Do you dive Side-Mount or Side Slung??

[DevonDiver]

I am terribly confused with this comment. You shut down whatever side is bubbling. How does having two long hoses change this? Are you saying someone would not be able to tell which long hose is bubbling? Well there you have it! We have found the skills issue.

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes.... I'm talking about moving the long hose to the left cylinder.

I can only speak for myself, and my students, and those I've dived with.... but shut-down drills function best when ingrained. It's easier to ingrain one response, regardless of rig used, than too ingrain multiple responses that vary from dive to dive. Again... only speaking for myself...I know which reg is in my mouth (long/short) at any given time. I know if it bubbles, my shut-down will be instinctive. My instincts from back-mount carry over to sidemount.

Why retard a student by throwing different protocols at them and blocking that instinct development?

Why would a hose not be able to be moved?

From right-handed, to left-handed hose direction. It's not a common feature on regs. No indications on the DR site that this option is applicable to their sidemount regs?

In a Hog configuration you donate what you are breathing and switch to your backup. Exactly what I do. SM diving is not hog diving. How is a short hose / long hose combo where you donate at times the reg you are not breathing any closer to hog setups then what I do?

You talk of instinct, in your setup you have to decide which hose you are breathing and then make the decision on which reg to donate. Is that the instinct you want when switching to a BM hog config where you donate what you breath?

I get your point and don't disagree per se. I just don't think that 2x long hoses is a necessary step, given the ease with donating a single long hose. After all, all technical students will practice this (i.e. donate the long hose back gas, for OOA in deco situation).

 

[JamesK]

Responses in bold

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes.... I'm talking about moving the long hose to the left cylinder.

I can only speak for myself, and my students, and those I've dived with.... but shut-down drills function best when ingrained. It's easier to ingrain one response, regardless of rig used, than too ingrain multiple responses that vary from dive to dive. however you are in reality reaching two responses. BM donate reg in mouth. SM donate long hose which might not be in mouth. As for shutdowns, yours and mine are NO different Again... only speaking for myself...I know which reg is in my mouth (long/short) at any given time. as do i I know if it bubbles, my shut-down will be instinctive. My instincts from back-mount carry over to sidemount. same here

Why retard a student by throwing different protocols at them and blocking that instinct development? yet you do it. How? By having a different donation procedure between BM and SM. in backmount I donate the reg fry mouth withy right hand, used left to teach underused chin and grab my backup. Exactly the same thing I do in SM, no matter which tank I am breathing from.



From right-handed, to left-handed hose direction. It's not a common feature on regs. No indications on the DR site that this option is applicable to their sidemount regs? Ahhh. Misunderstanding on my part. I apologize. I thought we were speaking of hoses, not 2nd stages. All of the new DR regs have user reversible 2nds.


I get your point and don't disagree per se. I just don't think that 2x long hoses is a necessary step, given the ease with donating a single long hose. After all, all technical students will practice this (i.e. donate the long hose back gas, for OOA in deco situation) exactly, they practice donate the long hose, which in backmount is always in there mouth. Same as with my setup. My left tank has a 7' hose. It wraps down the tank once in front of my shoulder behind my neck and to my bungee necklace. A simple pull removes it from the necklace. My right is on a 5' hose. It wraps once down my tank and up to mouth. It clips off with a DR breakaway to my dring. It hangs where if I grab to the same spot under my chin my fingers will be able to fell it. A simple tug frees it from the breakaway if need be.

 

[DevonDiver]

I just don't see the necessity for two long hoses. People manage fine in BM with one long hose. No different in sidemount. I get your point on consistency - you always donate the regulator in your mouth. Fair enough. The 'con' I see in that is having to deal with another length of hose bungeed down a cylinder. As with all things 'tech' is the prize worth the addition?

Do you do 'double s-drills' each time?

If you donate the 5' hose, but have to egress in single file (and the 5' doesn't have sufficient length), do you have to swap donated hoses?

---------- Post added February 25th, 2013 at 12:09 AM ----------

James, this is an interesting discussion. However, it does illustrate the drawback when it comes to tuition IMHO.

If a tech diver turns up to your class, you need to explain and drill the method (it does need explaining).

In contrast, I just have to say "..it's exactly the same as you do already... donate the long hose, breath your necklace back-up".

 

[Colliam7]

Andy, very thoughtful post. I will offer a few comments / questions.

I can see a number of feasible reasons why the Tec Sidemount course uses that configuration. The course is designed to appeal to divers from several different backgrounds; primarily those existing technical divers crossing into sidemount...and those recreational divers who are contemplating/progressing into tech.

Right. I can easily understand why it got to be the way it is. I think beanojones' comment, and mine for that matter, were more a reflection of the fact that the benefits in manifolded BM environment may be lost in translation to SM. Maybe not, though.

1) TecSM should be consistent with TecBM in respect of air sharing/hose config. This permits easier team diving and consistency. Fair enough. Very practical, and makes sense.

2) A significant proportion of those opting for TecSM, will have overhead environments in mind. In your view, how does having a long hose on (only) one side and a bungeed necklace on the other relate to this? I agree with the statement, just not sure that these divers would not be equally well-served by diving SM with two long hoses.

3) A significant proportion of those opting for TecSM will have pre-existing familiarity with hogarthian hose configuration. Agree. This is the 'historical inertia' I think guides many actions. Not altogether bad, but not altogether necessary, either.

4) TecSM qualified divers may, or may not, opt to conduct later Tec courses in SM or BM. Some may choose to bounce between SM and BM. Again, consistency. I also agree with this. One of the reasons I (have gone back to) dive a long right hose, and bungeed left necklace is that I do move back and forth between SM and BM, and it is easier to keep things straight if I do it the same way.

5) Long hose on both cylinders seems like an equipment solution to a skills problem. Gas management dictates only one long hose is necessary for sharing. Yes! And, that's why I teach with the configuration I do. But, . . some very experienced SM divers and SM instructors opt for two long(er) hoses. I cannot argue against that approach at all. So, (in the original context) I would hesitate to adopt a 'standard' that would preclude two long hoses.

6) Sidemount permits access through very tight restrictions. Very tight restrictions might preclude a 5' hose for sharing during passage through such restrictions. Hmm. A whole 'nother topic. I dive a 7 ft hose, so I won't argue. But, for the OW / recreational SM diver, there are probably (at least) a few who would say, 'So what? We're not diving in restricted spaces.'

7) Without a tangible standard, there will be muppets teaching nonsense. I'm in favor of sidemount standards, even where I disagree with some of them. LOL. Years ago, there was a 'joke' group on SB - Dork Divers, probably formed as a reaction to the stridency of some advocates of DIR diving. I think SB could support the formation of 'Muppet Divers'. Seriously, I see where you are coming from. 'Standards' do promote consistency AND potentially minimize the 'muppet factor'.

8) "License to innovate" does not work with an agency that fast-tracks and qualifies instructors who possess minimal experience in the rig. OK, I won't go that far. Yes, there are a fair number of scuba instructors, teaching OW, Rescue, BM doubles, SM doubles, etc., who possess minimal experience (i.e. the SM rig is not the unifying factor for 'fast-tracks' and 'minimal experience'). Standards or not, they will find a way to DIW. Don't penalize the others.

Whilst I respect Lamar greatly, I'd pay more heed to some of his YouTube instructionals (adverts?) if were not for his conflict of interest as designated spokesman for DiveRite. DiveRite now sell dedicated SM regulator package. It's only available with long-hose left/short-hose right. Does the tail wag the dog...or the dog wag the tail? I dunno.... Well, he is, and I would fully expect him to be, an advocate for DR products. I don't have a problem with his approach as I do with the antics antics another well-known FL-based company owner (whose products I also like). But, WHY a left long hose? Lamar has the creds as a diver to be taken seriously, irrespective of any possible DR bias. I don't know why the left hose, and I really doubt that the only basis is commercial differentiation for DR.

---------- Post added February 24th, 2013 at 11:44 AM ----------

And, an addendum, with a question I meant to ask Karl earlier:

There's two main offenders for me - huge (and expensive) imported harnesses or a harnesses just set-up wrong for the diving they are being used for. A lot of imported harnesses have way too much lift than is required here - SMS100, Nomad etc. . . . These kind of harnesses are expensive to find here! It's genrally cheaper to get a smaller harness and pay for a course - hence my argument for that route.

Fully agree that the (original) Nomad is probably a bit 'overwinged' for diving with two AL80s. And, it was not inexpensive, at least the retail price was not The newer Nomad LT, with 23 lbs of lift, appears to be an answer to part of that (the lift issue), based on the specs.

But, in your environment, what are cheaper, smaller SM harnesses that you see / prefer / use?

 

[DevonDiver]

In your view, how does having a long hose on (only) one side and a bungeed necklace on the other relate to this? I agree with the statement, just not sure that these divers would not be equally well-served by diving SM with two long hoses.

I don't see much value in a second long hose. If gas management is done correctly, you have an adequate supply of gas to donate...and a long-hose to donate it with. Configuring a second long-hose has drawbacks (bulk/complexity/stowage), but doesn't provide the diver with any more capability. One reg is in the donor's mouth, one given to the receiver. The drawbacks have to be balanced against the benefit. The only benefit seems retaining the 'donate from the mouth', rather than via break-away from the shoulder d-ring.

I do see the logic that two long hoses provides consistency with donation. It's at the expense of consistency of configuration though.

For me, it's a simple cost versus reward equation. There are costs for having two long hoses (drawbacks). Those, for me, don't out-weight the reward.

Agree. This is the 'historical inertia' I think guides many actions. Not altogether bad, but not altogether necessary, either.

I'm contributing to the debate from the perspective of education. I see this as a continuity of education issue. One method...proven effective...applied consistently from one course to another.

I also agree with this. One of the reasons I (have gone back to) dive a long right hose, and bungeed left necklace is that I do move back and forth between SM and BM, and it is easier to keep things straight if I do it the same way.

I use the same reg/hose configuration on every dive I do... single back-mount, double back-mount, indie back-mount, sidemount.... I see a value in that, because everything remains constant and, after more than a decade of uninterrupted consistency... very instinctive.

As an educator, I remember my first experience on sidemount. Having a hogarthian reg set-up made the hose management very simple for me. It was one aspect that easily translated...one less new concept to get my head around.

Yes! And, that's why I teach with the configuration I do. But, . . some very experienced SM divers and SM instructors opt for two long(er) hoses. I cannot argue against that approach at all. So, (in the original context) I would hesitate to adopt a 'standard' that would preclude two long hoses.

I'm not against two long-hoses... I see there is logic to it. However, from an instructional point of view, I think consistency is valuable. That doesn't preclude an instructor educating about different options, or the student experimenting with those options. But on the course itself, I think consistency has undeniable merits.

Heck, training is only the first step. There's plenty of time to experiment and refine afterwards... (that's half the fun of it).

Hmm. A whole 'nother topic. I dive a 7 ft hose, so I won't argue. But, for the OW / recreational SM diver, there are probably (at least) a few who would say, 'So what? We're not diving in restricted spaces.'

Agreed. I was only discussing the Tec Sidemount course. I think the rec/basic sidemount course doesn't need those standards - two long hoses, two short hoses, one long-one short... it doesn't really matter. Whilst I like that the basic sidemount does provide recreational divers with exposure to the long hose, I don't think it is a necessit. unless overhead environment or technical diving.

However, as it stands, divers can qualify on basic sidemount and progress onto technical courses. For that reason, they must be knowledgable/trained with the long hose on sidemount. If long hose weren't a standard on the rec course, then the rec course should be deemed insufficient stand-alone for using sidemount on technical courses. Divers would have to requalify/upgrade to full tec sidemount - so that the long hose was covered.

LOL. Years ago, there was a 'joke' group on SB - Dork Divers, probably formed as a reaction to the stridency of some advocates of DIR diving. I think SB could support the formation of 'Muppet Divers'. Seriously, I see where you are coming from. 'Standards' do promote consistency AND potentially minimize the 'muppet factor'.

With sidemount instructors...or instructor trainers...getting signed off to teach with only 2 days sidemount experience... there's little scope for allowing 'personal interpretation'. Karl H will share stories of PADI tech/sidemount instructors he's seen teaching students to 'double-wrap' (fully encircle) the neck with long hoses etc. The muppets are out there...and standards are the only thing standing between them and complete licensed lunacy...

I won't go that far. Yes, there are a fair number of scuba instructors, teaching OW, Rescue, BM doubles, SM doubles, etc., who possess minimal experience (i.e. the SM rig is not the unifying factor for 'fast-tracks' and 'minimal experience'). Standards or not, they will find a way to DIW. Don't penalize the others.

Sadly, I don't see PADI as a 'grown ups club'. There's other agencies for that. When you raise the bar for instructor competence, you can allow far more leeway for instructor expertise. PADI would lose money raising that bar. Liability risk dictates a 'paint-by-numbers' approach to instruction.

But, WHY a left long hose? Lamar has the creds as a diver to be taken seriously, irrespective of any possible DR bias. I don't know why the left hose, and I really doubt that the only basis is commercial differentiation for DR..

I firmly believe that dive manufacturers take steps to distinguish their products on the market. Those steps are sometimes "artificial". Case to point "open-water sidemount bcds". Left-hand long hose... same, same, but different.

 

[JamesK]

Again, in bold.

I just don't see the necessity for two long hoses. People manage fine in BM with one long hose. No different in sidemount. except the fact that in BM you are never breathing from your short hose except for periodic checks of it I get your point on consistency - you always donate the regulator in your mouth. Fair enough. The 'con' I see in that is having to deal with another length of hose bungeed down a cylinder. As with all things 'tech' is the prize worth the addition? yes, because I don't see dealing with a long hose and bungee as a hassle. It is no different than any deco or stage rig.

Do you do 'double s-drills' each time?
i always make sure both hoses can be easily deployed. Yes.

If you donate the 5' hose, but have to egress in single file (and the 5' doesn't have sufficient length), do you have to swap donated hoses?that must have been a typo. I am doing all this on my iPhone. I dive a 7' on both tanks.

James, this is an interesting discussion. However, it does illustrate the drawback when it comes to tuition IMHO.

If a tech diver turns up to your class, you need to explain and drill the method (it does need explaining). I am not an instructor. However, I have found "do jut as you do in backmount, take the reg I breath" very difficult to explain at times.

In contrast, I just have to say "..it's exactly the same as you do already... donate the long hose, breath your necklace back-up" exactly! And now we agree.

 

[DevonDiver]

yes, because I don't see dealing with a long hose and bungee as a hassle. It is no different than any deco or stage rig.

Neither do I. I've noticed a trend that students do however...

Bearing in mind... AOW divers can sign up for Tec Sidemount. Two long hoses is quite a bit of task loading. If not absolutely necessary....why?

If tec sidemount course were preserved as an 'equipment cross-over' for existing technical qualified divers, I don't think it'd be much of an issue (although some would undoubtably still struggle). However, it's also run as an 'intro to tec' and a 'pre-tec'. For that reason, K.I.S.S.

In respect to simplicity... one long hose is easier to manage/stow/deploy/monitor than two long hoses.

A note on perspective: All my overhead environment dives are in unsanitized wrecks. Lots of hose entanglements there. For me, a hose not perfectly stowed under bungees is a particular liability. As it is, with one long hose, I spend enough time reminding students to check, stow, neaten, stow, re-stow, neaten, stow during the course of dives.

One other factor to consider - any technical diver turning up for the course will already have most of the necessary hoses from their back-mount. There's no need for them to go out and buy a second long-hose, just to appease the instructors' preferences.

 

[DaleC]

I dive long hose on the left, bungee B/U on the right and I fail to see how it is different, donation wise, from long hose on the right. You just have to think it through...

Right side: If someone is OOA and I am on the long hose, I take it out of my mouth, bring it over my head and donate.
Left side: If someone is OOA and I am on the long hose, I take it out of my mouth, bring it over my head and donate.

In either case, if more length is needed it is drawn from where it is bungee'd/stuffed. If one looks at the initial donation, they are exactly the same. The difference is where the excess hose is. Part of it is going to be bungee'd to the tank in either case and I prefer it not to route across the chest (actually, I prefer the short hose not route behind the neck). It really just boils down to preference as I can do a donation drill in exactly the same fashion as a BM Hog user (I'm just pulling the excess from my left tank instead of from my waist band).

If there is bubbling it is actually easier to assess long hose left. In that case only one hose goes behind the head, the short hose travels straight up from the right tank. In long hose right, both hoses share common ground where they route behind the neck.

The only real difference is that, in long hose right, the bungee'd reg routes behind the neck ala BM Hog fashion. How that effects longhose donation is beyond me because, functionally, both regs are bungee'd beneath the chin.

 

[JamesK]

Neither do I. I've noticed a trend that students do however...

Bearing in mind... AOW divers can sign up for Tec Sidemount. Two long hoses is quite a bit of task loading. If not absolutely necessary....why?

If tec sidemount course were preserved as an 'equipment cross-over' for existing technical qualified divers, I don't think it'd be much of an issue (although some would undoubtably still struggle). However, it's also run as an 'intro to tec' and a 'pre-tec'. For that reason, K.I.S.S.

In respect to simplicity... one long hose is easier to manage/stow/deploy/monitor than two long hoses.

A note on perspective: All my overhead environment dives are in unsanitized wrecks. Lots of hose entanglements there. For me, a hose not perfectly stowed under bungees is a particular liability. As it is, with one long hose, I spend enough time reminding students to check, stow, neaten, stow, re-stow, neaten, stow during the course of dives.

One other factor to consider - any technical diver turning up for the course will already have most of the necessary hoses from their back-mount. There's no need for them to go out and buy a second long-hose, just to appease the instructors' preferences.

Please explain how an extra long hose is extra task loading? Aside from stowing on the surface, where is all this extra work coming from? Ok, maybe adding a second s-drill can be a 30 second PITA. I will give you that.

Why are you always having to stow hoses during a dive? When you run a drill, only one hose needs to be stowed. I fail to see how any drill could be made more complicated simply because the hose you do not deploy is long.

I would say that anyone that finds two long hoses that much more difficult over one, should probably not be doing the dive.

A proper dual hose routing is pretty damn KISS.

Again, I am not an instructor. I am not saying your way is unsafe. I am saying dual long hose is not the task loading Charlie Foxtrot you want to make it out to be. I understand, you are an instructor and you want your students to think 100% without a doubt that your way is the best. However that does not mean you have make every other way look like it is so inferior to yours when they are not. This is just like the OW sidemount rig thread.

 

[DevonDiver]

I dive long hose on the left, bungee B/U on the right and I fail to see how it is different, donation wise, from long hose on the right. You just have to think it through...

Right side: If someone is OOA and I am on the long hose, I take it out of my mouth, bring it over my head and donate.
Left side: If someone is OOA and I am on the long hose, I take it out of my mouth, bring it over my head and donate.

Donation is one aspect. There are other aspects to consider. Shut-downs are a primary example. We're talking about Tec Sidemount. That's a PADI training course designed to integrate with an existing technical diving program; the Tec Deep/Tec40/45/50 courses. Thus, we need to consider what students are being taught in associated courses within that program...and what other diver-graduates of that program will have been trained to do.

On those courses, the diver develops skills to diagnose and shut-down cylinders to cope with regulator failure. A critical aspect in that skill-set, the diagnosis, gets ingrained based upon a standardized regulator configuration - long hose right/short hose left. If a second stage free-flows, divers have an automatic diagnosis and can conduct a timely shut-down. The speed of that shut-down is considered important enough to merit being stipulated in course standards. The potential consequences of shutting down the wrong cylinder are OOA and drowning.

So... for the dubious advantage of an alternative hose configuration... it is suggested that all of the ingrained response developed by a diver be eliminated. It is further suggested that divers could/should adopt a sidemount configuration that differs from back-mount, which dilutes the progressive formation of instinctive emergency responses. Further to that, it causes dissimilar configurations between back and side mount equipped divers within the same team.

Again... I write this purely on the basis of instructional merit...because that is a tack that this thread has taken. It is not about right-or-wrong, but rather about optimum - when a host of other factors, including educational and agency-specific ones, are regarded.

I am merely trying to answer the question: "why should PADI have a standardized approach (based on hogarthian configuration), specifying a specific configuration, rather than permit individual instructors and/or diver to configure their regulators to their own whim on the training courses".

Again...to reiterate, I do not object to personal preference in diving/application. There is such variety of scope/activity that no single approach can be said to have universal appeal or suitability. However, when considering training courses, there is a discernible benefit to selecting an optimum approach that covers the needs of all participants with the maximum 'pros' and minimum 'cons'. What technical divers decide to do post-qualification is a matter for them and their team mates..

Please explain how an extra long hose is extra task loading? Aside from stowing on the surface, where is all this extra work coming from? Ok, maybe adding a second s-drill can be a 30 second PITA. I will give you that.

Sit in on a Tec Sidemount course...or even a regular sidemount course... and see the difficulties that novice sidemount divers have with stowing the long hose. Bear in mind that during a training course, the student will be deploying and re-stowing the hose at frequent intervals.

Again... I'm speaking from an instructional perspective... discussing the reasons why 'X' configuration is a standard on the training course or as a training policy. PADI do not dictate what configuration divers must use following qualification...

Also... if you agree that hose (re)stowage is a 30 second PITA on a descent check, do you think it appropriate or optimal for use in a confined, low visibility environment. Hoses can, and do, extract from their stowage - especially if in contact with the environment (passage through a wreck/cave). When that occurs, the loose hose presents a serious risk. Two long hoses offering double the opportunity to extract themselves than one. Again, risk balanced against the benefit - the 'standard' technical diving equation of risk versus reward (the failure point consideration).

Why are you always having to stow hoses during a dive? When you run a drill, only one hose needs to be stowed. I fail to see how any drill could be made more complicated simply because the hose you do not deploy is long.

If hose deployment is made an ambidextrous skill (long hose donate-able from both cylinders), then the student has to be equally adept at performing the skill from both sides. This means equal measure of practice and repetition of air-sharing from both regulators. Air-sharing is currently rehearsed, as both donor and receiver over multiple instances on each course training dive. That would have to double...as would the consequent re-stowing of hoses.

In addition, as mentioned, hoses come out of stowage... it happens sometimes... especially when removing/replacing cylinders or passing through confined areas (rubbing/catching). Two long hoses, twice the chance. For me, the worst case scenario would be an accidentally deployed/dropped/protruding long hose in zero visibility passing through a confined area that has multiple snag points (for instance, the engine room of a wreck).

Also... we're talking about the Tec Sidemount course. That means 2 deco stages also carried. That 30 second PITA stowage just got a lot more complicated..

I would say that anyone that finds two long hoses that much more difficult over one, should probably not be doing the dive.

(1) Talking about students in training.
(2) Talking about simplifying/minimizing.
(3) Not assuming diver expertise, just baseline competency.

Again, I am not an instructor. I am not saying your way is unsafe.

Don't think I'm trying to preach from a "you're gonna die" soap-box, I'm not. I'm discussing 'optimal for learning' or 'optimal as a starting point'... on the basis of a divers' first introduction to 3-4 cylinder sidemount diving. In doing so, I'm trying to convey my experience as an instructor, based upon student performance and the difficulties they encounter. I am also trying to illustrate how that specific course of training has to cater for a wide cross-section of students with varying experience... and how that specific course needs to be integrated into a wider training system permitting continuity and consistency.

I understand, you are an instructor and you want your students to think 100% without a doubt that your way is the best. However that does not mean you have make every other way look like it is so inferior to yours when they are not. This is just like the OW sidemount rig thread.

You misunderstand my objectives in the debate. (I thought) we're talking about why the PADI Tec Sidemount course imposed a specific configuration in its standards. Trust me, I have plenty of divergent opinions on sidemount configurations, skills, drills and standards that do not fall into line with what PADI necessarily stipulates. I do, however, feel that PADI's approach is sufficiently practical to offer a decent solution given the parameters.

As an instructor, putting divers into sidemount for the first time... it works well. Without exception, I do encourage those students to research, experiment, refine and adapt their own approach as they gain experience post-qualification. I pay an active interest in sidemount/tech developments. I enjoy experimenting with those developments in my free time. I'm open-minded to adopt those, if I like them. I educate students to share that outlook.

Please don't think this is about 'my way'.. or suggesting other approaches are 'inferior'. It isn't. I'm just sharing a particular perspective relevant to what I thought this thread was discussing..