Sidemount VS Backmount in caves

[CptTightPants21]

So let me see if I get this straight.

You know more about construction of the steps than the people who did the work, even though one of them has been building steps at dive sites longer than you've been cave diving. And you feel entitled to complain because you came into the area and threw your money around. Oh and I'm snarky.

Did I miss anything?

Maybe I am missing it, but I am not seeing the tone in DA Aquamaster's posts that would warrant this response.

 

[DaveJo127]

 

[Caveeagle]

I fully understand that the platform was made wider for a reason. But there is still no free lunch. As noted before, I can see advantages to having more room to maneuver around the ladders, turn around, etc. However, the chosen solution has a cost and a downside.

In my experience, there are usually multiple ways to address a problem and the more eyes and brains you have working the problem the greater the potential to identify a solution with minimum downside and an optimum balance for all the end users.

Perfection is the enemy of progress. As you know, you put 5 cave divers in a room, and you will probably get (at least) 10 solutions. We might have never moved past the planning stages with an "open invitation" for brainstorming. Sorry if that makes some feel disenfranchised. Focus on the positive! We have some great new steps and access to P1 was not compromised for even a single minute! That is a great accomplishment.

I wish you could have seen the sub-structure of the old steps during the demo. It was a small miracle that those (overbuilt) steps held together as long as they did. Keep in mind they get fully submerged several time a year. This is not your garden variety BBQ deck we have here folks.

 

[bamafan]

As others have said sidemount can be done rather quickly. I think people are just clueless. I had a diesel truck and it would tick me off when there was one diesel pump and some a hole would pull up in front of it and get gas then leave their vehicle parked there and go inside the store. There would be other gas pumps open but they would tie up the only diesel pump.

 

[DevonDiver]

As others have said sidemount can be done rather quickly.

It can be done very quickly, but that comes with practice and experience.

Getting infuriated at 'slow' sidemount divers seems rather impatient and insensitive.

Would people be more gracious if slower divers physically wore a 'learner' sign?

 

[Caveeagle]

It can be done very quickly, but that comes with practice and experience.

Getting infuriated at 'slow' sidemount divers seems rather impatient and insensitive.

Would people be more gracious if slower divers physically wore a 'learner' sign?

Maybe, but when do you get to take the leaner sign off?

I am a pretty patient guy. But there is a point, when it's just rude, and inconsiderate of others to block off a shared asset. How patient are you with a new driver stopped at a green light, readjusting their seatbelt and mirrors?

 

[DevonDiver]

Maybe, but when do you get to take the leaner sign off?

I am a pretty patient guy. But there is a point, when it's just rude, and inconsiderate of others to block off a shared asset. How patient are you with a new driver stopped at a green light, readjusting their seatbelt and mirrors?

Not getting yourself sorted as quickly as (safely) possible is rudeness when other people are waiting. Taking some time because your equipment familiarity and muscle memory is still rudimentary isn't rudeness.

Take the learner sign off when your sidemount don/doff is obviously timely and efficient. Putting on 2-4 cylinders shouldn't take a minute, if competent.

 

[kensuf]

My advice to divers interested in taking cave training is to use the configuration they are most comfortable with. For some divers that is side mount (although I have yet to encounter a single OW side mount diver who did not require a fairly massive re-work of their configuration to clean it up and make it cave worthy). For other divers back mount doubles make more sense.

So people don't think I'm a guy that has an axe to grind that has a preconceived bias, I actually agree with this above statement 100%.

For those that are wondering why I'm acting like an attention whore or snarky ******, it comes down to this below.

You'll see that more often with the new steps at P1, which seem to be very back mount friendly but SM not so much. That's ironic given that Sm divers seems to be about half the total cave divers at present, and the percentage has been growing.

The good news however is that the P2 (should be P1 since P2 and P3 have no steps) steps will make P3 and OG more popular options for SM divers.

I know that comment will be seen as "ungrateful" by some. But I've also been told by other SM divers that it's what a lot of SM divers are thinking.

----

Now to be fair, when you're standing there in your 108s waiting for the ladder to clear, you could consider just doing a giant stride entry.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

Perfection is the enemy of progress. As you know, you put 5 cave divers in a room, and you will probably get (at least) 10 solutions. We might have never moved past the planning stages with an "open invitation" for brainstorming. Sorry if that makes some feel disenfranchised. Focus on the positive! We have some great new steps and access to P1 was not compromised for even a single minute! That is a great accomplishment.

I wish you could have seen the sub-structure of the old steps during the demo. It was a small miracle that those (overbuilt) steps held together as long as they did. Keep in mind they get fully submerged several time a year. This is not your garden variety BBQ deck we have here folks.

This is my last comment on the topic - the thought has been thrown out there and it'll either resonate or it won't.

Please read what you just wrote, and think about the message you just sent:

"As you know, you put 5 cave divers in a room, and you will probably get (at least) 10 solutions. We might have never moved past the planning stages with an "open invitation" for brainstorming. Sorry if that makes some feel disenfranchised."

Differing opinion are found in all walks of life not just cave diving. Public comments are received for exactly that reason. In this case there is no need to respond to those comments, but rather just listen to them and see what you can learn from it. Things like:
- the ratio of SM to BM divers;
- the need to balance those slightly divergent needs with the totally different needs of non divers;
- what worked and what didn't work with the old steps;
- if improvements are desired, what desired improvements should be made;
- what are the costs and benefits; and
- how can conflicting needs be balanced.

At the end of that process (public meetings, e-mails, survey monkey, forum threads, whatever), it's still going to be a finite number of people making the final decision - it's just a better informed decision. That's not unique to government or to non profits, businesses will also do a 360 analysis and determine the optimum solution using ample customer/end user input in some form or another.

What you've stated however is that seeking public/end user input is counterproductive, and therefor should not, and maybe even will not, be pursued. You are equating public input with providing people a vote on the outcome and that's not the case. It's just an opportunity for the end users to have a voice in the design phase.

The attitude you have expressed is what cause disenfranchisement in any community.

 

[PfcAJ]

This is my last comment on the topic - the thought has been thrown out there and it'll either resonate or it won't.

Please read what you just wrote, and think about the message you just sent:

"As you know, you put 5 cave divers in a room, and you will probably get (at least) 10 solutions. We might have never moved past the planning stages with an "open invitation" for brainstorming. Sorry if that makes some feel disenfranchised."

Differing opinion are found in all walks of life not just cave diving. Public comments are received for exactly that reason. In this case there is no need to respond to those comments, but rather just listen to them and see what you can learn from it. Things like:
- the ratio of SM to BM divers;
- the need to balance those slightly divergent needs with the totally different needs of non divers;
- what worked and what didn't work with the old steps;
- if improvements are desired, what desired improvements should be made;
- what are the costs and benefits; and
- how can conflicting needs be balanced.

At the end of that process (public meetings, e-mails, survey monkey, forum threads, whatever), it's still going to be a finite number of people making the final decision - it's just a better informed decision. That's not unique to government or to non profits, businesses will also do a 360 analysis and determine the optimum solution using ample customer/end user input in some form or another.

What you've stated however is that seeking public/end user input is counterproductive, and therefor should not, and maybe even will not, be pursued. You are equating public input with providing people a vote on the outcome and that's not the case. It's just an opportunity for the end users to have a voice in the design phase.

The attitude you have expressed is what cause disenfranchisement in any community.