 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / January 2005Long hose - When it isn't optimal
...it isn't optimal. A Long primary and necklaced secondary and a continuous web harness not optimal? What? Say it ain't so? On my recent trip to the Galapagos, we dived from Peter Hughes SkyDancer II. The diver at the station next to me was textbook DIR down to the cannister light. Diverite backplate, one-piece harness, Halcyon wing, 7 ft primary, necklaced secondary, DUI TLS 350 (black - of course), XL jetfins and all the trimmings. The problem isn't with the gear while diving. The problem is doffing in large seas for boarding an inflatable boat and handing the gear up. It's a fustercluck. The whole thing, from end to end. You have to see it to appreciate it. You have to imagine big seas and a 20-25' inflatable in the wind and a diver trying to maintain contact while disengaging from all this stuff, topped off by a harness that doesn't want to let you go and has a knack for "catching" every loose fold of drysuit shell from shoulder to wrist. Meanwhile, it's not a solo act. There are other divers in the water also wanting to board. You can't help that, it just happens. The problem was minimized somewhat by the diver, who was fit, competent, flexible and experienced. I watched this drama unfold many times, some better than others, but none of them pretty. The thing is, if you get rushed or make a mistake in order here, things start getting really wierd, really fast. Picture a BC floating away from you, about to be grabbed by a " helpful client" with the primary still around your neck... If you're planning to do some difficult diving from pangas, my advice is to leave the cave rig at home. The necklaced secondary was the biggest PITA. Getting it off, one handed, wearing gloves, without losing the primary in your teeth, or your mask is a better trick than you know (until you've seen it). The one piece harness was next, since it proved difficult to escape in all but the calmest circumstances. The long primary was just a lot of junk waiting to snag another diver or get snagged on the haul up or whenever. All the nice tidy things you might do with it are not necessarily a good idea (in the water) when there are loose divers flopping around. All of it complicated by the 'round neck and tucked excesses. safe diving, bullshark > ...it isn't optimal. > If you're planning to do some difficult diving from pangas, my advice is to leave the > cave rig at home. The necklaced secondary was the biggest PITA. Getting it off, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > bullshark I'm not DIR by any means, but I do use a necklaced secondary, and I do sometimes dive off boats that require you to doff your gear to hand up before boarding. It was an extra thing to think about, and I would usually forget the first few times, but the way mine is rigged actually made it pretty easy. My "necklace" is a length of surge tubing with overlapping ends that form a hole and a hold for the mouthpiece on my secondary. To get out of it, all I have to do is pull the secondary out of the hold. The necklace is still around my neck and not going anywhere, and all the SCUBA attachments to me are now unattached. I realize the DIR rig is a lot more complicated. My point is the necklaced secondary is the least of your worries, and their use should not be discouraged on this basis. gc >I'm not DIR by any means, but I do use a necklaced secondary, and I do >sometimes dive off boats that require you to doff your gear to hand up [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >necklace is still around my neck and not going anywhere, and all the >SCUBA attachments to me are now unattached. Exactly right, DIR, pseudo-DIR, DIR-light or non-dir! You will also want to have a snap-clip on your PRIMARY and to clip it off to the D-ring on the right shoulder strap. This will prevent it's being swung around and possibly damaged. Also makes it easier to handle for the person you're handing your rig to. >I realize the DIR rig is a lot more complicated. My point is the >necklaced secondary is the least of your worries, and their use should >not be discouraged on this basis. Right again. Optimize dive gear for DIVING, not for surface issues.  SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > You will also want to have a snap-clip on your PRIMARY and to clip it > off to the D-ring on the right shoulder strap. This will prevent it's > being swung around and possibly damaged. Also makes it easier to handle > for the person you're handing your rig to. Thus creating a firmly attached 7 foot loop, something quite likely to snag something or someone on the way back into the boat. My 6 foot hose attaches to my right D ring via a plastic hose clip. Should it hook something, it simply pulls free. It's still not the ideal setup for this kind of diving, but it's better than a hard connection, including one via an O ring. >>I realize the DIR rig is a lot more complicated. My point is the >>necklaced secondary is the least of your worries, and their use should >>not be discouraged on this basis. > > Right again. Optimize dive gear for DIVING, not for surface issues. Wrong. Optimize dive gear for all diving related issues, including transporting to and from the site, carrying to and from transportation, storing on a boat or other vehicle, getting in and out of the water and diving. Even DIR recognizes that all elements related to the dive work together. To be optimal, you have to consider everything. Personally, I find the short hose alternate to be enough of an advantage to deal with the necklace issue as necessary. It's no more difficult for me to remove it than it is for anybody else to remember to remove stuff from their kit, whatever kit that may be. My 6 foot hose, on the other hand, is a benefit only in the rarest of occasions, when I chose to share gas with somebody else or when I need to remove my gear underwater for some reason. I've done both, but not often. If much of my diving were from a RIB or any other vessel where it was best to remove my bear before boarding, the long hose would, in all probability, be replaced with something more convenient. In fact, even without having to clip my gear off while I get out of the water, the slight benefit (ease of occasional gas sharing) is only barely enough to offset the cost (extra hassle controlling it on the boat). I don't even own a canister light. I've seen and accept their value for cave diving, but find no benefit at all for my open water diving. Lee >> You will also want to have a snap-clip on your PRIMARY and to clip it >> off to the D-ring on the right shoulder strap. This will prevent it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Thus creating a firmly attached 7 foot loop, something quite likely to snag >something or someone on the way back into the boat. ... I see your point, but if the people on the boat cannot deal with this, or if there are lots of things to snag on, then I'll dive off another boat, thank you. >> ... Optimize dive gear for DIVING, not for surface issues. > >Wrong. Optimize dive gear for all diving related issues, including >transporting to and from the site, carrying to and from transportation, >storing on a boat or other vehicle, getting in and out of the water and >diving. ... Lee, we disagree. Dive gear should be optimized for DIVING. Accomodations for "transporting to and from the site, carrying to and from transportation, storing on a boat or other vehicle, getting in and out of the water ..." should be made *ONLY* if the do not de-optimize actual dive performance. Otherwise, learn to deal with it by practice and experience. A lot of my kit would change if I were optimizing, for example, for transportation and storage! On the other hand, my use of an aluminum, rather that steel, backplate is an accomodate for travel/transportation which does NOT de-optimize dive performance -- just requires different weighting, using weights that don't travel with me. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. >>> ... Optimize dive gear for DIVING, not for surface issues. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Lee, we disagree. Dive gear should be optimized for DIVING. To each his own. Many more accidents occur on the boat and while getting into and out of the water than have ever occured during the dive. Of course, you're already optimizing for land use. You just do it so automatically you forget you've done it. For example, the optimum rig almost certainly carries more gas than you do on most of your dives. Curtis might be able to carry twin 120s comfortably, but you and I can't. We sacrificed the more optimal gas supply for the sake of out ability to lift out gear and walk away with it. A case could also be made for using the very long freediving fins. I think you have, and I know I have, opted for fins that are a bit less optimal during the dive, but a lot more practical in the suitcase and/or on the boat? Lee > >>> ... Optimize dive gear for DIVING, not for surface issues. > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Lee Actually, depending on your finkicks, freediving fins would *NOT* necessarily be optimal. I have tried and used several types of fins and for scuba, I'd keep my Jets. I use my Sporas only for Freediving. FreeFloat > Actually, depending on your finkicks, freediving fins would *NOT* > necessarily be optimal. I have tried and used several types of fins and > for > scuba, I'd keep my Jets. I use my Sporas only for Freediving. Tell it to those that chose the freediving fins over the standard ones. I'm not one of them. If you're talking about the traditional Jet Fins, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take your word for what is or is not optimal. I've tried them and, all else being equal, my Plana Power fins will leave them in the dust every time. I'm reasonably certain my Plana TRE fins will too. If you're talking about the newer Twin Jets, I take my comment back, at least until I have tried them for myself. Lee > Tell it to those that chose the freediving fins over the standard ones. I'm > not one of them. I'm listening ;-) Actually with the freediving blades I use 10-15 percent less gas. > If you're talking about the traditional Jet Fins, I'm sorry, but I'm not > going to take your word for what is or is not optimal. I've tried them and, > all else being equal, my Plana Power fins will leave them in the dust every > time. I'm reasonably certain my Plana TRE fins will too. If you're talking > about the newer Twin Jets, I take my comment back, at least until I have > tried them for myself. I tried the Quattros ( forgot my Jetfins) and found these were no match for my poseidon Jetfins ( which are more efficient IMHO than the Scubapro ones) It may be something within my kick. I don#t like fins which demand a strong initial kick. And I know quite a few who sanded down the edges of their 1,2,3 Quattros to get a smoother, more even response by them. The fault within the Quattros is, the bigger the feet, the bigger the blade. While with bigger people the leverage ratio of leg muscles would propose a reduced ratio of blade size proportionality. Matthias > The fault within the Quattros is, the bigger the feet, the bigger the blade. > While with bigger people the leverage ratio of leg muscles would propose > a reduced ratio of blade size proportionality. > > Matthias The problem that I'm having is very similar - with *any* fins, I'm such a tiny diver with such tiny feet, that my average available fin size gives me such a proportionately tiny blade size, in fact I know of some Aquacise hand fins that are almost as big......... >>The fault within the Quattros is, the bigger the feet, the bigger the > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > such a proportionately tiny blade size, in fact I know of some Aquacise hand > fins that are almost as big......... That's what exchangeable blades are for... I love the carbons... Matthias > That's what exchangeable blades are for... > I love the carbons... > > Matthias My freedive buddy has the carbons (don't remember which) that he got for a steal off eBay.... they're poetry in motion underwater. I have total fin envy. My feet are too small to give them a tryout though. On the brighter side, IIRC my Sporas' pockets can be fitted to other blades. >>That's what exchangeable blades are for... >>I love the carbons... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > envy. My feet are too small to give them a tryout though. On the brighter > side, IIRC my Sporas' pockets can be fitted to other blades. Yep. Put your buddy in envy with the Omer clear blades. They are invisible in the water Matthias > Yep. Put your buddy in envy with the Omer clear blades. > > They are invisible in the water > > Matthias OOoo! I'm gonna have to look for those. Link? >>Yep. Put your buddy in envy with the Omer clear blades. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > OOoo! I'm gonna have to look for those. Link? http://www.omersub.com/catalog/fins/index.htm However, I didn't find reference to the mentioned blades I bought 3 years ago at Point Bleu in Crozon, France. With luck, it should be possible tto find them. Matthias > > Actually, depending on your finkicks, freediving fins would *NOT* > > necessarily be optimal. I have tried and used several types of fins and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Lee I *was* talking about the JetFins, but not having tried the Plana series (I have freedive buddies who use Avantis and love 'em) I'll reserve judgement. Let me revise my statement to say: of the fins that *I'VE* tried, I settle on my Jets as they have the stiffness and buoyancy characteristics I want in a scuba fin. I overpower thermoplastics way too easily (I overpower my Sporas too, and if I could afford carbon blades I'd have them instead, but that's another story) > Let me revise my statement to say: of the fins that *I'VE* tried, I settle > on my Jets as they have the stiffness and buoyancy characteristics I want in > a scuba fin. I overpower thermoplastics way too easily (I overpower my > Sporas too, and if I could afford carbon blades I'd have them instead, but > that's another story) Try the OMER clear thermoplastic blades. Nearly the same springyness like the carbon ones, which may be even softer to kick. But I would bot like to brake them... Matthias > >Thus creating a firmly attached 7 foot loop, something quite likely to snag > >something or someone on the way back into the boat. ... > > I see your point, but if the people on the boat cannot deal with this, > or if there are lots of things to snag on, then I'll dive off another > boat, thank you. For the first part, there's not too many dive operator choices at this particular destination to choose from, so your options may be to either accept this risk, or never dive in the Galapagos. BTW, their panga's will also generally be doing your pickup with the outboard motor running, which some people find offensive too. For the second part, the comment made was that the long hose loop was finding lots of snag opportunities on the subject diver's drysuit. The diver's choice of thermal protection is not the fault of the operator. > >> ... Optimize dive gear for DIVING, not for surface issues. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Lee, we disagree. Dive gear should be optimized for DIVING. And how is 'DIVING' being defined? YMMV, but my definition includes every task from the time that I start to assemble my gear to the time that it has be disassembled. This includes all of its donning and doffing as well as all of the wet portions. This discussion is centered around the 'water exit' part of a dive, which can kill you just as fast as any other part of a dive. Now granted, we can have different optimization prioritization weightings when it comes to the different phases of a dive; its the nature of 'trade-spaces': some people will choose 'deoptimal' tanks in order to be able to carry them on land, others will choose an Aluminum backplate to lighten luggage and so forth. We need to remember that this is _recreational_ diving, and 3/4's of a good, safe dive is better than not going at all. Resist the temptation to become yet another victim to: "Better is the Enemy of Good Enough" and just go dive. -hh >> >Thus creating a firmly attached 7 foot loop, something quite likely to >> >snag [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > will also generally be doing your pickup with the outboard motor > running, which some people find offensive too. You don't have to accept the risk. There are at least two options, probably a lot more. I chose a hose clip rather than at bolt clip. If my long hose catches on something, it comes loose. The other option, the one Bullshark seemed to be supporting, is a more conventional configuration. > For the second part, the comment made was that the long hose loop was > finding lots of snag opportunities on the subject diver's drysuit. The > diver's choice of thermal protection is not the fault of the operator. True, but I don't recall anybody blaming the operator. The topic is "long hose - When it isn't optimal." It's the diver's choice of hoses that's being addressed. This, of course, could be extended to other items, including a drysuit, but if I'm not mistaken, and I'm sure I'm not, those that brought the long hose to most of us are also great believers in drysuits. > And how is 'DIVING' being defined? > YMMV, but my definition includes every task from the time that I start > to assemble my gear to the time that it has be disassembled. This > includes all of its donning and doffing as well as all of the wet > portions. That seems a bit broader than what I think Charlie is referring to, but even if he shares definitions, he and I disagree. It is my contention that you configure your gear to be optimal for everything you do with it, including storage, transportation, assembly and diving. I've already mentioned the most obvious concession to non diving needs. I don't use tanks I can't lift even though the increased gas supply would be better while diving. Another concession is the rubber boots on my steel tanks. They're there so I can stand my tanks up on land. > This discussion is centered around the 'water exit' part of a dive, > which can kill you just as fast as any other part of a dive. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > than not going at all. Resist the temptation to become yet another > victim to: "Better is the Enemy of Good Enough" and just go dive. Agreed. Lee > > {attributions not carried forward}: > >> >Thus creating a firmly attached 7 foot loop, something quite likely to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You don't have to accept the risk. There are at least two options, probably > a lot more. There's always multiple options. Some of them are sometimes pretty good :-) In any event, I was referring to the specific dive environment that the Galapagos Liveaboards use, which can include outboard motors with engaged prop's running operating in dang close proximity to divers in the water. Because there's always going to be a non-zero objective risk of slicing someone up that has to be considered, some people might find this risk 'offensive'. Of course, when we talk about optimization strategies, a conclusion may be to defer to the gear configuration that offers a shorter exposure to this risk, even if it contains other trades. It all depends on how you rack and stack your criteria weighting factors. > > For the second part, the comment made was that the long hose loop was > > finding lots of snag opportunities on the subject diver's drysuit. The > > diver's choice of thermal protection is not the fault of the operator. > > True, but I don't recall anybody blaming the operator. It was probably just a confused attribution; the comment was: "if there are lots of things to snag on, then I'll dive off another boat". In this case, its not applicable, because the original hose-snagging statement was referring to folds in the diver's (assumed laminate) drysuit. > > And how is 'DIVING' being defined? > > YMMV... > > It is my contention that you configure your gear to be optimal > for everything you do with it, including storage, transportation, > assembly and diving. Yes, that would be the most holistic and 'total system' based approach. In actual practice, though, each discrete task is not going to receive teh same significance: we're going to weight factors based on our perception of their respective importance and benefit. It is then only natural to understand that some people will place greater weighting on "during dive" factors, which naturally means that they're willing to deoptimize their pre- and post- dive phases in order to realize this personal definition of 'optimum'. And no matter what some people may claim, its all a big honking trade-space with no single solution that is always optimal for everyone everywhere. -hh >Subject: Long hose - When it isn't optimal >From: bullshark >A Long primary and necklaced secondary and a continuous web harness not >optimal? >What? Say it ain't so? >The problem isn't with the gear while diving. The problem is doffing in large >seas for >boarding an inflatable boat and handing the gear up. > The necklaced secondary was the biggest PITA. Getting it >off, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >haul up >or whenever. I can't speak to the long hose issue, other than as I recall even if you're diving "DIR" you can use a shorter "long hose" when diving in a non-overhead environment, but the harness and necklaced secondary are a no brainer. The secondary's mouth piece should just pull out of the retainer or at worst, use a mini quick release clip between the second stage and the loop that goes around your neck. In either case removing the loop from around your neck is not necessary. If the harness is fitted correctly, you should be able to slip it off over your head pretty easily just by ducking down in the water. This all sounds like operator error to me. Capt. Bill >> Subject: Long hose - When it isn't optimal >> From: bullshark [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Capt. Bill I've done the vast majority of my diving off small boats and having someone duck underwater and flip their rig off over their head is the last thing I want to be dealing with when there's any kind of real sea conditions going. It sort of defeats the idea of keeping one point of contact with the boat at all times. Now I do dive with a BP/wing and a harness, but I just keep the shoulder straps loose enough that I can slip out one arm at a time, or I have a quick extender loop on my left shoulder - no break in the harness, but I can get some extra length when needed... Dan. >Subject: Re: Long hose - When it isn't optimal >From: Dan L >I've done the vast majority of my diving off small boats and having >someone duck underwater and flip their rig off over their head is the >last thing I want to be dealing with when there's any kind of real sea >conditions going. It sort of defeats the idea of keeping one point of >contact with the boat at all times. While I see your point, I've done this for years and lossing the boat has never been a problem. In fact if a sea is running I'd rather not be that close to the boat. At least not without a helmet. And with fins on it's no big deal to tow or float on the rig back to the boat in a couple of kicks. >Now I do dive with a BP/wing and a harness, but I just keep the >shoulder straps loose enough that I can slip out one arm at a time, or >I have a quick extender loop on my left shoulder - no break in the >harness, but I can get some extra length when needed... That works too. Like I said, "operator error". Capt. Bill > If the harness is fitted correctly, you should be able to slip it off over your > head pretty easily just by ducking down in the water. And thus sliding off the mask sitting on your heads backside because you put it there to demonstrate that you are in no panic ;^) Matthias >Subject: Re: Long hose - When it isn't optimal >From: Matthias Voss >> If the harness is fitted correctly, you should be able to slip it off over >your >> head pretty easily just by ducking down in the water. > >And thus sliding off the mask sitting on your heads backside because you >put it there to demonstrate that you are in no panic ;^) f.ck that mask on the top/front/back/neck crap. I keep it over my eyes full time. Otherwise I can't find the boat. Corrective lenses. :-) Capt. Bill > f.ck that mask on the top/front/back/neck crap. > > I keep it over my eyes full time. Otherwise I can't find the boat. > > Corrective lenses. :-) If the seas are rough, I keep my mask on and the reg in my mouth until I'm back aboard... Never know when you might *think* that you are safely attached to the ladder only to find yourself back underwater (possibly still attached to the ladder, possibly not)... Small boats without ladders don't necessarily worth that way though... I dive a backplate and long hose, and so does my GF. We dive Monterey, which is not exactly sheltered water, off my Boston Whaler most every weekend. No such problems. No problem with the necklace (as long as I don't forget it, DUH). No problems with the harness. But, you don't get out of the rig next to the boat. That's a good way to get clonked on the head by the boat, and piss off your fellow divers. You get out of it away from the boat, blow it up, and swim it over like a kickboard. Actually, I usually get out if it at about 10'. It's easier that way, it's really good buoyance control practice (I have the cameras on 12' tag lines as an eyeball reference.), and it's calmer. 7' is generally too long in open water. BTW, about the kickboard trick: If I ever have to do a long surface swim with the backplate, I'll get out of it, tuck all the hoses and guages on top, and kickboard the rig. It's a lot easier than swimming with it on. > ...it isn't optimal. > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > bullshark >7' is generally too long in open water. 7' is ALWAYS "too long" -- unless you need it! Most of use never will (I hope), but ... Consider: Diver 1 is low on/out of air because his foot is stuck (a) between rocks, or (b) in wreckage, or (c) in some line (choose any one). Diver 2 shares air with a short hose -- wich is TOO SHORT to allow diver 2 to swim done and un-stick diver 1's foot. Conclusion: If you don't have a 7' arm, a 7' hose is useful. Readers are invided to think up other open water scenarios in which a 7' hose would be useful. The one above is my best to date. My personal opinion is that even if you don't "need" a 7' hose, it makes sharing air easier and less stressful. Considering that a situation in which you need to share are _IS_ stressful, this is goodness. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > Readers are invided to think up other open water scenarios > in which a 7' hose would be useful. The one above is my > best to date. My personal opinion is that even if you don't > "need" a 7' hose, it makes sharing air easier and less > stressful. Considering that a situation in which you need > to share are _IS_ stressful, this is goodness. You are diving in a restricted area where two divers cannot fit through side by side. >> Readers are invided to think up other open water scenarios >> in which a 7' hose would be useful. The one above is my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >You are diving in a restricted area where two divers cannot fit through >side by side. Yes, that is the classic reason for using the long hose in CAVE and WRECK diving. But we're looking her for reasons to use the long hose in OPEN WATER diving. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. >From: hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com (Charlie Hammond) >Date: 12/14/2004 10:56 AM Eastern Standard Time [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >WRECK diving. But we're looking her for reasons to use the long hose >in OPEN WATER diving. I do plenty of open water dives where two divers can't fit side by side. Popeye The only working atomic bomb platforms the Japanese ever had were delivered via airmail. > I do plenty of open water dives where two divers can't fit side by side. I hope you enjoy them, but please excuse those of us who use a more common definition of "open". SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. hammond@not wrote: > > I do plenty of open water dives where two divers can't fit side by side. > > I hope you enjoy them, but please excuse those of us who use a more > common definition of "open". Kelp is an open water "hazard" that can certainly require divers to swim in more or less single file if they are sharing air. Not everybody dives in Florida... Kevin Metcalfe nslckevin@yahoo.com Pleasant Hill, CA > Kelp is an open water "hazard" that can certainly require divers to > swim in more or less single file if they are sharing air. If somebody is out of gas, how far do you swim? That's not a rhetorical question. I don't dive kelp and don't know if there is a reason to swim out from under it before surfacing that outweighs the normal advice to make an immediate safe ascent. Lee > If somebody is out of gas, how far do you swim? That's not a rhetorical > question. I don't dive kelp and don't know if there is a reason to swim > out from under it before surfacing that outweighs the normal advice to > make an immediate safe ascent. I've never seen kelp so thick that I couldn't punch through if I were out of air. The problem is that you'll end up a bit tangled and it might be a PITA to make your way back to the boat or shore (especially without a snorkel). If the OOA diver were comfortable enough sharing air, it shouldn't be difficult to swim out in the clear. The divers can simply move the kelp out of their way like parting a hippie's doorway bead curtain. You want to swim out from under the kelp. You can do the "kelp crawl" if you make it to the surface with no air, but it would suck big time. Somebody who wasn't very physically fit and a bit paniced could possibly get themselves into trouble if they were on the surface in a kelp bed with no air. That said, a very large kelp bed might mean swimming 100 yards or so. It could be done (and I'm sure it happens often enough) with a normal length octopus, but if you did it both ways I feel pretty confident that most people would prefer it with a 7' hose. >Subject: Re: Long hose - When it isn't optimal >From: nslckevin@yahoo.com >Not everybody dives in Florida. Perhaps, but there are days out on the water when it seems like it. :-) Capt. Bill >>>> Readers are invided to think up other open water scenarios >>>> in which a 7' hose would be useful. Yer buddy drowns and you don't want to abandon him to get a few more bugs. Connect yer long hose to his with a square knot and just tow him along for the rest of the dive. >>7' is generally too long in open water. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > stressful. Considering that a situation in which you need > to share are _IS_ stressful, this is goodness. Such situations happened to Mike Nelson all the time. Often, it was a giant clam that caught the diver's foot. I'm very careful about sticking my feet in giant clams. So far, I've been very lucky. I've never been caught by a giant clam. I think similar things happen to the lifeguards in the San Francisco Bay area. They choose to use Spare Airs instead of long hoses, perhaps because a long hose and related gear is less attractive. Looks are, after all, important to Bay Watch lifeguards. Though a great deal of care, I've managed to avoid being trapped in a sinking boat or under any structures that collapsed while I was on or in them. Getting your foot caught in a wreck or between rocks should be, and is, very rare. Running low on gas should be even rarer. By concentrating on support of a buddy, you missed on of the benefits I consider most important, my ability to help myself. Sometimes, the easiest way to deal with an entanglement is to remove your gear, deal with the problem, and put it back on. More often, at least for me, some minor glitch in my gear that I didn't notice at the surface, is easiest to remedy by removing the gear. On the rare occasion that there is a small gas leak somewhere, that too is easiest to deal with if the gear is removed. A long hose makes removing, adjusting or otherwise dealing with gear issues, a lot easier. As you note, the long hose also makes sharing gas a lot easier, even when it's not a stressful situation. Sometimes, sharing air is a convenience rather than a necessity. Case in point, Jayna and I have done dives where, for one reason or another, she wound up with less gas than I had. On at least one occasion, I had a deco obligation that she didn't. Had she done it with me on her own gas, she would have had less gas at the end of the dive than the operator had requested. Not a critical, or particularly stressful, situation by any means. Still, my long hose allowed us to easily stay together using my gas supply during my brief decompression period. Lee .. >... I'm very careful about sticking my feet in giant clams. ... This is a GOOD plan! (Right up there with "Don't shoot the dynamite.") >Getting your foot caught in a wreck or between rocks should be, and is, very >rare. Running low on gas should be even rarer. ... I certainly agree. Anybody who doesn't should consider getting out of SCUBA diving. > ... By concentrating on support >of a buddy, you missed on of the benefits I consider most important, my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >to deal with if the gear is removed. A long hose makes removing, adjusting >or otherwise dealing with gear issues, a lot easier. I agree, although some will probably disagree, saying that it is easier with a short hose. Frankly, although I knew this, I never included it in my mental list of reasons for using a long hose in Open Water diving. Thanks for pointing this out. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. >> ... By concentrating on support >>of a buddy, you missed on of the benefits I consider most important, my [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > in my mental list of reasons for using a long hose in Open Water diving. > Thanks for pointing this out. Some probably will. Having tried it both ways, I'm sure it's easier with the long hose. Lee >>7' is generally too long in open water. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > stressful. Considering that a situation in which you need > to share are _IS_ stressful, this is goodness. We dive open water with DPV's (scooters). If you are in an OOA situation with scooters, the long hose allows you to share air AND tow the other diver back. -S > We dive open water with DPV's (scooters). If you are in an OOA situation > with scooters, the long hose allows you to share air AND tow the other > diver back. Lazy, lazy, lazy . . . 8^) I would think that you could do the same with a standard primary hose and either a necklaced or standard alternate. Lee > > We dive open water with DPV's (scooters). If you are in an OOA situation > > with scooters, the long hose allows you to share air AND tow the other [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I would think that you could do the same with a standard primary hose and > either a necklaced or standard alternate. Nope. Brian Edmonton, Alberta www.mossmanscuba.com >> > We dive open water with DPV's (scooters). If you are in an OOA >> > situation [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nope. Guess it must be one of those DIR things that can only be done the way it was practiced. Personally, I'm reasonably certain that I could hang onto your tank or shoulders and breath off a standard primary or standard alternate hose attached to the regulator directly in front of my face. I'm almost as sure you could drive a scooter back to our point of origin . . . assuming, of course, that open water navigation in waters subject to current and/or tides is one of the skills DIR teaches. Perhaps I have more confidence in your skills and mine than you do. Lee > Personally, I'm reasonably certain that I could hang onto your tank or > shoulders and breath off a standard primary or standard alternate hose > attached to the regulator directly in front of my face. Except for the little details of the donor is the one who should be towed, not the recipient, and lots of added drag. Curtis >> Personally, I'm reasonably certain that I could hang onto your tank or >> shoulders and breath off a standard primary or standard alternate hose >> attached to the regulator directly in front of my face. > > Except for the little details of the donor is the one who should be > towed, not the recipient, and lots of added drag. A very little detail when the question is one of life and death. Remember, we're talking open water here. > >> Personally, I'm reasonably certain that I could hang onto your tank or > >> shoulders and breath off a standard primary or standard alternate hose > >> attached to the regulator directly in front of my face. Define "standard". Why struggle and make it a clusterfuck when it doesnt have to be? > > Except for the little details of the donor is the one who should be > > towed, not the recipient, and lots of added drag. Correct. > A very little detail when the question is one of life and death. Remember, > we're talking open water here. Correct. Up. To where the air is. >> >> Personally, I'm reasonably certain that I could hang onto your tank or >> >> shoulders and breath off a standard primary or standard alternate hose >> >> attached to the regulator directly in front of my face. > > Define "standard". The length USD, Scuba Pro or whoever normally ships their regulators and alternates with. > Why struggle and make it a clusterfuck when it doesnt have to be? How do you figure holding on to somebody's tank or shoulders while being towed is a clusterfuck? >> > Except for the little details of the donor is the one who should be >> > towed, not the recipient, and lots of added drag. > > Correct. If I've got gas and I've got a working scooter and you don't, why would I hand either off to somebody who has already proved themselves inadequately prepared to deal with them when both of our lives depends on dealing with them effectively? >> A very little detail when the question is one of life and death. >> Remember, >> we're talking open water here. > Correct. > Up. > > To where the air is. You tow somebody up with a scooter? Hope it's a really, really slow scooter. Lee >If I've got gas and I've got a working scooter and you don't, why would I >hand either off to somebody who has already proved themselves inadequately >prepared to deal with them when both of our lives depends on dealing with >them effectively? Lee, you really should break down and suffer through at least the intro to Cavern diving course. The recipient alwasy goes first. Because, if the regulator pulls out of the recipient's mouth, the recipient will not swim/drive away without air. However, if the donor is in front, he/she might not notice that the regulator has pulled out. The donor still has air and might well leave the recipient behind. Of couse, if you are deailing with someone who is truely inadequately prepared, then all bets are off. Either you have planned how to deal with them or YOU have messed up by diving with such a person. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > The recipient alwasy goes first. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pulled out. The donor still has air and might well leave the > recipient behind. This is true only in a scooterized scenario. since everybody has one... Matthias >> The recipient alwasy goes first. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >This is true only in a scooterized scenario. Nope. Recipient first is *ALWAYS* the rule. I conceed that having the wrong equipment and/or not having the right training can force one to improvise. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. >>>The recipient alwasy goes first. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nope. Recipient first is *ALWAYS* the rule. First or not not first it not the question when you swim above each other. Do you mean to say donor above? There is no reason for that. Instead, this will give a worse ratio between intermediate pressure ( at the donor's first stage sitting on top of all, and the OOAs ambient pressure( relevant when he breathes the donor's second stage. MatthiaS .. >> Nope. Recipient first is *ALWAYS* the rule. > >First or not not first it not the question when you swim above each other. Did I miss something? Why would you swim above/below each other? With long or short hose? Or are you just making up a totally messed up situation? >Do you mean to say donor above? No, I said it right. >There is no reason for that. Yes there is. The donor ALWAYS needs to have the RECIPEING in sight. (Or "in touch" in the case of zero vis.) > ... Instead, this will give a worse ratio >between intermediate pressure ( at the donor's first stage sitting on >top of all, and the OOAs ambient pressure( relevant when he breathes the >donor's second stage. Technically correct and totally meaningless in a real OOA emergency. A minimal, probably not noticable, harder breating will be lost in the "excitement" of dealing with a real emergency. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. >>>Nope. Recipient first is *ALWAYS* the rule. You modified it below, which is a bit better. >>First or not not first it not the question when you swim above each other. > > Did I miss something? Yes. > Why would you swim above/below each other? Becuase it might be the best regarding the circumstances > With long or short hose? Or are you just making up a totally messed > up situation? Let me explain: One diver out of air. There is a horizontal distance to be traversed in open water, or in confined, which allow for a passage of 2 divers one above the other. One diver(donor)has enough gas for the both of them, and a clear idea of where to go. He is eqipped with 2 shorthosed second stages.( At least, independant firsts make no difference, except for a possibly better breathing resistance) After settling the takeover of the reg, the assume position. The donor swims below, the OOA above him, lagging only that much behind that he has a comfortable grip at the donors shoulder, so he can feel it ( Not at the valve/bottle, therefore) The donor swims, giving the direction. The OOA can let himself be towed, or fin. He can give handsignals by pressing the shoulder or before the mask. Loss of contact is easily noticed. Positions can be exchanged, or not. I agree that the donour is more in control if he swims above the OOA. But in this position the OOA might feel the taskload of having to lead the dive, which can be a bad thing. It may just be better, when the calmer and more experienced diver swims below. > Yes there is. The donor ALWAYS needs to have the RECIPEING in sight. > (Or "in touch" in the case of zero vis.) No contradiction. Is it what you intend to say, that the OOA should have no possibility to sneak away by his own? >> ... Instead, this will give a worse ratio >>between intermediate pressure ( at the donor's first stage sitting on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A minimal, probably not noticable, harder breating will be lost in > the "excitement" of dealing with a real emergency. It may as well contribute to the feeling of getting no air at all. Like it could when tow are breathing from the same first, and there is a delivery mismatch in the 2nd stages. Matthias .. >>> ... Instead, this will give a worse ratio >>>between intermediate pressure ( at the donor's first stage sitting on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Like it could when tow are breathing from the same first, and there is a > delivery mismatch in the 2nd stages. Do the math. The maximum difference in intermediate pressure for a difference of seven feet depth is around 3-4%. (~5PSI)* I doubt that the difference in breathing effort will be noticable. However, I do plan to try this the next time my wife and I are diving in circumstances where we can try this safely. * assumptions -- "correct" IP is 120-140 PSI + ambient. 33 FSW = 1 ATM; 1 ATM = 15 PSI. (These are approximations -- but should be close enough for this discussion.) SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > Do the math. The maximum difference in intermediate pressure for a > difference of seven feet depth is around 3-4%. (~5PSI)* I doubt that the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 33 FSW = 1 ATM; 1 ATM = 15 PSI. > (These are approximations -- but should be close enough for this discussion.) It's a dynamical thing, Charlie. Not really the static pressure differential. But the vortices building up at one IP port when the air has to pass round to the next. And the different breaking pressures of different regs. You just may end up breathing alternating, not at the same time, with some possible conbimation of second stages. Matthias >> Do the math. The maximum difference in intermediate pressure for a >> difference of seven feet depth is around 3-4%. (~5PSI)* I doubt that the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >You just may end up breathing alternating, not at the same time, with >some possible conbimation of second stages. What is the "dynamical thing"? Certainly your argument adjusts dynamically! SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > What is the "dynamical thing"? The reasons behind why there is a resistance to flow in a first stage. Bernouilly equations, Reynolds factor, the assumption that air flow is not influenced density changes. I understand that you were answering to that static pressure difference thing which really has not that much importance. Otherwise nargilehs wouldnt't work. > Certainly your argument adjusts dynamically! That's the dialectic Reynolds factor ;-) Matthias >>> Nope. Recipient first is *ALWAYS* the rule. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > With long or short hose? Or are you just making up a totally messed > up situation? You missed something rather obvious. In an OOA situation, you're ascending. Recipient first means the recipient above the doner . . . unless, of course, you know of a way for one person to go first and still be side by side. > Yes there is. The donor ALWAYS needs to have the RECIPEING in sight. > (Or "in touch" in the case of zero vis.) Ask your wife to put her hands on your shoulders. Aren't you in touch? Ask her to stand in front of you and put her hands on your shoulders. Aren't you in touch and in sight? Lee > >>> Nope. Recipient first is *ALWAYS* the rule. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Recipient first means the recipient above the doner . . . unless, of course, >you know of a way for one person to go first and still be side by side. O.K., the context I had in my mind, but did not state, is that the situation precluded donor and recipient being side-by-side. My mistake. Clearly, side-by-side is fine when it can be done. What is WRONG is fot the DONOR to preceed the recipient. >> Yes there is. The donor ALWAYS needs to have the RECIPEING in sight. >> (Or "in touch" in the case of zero vis.) > >Ask your wife to put her hands on your shoulders. Aren't you in touch? What exposure suites are we wearing? How thick are they? How hard is she holding on? The answer is "not necessarily". >Ask her to stand in front of you and put her hands on your shoulders. >Aren't you in touch and in sight? RE: Touch -- see above. Sight will depend on a number of things: Visibility, light, and even whether or not we sill have dive masks. Having the OOA diver first assures that you can always get in touch. The OOA diver WILL NOT swim away from his air source. If the OOA diver stops, the donor runs into him. If the donor stops, the OOA diver realizes it immediately and turns around to find out what the heck is happening. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > O.K., the context I had in my mind, but did not state, is that the > situation > precluded donor and recipient being side-by-side. My mistake. Clearly, > side-by-side is fine when it can be done. What is WRONG is fot the > DONOR to preceed the recipient. In open water, I'm not sure what conditions would preclude doner and recipient being side by side. The presumption for this part of the thread seems to be that a scooter is in use and that using the scooter is somehow necessary to survival. The issue of Kelp, which means exactly nothing to you or me, was raised. Maybe that's a situation like you describe. We disagree on what is wrong or right. If I'm there with my scooter and the gas I brought with me and you're there either without your scooter or without the gas you were supposed to have brought with you, I'm not handing off control of the ascent to you. It's just that simple. I'm there to help you, not to sacrifice myself for your benefit. >>> Yes there is. The donor ALWAYS needs to have the RECIPEING in sight. >>> (Or "in touch" in the case of zero vis.) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What exposure suites are we wearing? How thick are they? > How hard is she holding on? The answer is "not necessarily". If you're towing her with her hands on your shoulders, you're in touch no matter what exposure suit you are wearing. Like the issues to taking her for a ride on a motorcycle. She sits behind, holding on to you, the driver. If she lets go, or even starts to let go, you know about it and you act on it. What makes anybody think it's different with a DPV. This started with a discussion of the long hose and whether it was necessary to towing another diver. I said no. Others said yes. It evolved into a discussion of who goes first because I gave two examples of how an OOA diver could be towed using even the short hose if necessary. You bought up this issue of being able to see or touch. Even assuming that a diver hanging on behind does not qualify, the answer regarding the long hose still applies. You drive the scooter, I'll hand from your front, grabbing on to your shoulders or your harness, wrapping my legs around you to ensure I stay put. Since we're face to face, you can see me, we're touching and I can use either a standard alternate or a standard primary hose to share gas. The fact is, you do not have to have a long hose to share air in an ascent even when you are towing with a scooter. You do have to be flexible and innovative enough to deal with whatever the situation is effectively or somebody gets to die. The presumption of who has to go first and/or how the tow has to occur limits the odds of survival a great deal. It's the same question that Jammer and I got into it over so long ago. The diver that can adapt to any situation, long hose, short hose, only one working hose, DPV or no DPV, has a better chance of survival than a diver that believes there's only one way to skin this particular cat. >>Ask her to stand in front of you and put her hands on your shoulders. >>Aren't you in touch and in sight? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sight will depend on a number of things: Visibility, light, and even > whether or not we sill have dive masks. > Having the OOA diver first assures that you can always get in touch. > The OOA diver WILL NOT swim away from his air source. If the OOA > diver stops, the donor runs into him. If the donor stops, the OOA > diver realizes it immediately and turns around to find out what the > heck is happening. All of the issues you raised about sight and touch apply exactly the same no matter who is first and who is second. Even if we accept that the OOA diver will immediately stop if contact is lost, which I absolutely do not accept, the problem is the same. Touch has been lost. If visibility is such that you can't reestablish contact when you're driving/leading, it's such that the OOA diver can't reestablish contact with you. Worse, now you have two divers in the water, neither of which has enough equipment to survive. The scooter, which must be critical for any of this to matter, is in the hands of a person with no gas. The gas is now in the hands of a person with no scooter. The single potential fatality has just turned into a double one. Lee >We disagree on what is wrong or right. If I'm there with my scooter and the >gas I brought with me and you're there either without your scooter or >without the gas you were supposed to have brought with you, I'm not handing >off control of the ascent to you. It's just that simple. I'm there to help >you, not to sacrifice myself for your benefit. If you are there with scooters and your buddy goes OOA then he has a scooter. IT IS CLIPPED TO HIM. Ditching it requires a deliberate act. So if he tows, you still have your scooter (clipped off) >You drive the scooter, I'll hand from your front, grabbing on to your >shoulders or your harness, wrapping my legs around you to ensure I stay put. >Since we're face to face, you can see me, we're touching and I can use >either a standard alternate or a standard primary hose to share gas. That will likely not work. The scooter's prop wash will be directed at you hanging onto me, and the result will be that will will not hardly move at all (you're directing the backward thrust at the same item - you - that is trying to go forward. Indeed, this strategy is part of dealing with a stuck-on scooter.) >you can't reestablish contact when you're driving/leading, it's such that >the OOA diver can't reestablish contact with you. Worse, now you have two [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Lee Nope - you both started with scooters. You both have one. The only question is who's is clipped off and who's is in use. -- SignatureKarl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind > This started with a discussion of the long hose and whether it was necessary > to towing another diver. I said no. Others said yes. It evolved... YMMV on how "great" of an idea it would be, but I think that what I'd be inclined to do if I encountered an OOA with two scootered buddies is to do the following: - Donate - Ascend vertically together to 15fsw and do a safety stop - Surface & become positively buoyant - Calm down, talk things over & decide from there on the most appropriate plan to get back ashore. One plan would be to try whatever the 2 scooters/1 air supply bit that everyone has discussed. However, because odds are that you've not practiced this, there are going to be screw-ups, so the better plan is to not try this until everyone's had a chance to calm down and to then do it with the minimal amount of water overhead, as any screw-up can be best resolved by the OOA bailing out 10ft to the surface, because this plan has made it a point to put the surface as close by as practical. Another plan that could be suggest is based on the fact you can scooter with just snorkeling gear. Granted, this introduces a hopefully small DCS risk, but you could simply have the OOA diver do shallow porpoise runs to scooter and air-breathe himself back to shore at his own pace. While the OOA porpoise sets the pace, the with-air buddy parallels along with him on scuba at a depth of 5-10fsw. -hh >> In article <cppl9i$6ss$01$2@news.t-online.com>, Matthias Voss ><spammat.voss@gmx.de> writes: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >top of all, and the OOAs ambient pressure( relevant when he breathes the >donor's second stage. Any decent first stage will show no appreciable difference in performance between a long hose and short hose second. If your setup does not, then you need a better first and second stage set, not a different hose configuration. -- SignatureKarl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind >>Do you mean to say donor above? >>There is no reason for that. Instead, this will give a worse ratio [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Any decent first stage will show no appreciable difference in performance > between a long hose and short hose second. Out of question. I did not say that. > If your setup does not, then you need a better first and second stage set, > not a different hose configuration. I was speaking of different drive pressures for the second stage becuase of different depth in the water column. May be this is too much rebreather centered, but fell free to add the issue of internal flow variations within a first stage which has to provide gas for two divers. There will be always a preferred path for the gas to go through, which is most probable the nearest path from the HP outlet to the most adjacent IP outlet. This same outlet will act as a dynamical restriction to the flow to further distant second putlet, according to the Bernoully flow equations. Matthias >>This is true only in a scooterized scenario. > Nope. Recipient first is *ALWAYS* the rule. Never has been, never will be. Lee >> The recipient alwasy goes first. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Matthias No its not. It is very possible in swimming scenario as well; indeed, its more likely in a swimming situation unless the recipient goes first. In a scootering scenario the only person on the trigger in a OOA situation is the recipient - the donor clips his to his tow ring and grabs the recipient's tow ring, riding behind in the slipstream. For this reason its actually LESS likely to leave someone behind in a OOA situation while scootering - if you lose the extra drag while on the trigger, you know that it happened instantly. -- SignatureKarl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind >>>The recipient alwasy goes first. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No its not. Yes it is. The scenario in question is, that the donor is towing. Which is wrong. What was already stated. Being towed by a scooter is a scooter scenario, right? > It is very possible in swimming scenario as well; indeed, its more likely in > a swimming situation unless the recipient goes first. Body touch. You know when it comes of. Since having a grip on the situation is a necessary prerequisite on all transversal OOA passages, there is normally nothing to worry about. > In a scootering scenario the only person on the trigger in a OOA situation > is the recipient - the donor clips his to his tow ring and grabs the > recipient's tow ring, riding behind in the slipstream. Right. > For this reason its actually LESS likely to leave someone behind in a OOA > situation while scootering - if you lose the extra drag while on the > trigger, you know that it happened instantly. You know it even better when you lose extra drag while on your fins. And, weren't rear tow rings recently condemned by the almighty ;-)? Matthias >>>>The recipient alwasy goes first. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >Matthias You're not generally towing someone in an OOA situation on fins - they're swimming too. - SignatureKarl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind >From: "Lee Bell" leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com >Date: 12/14/2004 8:19 PM Central Standard Time >> Except for the little details of the donor is the one who should be >> towed, not the recipient, and lots of added drag. > >A very little detail when the question is one of life and death. Remember, >we're talking open water here. Little details can mean a lot, Lee. The OOA diver should always lead the exit of the dive, open water, cave or wreck. They (or you) aren't going to outrun their air source. Having the OOA diver in front of you allows you to watch them on exit or ascent. Ron White Owner, The Cave Connection > Little details can mean a lot, Lee. They certainly can. > The OOA diver should always lead the exit of the dive, open water, cave or > wreck. Except, perhaps, when: 1. The OOA diver is not familiar with scooters. 2. The OOA diver is not sufficiently composed to operate a scooter which, we presume is somehow life critical. 3. The divers are not using long hoses (the subject of this discussion), something that both George and JJ have, at one time or another, indicated are unnecessary for open water diving. There's some tunnel vision information being shared here, something that is characteristic of the bad old days of DIR mania. The simple fact is, that you CAN tow an OOA diver without long hoses, with a scooter or otherwise. We have long since acknowledged that sharing air is easier with a long hose, towing or not. That's precisely why so many of us use the long hose even for our open water diving. That does not make it impossible without one any more than the advent of the octopus/alternate air source system makes it impossible to buddy breathe.. > They (or you) aren't going to outrun their air source. An OOA diver, potentially in panic, in control of a scooter, is more likely to outrun his airsource than a composed diver, who knows he has plenty of gas for both is to outrun somebody he's committed to assisting. Extensive training may or may not be sufficient to protect against panic. Even if it is, not every diver has such training. With all due respect to those that dive in caves, every open water rescue course I've ever seen or heard of is quite clear that it is the donating diver that controls the ascent. There's a good reason for that. The incident reports are full of cases where an OOA diver ascended in panic, sometimes dragging a buddy, trying to slow things down, to the surface with him. Imagine, if you will, the same OOA diver, in the same paniced state, with a scooter. > Having the OOA diver in front of you allows you to watch them on exit or > ascent. Understood regarding exit, but that's not what we're discussing here. Which training agency recommends anything during ascent except donating diver in control in an open water ascent? Frankly, the entire scooter issue seems inappropriate. Perhaps it's my own tunnel vision, but I'm having a problem picturing a situation where I would want to tow an OOA diver to the surface. Lee .. >An OOA diver, potentially in panic, in control of a scooter, is more likely >to outrun his airsource than a composed diver, ... Um, er... Lee? Exactly WHAT will the OOA diver be breathing if he/she outruns |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message