Question Sidemount or backmount doubles?

[Marie13]

This video was just published (less than an hour ago):

I knew about UTD, I just wasn't aware of their solution of fitting sidemount into DIR philosophy. Or rather 'force' it in.
I can get the standardization of procedures and all (the goal), but adding extra elements (a manifold block, a tonne of connections) - doesn't that add quite a few potential failure points as well? Even in the new set-up they propose. I am not at all an expert. But compared to 'non-DIR' sidemount diving, this UTD approach seems to overcomplicate things rather than simplify stuff...

Don’t even go there…

 

[Cheizz]

Don’t even go there…

Don't worry, I won't. This kind of approach (or rather, the forced solutions) takes all the fun out of diving....

 

[tbone1004]

@Cheizz it is all about priorities. In the case of UTD, primary donate trumped increased complexity and failure points. Personally I don't agree, nor does anyone else in the sidemount world, but that is their priority

 

[Celt]

This video was just published (less than an hour ago):

I knew about UTD, I just wasn't aware of their solution of fitting sidemount into DIR philosophy. Or rather 'force' it in.
I can get the standardization of procedures and all (the goal), but adding extra elements (a manifold block, a tonne of connections) - doesn't that add quite a few potential failure points as well? Even in the new set-up they propose. I am not at all an expert. But compared to 'non-DIR' sidemount diving, this UTD approach seems to overcomplicate things rather than simplify stuff...

Now that is so simple, but please tell me why wouldn't a diver use the gear they already have and are used too. the very same regs your using for backmount doubles can be used sidemount. you can have the best of both worlds.

 

[tbone1004]

Now that is so simple, but please tell me why wouldn't a diver use the gear they already have and are used too. the very same regs your using for backmount doubles can be used sidemount. you can have the best of both worlds.

As I said above, they prioritize primary donate above all else which lead to that system being developed 10-15 years ago.

 

[Cheizz]

But when diving SM with two cylinders, you can donate your long hose, no? If at that instance that isn't the one you're breathing from, you would have to unclip it though. Is that the problem for which these systems are their proposed solution?

 

[tbone1004]

But when diving SM with two cylinders, you can donate your long hose, no? If at that instance that isn't the one you're breathing from, you would have to unclip it though. Is that the problem for which these systems are their proposed solution?

yes, primary donate means donating out of your mouth. Traditional doesn't allow for that and the manifold "fixes" that problem.

 

[Wibble]

This video was just published (less than an hour ago):

I knew about UTD, I just wasn't aware of their solution of fitting sidemount into DIR philosophy. Or rather 'force' it in.
I can get the standardization of procedures and all (the goal), but adding extra elements (a manifold block, a tonne of connections) - doesn't that add quite a few potential failure points as well? Even in the new set-up they propose. I am not at all an expert. But compared to 'non-DIR' sidemount diving, this UTD approach seems to overcomplicate things rather than simplify stuff...

Just say no. UTD took common standards to a ridiculous extreme and then some more. Few people appreciate that idiocy.

It’s utter nonsense that people can’t learn and use different techniques depending upon the kit they’re diving. Sidemount is completely resilient with total redundancy. Then some pillock comes along and connects the bottles to a manifold because he was too stupid to cope with the simplicity of Sidemount. Thus ruining the simplicity, resilience and flexibility in one fell swoop.

And then there’s those who promote a longhose on rebreathers. Same issue and same crazy outcome: overthinking and spoiling a simple bailout cylinder.

There are some silly things that go on in diving in the name of standardisation.


On to an earlier point; Sidemount and backmount aren’t mutually exclusive. If you’re competent on backmount then Sidemount is pretty easy to learn. The key is good core skills — buoyancy, trim and finning. Thereafter the world's your lobster.

 

[Wibble]

But when diving SM with two cylinders, you can donate your long hose, no? If at that instance that isn't the one you're breathing from, you would have to unclip it though. Is that the problem for which these systems are their proposed solution?

Just as you do for backmount. No difference whatsoever.

 

[ginti]

As a matter of fact, UTD is the only agency using that system, as far as I know.

GUE certainly does not use it, and I don't think ISE does either (assuming it is still active).