Advice, hose routing for mirrored left and right second stages

[Dan_P]

The fact it gained zero traction outside of UTD... and is unquestionably the most criticized or mocked sidemount 'solution' in the global sidemount community tends to imply that it, indeed, is not universally scalable or consistent to any diver not bound by a very specific agency dogma.

By your logic, the A700 is a rubbish regulator because most people don't dive.
It's an obviously flawed logic.

Besides, speaking of agency dogma, what's the maximal gas density you teach based on your agencies' standards?
Something well in excess of both 5g/L and 6g/L, I'm guessing - more on the lines of 8g/L, if I'm not mistaken.
If you really want to point fingers, why don't you start there...

You've chosen a different paradigm to dive and train under, Andy. That's your choice. That's all there's to it, and it's no reason to keep posting your bashes - particularly when:

I think the Z-system needs a different thread. I created one Z-system advantages

 

[DevonDiver]

By your logic, the A700 is a rubbish regulator because most people don't dive.
It's an obviously flawed logic.

Besides, speaking of agency dogma, what's the maximal gas density you teach based on your agencies' standards?
Something well in excess of both 5g/L and 6g/L, I'm guessing - more on the lines of 8g/L, if I'm not mistaken.
If you really want to point fingers, why don't you start there...

You've chosen a different paradigm to dive and train under, Andy. That's your choice. That's all there's to it, and it's no reason to keep posting your bashes - particularly when:

Seems like a tweaked a nerve. LOL

Anyway... that was just my observations.. as you said, people are allowed different opinions.

As for the other smokescreen stuff.. I dove, and teach, as per what I have researched, tested, trialled and believe in.
Same for gas density, as for sidemount rigs. I don't rely on agencies spoonfeeding me information that I then have to gulp down like a drone.

 

[tbone1004]

What is the "Hemphill method"?

 

[tbone1004]

By your logic, the A700 is a rubbish regulator because most people don't dive.
It's an obviously flawed logic.

not even close to what Andy was talking about because the A700 isn't used only by a single training agency or been deemed as an equipment solution to a skills problem. It's just an expensive regulator that has a limited market.

 

[Dan_P]

I dove, and teach, as per what I have researched, tested, trialled and believe in.
Same for gas density, as for sidemount rigs. I don't rely on agencies spoonfeeding me information that I then have to gulp down like a drone

On your TecRec courses, do you ever use air to near 50m?

not even close to what Andy was talking about because the A700 isn't used only by a single training agency or been deemed as an equipment solution to a skills problem. It's just an expensive regulator that has a limited market.

It's used by divers - to non divers, that doesn't make sense because they don't need a reg to breathe.
Same logic applied to manifolds.

If a diver doesn't WANT a manifold because they subscribe to a different philosophy, that's fair game - but that's no reason to splatter flannel all over the internet about how stupid, wrong or dangerous it is.

 

[tbone1004]

On your TecRec courses, do you ever use air to near 50m?



It's used by divers - to non divers, that doesn't make sense because they don't need a reg to breathe.
Same logic applied to manifolds.

If a diver doesn't WANT a manifold because they subscribe to a different philosophy, that's fair game - but that's no reason to splatter flannel all over the internet about how stupid, wrong or dangerous it is.

your definition of logic and analogy is very strange

 

[Dan_P]

@tbone1004 I'm using an analogy to make apparent the flaw in the logic, not confusing the two words for one another

@DevonDiver answer the question mate. You've usually plenty of time to discuss what divers do in the water, it's only cricket to spare a few seconds telling how you approach basic matters scuba; do you dive deep air as you're told by an agency (I believe your words were something on the lines of "spoonfed drone"), or do you violate their standards because the scientific community with leading experts in the field recommend a maximal gas density equivalent to approximately 30m on air/nitrox?

 

[MichaelMc]

Yes there is now a Z-system thread, for discussion of it.

What does deep air have to do with left right hoses?? Your argument seems to be "You're saying method X does not make sense. Well what about method Y that you do.. Lets talk about that. Can you explain why you do Y?" Which has nothing to do with Z-system, which has its own thread now, nor left right hoses, the subject of this thread. Start a deep air thread if you want to discuss deep air's merits.

The point should not be to argue if people do 'stuff' that makes no sense. But rather which 'stuff' makes sense on the merits of the 'stuff'. And wide informed community consensus are part of that evidence of what makes sense. (before people take axes at 'community consensus' as a partial measure, new divers are not generally well informed absent the one or two sources of information they stumbled upon and decided to go no further than.)

So, back to left or right hose routing...

 

[tbone1004]

@tbone1004 I'm using an analogy to make apparent the flaw in the logic, not confusing the two words for one another

@DevonDiver answer the question mate. You've usually plenty of time to discuss what divers do in the water, it's only cricket to spare a few seconds telling how you approach basic matters scuba; do you dive deep air as you're told by an agency (I believe your words were something on the lines of "spoonfed drone"), or do you violate their standards because the scientific community with leading experts in the field recommend a maximal gas density equivalent to approximately 30m on air/nitrox?

I don't believe I have ever used the term "spoonfed drone".
It is not a standards violation to teach shallower END's for the agency I teach for. They have maximum recommendations, but similar to the rule of thirds, that is the limit not to exceed, not the recommended guideline. You can teach whatever END's you want, they just have limitations. Sure those limitations are deeper than UTD's limitation, but a limit does not equal a recommendation.

I personally will dive deep air if the logistics of getting helium are not practical, or if the dive doesn't call for it. I.e. a 50m drift dive in the Caribbean doesn't require helium, but a 40m cave dive certainly would qualify.

 

[DevonDiver]

The point being that a diligent technical diver educates themselves from the latest, and most respected sources, not just gulping down a single ideology or agency-imposed dogma.

GUE took onboard and adopted the findings of more contemporary studies into gas density issues. As have I.

I don't believe that technical diving is exemplified by regurgitating what agencies disseminate. Perhaps so at a rudimentary level of novice tech diving, but experienced technical divers should have the motivation and inclination to do their own research and adopt their own value systems.

There's a vast difference between saying "what I was told is..." and saying "what I believe is..."

In time, you will perceive that difference.

Dan, you seem preoccupied with PADI. It's currently my teaching agency of choice; for a number of reasons. I've had 3 teaching agencies before that. And there'll be a new agency soon. What's most significant is that my diving beliefs and teaching practices haven't changed between agencies. This is technical diving, not open water courses...

Do I use air for 40-50m dives?
Yes, I do - when the dive warrants it. And Dan.. I've done more 40-50 air decompression dives than you've done dive in total.. and then some. I've also done dives, long ago, far beyond 50m using air...so I have a considerable PERSONAL (not agency imposed) experience-base to apply to my risk management.

Do I use trimix for 30m+ dives?
Yes, I do - when the dive warrants it. Specifically for overhead dives, or when elevated exertion is reasonably foreseeable.

GUE demands that every dive is planned and conducted as if it were an intensive overhead environment dive. Fair enough, can't fault that in theory. But in practice, it's implausible and incredibly wasteful of resources.