I would agree that the OMS system may not be optimal for caves - but if you think that sidemount is only appropriate for caves, you have long since been passed by on the road (highway) of diving innovation.
In this case of this thread, and perhaps Karl's post (how I interpret it), it wasn't a critique of the OMS SM system particularly - but rather the 'approach' of sandwiching two metal backplates around a wing to form an ad-hoc improvised sidemount. I see a big difference between that and the process of delicately testing and adjusting a DIY rig, based on intimate experience and significant trialing.
The use of solid/metal backplates is a significant issue to be addressed when developing a DIY sidemount rig. It was an issue that I also faced when developing my rig - and I made the decision to make some small extra expense & effort to obtain and adapt a soft-plate and specific solution to 'wing taco'.
Solid/metal backplates could be classed as a 'known hazard' for overhead environment diving - they present the risk of entrapment in confined spaces. Diving in open water doesn't present that hazard... but when used within a training system, we should strive towards a best-practice approach that eliminates all known hazards, in the assumption the student diver may progress from open-water into overhead environment at a later stage. Teach once...teach right.
The choice to use 2x backplates, rather than an alternative solution, is not made on the basis of 'best'. It is made on the basis of 'cost', 'convenience' or 'ignorance of alternatives'.
That may be ok for the individual diver - but it is not (IMHO) satisfactory for a sidemount educator...
I learned a lot by trial and error, and I learned by trying different approaches, I learned by asking questions, I learned a lot from early SM divers, and I learned by applying what I knew about BM diving.
So did most of us. So do most of the new divers/instructors into sidemount. An issue to consider is whether an
instructor should still be in the early stages of that 'trial and error', or whether that educator and role-model should
already have reached a high degree of refinement.
Sandwiching two backplates isn't generally illustrative of a 'high degree of refinement' in sidemount.
It does not indicate
much trial-and-error has occured. It does not indicate that many questions were asked...
If PADI is the leader in this, I am surprised that SM has gained any traction. That is NOT, in any way, a criticism of PADI at all, merely a reflection that the development of SM popularity is not a result of anything that PADI has done. Is the use of Nitrox the result of PADI 'bringing nitrox into the limelight'? A hint - if you say yes, . . . then there is little hope.
How do we define 'leadership'.
As mentioned in a previous post on this thread - PADI do nothing to innovate diving. They watch the market, let others (whether agencies or individual instructors) prove a concept...and then, if they see money in it, they will wait until a member instructor submits a workable 'distinctive specialty' application... plagiarize steal that outline...unleash their marketing drones and offer the outline/rating to any instructor-gimp that sees a buck to be made teaching something they never heard of or understood before...
Was PADI a leader in Nitrox? They certainly didn't innovate the practice. But they did see the trend...and a buck to be made. So yes, they lead the field by popularizing it.
PADI's "leadership" in the community is driven by their marketing-gremlins, not diving pioneers.
I must ask the obvious question, 'What doesn't work?' The fact is that most of this stuff 'works'. For example, the fact is that a buttplate is not necessary (even though I use one), if you look at Steve Martin's rigs.
It's a simple case of
optimal versus
workable.
Some element of universality has to apply. Sidemount is a system. Sidemount courses teach that system. They are
equipment-training courses - not environment-training courses. There is no "Open Water Sidemount" or "Cave Sidemount". There is only "Sidemount".
If you (an instructor) offer to teach sidemount... then your approach
has to be consistent, safe and applicable to whatever environment your students might use that equipment configuration within.
Some instructors/courses pass that criteria. Others, plainly, do not.
For that matter, sidemount could simply be diving with a couple of deco/stage bottles. Why is another rig 'better'?
Clipping on deco bottle/s and using them for back-gas is not sidemount. If it were, what would be the point of providing sidemount training?
Let's be honest... if we abandon all standards and erase any consensus/definition of what sidemount diving
is, then we de-value the concept and benefits of sidemount to the point of non-existence.
I've seen (so-called) sidemount instructors teaching nothing more than 'deco-stage use for back-gas'. It
IS fraud. It is
not driven by intimate trial-and-error...or personal preference... it is driven by ignorance. They are teaching a subject they don't understand. PADI support them in that.
The beauty of SM is the innovation. From innovation we get new ideas, and from new ideas come better ways of doing things. If we adopted the idea that 'tried and failed' means don't keep trying, we would still, to use your example, be diving horse collars.
Specific to this thread... do you think that 2x sandwiched backplates is innovative?
There is a place for innovation. There is a place for 'trial-and-error'. That place is not in sidemount diving classes. "
Hey students, give me your money and I'll show you something that I am making up as I go along..."
Classes...lessons.. are a place for best-practices to be shared.
Yes, there are variations in what instructors might prefer as 'best-practice'... but the
competent instructor has the capacity to share that spectrum of approaches. They can present a 'daisy-chain' or 'ring bungee'... single or continuous bungees....etc etc etc and discuss their merits. They can explain why a solid backplate is a liability in some circumstances. They can refine optimum comfort and performance for their students.
I can't talk on Karl's behalf.... but what I see in his post is a preference...that is validated and composed. Preference by experience. Preference by education. In contrast, what I see in some other instructors' approaches is a weak breadth of understanding...
preference by ignorance.
There IS NO STANDARD in SM at this point. How is it fraud? Divers are still experimenting, every day, with various approaches.
The same can be said for backmount. However, we... the tech community... do have some very well founded and proven (by accident analysis)
best-practices. The same evolution is occurring with sidemount.
If you dive backmount, then the chances are that you are using a hogarthian approach. I bet you necklace bungee a short-hose secondary. I bet you have a long hose looped to the neck. I bet you use steel cylinder-bands and an isolation manifold. Yes?
Remember... none of those 'undeniable' configuration factors you see as 'standard'....are not "standards". Yet, how would you view a instructor who didn't teach them? More so... how would you view an instructor
who didn't know of them!?!
I think some are much better than others. But, sidemount diving is - FORTUNATELY- still a ground for experimentation, for development of new ideas, etc.
Sidemount diving. Not sidemount training. This thread was started on the premise of supplying training (in a given configuration).
And beyond all other discussion... clipping two stages onto a jacket-bcd cannot be defined as sidemount diving. THAT isn't experimentation... it's a mockery of experimentation. There's plenty of concepts, already accepted in the sidemount community as 'foundational' that don't need experimentation.
Because something has been 'tried and rejected' - which is simply not true for the most part, anyway - in a cave environment doesn't mean it is not reasonable to try in an OW environment.
Just as Devil's Advocate... would you share the same outlook in your BM classes? Is that a venue where you'd experiment and allow knowledge to pass that disregarded all of the accident analysis and progression that has emerged from cave diving best-practices?
I do agree that we (the sidemount community) should actively avoid the clique mind-set that plagued the transition of back-mounted 'standardization', from caves to open-water technical diving. That said, there is a fine balance between resisting dogmatic and single-track preferences, versus the benefits of accepting proven lessons and applying them, with intelligence, to form an ideal approach and, perhaps, a community consensus.
...the idea of putting a second plate on the back seems a little cumbersome. It may turn out to be a dead end. But, I am not willing to dismiss it simply because it is not 'standard'.
My issue isn't whether it is 'practicable'.... but whether it represents the quality of instruction that a future sidemount diver could expect from a training course. As you say... it may "turn out to be a dead end". I agree that it might. As such, should it be endorsed and promulgated during the course of sidemount training lessons.... by a (card-carrying) expert and educator on sidemount diving? Given the huge discrepancy between that 'configuration' and the other alternatives and approaches available... my opinion is that it falls woefully short of those expectations. I assume that was what Karl was trying to communicate also.
Further to that... as Karl also illustrated... there are likely to be substantial differences in the scuba industry in different locations. Here in the Philippines, sidemount has had a significant impact. There are hordes of new sidemount instructors emerging in Asia. What Karl seems to indicate...and something I particularly agree with... is that some form of standardization and 'quality management' does need to exist. Otherwise, you get a bunch of drones teaching (very) bad practices out of ignorance. Some instructors will take the buck, even when they know they don't deserve it. There IS fraud happening here with sidemount courses... I've seen plentiful evidence of that. I am sure Karl has too. That fact may go a long way to explaining our particular view-points on the subject.
