Going tech, backmount or sidemount doubles?

[DevonDiver]

Gas management: Others have mention that the gas management is more difficult.....in reality you are monitoring 2 tanks and switching regs after a given period of time......this is not a difficult thing to accomplish at all and if this is where your trouble lies then tech diving may not be for you just yet.

It's another stressor on situational awareness and task management. For someone already accustomed to the majority of demands upon a technical diver, it'd just be a small jump in capability. For the novice tech diver, it's a lot to add to an already full plate.

The OP is unlikely to know his capacity for task management on technical dives...given that he's not yet started on the training. What he needs to know is that sidemount adds some demands... that he wouldn't otherwise have with back-mounted doubles and an isolation valve.

Adding to that point - It's quite predictable that the OP will have initial difficulty accomplishing all of the tasks and awareness he needs as a technical diver. Most, if not all, divers making the transition into technical diving do notice a huge over-demand on task management and awareness. That's the norm. Training, practice, repetition and experience allow us to develop capacity to accomplish these things.

I think, perhaps, that Foxhound forgets how he performed on his tech training.... or wasn't trained ruggedly enough

Also...try balancing that gas in a zero viz silt-out.

 

[FoxHound]

It's another stressor on situational awareness and task management. For someone already accustomed to the majority of demands upon a technical diver, it'd just be a small jump in capability. For the novice tech diver, it's a lot to add to an already full plate.

The OP is unlikely to know his capacity for task management on technical dives...given that he's not yet started on the training. What he needs to know is that sidemount adds some demands... that he wouldn't otherwise have with back-mounted doubles and an isolation valve.

Adding to that point - It's quite predictable that the OP will have initial difficulty accomplishing all of the tasks and awareness he needs as a technical diver. Most, if not all, divers making the transition into technical diving do notice a huge over-demand on task management and awareness. That's the norm. Training, practice, repetition and experience allow us to develop capacity to accomplish these things.

I think, perhaps, that Foxhound forgets how he performed on his tech training.... or wasn't trained ruggedly enough

Also...try balancing that gas in a zero viz silt-out.

Absolutely, going from what you trained on initially to something new is going to be very demanding whether it be SM or BM. Because of this, I wouldn't be going into a technical level course without being comfortable in the kit that I am using. Stepping stones......I don't think you would expect a person starting a Tech 1, cave 1, AN/DP, to have zero dives on the kit they plan on using. It would be amazingly overwhelming. This is why I had said that.....if a simple task is tough.....then tougher tasks are gonna be really tough

I've just really started technical training BTW.

I think its a very good idea to have plenty of dives on the kit you plan on using well before training begins. I've been lucky enough to have a mentors for both BM and SM configurations. Having dove both config's now, I don't see the gas management as over-tasking in the large scheme of things. But then again I also think its a skill that should be second nature prior to commencing move advanced training.

I think this is why industry has courses like Fundies, Intro to techs, sidemount clinics......and also mentoring from guys that have been there....to help them with the basics so they are second nature.



As for my performance.....I have no problems saying I am very much a rookie in all aspects of diving. I'm still learning and have a TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON left to learn......just starting to scratch the surface of things that I didn't know I didn't know

Again, like everything else, its just my opinion

 

[JamesK]

I keep seeing gear solutions to lack of skills problems, but haven't seen anything convincing enough to give up that redundancy that a isolator manifold gives you. YMMV.

Well, sometimes it's not always about wanting to give up the isolator, but having to do so.

 

[Wookie]

Well, sometimes it's not always about wanting to give up the isolator, but having to do so.

Sounds like a step backward to me. As I said, Your Mileage May Vary.

 

[JamesK]

Sounds like a step backward to me. As I said, Your Mileage May Vary.

Some places backmounted 104's simply will not fit. It's about having the right tool for the job. A sledge hammer might be great at driving in railroad spikes, but sometimes you need to drive in finishing nails. I am all for using isolated BM cylinders when you can. Sometimes you just can not.

 

[DevonDiver]

Absolutely, going from what you trained on initially to something new is going to be very demanding whether it be SM or BM. Because of this, I wouldn't be going into a technical level course without being comfortable in the kit that I am using. Stepping stones......I don't think you would expect a person starting a Tech 1, cave 1, AN/DP, to have zero dives on the kit they plan on using. It would be amazingly overwhelming. This is why I had said that.....if a simple task is tough.....then tougher tasks are gonna be really tough

Training is meant to be just that....training.

GUE/UTD have formal pre-tech courses. Other agencies don't, although some instructors run 'clinics' or 'assessments' of a similar vein to Fundies etc.

The 'Intro-To-Tech' type courses are just that...and intro, or taster. Like a DSD is for OW diving...but for tech. On paper, not training in any sense. Again, some instructors might choose to use/offer them as a preparatory course, but that's just splitting hairs.

Personally, I prefer the assessment 'clinic' approach. It costs the student less (who really needs an 'Intro-To-Tech c-card?) and it allows me significantly more flexibility to identify and address the student's short-comings before tech-proper starts. It's usually done in single tank, at a range of rec-depths, to get the core stuff squared away. If more work is needed, then I prefer to add time during, or at the end of, the actual tech course to deal with specific remedial issues as they present themselves.

Nobody starts Tech 1 (GUE) without prerequisite qualification in Fundies. That differs from other agencies, who don't have a formal core-skills pre-assessment certification. For the likes of TecRec, TDI, IANTD and ANDI... there is no expectation for equipment familiarity at the entry-level. The training is designed to deal with that....starting in the pool getting your buoyancy, trim and control mastered, before moving onto valve drills, then onto stage handling etc.

Bear in mind, that Tech1 versus AN/DP is not really comparing like-for-like. ER is more like it... and a solid basis of diving competence is expected at that level and beyond.

Of course, it's beneficial to have some familiarity with the kit before you start training - but many (most?) don't. Entry-level tech courses generally exist to provide that familiarity.

The emphasis has always been on 'doubles' and that's what the course syllabus and standards reflect. Sidemount is gaining popularity and many agencies now allow tech training to be completed in that rig. Because it deviates significantly to 'what is written' on the basis of diving doubles, most of those tech programs insist on side-mount qualification before tech training commences. That's just a semantics issue - based on existing course materials/ standards/ syllabus. Either way, you learn the rig, then specific skills, then generic deco skills.

 

[DevonDiver]

Some places backmounted 104's simply will not fit. It's about having the right tool for the job. A sledge hammer might be great at driving in railroad spikes, but sometimes you need to drive in finishing nails. I am all for using isolated BM cylinders when you can. Sometimes you just can not.

Bear in mind that we're talking baby-steps into tech here... SM is a valuable tool in the toolbox...specifically for restricted penetrations... but it's unlikely to be a tool that a novice tech diver 'needs' to employ for quite some time into their development.

That doesn't mean the diver shouldn't start in SM from the outset... but to do so at the expense of gaining BM competence is certainly a highly debatable course of action...

 

[JamesK]

Bear in mind that we're talking baby-steps into tech here... SM is a valuable tool in the toolbox...specifically for restricted penetrations... but it's unlikely to be a tool that a novice tech diver 'needs' to employ for quite some time into their development.

That doesn't mean the diver shouldn't start in SM from the outset... but to do so at the expense of gaining BM competence is certainly a highly debatable course of action...

I am 100% with you on that. I stated above that I feel you should become proficient in BM before you move on.

 

[FoxHound]

Personally, I prefer the assessment 'clinic' approach. It costs the student less (who really needs an 'Intro-To-Tech c-card?) and it allows me significantly more flexibility to identify and address the student's short-comings before tech-proper starts. It's usually done in single tank, at a range of rec-depths, to get the core stuff squared away. If more work is needed, then I prefer to add time during, or at the end of, the actual tech course to deal with specific remedial issues as they present themselves.

And this is a great way of doing things....for both the instructor and the student.....the instructor knows exactly where the student is skill wise, and the student will know exactly what the instructor expects from them. I feel that doing things like this is a win-win situation for both.

Nobody starts Tech 1 (GUE) without prerequisite qualification in Fundies. That differs from other agencies, who don't have a formal core-skills pre-assessment certification. For the likes of TecRec, TDI, IANTD and ANDI... there is no expectation for equipment familiarity at the entry-level. The training is designed to deal with that....starting in the pool getting your buoyancy, trim and control mastered, before moving onto valve drills, then onto stage handling etc.

Exactly.....fundies with a tech pass is designed to teach you the basic skills and drills you need to know before undertaking even more task loading. Learn the simple things before moving on, if you can't do the simple things you work on them until you can, then carry on

Of course, it's beneficial to have some familiarity with the kit before you start training - but many (most?) don't. Entry-level tech courses generally exist to provide that familiarity.

Again this is exactly what I was trying to say, learn the basics with your kit before undertaking the advanced stuff.....

The emphasis has always been on 'doubles' and that's what the course syllabus and standards reflect. Sidemount is gaining popularity and many agencies now allow tech training to be completed in that rig. Because it deviates significantly to 'what is written' on the basis of diving doubles, most of those tech programs insist on side-mount qualification before tech training commences. That's just a semantics issue - based on existing course materials/ standards/ syllabus. Either way, you learn the rig, then specific skills, then generic deco skills.

I think this comes down to the instructor as well......the instructor should have significant experience in either BM or SM if they want to teach either one.......I would be very hesitant to take a course in SM if the instructor was not a SM diver.

Everything that has been mentioned WRT training and such can be applied to both styles of diving.

I think all in all what I was trying to get across is that both BM and SM are viable ways of diving, both of which have pros and cons. I don't think one can completely dismiss one or the other and i feel that's what was being done here for SM hence why I decided to post. Its up to the person choosing to weigh those and make an educated choice.

 

[DevonDiver]

......the instructor should have significant experience in either BM or SM if they want to teach either one.......I would be very hesitant to take a course in SM if the instructor was not a SM diver.

It shouldn't happen that a tech instructor goes anywhere near a student without substantial personal experience, not just in the kit, but in the particular type of diving and conditions to be expected.

PADI offer tec sidemount now...and whilst I'm a little confused about how they were planning to certify instructors for that... the last I heard was that it required 50 staged-deco dives, on sidemount.... before the tec sidemount instructor status could be applied for. If correct, that's a decent minimum level of experience.