PADI Sidemount Training

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Great points and useful feedback, into my toolbox for my students.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There are really two different styles of sidemount rigs - one set up for heavy steel tanks which remain negative during the dive, and one for lighter tanks (mostly Alu 80s) which become positively buoyant during the dive. I'm not aware of any classes that teach both styles, or otherwise present a diverse set of scenarios in which sidemount tanks are appropriate. Teaching seemed to be very regional as far as the style that is taught.

As a case in point, in the Puget Sound area, the little bit of instruction that is available focuses on the heavy tank rigs that would be appropriate for use in the Florida springs. Yet most of the cave divers that I know do their cave diving in the Mexican Cenotes. This leads to a situation in which the available training is not optimal for the end usage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There are really two different styles of sidemount rigs - one set up for heavy steel tanks which remain negative during the dive, and one for lighter tanks (mostly Alu 80s) which become positively buoyant during the dive. I'm not aware of any classes that teach both styles, or otherwise present a diverse set of scenarios in which sidemount tanks are appropriate. Teaching seemed to be very regional as far as the style that is taught.

As a case in point, in the Puget Sound area, the little bit of instruction that is available focuses on the heavy tank rigs that would be appropriate for use in the Florida springs. Yet most of the cave divers that I know do their cave diving in the Mexican Cenotes. This leads to a situation in which the available training is not optimal for the end usage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do.[emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm happy to answer the question from my personal perspective, the particular instruction I got, my perhaps somewhat differing diving goals, and what I think could have saved me some time and frustration down the road.

The sidemount course was short - an hour in the classroom, maybe an hour and a half in the pool, and three twenty-something minutes dives in the local quarry, in the 50-70ft. range, cold water with dry suit. It ticked off all the PADI standards in terms of skills and drills, as far as I can tell.

I used rental gear from the LDS for the course, as I was still unsure what to buy. Everything was set up for me; a Nomad harness and LP105s with stage rigging. The course felt easy, I almost thought: that's all there is to sidemount diving? Why do we even need a course? Shortly thereafter, I got my own rig (Halcyon contour, with the tank rigging kit) and off to Mexico I was, for some fun dives in my new rig. Was able to get some AL-80s with sidemount valves there, a dive op that was ok with me diving in sidemount, and the realization that I had no clue of how to properly trim out the rig. Bungees around the tank valve were as alien to me as the idea that you can move the bottom bolt snap forward when the tanks get floaty. Nor did I know how to determine how high to put the cam band, exactly where the bolt snap should go, etc. I eventually got most of it figured out, by trial and error and asking around a lot, but it was frustrating as I completely lacked the tool kit to get myself trimmed out with a different rig and tanks than what I used during the course. There were some other minor issues, mostly sloppiness regarding gear configuration and air-sharing procedures that I had to fix before or at at the beginning of the cave course, but in some way they can also be attributed to to just using things and procedures the way the course instructor did. without fully understanding alternatives and rationales.

So if there is one thing I wish I would have gotten out of my sidemount course is the ability to actually use the flexibility that configuration offers, and apply it to my diving, instead of the more narrow "this is how I do it, and it ought to be good enough for you as well" approach.

I guess I see three issues.

1- First, it seems your instructor -if in fact he did not discuss: different sidemount rigs set up, how to set up different size and material tanks, failed to discuss camband placement and adjustment, did not review differences in ring and bungee systems... And if the course was 1 hour in the classroom and 1 1/2 hours in the pool and 3 -20 min dives - did not actually meet the course standards.

So I'm not sure how you can say he "ticked off all the course standards" - because he didn't.

A) time -The standards recommended the course be taught over three 8 hour days - the first day being lecture and pool, the second day pool and open water dive one and third being open water dives 2-3 and debriefing. When I taught the recreational sidemount class last month, I realistically needed at least 4 hours in classroom on the general topics of sidemount diving and two hours gear tweaking class... 2 - 2 hour hour sessions in the pool to trim out and adjust gear and the 3 open water dives that each lasted about 30-45 minutes to accomplish the skills required.

B) configuration - The standards require the in class component and confined water portions review camband adjustment so as to achieve trim, contain discussions of rigging bottles and weights, review of the use of different bottles (size and composition) and their buoyancy characteristics and advantages and a overview of different types of harness systems. This includes adjusting such in the gear being used.

2- Second, It seems you felt taking the recreational sidemount course would be sufficient for using a sidemount rig in a quasi-technical fashion- i.e. cavern/cave diving. That's simply wrong on your part.

There is a PADI and TDI Tec sidemount course - and they are designed around an elevated skill set and the full use of sidemount gear in a Tec environment. Anyone doing true cavern or cave has to consider it a technical course.

Would you consider taking an enriched air/ nitrox class sufficient for using a 50% or 100% O2 bottle? No. So why would a rec sidemount course be expected to properly prepare you for a tec cave course unless you had time to get accustomed to YOUR rig before the cavern/cave training?

Furthermore, There is a general rule about instructional task loading. Do not pile multiple new variables on during training dives. In other words- if you are a newly certified dry suit diver- don't take a deco procedures class in a dry suit until you have sufficient dry suit dives to be muscle memory proficient in dry suit diving.

In other words you should not have taken a cavern or cave courses in sidemount until you were proficient in diving with a sidemount rig... You cannot hope to fix all the variables in the two skill sets together at the same time. It just invites trouble.

And

3- Third, from a practicum point of view - the rec sidemount set up was totally inappropriate. Twin LP 105s really? You had no business being given those to dive until you mastered basic trim and buoyancy. The standard TECHNICAL rig is a pair of LP85s - which would have been overkill (some use lp95s too) -for a recreational course this was sheer madness. In rec sidemount LP 50s are ideal as two provide over 140 cu/ft of air with great weight and trim characteristics- and HP80s or HP 100s are normal - or weighted AL80s to show you how to modify them -as they are a common default rental tank. In fact the standards reference using either HP40s, LP50s or 80s as the config norm in recreational sidemount.


So my analysis is
a) the instructor doesn't do much sidemount diving,
b) he didn't read -and or -follow the syllabus, and
c) you had unrealistic course application expectations
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with the other sm instructors who have commented so far. I have three very different sm rigs of my own for teaching and access to two more. Which ones are used is determined by the students goals, desires, budget, and most likely use of the rig.

The rush to sm and the resulting bs of instructors who don't really dive the setup being permitted to teach it, after a workshop that likely includes as much if not more time on how to sell the course, results in what the op experienced.

I took a sm course from Doppler here on the board. Then proceeded to dive sm for everything for a year and even teach classes in it. I aquired different rigs, set up lp 85's, lp 75.5's, and al 80's and worked with all of them. Then I did my advanced nitrox, deco procedures, and advanced wreck instructor courses in sm. After that I felt qualified to teach rec sm through sdi.

So when I taught my first sm student we did pool with single and double tank set ups, single tank with pony bottle on the other side because he wanted to try it, classroom where we went over rigging, regs, gas management, rescue considerations, and then dived for a weekend.

In a few weeks he's coming back to the pool to get set using it with the new drysuit he is picking up from me on Saturday.

I am looking for a pair of 50'S for a decent price to try them myself and subsequently use them for classes as well. Not too common around here. I also have a couple lp 72 's I could set up.

The point being that with them having everything set up I don't feel you got a class. You got an experience for a class price.
 
I have to agree with the other sm instructors who have commented so far. I have three very different sm rigs of my own for teaching and access to two more. Which ones are used is determined by the students goals, desires, budget, and most likely use of the rig.

The rush to sm and the resulting bs of instructors who don't really dive the setup being permitted to teach it, after a workshop that likely includes as much if not more time on how to sell the course, results in what the op experienced.

I took a sm course from Doppler here on the board. Then proceeded to dive sm for everything for a year and even teach classes in it. I aquired different rigs, set up lp 85's, lp 75.5's, and al 80's and worked with all of them. Then I did my advanced nitrox, deco procedures, and advanced wreck instructor courses in sm. After that I felt qualified to teach rec sm through sdi.

So when I taught my first sm student we did pool with single and double tank set ups, single tank with pony bottle on the other side because he wanted to try it, classroom where we went over rigging, regs, gas management, rescue considerations, and then dived for a weekend.

In a few weeks he's coming back to the pool to get set using it with the new drysuit he is picking up from me on Saturday.

I am looking for a pair of 50'S for a decent price to try them myself and subsequently use them for classes as well. Not too common around here. I also have a couple lp 72 's I could set up.

The point being that with them having everything set up I don't feel you got a class. You got an experience for a class price.

Jim's spot on.

Sidemount isn't a jump in and fly course- it requires retraining in diving style- different muscle memory- and an understanding of the configurations BEFORE open water. Class and pool are essential and gear needs tweaking as you go. It is not a static set up.

You can't teach what you don't have a feel for.

50s are an excellent rec sidemount tank. Size weight and buoyancy make them a great kit addition in the pool and in (relative) shallow or short dive open water. Under 100 feet and under an hour they are perfect.
 
I'm happy to answer the question from my personal perspective, the particular instruction I got, my perhaps somewhat differing diving goals, and what I think could have saved me some time and frustration down the road.
I am always hesitant to criticize from afar. There are usually two sides to an interaction. But, based on your description, your sidemount course was - 'poor' is the term I want to use, but let's just say - 'light', and did not reflect either the intent of, or some / many of the applicable standards associated with, the PADI Sidemount Diver course.

I can also now better appreciate your comments about 'discovery' courses. What you describe was really, at most, a 'sampler' experience - something of a 'Try Sidemount' activity. The PADI Sidemount Diver course is intended, and structured, to be much more than a 'discovery' experience. I do not think you were offered that course, even if you were charged for it, and exposed to parts of it.

What you describe is something that has already occurred, is in the past, and cannot be changed. But I will offer some comments in case others are considering a recreational Sidemount diver course, whether through PADI or another agency. It is important that the prospective student ask the instructor / dive operation, in advance, what will be covered and how the course will be conducted. Unfortunately, a diver unfamiliar with the course - i.e. you haven't taken it yet, why should you know, in detail, what to expect - doesn't necessarily have an informed basis for asking questions. But, here are some examples of things that concern me, reading about your experience. And, these might be course attributes that a future prospective student could, and should, ask about before taking the course.
The sidemount course was short - an hour in the classroom, maybe an hour and a half in the pool, and three twenty-something minutes dives in the local quarry, in the 50-70ft. range, cold water with dry suit. It ticked off all the PADI standards in terms of skills and drills, as far as I can tell.
Notably, the Instructor Guide for the course points includes, 'Recommended course hours: 24 hours over three days'. It doesn't sound like you had anywhere near that exposure. That is, of course, a recommendation, not a standard. But, what you experienced contained did not reflect the intent of the course. And, as Omission pointed out, many instructors extend the contact beyond the 'recommend'. I conduct a 4 hour academic evening session, and another 3-hour 'gear rigging' evening session, before the student ever gets wet. I started out teaching the course when it was a Distinctive Specialty, and conducted an optional Confined Water session on a third evening, followed by four Open Water dives over 2 days. So, at a minimum there were 4 days of student engagement, often a 5th.
kafkaland:
Everything was set up for me; a Nomad harness and LP105s with stage rigging. The course felt easy, I almost thought: that's all there is to sidemount diving?
One of the stipulated course goals is to 'Develop student ability to assemble, configure, and wear sidemount diving equipment.' The student should be instructed in how to rig cylinders, and harnesses, and WHY various approaches might be used, not just given an already assembled rig and told to put it on, and get in the water. In a different / better course you would have had the chance to dive different SM harness systems, different cylinders, etc. The Instructor would have explained the pros and cons of different configurations, and the environments in which different systems might perform well, or perform poorly. I definitely agree with Omission on two of his three points - I, too, doubt the Instructor does much sidemount diving, and I don't think the Instructor bothered to actually read the Instructor Guide.
kafkaland:
So if there is one thing I wish I would have gotten out of my sidemount course is the ability to actually use the flexibility that configuration offers, and apply it to my diving, instead of the more narrow "this is how I do it, and it ought to be good enough for you as well" approach.
A great summary of your expectations, which were appropriate and reasonable. I cannot say that your expectations really were unrealistic. I can appreciate your disappointment and frustration with the course you experienced. Thanks for sharing the information.
 
Last edited:
Now that side-mounting (SM) is catching (or has caught) on it is amusing to watch the agencies and some instructors falling all over themselves to "define" what is right and what they think the standards should be. Unfortunately the unwary or the SM unsavvy divers are being taken for a ride. Is it just marketing (PADI sell) or some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) for wannabe "experts" to self-righteously rant?

Hey, SM is just a kit configuration. Albeit, in my opinion, a much superior one compared to back-mounted (BM) doubles for most if not almost all diving requiring twin tanks. Even though single tank SM is very feasible, especially with aluminum tanks, BM singles will probably remain mainstream as it is the standard kit for beginners and vacation renters. BM doubles, except for some very specific applications, is destined to go the way of the Dodo bird for the multitude of doubles divers.

So what are or should the standards be for SM and SM training? What were the standards for BM doubles? In BM we had the DIR or "Hogarthian" approach to kit configuration that made things fairly standard for the most part. All we really needed to do was adjust it for trim and balance and learn to use it. In SM, you can ask "10" experienced SM divers and instructors (and I mean very experienced) and get at least "11" very different answers on how SM should be configured or done!

I learned BM doubles as part of an intro to cave class and spent the better part of a summer in a pool with a video camera getting my trim and balance squared away (different tanks, adjusting position of wing and tank bands, weight distribution, arching back, etc.). It was not easy but I finally got it. As I had an issue doing BM valve drills due to a bad shoulder, at my instructor's suggestion, I switched to SM the last weekend of the intro class (probably an hour in the pool alone before that) and passed it with incredible ease. Of course my instructor was an accomplished SM and CCR/Explorer diver and we went through my kit the evening before. Aside from some minor in-water adjustments (trim weights and tank cam-band position), I found my trim and balance so much easier to maintain that all the cave skills were a lot easier. I also realized at that moment that I would never wear BM doubles again.

People picked up BM typically during a course - intro to cave, advanced nitrox, decompression. There were very few if any agency "sanctioned" doubles courses when I learned BM doubles. Part of any technical course was the familiarization and use of new equipment. Depending on one's proficiency and experience this can also apply to SM.

So, is SM training useful and necessary? Yes, any new equipment requires familiarization/training, especially if it can be considered life-supporting. A good instructor can certainly ease the learning curve and shorten the trial and error process that most SM divers go through.

Is there a method or standard that is better than others? I don't think so. I know that many people feel that some "gurus" in the SM world are the last word on things SM. As I know several of these personally, I pick and chose those "things" that work for me after a lot of trial which is what these gurus do also.

Do we need a convoluted course hierarchy in SM as proposed by PADI and some others? Not really, in my opinion this is just marketing to exploit emerging SM popularity.

As for all things diving - become very familiar with your kit/rig and take instruction in those skills that you aspire to.

From a post in 2012:

There's actually two PADI sidemount (non-tech) courses - the 'distinctive' that was written by Jeff and the new 'standardized' one.

I asked the same question to PADI recently... and they suggested I buy the 'outline' if I want to see what the new course requirements/skills/standards are. Ha ha.. Fook you very much Mr PADI... nice try! As you might guess.. I'm holding out from a decision at the moment... pending seeing the new course outline and deciding if it's better or worse than Jeff's or a distinctive I'd author.

PADI also have a 'tec' sidemount course. From what I can gather, that just consists of putting a long-hose on the rig and attaching a stage. Again, I want to see the actual outline before deciding whether it's something that's necessary to teach. I'd be using long hose for rec sidemount anyway (we use sidemount to penetrate yah?). And if a technical qualified diver couldn't cope with adding a stage to the rig... then they shouldn't be a technically qualified diver in the first place.

Again, from what I can gather, the rec sidemount (standardized) is just to teach a new equipment configuration for open water diving. No special consideration for penetration/overhead environment use. That means no long hose, no pivoting cylinders ahead etc etc. The basis being that sidemount will appeal to recreational divers for 'ease of use', reduced physical demands, convenience, travel etc. I've heard rumors that it will also include single cylinder sidemounting.

Without wanting to sound cynical... to me it sounds like they've taken Jeff's course and significantly dumbed it down to create a 'rec' course that can be sold to the masses. Then they've taken all the extra stuff, added a stage bottle... and called it 'tec'. Sounds like a very simple thing has been made very complicated.

Personally, I'd just want to teach a course that instructed how to use the kit... the divers' other skills, experience and training would then determine what application they used that kit for.

"Franz" [kafkaland] - just spend the time to acquire and learn to use an SM kit.

... So if there is one thing I wish I would have gotten out of my sidemount course is the ability to actually use the flexibility that configuration offers, and apply it to my diving, instead of the more narrow "this is how I do it, and it ought to be good enough for you as well" approach.

I think the course you took was simply an introduction to SM. It may have been good, bad, or lacking, depending on your expectations and instruction. What you do is up to you. You can opt to take more courses, find a better/more experienced instructor, and do your own research. Spend time in a pool with a video camera and take a long a friend for feedback or to run the camera. I used a small tripod underwater. Get comfortable in SM and proceed to take your cavern class with your new found SM skills (or BM single) - depending on your comfort and proficiency level. Don't get hung up on some card or Tec-Rec level mumbo-jumbo.

So I'm not sure how you can say he "ticked off all the course standards" - because he didn't.

You weren't there with your checklist.

... The standards recommended the course be taught over three 8 hour days

The key here is "recommended." - 3 days is pure marketing/OCD! I does depend on the student. Even Edd (at CA) does half and full day SM classes. I am sure that you will learn FAR more there than in a PADI SM class

2- Second, It seems you felt taking the recreational sidemount course would be sufficient for using a sidemount rig in a quasi-technical fashion- i.e. cavern/cave diving. That's simply wrong on your part.

Some more marketing or OCD. You learn SM in an SM course - which was taken. You learn cavern/cave in cave or cavern courses. If a proficient diver already, they may be combined. It was in my case and was fairly trivial/easy. AS you can take cavern and intro-to-cave without any doubles or tec training, why would you not take it in SM if you already took the course and feel at least as comfortable in it as a BM single?

There is a PADI and TDI Tec sidemount course - and they are designed around an elevated skill set and the full use of sidemount gear in a Tec environment. Anyone doing true cavern or cave has to consider it a technical course.

Again more marketing. "Technical" seems to be defined to what ever standard fits the [marketing] need at the moment.

Would you consider taking an enriched air/ nitrox class sufficient for using a 50% or 100% O2 bottle? No. So why would a rec sidemount course be expected to properly prepare you for a tec cave course unless you had time to get accustomed to YOUR rig before the cavern/cave training?

Air/Nitrox course comparison is kind of a strawman (false argument) as it requires no diving while the Advanced Nitrox (for over 40% O2) is usually tacked on to a decompression course with diving. Got to agree that it is a good idea to get familiar with whatever rig/kit you will use for cave (starting with intro) training but not alway neccessary - I didn't (both BM and SM). If you are not a real clusterF*** disaster with SM in the water, that is, you can put your gear on and do a semi-repectable OW dive in it, there is no reason you could not use it in a cavern class- but probably best to discuss this with your instructor first. They may want to check your SM or dive skills in general before the class.

Furthermore, There is a general rule about instructional task loading. Do not pile multiple new variables on during training dives. In other words- if you are a newly certified dry suit diver- don't take a deco procedures class in a dry suit until you have sufficient dry suit dives to be muscle memory proficient in dry suit diving.

In other words you should not have taken a cavern or cave courses in sidemount until you were proficient in diving with a sidemount rig... You cannot hope to fix all the variables in the two skill sets together at the same time. It just invites trouble.

Depends, covered above. More OCD.

... from a practicum point of view - the rec sidemount set up was totally inappropriate. Twin LP 105s really? You had no business being given those to dive until you mastered basic trim and buoyancy. The standard TECHNICAL rig is a pair of LP85s - which would have been overkill (some use lp95s too) -for a recreational course this was sheer madness. In rec sidemount LP 50s are ideal as two provide over 140 cu/ft of air with great weight and trim characteristics- and HP80s or HP 100s are normal - or weighted AL80s to show you how to modify them -as they are a common default rental tank. In fact the standards reference using either HP40s, LP50s or 80s as the config norm in recreational sidemount.

Agiain more OCD!! Learn with what you are going to use - you can always change and probably will. I started BM doubles in twin LP108s and dove those for a while before going to LP85s. Had a pair of LP95s doubled but could not trim them successfully in BM. They were too short and I am tall and they forced me head down. In SM all trim very well. The 108s and 85s trim similarly as they are approximately tge same lenght. While there is NO STANDARD TECHNICAL CYLINDER, LP85s are probably a good starting point for many people if they are diving steel tanks. For warm waters and Mexico, aluninum 80s are probably standard in being the most widely used. Tank preference really depends on the diver's size (height, weight, etc.), amount of gas required and the diving environment

Sidemount isn't a jump in and fly course- it requires retraining in diving style- different muscle memory- and an understanding of the configurations BEFORE open water. Class and pool are essential and gear needs tweaking as you go. It is not a static set up. ... 50s are an excellent rec sidemount tank. Size weight and buoyancy make them a great kit addition in the pool and in (relative) shallow or short dive open water. Under 100 feet and under an hour they are perfect.

More nonsense (marketing & OCD) about the "jump and fly ... understanding of the configurations BEFORE open water." While it is not a bad idea to know as much as you can about ANYTHING before you do it, SM is certainly a fairly natural way to dive twin sets. It is not as rigourous as BM doubles and a lot easier to learn. With some SM training, which you seem to have already had, you can begin to explore the possibilities it has to offer. If you are like countless others, you will find it a much freer and comfortable way to dive. Mentoring and further training (especially if you feel a need and desire) are certainly good things. While training for overhead is NECESSARY, following the PADI REC/TEC stuff is certainly not unless it turns you on (have OCD).
 
Now that side-mounting (SM) is catching (or has caught) on it is amusing to watch the agencies and some instructors falling all over themselves to "define" what is right and what they think the standards should be. Unfortunately the unwary or the SM unsavvy divers are being taken for a ride. Is it just marketing (PADI sell) or some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) for wannabe "experts" to self-righteously rant?

Hey, SM is just a kit configuration. Albeit, in my opinion, a much superior one compared to back-mounted (BM) doubles for most if not almost all diving requiring twin tanks. Even though single tank SM is very feasible, especially with aluminum tanks, BM singles will probably remain mainstream as it is the standard kit for beginners and vacation renters. BM doubles, except for some very specific applications, is destined to go the way of the Dodo bird for the multitude of doubles divers.

So what are or should the standards be for SM and SM training? What were the standards for BM doubles? In BM we had the DIR or "Hogarthian" approach to kit configuration that made things fairly standard for the most part. All we really needed to do was adjust it for trim and balance and learn to use it. In SM, you can ask "10" experienced SM divers and instructors (and I mean very experienced) and get at least "11" very different answers on how SM should be configured or done!

I learned BM doubles as part of an intro to cave class and spent the better part of a summer in a pool with a video camera getting my trim and balance squared away (different tanks, adjusting position of wing and tank bands, weight distribution, arching back, etc.). It was not easy but I finally got it. As I had an issue doing BM valve drills due to a bad shoulder, at my instructor's suggestion, I switched to SM the last weekend of the intro class (probably an hour in the pool alone before that) and passed it with incredible ease. Of course my instructor was an accomplished SM and CCR/Explorer diver and we went through my kit the evening before. Aside from some minor in-water adjustments (trim weights and tank cam-band position), I found my trim and balance so much easier to maintain that all the cave skills were a lot easier. I also realized at that moment that I would never wear BM doubles again.

People picked up BM typically during a course - intro to cave, advanced nitrox, decompression. There were very few if any agency "sanctioned" doubles courses when I learned BM doubles. Part of any technical course was the familiarization and use of new equipment. Depending on one's proficiency and experience this can also apply to SM.

So, is SM training useful and necessary? Yes, any new equipment requires familiarization/training, especially if it can be considered life-supporting. A good instructor can certainly ease the learning curve and shorten the trial and error process that most SM divers go through.

Is there a method or standard that is better than others? I don't think so. I know that many people feel that some "gurus" in the SM world are the last word on things SM. As I know several of these personally, I pick and chose those "things" that work for me after a lot of trial which is what these gurus do also.

Do we need a convoluted course hierarchy in SM as proposed by PADI and some others? Not really, in my opinion this is just marketing to exploit emerging SM popularity.

As for all things diving - become very familiar with your kit/rig and take instruction in those skills that you aspire to.

From a post in 2012:



"Franz" [kafkaland] - just spend the time to acquire and learn to use an SM kit.



I think the course you took was simply an introduction to SM. It may have been good, bad, or lacking, depending on your expectations and instruction. What you do is up to you. You can opt to take more courses, find a better/more experienced instructor, and do your own research. Spend time in a pool with a video camera and take a long a friend for feedback or to run the camera. I used a small tripod underwater. Get comfortable in SM and proceed to take your cavern class with your new found SM skills (or BM single) - depending on your comfort and proficiency level. Don't get hung up on some card or Tec-Rec level mumbo-jumbo.



You weren't there with your checklist.



The key here is "recommended." - 3 days is pure marketing/OCD! I does depend on the student. Even Edd (at CA) does half and full day SM classes. I am sure that you will learn FAR more there than in a PADI SM class



Some more marketing or OCD. You learn SM in an SM course - which was taken. You learn cavern/cave in cave or cavern courses. If a proficient diver already, they may be combined. It was in my case and was fairly trivial/easy. AS you can take cavern and intro-to-cave without any doubles or tec training, why would you not take it in SM if you already took the course and feel at least as comfortable in it as a BM single?



Again more marketing. "Technical" seems to be defined to what ever standard fits the [marketing] need at the moment.



Air/Nitrox course comparison is kind of a strawman (false argument) as it requires no diving while the Advanced Nitrox (for over 40% O2) is usually tacked on to a decompression course with diving. Got to agree that it is a good idea to get familiar with whatever rig/kit you will use for cave (starting with intro) training but not alway neccessary - I didn't (both BM and SM). If you are not a real clusterF*** disaster with SM in the water, that is, you can put your gear on and do a semi-repectable OW dive in it, there is no reason you could not use it in a cavern class- but probably best to discuss this with your instructor first. They may want to check your SM or dive skills in general before the class.



Depends, covered above. More OCD.



Agiain more OCD!! Learn with what you are going to use - you can always change and probably will. I started BM doubles in twin LP108s and dove those for a while before going to LP85s. Had a pair of LP95s doubled but could not trim them successfully in BM. They were too short and I am tall and they forced me head down. In SM all trim very well. The 108s and 85s trim similarly as they are approximately tge same lenght. While there is NO STANDARD TECHNICAL CYLINDER, LP85s are probably a good starting point for many people if they are diving steel tanks. For warm waters and Mexico, aluninum 80s are probably standard in being the most widely used. Tank preference really depends on the diver's size (height, weight, etc.), amount of gas required and the diving environment



More nonsense (marketing & OCD) about the "jump and fly ... understanding of the configurations BEFORE open water." While it is not a bad idea to know as much as you can about ANYTHING before you do it, SM is certainly a fairly natural way to dive twin sets. It is not as rigourous as BM doubles and a lot easier to learn. With some SM training, which you seem to have already had, you can begin to explore the possibilities it has to offer. If you are like countless others, you will find it a much freer and comfortable way to dive. Mentoring and further training (especially if you feel a need and desire) are certainly good things. While training for overhead is NECESSARY, following the PADI REC/TEC stuff is certainly not unless it turns you on (have OCD).

There is so much wrong here it's impossible to weed out the useful commentary from your ego.

Let's start with....


Hate PADI much?

Notice you fail to mention PSAI, TDI/SDI, NACD and NSSCDS all offer a tec s/m course. Gee that's every important agency involved in caving .... And about 95% of the scuba market.... but NAUI... Guess all those agencies think there is something valuable to impart in a tec s/m course. Glad you are here to set them all straight.

Let me ask you this - If an agency besides PADI develops and markets a course- when the course book falls in the forest - does it make a sound in your world? Just curious.... Or is the bashing solely reserved for the PADI myopia you treated us to here?

Beyond that -your snipe at me on the course reqs not being ticked off/hit in the OPs class were based in the comments of the op AND the current standards- don't know if the op didn't listen or they weren't taught but either way they are palpably missing from his rendition of events. So unlike your trite assessment- I was talking actual factoids....

Either way -absent those training points its a small wonder the op struggled in using sm. Good thing you know better!

As for the tanks commentary - all I can say is that you either a) just don't understand or b) don't care about tank trim and buoyancy characteristics or c) are ignorant of the - vast differences in the tanks and their relation to s/m diving. Further the danger of overweighting in a double set up and the workload created by such heavy tanks defeats the primary purpose of rec sidemount.

And since the op was not tec trained ANY good s/m instructor would have recommended he not use those tanks. They are not a good fit for a tec sidemount let alone a beginner tec user. Train with what you use is fine- but use the right tools for the diving you are doing is more important. Perhaps you missed that lesson in advanced diving? Maybe you skipped that class because you don't need it- just marketing ocd- right?


Did you read the op post? He said he took the course in sms immediately before doing his initial cave training...

Are you a cave diver? I guess not based on your commentary.... But seems so based on your other posts on SB....

If you were you'd know that you just don't do cavern or Intro in a cave while still trying to get gear control and muscle memory down in ANY doubles configuration... Sidemount or back mount, right? Your buoyancy isn't there, trim, nor panic/reflex muscle memory ... Without that being right you end up dead, bent, or scared to hell at some point in the training. Most instructors require 50+ s/m dives PREREQ to take cave courses in s/m. In fact the NACD did not let you do the initial courses in s/m till post full cave up until this year- because they feel there are many issues in skill and config that merit special training.


Are you a Tec diver? I would guess not based on your commentary.... But seems so based on your other posts on SB....

If you were you would NEVER advocate adding multiple "task loading" skills in lethal environments (caves, wrecks, deco) during the "break in" phase of learning a new diving style, right?

As for TEC and Rec s/m courses- have you actually read and understood the differences? The Tec course goes into Slinging stages and Deco bottles- adjusting rail points and using different tethering set ups. Setting up scooter/DPV rings? How about complete unmounting? Reverse frog kicking? Helicopter kicking? Gas planning/mgmt on 1/3rds, 300-500 psi swaps- long hose considerations- dual 5 foot? 7? Tank considerations and different volume planning... The list goes on and on. Sure you can figure all this out on your own... Maybe after months of trial and error. Or you can take a tec s/m course to gain insights and shortcuts without reinventing the wheel.

You know there are two types of scuba kool-aid: religious zealot and atheist zealot. Both are dangerous.

The scuba religious zealot says "my agency is the best, blah blah... There is only one way to dive and we are the only ones who teach it and anyone who doesn't do it our way is an idiot."

The scuba atheist zealot says, "no agency can tell me what to do, I can read it all myself, try it all out myself, and I don't need to buy their cert card, no one can tell me how I should dive".

There are lots of dead assholes in the scuba atheist camp. There are a lot more of the alive assholes in the scuba religious camp. Just sayin.


But hey, given your wealth of useful commentary, I'm sure you know it all already.

Dive safe!
 
Last edited:
i wish i could say i read every post of this thread but i didn't so take that into consideration pls......
my personal opinion on what i have read in this thread (and others) is that i believe some people put too much weight on the point that a SM instr must be a highly advanced, experienced, and expert SM diver in order to offer a successful class to someone new to this configuration. i am sorry but i just do not not agree with this.
there seems to be an idea in the SM community that unless you are a fully cert cave diver with 1000+ dives (i exaggerate just to make the point) you simply cannot possibly teach a decent entry level SM class.
some posters have said, and i agree, that it may all depend on the students expectations. if you are a student who is interested in trying SM and learning "the basics" to see if you are interested in possibly changing your typical single BM rig to a double SM rig, are not a "technically" trained diver, and only dive open water environments within the standard open water depth/time limits, then why does that class have to be the class to end all classes ?
when the average OW cert diver takes a rec wreck diver course, rec deep diver course, nav course or whatever specialty you choose as an example, they cannot possibly expect to be an "expert" in any of those areas after taking a two day class. why would a rec OW SM course be any different ?
i am a newly cert OW instr and of course consider myself a rookie. there are 100's if not 1000's of instr's that are far more experienced than myself and far more skilled in various aspects of diving. but i think i still have a lot to offer a new student who is taking their first entry level OW class. why would teaching SM be any different ?
i started messing around with SM awhile back and hope to one day be able to instruct SM classes. i would never intend my class to be the one and final class a student would need to learn everything there is to know about diving this config. and i would make it clear to any students that the course is a starting point, just as in their first OW classes. if they want to pursue their training further so they can do more advanced dives (deeper, overhead etc) then they would need to seek a more advanced instructor who can meet those needs.
the way i see it, if someone can be cert to teach new divers to dive with as little as 75 dives in the single BM config, then learning to "introduce" OW divers to SM should be acceptable with even less dives than that in the SM config.
as was already stated by someone here, these courses are to get the diver started in the right direction. they need to put in the time on their own and slowly work on their abilities within their training limits to become more proficient. no different than their first OW class. it should be the beginning of their training, not the end.
 

Back
Top Bottom