a topic that the NACD should address and I think your opinions are valuable. I would love to reach every member of the NACD; however our database is private and should remain that way. Please distribute this form freely to any cave diver you know, especially if they are NACD members. The form can be found at the following link.

http://superiordivetraining.com/Survey_pub_0001.pdf

Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this topic or have any questions. I will not be following or responding to this thread.

386-965-5832 or richard@superiordivetraining.com

Added:

Looks like some people are having difficulty with the pdf survey. Here is one created by survey monkey. Thanks for the tip Andrew!

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/89DVKMB

Quote:

---

Hello Cave Divers!

I am trying to collect the opinions of cave divers and instructors about whether or not they believe cave diving students should be allowed to utilize sidemount configuration during training. The information collected will be presented by myself to the NACD board of directors and to the training committee.

FYI, the NACD is one of the few remaining organizations that do not allow cave students to learn in sidemount. I believe this is a topic that the NACD should address and I think your opinions are valuable. I would love to reach every member of the NACD; however our database is private and should remain that way. Please distribute this form freely to any cave diver you know, especially if they are NACD members. The form can be found at the following link.

http://superiordivetraining.com/Survey_pub_0001.pdf

Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this topic or have any questions. I will not be following or responding to this thread.

386-965-5832 or richard@superiordivetraining.com

---

Interesting discussion that will commence I am sure. My only comment to add is that I think the teacher of a particular configuration ie backmount,sidemount,rebreather etc to be accomplished in this area,and in the same configuration as their student. I saw a class not too long ago where the student was in sidemount,and I know the instructor is not a sidemount diver,and was using a backmount configuration. Also,certification at the entry level in sidemount, is diving a sidemount configuration,not sidemount style of diving (big difference between the two).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expedition Divers

a a a a

---

Umm... am I missing something? :smt102

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icestac

Umm... am I missing something? :smt102

---

Decided he didn't like the can of worms, saw it on TDS and it was going to be a mess.

He didn't take it down there yet.
http://thedecostop.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42364

Yeah, what was he thinking? Coming here for opinions :smt102

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sea2summit

Decided he didn't like the can of worms, saw it on TDS and it was going to be a mess.

He didn't take it down there yet.
http://thedecostop.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42364

---

Really? Looks like he just pulled it to edit the form and it is back up now.

The subject is not that controversial, but then again the folks on the drama stop can get worked up about pretty much anything. Making wild a$$ assumptions about other people's acttions and motives, then posting that information as fact is a good way to create some drama. Let's try to avoid that here.

I filled out the form. I see nothing wrong with teaching in sidemount, but I'd like to see mixed team teaching too, not strictly sidemount teams. Sidemounters with long hose doing oog drills just like backmount. Of course drills in which tanks are exchanged (sidemount oog drills) would be good too. Does instructor need to be sidemount? I'm not so sure that's a requirement. I'd hope instructor would have some experience, but if the teaching involves mixed teams, then maybe instructor could be backmount.

-skip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skip

I'd hope instructor would have some experience,

---

Yes, one would hope. I would want someone to have experience doing something he's teaching me to do.

I once had an instructor ask to borrow my scooter to teach an open-water scooter class. He didn't own one and had never scootered.

I also watched an instructor who owned a point-and-shoot camera teach an underwater photography class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skip

I filled out the form. I see nothing wrong with teaching in sidemount, but I'd like to see mixed team teaching too, not strictly sidemount teams. Sidemounters with long hose doing oog drills just like backmount.

---

I think this is essential, and to some extent it will require the NACD to establish some standards for sidemount configuration - in essence, a 7' hose on one of the regs.

Quote:

---

Of course drills in which tanks are exchanged (sidemount oog drills) would be good too.

---

I'm not sure that is essential as it would be a good idea to maintain a distinction between cave diving in a sidemount configuration and being properly trained to dive in an environment where sidemount is essential.

Quote:

---

Does instructor need to be sidemount? I'm not so sure that's a requirement. I'd hope instructor would have some experience, but if the teaching involves mixed teams, then maybe instructor could be backmount.

---

Agreed.

Personally, this is easy one for me to answer because I have a horse deep in this race.

I injured myself fairly seriously after I had just taken Intro to Cave course. For a while it became impossible for me to carry doubles. Even now it’s not the most sensible thing for me to do, and I am not able to do it for prolonged periods (eg duration of a cave trip).

I knew I wanted further cave training, so while I was recovering I changed over to sidemount configuration. I have been diving SM both in OW and overhead since I have been back in the water. For me it makes all the sense in the world that I should be allowed to continue training in sidemount rather than finish in doubles. I plan to dive sidemount in caves in future – why would I not finish the training in the rig I am actively using?

I am not really ‘needing’ the sidemount course that teaches about getting into nasty holes (yet), I just want to learn to dive caves in sidemount configuration. In my case, I am not planning on using SM to do anything that is beyond my training or to get into any sites that I could damage with my inferior skills. I assume these are some of the worries NACD has about divers’ motivations?? I just want to get to dive.

IMHO any sidemount specific skills that are post-Full Cave level can (should) be simply left out from training up till Full Cave. Personally, I would consider things like removal of tanks to negotiate restrictions etc to belong into post-Full Sidemount courses. Divers who are taught in other configurations are not trained in any ‘advanced’ skills so SM divers should not be either until further courses.

I would never consider taking training from an instructor who does not dive the system themselves. If I wanted training in mixed team, I would expect the instructor to be proficient diving both systems s/he will be teaching on, and actively diving and/or teaching both. I can’t believe it when I run into instructors who just took a course in something as demanding as RB:s two weeks ago and now they offer a course in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alias

I can’t believe it when I run into instructors who just took a course in something as demanding as RB:s two weeks ago and now they offer a course in it.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aainslie

Isn't a more interesting question, why the hell are we still teaching backmount?

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster

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.

---

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

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.

---

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

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.

---

Arguably. Very arguably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster

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

---

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

2. If you can dive sidemount you can handle backmount - therefore teach students in the more difficult configuration.

---

Huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster

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.

---

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

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.

---

Yep, proving the idiocy of BM. It's excess redundancy with SM, but needed with BM because it's such a dangerous system.

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

I hardly ever even SEE anyone on a dive. So I suppose, the argument for a long hose relates to diving overpopulated tourist traps.

And the people I DO dive with, I have a strong agreement with - we're essentially solo. This change alone changes a lot of behaviors (see risk mitigation and moral hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard) issues in the other thread that Gerrard started).

Anyway, all this goes back to... why would one NOT want to teach an inherently better approach ab initio?

or if that's too rich for you... let me move to a more agnostic position. If all parties could agree that there is a lack of clear evidence, theoretic or empirical, for one or the other why would one go with insisting on only teaching one?

It's time to fix this. We shoud be seeing more students in sidemount right out the gate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aainslie

I hardly ever even SEE anyone on a dive. So I suppose, the argument for a long hose relates to diving overpopulated tourist traps.

And the people I DO dive with, I have a strong agreement with - we're essentially solo. This change alone changes a lot of behaviors (see risk mitigation and moral hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard) issues in the other thread that Gerrard started).

Anyway, all this goes back to... why would one NOT want to teach an inherently better approach ab initio?

or if that's too rich for you... let me move to a more agnostic position. If all parties could agree that there is a lack of clear evidence, theoretic or empirical, for one or the other why would one go with insisting on only teaching one?

It's time to fix this. We shoud be seeing more students in sidemount right out the gate.

---

Interesting? You say that BM is antiquated and less optimal than SM and that we should adopt SM as a better system. Yet you propose in doing so we should go back to an even more antiquated system of using short hose.

To back this up you are saying that you "hardly ever even SEE anyone on a dive." for your reasoning that using the short hose is optimal. Then add that within the group you dive with solo is the mind set so all is good.

The jeer at "tourist traps" is funny with how much you dive the so called tourist traps yourself.

What I have not heard is anything that discounts the possible and real benefits of using a long hose with SM. I have used a long hose on SM for years and there has never been a time that I could not get through something because I had a long hose on a cylinder. There have been times I couldn't get my shoulders through but that had nothing to do with a long hose.

To shift your argument to another light (pun intended). You have a top quality high dollar light that has never failed on a dive for many years. So why the heck should we bother with back up lights?

Bobby

The "tourist trap" thing was meant to be a somewhat self-referential jab. So I'm glad you found it funny - that was the intent. Of course I'm a tourist!!

The solo approach was also meant to be lightly joking since it does speak to the moral hazard issue in the other thread. It was a bit tangential I suppose.

Maybe it's just my humour that sucks.

I'll admit the hose thing isn't a biggie. if people want to slap a little more hose under a bungie so be it. I just think it's a side issue (so to speak).

On the light... it's eactly the solo approach that makes sure that i carry tons of the little buggers. They're the same issue.

Its all good. After the beat down I got using the "tourist" word on TDS I clearly could see the humor. Just poking back is all. I also take the solo mind set and with that don't get wound up about how others kit themselves up. I do like to be prepared for the unexpected and take a few precautions that others may call unneeded, to each their own.

I do think from a training point that teaching SM with the long hose makes the most sense on many fronts, especially getting it set up in the first place.

Bobby

Good discussion guys. Don't forget to fill out the survey!

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/89DVKMB

What Survey? :D

How about the one in the post above. There is a hyperlink to surveymonkey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skip

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

---

I agree with the long hose configuration as long as there is a valid gas management process. So there are two questions arise:

1. Gas management rule and process of tank use.
2. Do you breath from the long hose and when (from what point).

I would like to hear opinion and solutions for these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argyris

I agree with the long hose configuration as long as there is a valid gas management process. So there are two questions arise:

1. Gas management rule and process of tank use.
2. Do you breath from the long hose and when (from what point).

I would like to hear opinion and solutions for these.

---

The same gas management rule applies to independents as it does with manifolded doubles. 1/3 of your gas supply in, 1/3 of your gas supply out and 1/3 in reserve for emergencies as a minimum.

How you do on independents is only important that each cylinder has the above rule applied separately. IE 1/3 from each cylinder on the way in, etc. How you do it is not as important IMHO. Personally I switch regs every 200-300 psi. It is not needed to switch that often it is just the habit that I developed. I rarely look at my gauges before I switch it just becomes habit.

Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argyris

2. Do you breath from the long hose and when (from what point)..

---

I don't believe the agencies have a set rule for this even with doubles that have been around forever. I've still seen classes where students and instructors stuff the long hose. I wouldn't see this as something that would hold up adopting SM, since there's no standard for BM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argyris

I agree with the long hose configuration as long as there is a valid gas management process. So there are two questions arise:

1. Gas management rule and process of tank use.
2. Do you breath from the long hose and when (from what point).

I would like to hear opinion and solutions for these.

---

This is where I normally get beat up as I do not conform to the switch everry 300 psi crowd. I agree with Bobby in regard to it being more than is needed, but there is also little or no harm in it if you choose to do it that way.

After over a decade of independent doubles diving, my opinion is that it makes sense to breathe 1/3rd off the tank with the short hose (I put my short hose on the left tank in sidemount), then breathe 1/3rd out of the other tank, turn the dive while continuing to breathe out of that tank, then after breathing a total of 2/3rds from it, switch back to the first tank to breathe the second third from it.

At the point where it matters the most - the point of maximum penetration - both tanks will each have 2/3rds in them, and both tanks will each have an amount of gas in them that is equal to what you used from both tanks to get to the point of maximum penetration.

More importantly, for the purposes of this discussion, on the deeper half of the penetration, both on the way in and out, you will be on the long hose and the long hose is then instantly ready to donate.

You can switch every 200-300 psi but, provided trim is not an issue, it offers no advantage and is harder to manage as you end up with more than just 2 reg switches.

"Thirds" is also misleading as the size of the thirds can be easily varied. For example with tanks filled to 3600 psi, I could dive with full 1200 psi thirds, or in response to the need to gas match or leave a larger reserve at the end of the dive, I could utilize 1000 posi thirds, 800 psi thirds, etc and still only switch regs twice during the dive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster

This is where I normally get beat up...

---

Ditto...I see no reason to switch regs more than once during a dive and this is how I do it as well.

Now that said, there are obvious exceptions like if I need to remove the tank happen to breathing from to push it ahead, I'll switch to the tank I have clipped off. If I have to unclip both...well then I flip a coin lol.

Another exception is if you push through a nasty restriction or bedding plane with a lot of debris I switch back and fourth once through the restriction to make sure both regs are working properly.

I damn near killed myself once because I pushed through (solo diving) a rather ugly restriction with a lot of leaves, twigs, pine needles. I had Jet-stream regs at the time and both managed to get crap stuck under the diaphragm, to the point where one would breath nothing but water and the other I had to really "sip" it to get any air. The front faces cannot be unscrewed to clear the diaphragm (like they can on Dive Rite, Scuba Pro, etc.) on these regs with out removing 4 little socket head cap screws using an allen wrench.

I sold the regs.

I don't get the trim argument...one tank having more gas than the other therefor making it more negative. True, it is more negative, but most of us have dove with a single stage bottle at one time or another and you don't swim around on your side until it becomes neutral do you?...or do you? The wing should compensate for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmcauliffe

I damn near killed myself once because I pushed through (solo diving) a rather ugly restriction with a lot of leaves, twigs, pine needles. I had Jet-stream regs at the time and both managed to get crap stuck under the diaphragm, to the point where one would breath nothing but water and the other I had to really "sip" it to get any air. The front faces cannot be unscrewed to clear the diaphragm (like they can on Dive Rite, Scuba Pro, etc.) on these regs with out removing 4 little socket head cap screws using an allen wrench.

I sold the regs.

---

Its stuff like this that will keep me swapping every 1/6th(whether that be 300/500/600). I'd likely find out about the issue sooner than later assuming I only jammed up one regulator. It ends up being one additional swap.

That... and depending on the tank, like an AL80 or LP72, I'd rather keep them near enough the same as far as their bouyancy characteristics. Being a 1/3rd off can make you feel catywhompous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuPrBuGmAn

I'd likely find out about the issue sooner than later

---

Oh I knew right away!!!! lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster

After over a decade of independent doubles diving, my opinion is that it makes sense to breathe 1/3rd off the tank with the short hose (I put my short hose on the left tank in sidemount), then breathe 1/3rd out of the other tank, turn the dive while continuing to breathe out of that tank, then after breathing a total of 2/3rds from it, switch back to the first tank to breathe the second third from it.

At the point where it matters the most - the point of maximum penetration - both tanks will each have 2/3rds in them, and both tanks will each have an amount of gas in them that is equal to what you used from both tanks to get to the point of maximum penetration.

More importantly, for the purposes of this discussion, on the deeper half of the penetration, both on the way in and out, you will be on the long hose and the long hose is then instantly ready to donate.

You can switch every 200-300 psi but, provided trim is not an issue, it offers no advantage and is harder to manage as you end up with more than just 2 reg switches.

"Thirds" is also misleading as the size of the thirds can be easily varied. For example with tanks filled to 3600 psi, I could dive with full 1200 psi thirds, or in response to the need to gas match or leave a larger reserve at the end of the dive, I could utilize 1000 posi thirds, 800 psi thirds, etc and still only switch regs twice during the dive.

---

I strongly agree with this gas switching & management. It can be used also with independent backmount twins, which in fact is a counter argument that people with independent twins can not use long hose to gas sharing.

Bobby the gas management you use is perfect for solo diving. It is interesting however to discuss a configuration perceived for soloers and try to implement team diving procedures.

Please not that although most divers are know the third gas rule this does not mean that are familiar to implement it effectively with independents cylinders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jj1987

I don't believe the agencies have a set rule for this even with doubles that have been around forever. I've still seen classes where students and instructors stuff the long hose. I wouldn't see this as something that would hold up adopting SM, since there's no standard for BM.

---

This is not true if you are a DIR/NTEC/Hogarthian diver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argyris

This is not rue if yoy are a DIR/NTEC/Hogarthian diver.

---

I think you misread my statement. I was stating that the agencies have not adopted written standards for breathing the long hose. Obviously NAUI/GUE are the two well known exceptions around NFL.

Myself, I prefer to follow well tested and debated setups that transition to a variety of diving and believe it's safest when the entire team is on the same page...but my personal opinion was somewhat unneeded for the statement I was making. Since breathing/stuffing the long hose isn't written firmly in standards for BM, I don't believe it would hold up a SM confirmation approval by the training directors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jj1987

I think you misread my statement. I was stating that the agencies have not adopted written standards for breathing the long hose. Obviously NAUI/GUE are the two well known exceptions around NFL.

Myself, I prefer to follow well tested and debated setups that transition to a variety of diving and believe it's safest when the entire team is on the same page...but my personal opinion was somewhat unneeded for the statement I was making. Since breathing/stuffing the long hose isn't written firmly in standards for BM, I don't believe it would hold up a SM confirmation approval by the training directors.

---

And not only, there are more like UTD, etc.

Hogarthian configuration is a well tested and debated setup for BM. I think it can be also for side mount also. What I asked is for us a community to establish a standard or protocol not the training directors.

I asked for the process because many fellow cave divers watch the topic without writing. An you will agree that some may be not expert to understand what the safest method is nor are on the same page with you and me.

I don't argue with you and do not want to hurt your feelings either. If I did it I apologize that was not my intention.

Argyris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argyris

I strongly agree with this gas switching & management. It can be used also with independent backmount twins, which in fact is a counter argument that people with independent twins can not use long hose to gas sharing.

Bobby the gas management you use is perfect for solo diving. It is interesting however to discuss a configuration perceived for soloers and try to implement team diving procedures.

Please not that although most divers are know the third gas rule this does not mean that are familiar to implement it effectively with independents cylinders.

---

Argyris,
I do not understand why you say the configuration that I spoke of is perfect for solo diving but is not a good implementation for team diving?

When diving OC SM my long hose donation is exactly the same as a BM OC diver. If I am breathing the short hose I simply grab the long hose and donate it rather than the reg from my mouth. The regs feed from two different directions so it is impossible to mix the two of them up. My gas management of the independent cylinders is not a necessity but it does help insure that the donated reg, on the long hose, is in working order. Please clarify how this system does not work in team or mixed team diving.

Thanks,

Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argyris

And not only, there are more like UTD, etc.

---

I'd love to see more agencies adopt standards like GUE/UTD/NTEC, don't get me wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argyris

I asked for the process because many fellow cave divers watch the topic without writing. An you will agree that some may be not expert to understand what the safest method is nor are on the same page with you and me.

---

I completely agree. SM seems to currently have no standardization. To be honest, if all SM rigs looked like aainslie's, I'd be a lot more likely to want to try and switch over, but most of what I see makes my head spin. If Steve Bogarts offered a SM class in Florida, I would take it, but I have zero interest in taking one now because you don't really know what you're going to get. It's very clear that standardization, if it ever happens, is a ways off.

Not to pick on SM, the same can be said for the agencies lack of policies (and this can be seen as god OR bad) on things such as stages (1/2+200 vs 1/3rds) and scooters (1/2 burn going in, 1/3 burn going in, 40% burn going in, as well as should you plan to tow a buddy, or each have enough to swim out, when do you add a tow scooter? etc). I guess these things just take time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argyris

I don't argue with you and do not want to hurt your feelings either. If I did it I apologize that was not my intention.

Argyris

---

Sorry if I came off blunt. I was only being short to avoid personal opinions derailing the thread. I didn't take your post as argumentative, and hope mine didn't come off that way either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobby

The same gas management rule applies to independents as it does with manifolded doubles. 1/3 of your gas supply in, 1/3 of your gas supply out and 1/3 in reserve for emergencies as a minimum.

How you do on independents is only important that each cylinder has the above rule applied separately. IE 1/3 from each cylinder on the way in, etc. How you do it is not as important IMHO. Personally I switch regs every 200-300 psi. It is not needed to switch that often it is just the habit that I developed. I rarely look at my gauges before I switch it just becomes habit.

Bobby

---

This is why I told you Bobby that your technique (I do not speak about configuration, i speak about gas manangement), is perfect for solo but not for a team emergency. Because you frequently change the regulator for each tank, so when an emergency arises you may not breathe the long hose. Secondly you speak for a personal habit, there is not such in team procedures.

My main concern is:
1. To minimize regulator switches
2. Always have adequate gas for sharing and exit.
3. Most time to breathe from the long hose for tolerating emergencies.

With the minimum gas switch one can do:

a. Initial penetration 1/3 of tank (1/6 of total penetration gas) from the left tank (short hose). If there is a problem with my own regulator (right) at the switch I can return using the 2/3 of the remaining gas in my left tank. The same applies to my buddy.

b. If there is not any problem then I can switch to the right regulator and now i am on long hose. Breathing 1/3 of the right tank and then return back and exit cave. Now if the is a problem at the further point of penetration I have 2/3 on my tanks to return. The same applies to my buddy.

c. Half of return to surface I can switch back to left cylinder and exit cave with 1/3 from every tank.

The same procedures are followed by my team buddy.

I do not think that you can achieve this accurately especially when you do not check your gauges frequently.

You use the world habit and personal remember team diving is a reciprocal process both parts should be able to perform with each other. In the above procedure I am confident with my team buddy about the results, we practice as modified safety drill every dive. Are you and your buddy confident with your way?

I am sorry if my description is not clear (my English is not perfect), if someone can explain it better please do.

Again I am not arguing or confront anyone. We are discussing and within discussions there are different points and opinions, otherwise would be a lecture or monologue.

Regards,
Argyris

Argyris,
Your English is fine (at least for me). Thank you for your clarification and I do not take it as argumentative in any way. You make some good points. The system you and Larry propose does have its merits. The best that I see is leaving the most amount of gas in the long hose cylinder for the deepest penetrations. You are correct that I am very much a solo diver. I will add to that statement with the mind set of always looking out for any teammate or anyone else that might need assistance.

I also feel that another valid point is the reduction in swapping second stages. For me it has become second nature but we are talking about applying SM in a training situation. Less switches not only reduces task loading in the switches themselves but also makes gas management simpler.

I would also feel that from a training standard going into adverse conditions that will plug the diaphragms or the inner second stages would not be part of the training and considered advanced diving.

Another benefit that I see is teaching new SM divers to properly deal with balancing their rigs. The buoyancy changes in the cylinders should make this easier compared to switching the regs every few hundred psi.

I don't teach SM but I do a good bit of mentoring. I will think about this more and probably incorporate it into helping others adjust and use their SM set ups.

Funny story that kind of relates. A decade ago I was working with a dive buddy that was getting ready for his cave class. I did not have my independent doubles and did not have any dive experience with the brand new isolated BM doubles I had just put together. Not trusting the BM set up from inexperience I opted to put my buddy in my SM rig. Long story short was that we did an OW acclimation dive and worked out his RMV at the same time. He breathed down 2/3's of the first cylinder before switching. We both were trying to figure out why he was side ways in the water during the middle of the dive. I had neglected to mention a procedure for switching regs. He had never dove double cylinders. LOL. I also dove my new manifolded doubles for almost a year with two spg's, closed isolator and reg switches because I did not trust it.

Bobby

I haven't had time to read through this entire thread yet. I do want to comment that I do teach in sidemount. In fact, this past weekend I taught a cavern class with 3 students - one in backmount, one in sidemount, and one in a single 120. It went very well. The sidemount student will get an IANTD card. FWIW, there are other agencies that allow students to complete cave training in sidemount. I encourage my students to consider sidemount and more than half go that route. So those agencies are the ones that get the money for student manuals and certifications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobby

Funny story that kind of relates. A decade ago I was working with a dive buddy that was getting ready for his cave class. I did not have my independent doubles and did not have any dive experience with the brand new isolated BM doubles I had just put together. Not trusting the BM set up from inexperience I opted to put my buddy in my SM rig. Long story short was that we did an OW acclimation dive and worked out his RMV at the same time. He breathed down 2/3's of the first cylinder before switching. We both were trying to figure out why he was side ways in the water during the middle of the dive. I had neglected to mention a procedure for switching regs. He had never dove double cylinders. LOL. I also dove my new manifolded doubles for almost a year with two spg's, closed isolator and reg switches because I did not trust it.

Bobby

---

Bobby,

It is obvious that proper training give confidence to procedures and diving systems. Your example is very characteristic and true. I see many people diving with the isolation closed or use double spg's. An on the other side I see many people dive on independent twins without understanding Switch or gas process for a virtual redundancy.

What is the outcome of a successful training is learning by heart. Thats why I prefer to develop as a community procedures as a safety blueprint. I believe that cave training in side mount is feasible but we have to define the process and this discussion is valuable. I am sure that we can set a Hogarthian SM rig and procedures.

Although I support personal preference and diversity, when we address life safety procedure there is inevitably only the application of Hick's law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RN

So those agencies are the ones that get the money for student manuals and certifications.

---

Personally, safety and comfort of the student is my primary concern. For gad sake a cave instructor is mostly an educator and not a certification machine. We do not train for the money -or at least me, but i am sure there are more that agree with me.

We have to understand that a certain rig or a technique is valid mostly for the specific environment that is aimed.

On that sense I do not use a rebreather or a scooter on short dives. We have to addressed the legitimacy of any option, like trimix rebreather or sm. Educational wise student development is a scaffolding process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RN

I haven't had time to read through this entire thread yet. I do want to comment that I do teach in sidemount. In fact, this past weekend I taught a cavern class with 3 students - one in backmount, one in sidemount, and one in a single 120. It went very well. The sidemount student will get an IANTD card. FWIW, there are other agencies that allow students to complete cave training in sidemount. I encourage my students to consider sidemount and more than half go that route. So those agencies are the ones that get the money for student manuals and certifications.

---

Be sure to send in the survey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argyris

Personally, safety and comfort of the student is my primary concern. For gad sake a cave instructor is mostly an educator and not a certification machine. We do not train for the money -or at least me, but i am sure there are more that agree with me.

We have to understand that a certain rig or a technique is valid mostly for the specific environment that is aimed.

On that sense I do not use a rebreather or a scooter on short dives. We have to addressed the legitimacy of any option, like trimix rebreather or sm. Educational wise student development is a scaffolding process.

---

You completely missed my point...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FW

Be sure to send in the survey.

---

Done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RN

You completely missed my point...

---

Which is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FW

Be sure to send in the survey.

---

My link isn't sending in the survey response, as best as I can tell.
Hope the link is working for everyone else.

Wouldn't our survey comments be better directed if all cave divers sent their thoughts directly to the NACD?

Our board members should represent all cave divers and cave diving: not just a small vocal group as those that use this forum.
And I believe the board have voted on this issue a couple of times already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puttzer

My link isn't sending in the survey response, as best as I can tell.
Hope the link is working for everyone else.

Wouldn't our survey comments be better directed if all cave divers sent their thoughts directly to the NACD?

Our board members should represent all cave divers and cave diving: not just a small vocal group as those that use this forum.
And I believe the board have voted on this issue a couple of times already.

---

I had to email mine in. You can also send your comments to any NACD BoD member. He has also posted the same survey on other forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argyris

Which is?

---

Money talks. The agencies that want to limit their training to certain configurations will be getting less as long as they maintain that attitude. The agencies that are willing to see into the future will get the certification fees and income from selling student manuals. I don't believe that sidemount diving is only suited to a certain environment. It's a configuration people are going to so they can save their backs and knees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RN

Money talks. The agencies that want to limit their training to certain configurations will be getting less as long as they maintain that attitude. The agencies that are willing to see into the future will get the certification fees and income from selling student manuals. I don't believe that sidemount diving is only suited to a certain environment. It's a configuration people are going to so they can save their backs and knees.

---

So I got you right then...
As ai said before "For god sake a cave instructor is mostly an educator and not a certification machine. We do not train for the money". Cave training should not be comodized.

However I agree with your comment that side mount is "a configuration people are going to so they can save their backs and knees".


So If there is a vlaid reason for sidemounting, yes I am positive with you but I suspect that the SM is developing as a fation statement these days specialy with the proliferation of training programs to OW divers. Some people want to use SM not because of real need but because they will look different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argyris

..... Some people want to use SM not because of real need but because they will look different.

---

The way it is going, they won't look different for long. It will be the backmount divers that look different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FW

The way it is going, they won't look different for long. It will be the backmount divers that look different.

---

So we are in the peak.... Inevitably yes you are right FW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RN

I don't believe that sidemount diving is only suited to a certain environment. It's a configuration people are going to so they can save their backs and knees.

---

I agree.

My full cave instructor (very old school) was adamant that backmount was the way to go unless you really needed to dive sidemount. Whether he is right or not is not the issue, the fact is that many people are now diving sidemount for many different reasons.

Some dive it becasue they are seeing a need to dive in smaller passages, some becasue it is more comfortable both in and out of the water, and some just because of the "cool" factor, or perhaps because of the current freedom the configuration allows in terms of configuring it any way you like.

I think the last two are a bit silly, but arguing the validity of each of the various reasons does not change the fact that it is becoming very mainstream in open water as well as in the cave environment.

The end result is that people are going to start showing up for cavern and intro classes in significant numbers already comfortable in a sidemount configuration. Training agencies will have to decide how to deal with that. Moving them 'backwards" to a single tank is not an option and putting them in back mounted doubles is pointless as they would be less comfortable and proficient. It would also be pointless as they would in any event immediately revert to sidemount once the class is over, making it far safer to just teach them in sidemount.

The reality is also that more and more divers in both backmount and sidemount are going to be diving as team mates, at times with little introduction and no previous experience together. Cave divers need to know how to address that situation and the current training methods come up short in that regard.

I agree, the cool factor is not a reason. Initially, I went sidemount because of where I live. Most of the caves in this area are sidemount access only. Backmount divers are limited to 4 caves in the area. As a sidemount diver, I can dive dozens! Another reason for me is knee and ankle issues. Carrying over 100 pounds of steel on my back isn't great for them. It's nice to be able to hand truck my tanks to the water and walk to and from the water without the additional weight.

I've been seeing a steady increase in sidemount divers since I moved to Florida. 3 years ago, it was rare to see anyone in sidemount. Now it's rare to see a backmount diver at JB and even Peacock has had about a 50% occurrence of sidemount divers during my visits there. I also have had about a 1/3 of my students in sidemount with a good number of the backmount students converting to sidemount after they complete their cavern course.

I think "old school" instructors are just cutting themselves off at the foot with their resistance to adapt to the changing market, as are agencies that are unwilling to change their standards. But this seems to be par for the course in the diving industry.

Thanks to everyone who has completed my survey! I am getting some great responses and I think your feedback will be very helpful. I would love to hear from more divers on this subject. If you have not yet filled it out, here is the link again.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/89DVKMB

Please use this survey instead of the one in the original post. Some seem to be having problems with the original.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster

........it is becoming very mainstream in open water as well as in the cave environment..

---

I am in favour of getting OW divers off single cylinders and onto redundants for all OW diving. Whether it will actually happen................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argyris

Some people want to use SM not because of real need but because they will look different.

---

Shutdowns are greatly simplified with SM, no more reaching back like manifolded sets and if regs freeflow breathing can be controlled by turning gas on/off for each breath

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RN

.....It's a configuration people are going to so they can save their backs and knees.

---

Sidemounts are a god send if you are short, the carry is also easier if your cylinders are separate til you gear up

Just my views only!

What MDS said! :clapper

Jason and Chrissy Richards completed the all-weekend cave survey class here in Murfreesboro, and not one attendee was a backmount diver. It was all sidemount. Several attendees (FW, Marbry, Mark W.) brought out new and interesting ways to configure sidemount in a show and tell as the topic veered from cave surveying to gear (like posts on the forum, humans in person can't stay on OP's topic!).

Mark W. commented that "It's taken over 5 years, but I think we're beginning to see the way to sidemount!" Maybe we can them to share their insights and inventions in the sidemount subforum. I know they have pictures.

-skip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skip

Jason and Chrissy Richards completed the all-weekend cave survey class here in Murfreesboro, and not one attendee was a backmount diver. It was all sidemount. Several attendees (FW, Marbry, Mark W.) brought out new and interesting ways to configure sidemount in a show and tell as the topic veered from cave surveying to gear (like posts on the forum, humans in person can't stay on OP's topic!).

Mark W. commented that "It's taken over 5 years, but I think we're beginning to see the way to sidemount!" Maybe we can them to share their insights and inventions in the sidemount subforum. I know they have pictures.

-skip

---

Awesome! I can't wait to get a peek! Thanks for the update.

Give us a run down on the rest of the weekend? Where'd you go? What'd you do? Who fell in the mud? You know...the good stuff!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sskasser

Awesome! I can't wait to get a peek! Thanks for the update.

Give us a run down on the rest of the weekend? Where'd you go? What'd you do? Who fell in the mud? You know...the good stuff!

---

We practiced "dry" surveying in the "driest" aprt of Snail Shell. I think everyone "ran out of gas" Sunday, because the only diving was in the shop pool :-D

It was Mark that fell, but on rocks, not mud :( He is OK, though, just a little stiff.

Bummer on the diving. Mark, glad you're ok. Maybe the three of you can give us a rehash of the course while we're in Mexico. That'd be most cool!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FW

We practiced "dry" surveying in the "driest" aprt of Snail Shell. I think everyone "ran out of gas" Sunday, because the only diving was in the shop pool :-D

It was Mark that fell, but on rocks, not mud :( He is OK, though, just a little stiff.

---

I hope he is okay....it has been a bad time for falls lately for him.Wish him well!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eramosakarst

I hope he is okay....it has been a bad time for falls lately for him.Wish him well!

---

Ah, I'm fine. Thanks for the concern. Haven't been in a dry cave in a few months, and I was jumping around like a jack rabbit, out in front of the upstream section of Snailshell. Joop boots don't help on thick moss! Jason put me right in place! Shirley and Doug, I wish you two could have shared the excitement this weekend. Jason's got some cool "not so secrets", and willing to share them, which is amazing.

As far as the harness work, Forrest and Jason are the two to look at, not me. I'm rebuilding last weeks harness attempt once again. Two things were said that really brought it home in the SM show and tell. Forrest said, "the positive pull of the wing must lift the weight of the tanks, not the harness". Jason said, "the tanks should hang, in the water from their attachment point at 0 center of gravity". Between those two statements, I'm re building my rig. Jason also had me move the tanks under my armpit, so they're out of the flow of swimming, and re routed all my hoses, with aerodynamics in mind. Who's thinking of aerodynamics when you're pulling yourself through a sump, but.... the point's in hand. Yes, SPG's pointing back, and out of the flow. Etc, etc......