PADI Sidemount Training

[Omisson]

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.

This is a great springboard to make the points that:

1) even being a s/m cave diver doesn't necessarily mean you can teach s/m better than a non caver instructor. Is it an advantage - yes- especially for tec sidemount- but that doesn't mean someone who does 0 overhead environments could not be an amazing s/m rec instructor.

2) all training depends on student follow up and personal practice to attain mastery. Instructors only simplify/flatten out the learning curve a bit.

3) training needs for different circumstances may mean taking different courses. There is no one size fits all scuba training method or system. Foundational courses are required to educate the diver in the basics of the sport and "advanced" courses simply take the learning process under different conditions than the basic courses and expand them.

 

[vicp]

... 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 ... 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.

I totally agree. SM is just a gear configuration. It is not "rocket science" or anything else that can only be done or taught by "PhDs" in SM. It is up to the divers as to how they use this configuration depending on their skills and goals. True, there are probably many newly-minted SM instructors as there are newly-minted OW, tech, cavern and cave instructors. At least, hopefully, they are trying to improve their knowledge and skills. It is up to the student to discern the level of instructional expertise consistent with their goals and expectations.

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

In your conceptual world perhaps - pot calling the kettle back, eh!?

Hate PADI much?

Not really. I actually have more PADI certs (along with YMCA, NAUI, SSI SDI/TDI, NSS-CDS, NACD) than all the others. I just find PADI somewhat irrelevant to my needs at the moment and see a lot of their "specialty" courses as merely fluff for marketing purposes. If I were ever to go the OW instructor route - which I have no intention of doing (previous PADI Divemaster and SSI DiveCon), I would probably go with PADI (maybe SDI/TDI), not because I think they are better (instructor quality is certainly more important than any agency), but because they are widespread, well-known, and unlike SSI, let you operate independently of a dive shop.

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.

As long as "they" don't swallow your pearls-of-wisdom as gospel. About agencies - see below.

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?

You are so-o-O clever Master O-Dude!! - Speaking of agencies - surely you must be aware of their historical response to SM. It is like the tail wagging the dog. Their recognition of SM is fairly recent and not quite yet consolidated. Most do not address primary training in SM at all while it has been "unofficialy" recognized among some of their instructors. NACD still lists manifold doubles as cave requirements and SM only as a specialty. Of course, Rob Neto, the current training director at NACD dives and trains/certifies the overhead courses in SM but it was/is not "officially" recognized. I have had several useless discussions with the former NACD training director about this. I think it is the same situation with NSSCDS, that is - can be done, not official (can't find detailed equipment configurations online at the moment) and SM only offered as a specialty. At least TDI is somewhat agnostic in double tank configurations for their cave certs - SM/BM, both are fine. SDI, TDI, and PADI (as you know) all have SM listed as specialty courses, Rec & Tec. Incidently, speaking of standards, the SDI (REC) SM course simple requires groundschool and 2 SM dives (no multi-day requirement). The TDI SM (TEC) course does specify a minimum of 2 days and requirement of 90 minutes of SM diving. I have also heard of a TDI (or other) Cave SM course (restrictions & unmounting) required for some Mexican caves but it does not seem to be listed on their web site.

All in all, the agencies are scrambling to get on board the SM wagon and CYA (cover your/their a$$es). What is happening is that more and more students are doing their lower level classes in SM and not treating it as an optional "specialty."

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....

Thanks for the compliment, about agency standards, see above. Maybe your factoids were actually h***roids!

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

As long as YOU say so, Master O-Dude!

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?

Yup, I am just a simple and humble grasshopper in your presence, Master O-Dude. I trully realize, that compared to YOU, I - a) don't understand, b) don't care, and c) am ignorant. I can only wonder if there is any hope, for this insignificant grasshopper, to even glimpse a scintilla of the wisdom and knowledge you possess.

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

I'm glad kafkaland (not the OP) did. Actually, if YOU had read the OP's post, you would have realized that it had NOTHING to do with SM before cave training. The OP was critisizing a (supposedly) PADI photo. It was kafkaland that complained of an insufficient SM course prior to intro-to-cave training. Should he have taken the SM course AFTER the intro course? Not if he wanted some experience in SM before intro. I suspect that maybe the intro instructor expected a higher SM proficiency level prior to the class. Sounds more like a student instructor mismatch or poor communication. As I said in a previous post - I finished my last weekend of intro in SM with no prior SM course and minimal prior SM experience. I actually was surprised how much easier it was.

Are you a cave diver? I guess not based on your commentary....

Does full cave count, O-Master?

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.

Once more, I am blinded by the light!! As far as the NACD goes, that has changed. Why?? Did their standards deteriorate or did they finally see the light also. I agree that one should have diving experience before starting overhead (in cavern). Requiring 50+ SM dives before cavern if the diver already has diving experience is simply ludicrous. Hey MASTER O-Dude, read the prereqs for cavern and SM posted by the agencies.

SM Prereq. - PADI: !5 years old (yo), OW (no minimum hours or AOW req.), SDI: 18 yo, 15 w/parental consent, OW (no minimum hours or AOW req.)

Cavern - PADI: AOW (no minimum hours), TDI: 18 yo, 15 w/parental consent, 25 logged dives (AOW not req.), NACD: AOW or OW w/15 non-training dives (no min dives for AOW), NSS-CDS: nothing published on web - older NSS Cavern Diving Manual states "basic scuba certification" as a prereq

So Master O-Dude, you see that 50+ SM dives before cavern is WAY over the top and exceeds all published agency prerequisites for cavern - just saying!

Are you a Tec diver? I would guess not based on your commentary....

Let's see - Full Cave, AN/DP, Advanced Blender, Regulator repair, Tank and O2 inspection and service, etc. - Does that count O Master O-Dude?

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.

Again I stand in jaw-dropping awe of your self-righteous pomposity and wisdom. I feel so inadequate .

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.

Which one are you, O-Master? :blessing:

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

Dive safe!

The True Words of Wisdom!! :banana: !!!

 

[Omisson]

I totally agree. SM is just a gear configuration. It is not "rocket science" or anything else that can only be done or taught by "PhDs" in SM. It is up to the divers as to how they use this configuration depending on their skills and goals. True, there are probably many newly-minted SM instructors as there are newly-minted OW, tech, cavern and cave instructors. At least, hopefully, they are trying to improve their knowledge and skills. It is up to the student to discern the level of instructional expertise consistent with their goals and expectations.



In your conceptual world perhaps - pot calling the kettle back, eh!?




Not really. I actually have more PADI certs (along with YMCA, NAUI, SSI SDI/TDI, NSS-CDS, NACD) than all the others. I just find PADI somewhat irrelevant to my needs at the moment and see a lot of their "specialty" courses as merely fluff for marketing purposes. If I were ever to go the OW instructor route - which I have no intention of doing (previous PADI Divemaster and SSI DiveCon), I would probably go with PADI (maybe SDI/TDI), not because I think they are better (instructor quality is certainly more important than any agency), but because they are widespread, well-known, and unlike SSI, let you operate independently of a dive shop.



As long as "they" don't swallow your pearls-of-wisdom as gospel. About agencies - see below.



You are so-o-O clever Master O-Dude!! - Speaking of agencies - surely you must be aware of their historical response to SM. It is like the tail wagging the dog. Their recognition of SM is fairly recent and not quite yet consolidated. Most do not address primary training in SM at all while it has been "unofficialy" recognized among some of their instructors. NACD still lists manifold doubles as cave requirements and SM only as a specialty. Of course, Rob Neto, the current training director at NACD dives and trains/certifies the overhead courses in SM but it was/is not "officially" recognized. I have had several useless discussions with the former NACD training director about this. I think it is the same situation with NSSCDS, that is - can be done, not official (can't find detailed equipment configurations online at the moment) and SM only offered as a specialty. At least TDI is somewhat agnostic in double tank configurations for their cave certs - SM/BM, both are fine. SDI, TDI, and PADI (as you know) all have SM listed as specialty courses, Rec & Tec. Incidently, speaking of standards, the SDI (REC) SM course simple requires groundschool and 2 SM dives (no multi-day requirement). The TDI SM (TEC) course does specify a minimum of 2 days and requirement of 90 minutes of SM diving. I have also heard of a TDI (or other) Cave SM course (restrictions & unmounting) required for some Mexican caves but it does not seem to be listed on their web site.

All in all, the agencies are scrambling to get on board the SM wagon and CYA (cover your/their a$$es). What is happening is that more and more students are doing their lower level classes in SM and not treating it as an optional "specialty."



Thanks for the compliment, about agency standards, see above. Maybe your factoids were actually h***roids!



As long as YOU say so, Master O-Dude!



Yup, I am just a simple and humble grasshopper in your presence, Master O-Dude. I trully realize, that compared to YOU, I - a) don't understand, b) don't care, and c) am ignorant. I can only wonder if there is any hope, for this insignificant grasshopper, to even glimpse a scintilla of the wisdom and knowledge you possess.




I'm glad kafkaland (not the OP) did. Actually, if YOU had read the OP's post, you would have realized that it had NOTHING to do with SM before cave training. The OP was critisizing a (supposedly) PADI photo. It was kafkaland that complained of an insufficient SM course prior to intro-to-cave training. Should he have taken the SM course AFTER the intro course? Not if he wanted some experience in SM before intro. I suspect that maybe the intro instructor expected a higher SM proficiency level prior to the class. Sounds more like a student instructor mismatch or poor communication. As I said in a previous post - I finished my last weekend of intro in SM with no prior SM course and minimal prior SM experience. I actually was surprised how much easier it was.



Does full cave count, O-Master?



Once more, I am blinded by the light!! As far as the NACD goes, that has changed. Why?? Did their standards deteriorate or did they finally see the light also. I agree that one should have diving experience before starting overhead (in cavern). Requiring 50+ SM dives before cavern if the diver already has diving experience is simply ludicrous. Hey MASTER O-Dude, read the prereqs for cavern and SM posted by the agencies.

SM Prereq. - PADI: !5 years old (yo), OW (no minimum hours or AOW req.), SDI: 18 yo, 15 w/parental consent, OW (no minimum hours or AOW req.)

Cavern - PADI: AOW (no minimum hours), TDI: 18 yo, 15 w/parental consent, 25 logged dives (AOW not req.), NACD: AOW or OW w/15 non-training dives (no min dives for AOW), NSS-CDS: nothing published on web - older NSS Cavern Diving Manual states "basic scuba certification" as a prereq

So Master O-Dude, you see that 50+ SM dives before cavern is WAY over the top and exceeds all published agency prerequisites for cavern - just saying!



Let's see - Full Cave, AN/DP, Advanced Blender, Regulator repair, Tank and O2 inspection and service, etc. - Does that count O Master O-Dude?




Again I stand in jaw-dropping awe of your self-righteous pomposity and wisdom. I feel so inadequate .



Which one are you, O-Master? :blessing:




The True Words of Wisdom!! :banana: !!!

Other than blundering through your "long" list of certs - inconsequential to the lack of comprehension shown in the ops question....you failed to respond to a single training standard point referenced.

So I guess you concede they are accurate despite your dismissive commentary?

Having now reviewed your other posts elsewhere on SB (well the two or three that didn't involve you buying or selling something) it seems you frequently make these "just so" assertions with nothing but your own hubris to back it up.

So Let's put it in simple terms:

1) task loading is bad
2) overhead environments are dangerous
3) trimming out in Sidemount and getting configuration worked out takes practice

4)doing 1-3 at the same time not a good idea.

Simple enough? Even for you?

 

[vicp]

Other than blundering through your "long" list of certs - inconsequential to the lack of comprehension shown in the ops question....you failed to respond to a single training standard point referenced.

So I guess you concede they are accurate despite your dismissive commentary?

Having now reviewed your other posts elsewhere on SB (well the two or three that didn't involve you buying or selling something) it seems you frequently make these "just so" assertions with nothing but your own hubris to back it up.

So Let's put it in simple terms:

1) task loading is bad
2) overhead environments are dangerous
3) trimming out in Sidemount and getting configuration worked out takes practice

4)doing 1-3 at the same time not a good idea.

Simple enough? Even for you?

Hey Master O-Dude - I shouldn't even bother replying. I wasn't going to reply to your previous post but found time on my hands and wanted to reply to rick...

Anyway, engaging you is a waste of time - you wouldn't recognize a constructive exchange of ideas if it hit you in the face or ran you over. Your specious and sophistic comments do not even deserve a response (if I am not mistaken, you are an attorney - aren't you?). I think you enjoy trolling and confrontation, even if subconsciously. I will be saving my breath for something a lot more useful - maybe something like blowing my nose, inflating balloons or smoking crack. Really brings to mind the adage that if you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty - but the pig likes it!

So let me put in simple terms:

1) cleaning you teeth with a chain saw could be dangerous - especially if it is running
2) taking toast out of a toaster with a metal fork while standing naked in a full bathtub is also dangerous - especially if the toaster is plugged in
3) driving backwards blindfolded while trying to text is probably very hard to impossible and may even be dangerous

4) doing 1-3 at the same time while diving SM in a cave is not a good idea - that is, unless you have the proper (agency approved) training and card

Simple enough? - Even for you?

Over and Out - Dive Safe Sensei!!

 

[tursiops]

Hey Master O-Dude - I shouldn't even bother replying. I wasn't going to reply to your previous post but found time on my hands and wanted to reply to rick...

Anyway, engaging you is a waste of time - you wouldn't recognize a constructive exchange of ideas if it hit you in the face or ran you over. Your specious and sophistic comments do not even deserve a response (if I am not mistaken, you are an attorney - aren't you?). I think you enjoy trolling and confrontation, even if subconsciously. I will be saving my breath for something a lot more useful - maybe something like blowing my nose, inflating balloons or smoking crack. Really brings to mind the adage that if you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty - but the pig likes it!

So let me put in simple terms:

1) cleaning you teeth with a chain saw could be dangerous - especially if it is running
2) taking toast out of a toaster with a metal fork while standing naked in a full bathtub is also dangerous - especially if the toaster is plugged in
3) driving backwards blindfolded while trying to text is probably very hard to impossible and may even be dangerous

4) doing 1-3 at the same time while diving SM in a cave is not a good idea - that is, unless you have the proper (agency approved) training and card

Simple enough? - Even for you?

Over and Out - Dive Safe Sensei!!

This is possibly the silliest, most useless, completely content-free post I have ever read.
Congratulations.

 

[vicp]

This is possibly the silliest, most useless, completely content-free post I have ever read.
Congratulations.

Thanks, at least you got that PART of it - see if you get the rest.

 

[tursiops]

Thanks, at least you got that PART of it - see if you get the rest.

Sorry, this is too cryptic. What do you mean?

 

[Hawkwood]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Okay folks, knock it off. Cease with the jabs between you folks. They do nothing to forward the discussion.

---

 

[Omisson]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Okay folks, knock it off. Cease with the jabs between you folks. They do nothing to forward the discussion.

---

I find it very interesting that factual, specific references and legitimate training questions were responded to with a series of ad hominems and you ignore that- but

NOW you say "cease the jabs".

One party ALONE started the personalization with wild agency bashing talking about sidemount as ocd/marketing ploys rather than training.

One party resorted to name calling instead of addressing the substance of the discussion.... The true sign of the quality of their argument.

 

[Omisson]

So, this sort of behavior in cave divers, tec divers, explains much of the incidents we see in statistics, there will always be "undeserved hits" but this sums up the short cut thinking that belies most diving accidents.


Keynote Speaker: Mike Mullane