I was curious that you guys thought there was some intrinsic difference between the two. All those things listed are also considerations for cold water divers. We also use Al or St tanks, different exposure protection and have different lift requirements based on what we take with us (rec/tech/stages etc...) and the seasons. To me, the one big difference is the use of a drysuit for tech/extended diving which cold water divers always do and thus, have a redundant lift source.
The use of drysuit is a major difference with regards to the necessary configuration for certain courses/agencies. PADI insist on redundant buoyancy (not accepting lift-bag) and in the tropics using a drysuit can be detrimental. That does add some criteria for the instructor to consider. That said, I agree with Karl in respect to the fact that redundancy isn't strictly necessary providing the diver has approached their overall configuration in an informed manner. PADI don't deal with such a level of refinement - the lowest common denominator (the instructor) may not be sufficiently capable of ensuring a reasonably safe outcome... thus the hammer approach to standards.
I will concede that an argument regarding the best commercially generated SM rig is valid from an instructor POV as the premise is mass marketed (standardized) instruction which naturally would be married to mass marketed (standardized) gear. When SM is approached from an individualist basis however, no such "one size fits all" pronouncements are required.
I don't see a difference between "mass market" and "individualist". It's quite feasible to offer an individualist solution within a training frame-work. That is, however, instructor capability dependent. I have great fun with students... helping them adapt what they have for their needs. SMS100 is particular enjoyable to de-construct.
That said, the adaptation and experimentation have to be conducted within a specific framework...and with particular outcomes in mind. The stated 'benefits' of side-mount encapsulate those outcomes. Those outcomes are generic and independent of any given diving environment or activity that the sidemount diver may participate in. They are equipment parameters - not diving parameters. Any adaptation/experimentation that drags the rig further from those outcomes could be deemed a failure. Double-backplates on generic wings... stage-slung tanks on jacket-BCDs are examples of those failures IMHO.
... an application that is commonly called in cave diving "sidemounting". Correct. But, it doesn't own the rights to define the terminology for everyone else. Others may also, just as validly, use the generic words too - as long as they are not implying that they refer to that specific activity.
Nobody owns any term, unless it is a specific copyright. 'DIR', 'tech', 'hogarthian'... whatever... 'sidemount'.... nobody has a
right to place strict parameters upon the meaning. However, the logic in using a specific term to represent a specific configuration or approach is undeniable. Sidemount has been around long enough...and is represented in a specific way in enough published media and course materials to be considered a
descriptive term for a specific equipment configuration and the skill-set attributed to using it. Those definitions/parameters assigned popularly and/or commonly to sidemount do exclude jacket BCDs and simple stage-slung tanks etc.
IThus recreational divers can SM as well as cave divers; their configurations may look different but they are both side mounting cylinders.
In one paragraph you state that "
sidemount is just an equipment configuration"... and then you state that sidemount can be different. That's a contradiction. Is it an equipment approach... or is it an environment approach?
Do you see a difference between "OW sidemount" and "Overhead sidemount". If so... why? It's about using the equipment (as you said)... not the dives you use the equipment on..
Or are you saying simply that "
it's okay to have a sloppier approach, depending upon environmental risk factors"?
I simply see this as a 'degradation for the masses'. OW Instructors teach OW divers to "OW sidemount". OW sidemount being the same as 'overhead sidemount'... except it's sloppy, based on zero breadth of knowledge...and is prepared to accept a multitude of known risk factors...stuff proven through accident analysis.... simply because the instructors concerned are unaware of them?
If the suggestion is that instructors are teaching an OW style SM course and suggesting that the students are now equipped to go SMing in caves (or tech) then I would say that's not good. But it isn't really the gears fault either.
It's an
equipment course. It trains any given diver to use the equipment. They should then be able to use that equipment in line with whatever
environmental diving that they undertake.
If 'Diver X' is fully cave qualified, he doesn't need more cave training on a sidemount course. He needs to know
how to use sidemount. The application of that knowledge to the environment he is trained to dive in is his business. Sidemount training should
enable him to do that. If it doesn't, then it has failed.
The equipment is the tool. I can show you how to use a spanner. It doesn't matter whether you are a master-plumber.... or an marine engine technician...or an engineer at NASA... you will use the tool... the equipment the same. The principles of use... the techniques... the understanding necessary is
universal.
So it is with sidemount. So it
should be​ with sidemount training...