Is Side Mount the new DIR??? Building resentment towards us as a group...

[JohnnyC]

I would imagine it's a function of having to check your gas so you can swap regs and breathe down both tanks equally, whereas with manifolded doubles you just exit. No need to breathe down multiple tanks since the gas is all the same. No need to check your gas to make sure you're maintaining a reasonably equal amount of gas in each tank.

I'm willing to bet it has nothing to do with any sidemount specific skill or lack of gas awareness.

 

[The Chairman]

I'm willing to bet it has nothing to do with any sidemount specific skill or lack of gas awareness.

We're going to have to agree to agree on this point. Well said.

 

[Centrals]

I am quite sure you could find an equivalent to most environments locally somewhere.

If that is the case I would had given up diving yrs ago.

 

[DevonDiver]

I felt a need to post on this topic, because I have seen your attitude at many dive sites and even posted here on ScubaBoard.

You don't know my attitude. You assume my attitude. That's the sole cause of our disagreements.

You feel that it can't be that they don't like something that you like: they have some sort of deficit to have that opinion.

Again, you don't know me, or my attitude. I can assure you that your current assumption is wrong.

What I see are knee-jerk assumptions. With relevance to this thread - if those knee-jerk assumptions also apply to those divers you see in real-life - then it explains a relatively minority perspective on these 'issues' with sidemount diver culture.

Your last post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Rather than try to understand the problem that you're adding to, you choose rather to deny it.

So... you're assuming I have some sort of deficit to have that opinion. That I'm making pathetic personal attacks, or being blinkered to defend an approach. You can't accept that I'm looking deeper into the critical issue of equipment familiarity in dominant versus occasional equipment experience. That it's a general principle I'm discussing, rather than a specific sidemount issue (hence bringing CCR into the discussion).

It's your post that attempts to stifle debate. That's a denial or avoidance. Your replies to my posts/s are an attempt to shut-down a discussion - because you don't agree with it. I find that slightly hypocritical, as it's a behavior in others you often protest about.

So... back to my point. I suggest that.... If a diver has expert second-nature familiarity with a dominant approach, they may be incorrect to have expectations that this second-nature familiarity should rapidly transfer to a different 'occasional' or secondary approach.

This applies to some perspectives on sidemount.

Discussion is welcome. Shutting down that suggestion due to personal assumptions is contrary to the spirit of the board, I believe.

Note: I make no suggestion that a diver should use sidemount, or any approach they are not happy with, or deem appropriate for their needs. I fully support free choice in selection. I also fully support the principle that being expert in one method is in some application, preferable to diluting expertise across multiple methods; but nonetheless, that does not restrict a diver from using whatever equipment or approach as is their preference.

 

[The Chairman]

You don't know my attitude.

I can only go by what you post. My opinions about your attitude are formed solely on your words. If you want our perception of your attitude to change, you'll have to use words differently than you're doing now. Or you can continue to deny the problem. Your choice.

 

[TONY CHANEY]

Take your wreck and narrow passage (and probably narrower doors and hatches) example:
With sidemount you take. ..
Or you drop one tank at the first passage and count on teamwork for redundancy.

You are joking right? It simply does not work that way. So you are in an overhead environment and decide to drop one of your tanks to advance farther and rely upon the team for your redundancy. Hint, hint! That is also my damn redundancy gas that you dropped! You have just created the weakest link in the team. Please explain this decision to me. I am fair and willing to listen but I do not see anything good coming from this decision.

 

[bamafan]

You are joking right? It simply does not work that way. So you are in an overhead environment and decide to drop one of your tanks to advance farther and rely upon the team for your redundancy. Hint, hint! That is also my damn redundancy gas that you dropped! You have just created the weakest link in the team. Please explain this decision to me. I am fair and willing to listen but I do not see anything good coming from this decision.

I agree dropping your redundant gas is a bad idea. Isn't this the mistake Agnes Milowka made in Australia. At least that is the version of the story I heard.

 

[The Chairman]

Please explain this decision to me.

It'll be a while. He got banned for a week.

 

[TONY CHANEY]

I agree dropping your redundant gas is a bad idea. Isn't this the mistake Agnes Milowka made in Australia. At least that is the version of the story I heard.

You are correct except for the fact that she was solo. So she dropped one of her side mount tanks outside of the restriction and was never able to get back to it. We will never know what actually happened, but when she ditched her redundancy tank she more or less signed her death notice. I never met her but she was a very talented and skilled diver. One heck of a lost to the cave diving community.

 

[TONY CHANEY]

Banned for what?