In-Water Skills on Adv/Tec Sidemount Courses (agency approaches)

[DevonDiver]

I tend to add a lot extra to my basic sidemount (a legacy from having trained sidemount with other agencies), so I'm interested to see what variances exist between different agencies (including PADI) at the Advanced/Tec Sidemount level.

I'm looking forward to teaching the PADI tec sidemount soon - just been waiting for the materials. Postage here to the Philippines is absurd... can take a week..or a month...or several. Sometimes horrific taxes, sometimes none. No reason or logic for it. I wish PADI would start releasing all manuals/materials in electronic format as standard... it's 2012 and hardly an outrageous expectation.

What I'm most interested in is comparing PADI's 'Tec Sidemount' against the offerings from other agencies. That's both for me, so that I can market it best, and also for the article I'm still working on (published on my blog, but not complete without some assessment of training syllabus and emphasis).

Sidemount seems to be a well kept secret online... lots of buzz about it, but nothing concrete regards course syllabus, training or goals. I'd expect more concrete info to be available...

I had been hoping that the PADI 'Tec Sidemount' would be more penetration orientated - to make best use of sidemount properties. Anyone can do a basic sidemount (equipment familiarization) and then transition onto Tec40/45/50. I don't see how the Tec Sidemount fulfills any extra benefit there - other than giving a small amount of preparation to diving stages.

Basic Sidemount + Tec40 seems to give a lot more than Tec Sidemount alone... and, if the student is doing the Tec40 afterwards (in sidemount) they're going to be introduced to stages anyway.

If the student isn't immediately progressing to a tec course, then there's little point teaching them to use stages, without the capacity for >40% O2 mixes and deco procedures etc. It's a capacity they'll not use...

That leads me to believe it is aimed more as a 'cross-over' for qualified technical divers?

Until I see the PADI syllabus for Tec SM, I'm clutching at straws (good job PADI)... if your tec/sm instructors don't know the score, how do you expect to market it to students??

I might have to put my fingers on the keyboard and write a distinctive for what I really want to teach ' Sidemount Overhead Protocols' or something like that..

 

[beanojones]

Well first keep in mind that although Tech Sidemount is a "Tech' Course, it has very basic requirements

(Training Bulletin 2012- 1st Quarter

PADI Tec Sidemount Diver Course Launched The PADI Tec Sidemount Diver course is now part of PADI’s TecRec training series. PADI Tec Sidemount Diver is primarily intended for two types of divers:
1) recreational divers looking for a technical diving transition course;
2) tec divers who would like to learn and apply sidemount diving techniques during their technical dives.

The course includes a practical application session on equipment set up, a confined water dive and four open water dives.
Diver prerequisites: PADI Advanced Open Water Diver, 30 logged dives, age 18.
Dives Confined/Limited Open Water Dive:
Takes divers through sidemount skills beginning with two main cylinders, and building to at least four (two main and two stage/deco cylinders).

Open Water:
Dives 1 and 2 – diving with two side- mounted cylinders
Dive 3 – diving with two main cylinders and at least a stage/deco cylinder
Dive 4 – diving with a minimum of two main cylinders and two stage/deco cylinders
Where there is a need (such as for Tec Trimix Divers), techniques to sidemount up to six cyl- inders may be included, first in confined water, then in the fourth open water dive.

As you have noted, PADI really cannot figure out what to do with its overhead environment courses, and it starts with Wreck Diver not being an O/H environment course necessarily, because PADI used to say emphasize unrestricted access to the surface, recreational diving. (Light zone and all, they still said 130 feet to the surface).

Now that they have committed to full Deco and Tech, they simply need to rewrite Wreck into a Tech Course that requires penetration and full tech certification. Same with Cavern IMHO.

 

[DevonDiver]

Well first keep in mind that although Tech Sidemount is a "Tech' Course, it has very basic requirements

Ridiculously low..

Sticking sidemount AND multiple stages onto an AOW diver is crazy.... but then, PADI seem to see fit to be promoting CCR at this level now also.

I'm really, really curious to see the course contents, and compare them with the advanced sidemount I've seen from other agencies. Drills like valve feathering? Inverted mask clearance?

As you have noted, PADI really cannot figure out what to do with its overhead environment courses, and it starts with Wreck Diver not being an O/H environment course necessarily, because PADI used to say emphasize unrestricted access to the surface, recreational diving. (Light zone and all, they still said 130 feet to the surface).

Funny you say that - I've finalized my tech wreck course (distinctive) and about to submit that. PADI have been woefully lacking a formalized techwreck course for years. I first heard that one was 'on the boards' over 7 years ago... but it never happened. I'm having another 'go' at seeing if PADI have any interest in formalizing the distinctive into a standardized course.

The only difference between a formal course and an informal clinic (which I've been offering for years) is the fact that a formal course/certification will benefit from recognition and understanding (if standardized globally). That's why I've never been greatly in favor of writing my own distinctives for overhead environment/wreck work.

My next project will be an 'Overhead Environment Protocols' course - to bridge the gap between 'Wreck Diver' and 'Technical Wreck'. Or... more accurately, to resolve the shocking lack of focus/development of penetration skills on the PADI Wreck Diver course. I've run this as a clinic for several years - it's very popular..

Overhead Environment Protocols | Wreck Diving Courses | Subic Bay

Now that they have committed to full Deco and Tech, they simply need to rewrite Wreck into a Tech Course that requires penetration and full tech certification. Same with Cavern IMHO.

As said, I've been nagging this for YEARS now. Search the forums and you can see I was asking about it more than 6 years ago... http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/wreck-diving/231092-advanced-wreck-courses.html

I've got a distinctive written... as have many other PADI TecRec instructors.... I'm flabbergasted that PADI never showed any motivation to turn this (easily) into a standardized program.

Sidemount just BEGS to be let loose in the technical wreck environment. It sucks that we cannot (officially) do that at the moment.

I've run a few 'basic' sidemount courses now that have run through into Tec40+ and/or Advanced Wreck diving. They work great... and the 'basic' sidemount alone is sufficient preparation if the diver is well skilled.

 

[beanojones]

I guess the fact is that Wreck Diver is one of the most popular specialty courses is part of the reason why PADI does not do away with the course.

No to valve feathering, no to inverted mask clearance.

 

[DevonDiver]

I guess the fact is that Wreck Diver is one of the most popular specialty courses is part of the reason why PADI does not do away with the course.

I've no qualms about the existing Wreck Diver course - it's an 'intro' to wreck diving. A single [optional] penetration dive and a single guideline practice dive are not sufficient, IMHO, to tell someone that they're now 'ok to penetrate'.

I guess PADI do sell a lot of wreck diver courses on the basis of that exact claim. I see it as a great inconsistency, when compared to the Cavern Diver course requirements - and also a big deficit on teamwork/zero-viz/guideline/contingency training (as none of these things feature effectively or practically in the course as it stands.

No to valve feathering,

That's bad - and I am surprised. If we're to support the capabilities of sidemount (indies) for technical diving - without a manifold - then I see that 'valve feathering' as quite a critical skill. Accessing gas once suffering a regulator failure is something that should differentiate rec and tec sidemounting.

no to inverted mask clearance.

Maybe more 'tech wreck' focused.... but given the reasons why tech divers are likely to choose sidemount, it seems like a fairly ubiquitous skill to include (other agencies seem to think so, from what I've seen).

 

[levi]

No to valve feathering, no to inverted mask clearance.

Not to derail this or anything, but as someone considering getting started in side mount, i am curious - when you say 'inverted' do you mean laying on your back, or standing on your head?

 

[DevonDiver]

Not to derail this or anything, but as someone considering getting started in side mount, i am curious - when you say 'inverted' do you mean laying on your back, or standing on your head?

Both

As mentioned, it's more poignant in the context of cave/wreck diving, where you might have to clear a flooded mask whilst traversing an area/passing an obstruction etc, in an unusual orientation. Given that sidemount is commonly popular for those activities, I believe that several agencies include some form of inverted (vertical and upside-down) mask clearance and 'upside-down' swimming in their sidemount syllabus.

No to valve feathering,

Just reading the instructor manual, which I've now had chance to read - feathering is in the knowledge review and dive 1 (confined).

Also, 'semi-wet' practice of reg swapping, both on a team-mate's AAS and solo.

Not so bad then... but the course does have the 'feel' of a mish-mash of the Basic SM + Tec40/45/50. It's 'very' accelerated for a non-tec qualified diver (doing it as an 'intro' to tec)... and a bit repetitive for an already qualified tec diver (depending on experience and whether they need a rudimentary tech diving refresher).

I do also wish that PADI would sometimes be a bit more definitive in their approaches. An awful lot is left to instructor discretion at tech level. Whilst I wouldn't want the rigidity of a DIR-type approach, some more formalization, of protocols and configuration would enable greater fluidity and compatibility between different instructors/dive teams. (jeepers.. have I been drinking the Kool Aid??)

I'm thinking it would be more coherent if they'd skipped out on the 'intro' option and just pitched it with Tec40/45 as a prerequisite?!?

I can see why some PADI sidemount instructors have written distinctive specialties for sidemount in overhead activities... that's really lacking (as overhead training is from the entire PADI curriculum). It'd still work well with a regular tech wreck/cave course though - done as a prerequisite.

Next question from me to PADI will be whether the Tec Sidemount (alone) might be adequate as a prerequisite for my tech wreck distinctive... if the 'within depth limits of existing qualifications' caveat was used, I don't see why not? Thoughts?

 

[beanojones]

Just reading the instructor manual, which I've now had chance to read - feathering is in the knowledge review and dive 1 (confined).

Also, 'semi-wet' practice of reg swapping, both on a team-mate's AAS and solo.

Oops. I guess I missed that, about the reg swapping. I am glad you have the copy itself. (Mine is out for perusal by potential students.)

I am busy and the students to be (instructors and CDs) are all pretty much busy, so I am not in a hurry to teach the SM course for them.

Also because what I am looking to do is teach regular people how to have a open toolset rather than do specifically sidemount, I am waiting for the updated Nomad before I start pitching any of this to OW students　or tourists, because the Nomad as it is, has tank positioning problems for BM in proper trim, and head position. (Most double band BCDs do, for that matter. At least DiveRite is addressing it) The Dive Rite subforum says August/September before the Nomad with the repositioned cam band slots comes out. I have to get it and test it to make sure OW student divers can dive with head all the way forward.

About where Tech Sidemount is positioned...

For me even basic sidemount is where I start introducing three or more tanks as an idea, even if not in practice, because for me that extensibility is where SM shines. One tank, two tanks, then three tanks four tanks. No big deal in SM, a major hassle to add the second, third and fourth in BM.

For me another distinction between tech and rec (other than overhead, virtual or real) is not being able to breathe all the gas one is carrying at any given depth. So to techify the Tech Sidemount, one could designate one tank as non-usable at depth even if it is actually safe to breathe for the purposes. Or we could empahsize the ability to fully exploit Nitrox by adding a third tank to make NDLs the limiting factor.

For PADI however, the main distinction of Tech Sidemount is only adding a third tank it seems. Since this in the distinction, I am annoyed by the fact that the long hose on the right tank is written in as a requirement, since the ability to add stage bottles arbitrarily to increase gas supply makes sense (to me) only if the odd regulator is the left tank (with the inflator hose and the long hose), and every other tank is just a stage bottle with a 40" hose and a lollipop SPG (even though my lollipops lie along the tank).

 

[decompression]

Andy, if you do a YouTube search for "sidemount skills" it should show you an instructor going through set up and onto skills. You'll be glad to see that inverted skills are included. Overall, it's not too bad of a start. Let me know your thoughts when you get the guide. Cheers.

 

[beanojones]

Andy, if you do a YouTube search for "sidemount skills" it should show you an instructor going through set up and onto skills. You'll be glad to see that inverted skills are included. Overall, it's not too bad of a start. Let me know your thoughts when you get the guide. Cheers.

I am pretty sure that the Sidemount Videos are all based on the distinctive Specialty classes, because most people posting them are still going to teach their distinctive and not the standardized. I would if I had a distinctive class written.