YD Scuba Diving Forums banner

Immediate Comfort Vs. Safety

7K views 22 replies 8 participants last post by  Timw 
#1 ·
I wanted to ask for your thoughts regarding the idea that Immediate Comfort (or whatever you might call it) has been prioritised over Long-Term Safety or best practice in diving, and especially in recreational diving.

I must admit, it's how I feel at the moment. I'm diving with a BSAC club and good bunch of guys. But I do feel frustrated by their approach to diving (I'm being as open as I possibly can) which is the result of agency regulations/perceptions towards recreational diving. I have (what I feel is) a wealth of contradictions relating to typical recreational books, or at the very least in some circumstances the information given by the recreational books seems exceptionally narrow.

Perhaps to give a few examples where I feel this is the case:

- drysuits must be used as primary buoyancy controllers over the BCD.
- perhaps the idea that some things must be upsized when cold water diving, e.g., a wreck reel for shooting an SMB, over a spool.
- something specifically for BSAC, the recommended regulator configuration (i.e. inverted alternative and pony), in conjunction with a regulation against teaching hog to ocean divers (not sure for courses above this).
- the idea that one must start in a jacket BCD, before moving over to a wing + harness.
- tank labelling, with massive green and yellow nitrox stickers, or Trimix, etc. I.e. we still don't know what's in our tank until it is analysed, and then it must be labelled ourselves.

With some of these ideas, practise is substituted for an equipment purchase (big chunky reel vs. spool) or easy technique with drawbacks (using drysuit to control buoyancy), and others relate to attitude or approach (knowing what is in your tank + labelling it yourself), the idea that equipment progresses so greatly as we extend our diving, or that a wing + harness is for some reason unsuitable for beginner divers.

I think I understand why some of these ideas exist, to reduce task loading for students. But I don't feel it's a valid reason because it ignores what is currently the safest and most efficient approach to diving; which is also not exceptionally difficult, especially when everything will be new for a beginner diver anyway. It focuses on getting people in the water with a certification as fast as possible, and then they are stuck with certain views or have certain engrained perceptions that the way they were initially taught must be the best way of doing things in the long-run.

So, as mentioned above, does anyone feel that safety is being substituted for immediate comfort as the number one priority, or that safety simply isn't number one for any other reason? Does anyone know why? (I have my own ideas, but I want to see what sorts of responses I get).
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Unfortunately I need to be quick as I'm shooting out of the door & already late. It probably won't answer your question in full however....

BSAC do not specify what equipment must be used.
I use and teach spools on DSMBs (but will also do reel pending on what kit student has/wants to use).
I do use drysuit for squeeze only (as do most BSAC instructors I know).
Don't use a pony, but I do dive hog on single & twins EXCEPT when teaching BSAC.
Dive BP, wing & OPH. I also have these for my students. Oh, and when I teach & instruct on instructor events I also dive this kit as do other ITs I know.

BSAC has their faults don't get my wrong but they do not prescribe exactly what kit should be used. Safety is not being substituted. My guess is your LDS members are set in their ways and refuse to change.

TG

(BSAC technical instructor & instructor trainer)
 
#10 ·
Dive BP, wing & OPH. I also have these for my students. Oh, and when I teach & instruct on instructor events I also dive this kit as do other ITs I know.

TG

(BSAC technical instructor & instructor trainer)

Nothing to be proud of TBH.

Nowt wrong with using a wing and BP as long as your students have them, but on Instructor events !!!!!

If there is one thing that needs addressing on the ITS is the inevitable evidence of abysmal kit configeration
and that can be as much the Instructors as the student, yet hardly gets a mention anywhere.

If the Instructor team does what they like (and they do), then what chance has the student who copies
the "dipped in glue and rolled around Go-Dive" ethos. Prime directive on such events should be as Instructors
to do what we can to make our students life easier. Yes a wing/BP can be managed, but why is that
acceptable, when a BC with the contents of a dive store attached to every d-ring isnt?

I've got several wings, indies/manifolds, usual rigs etc, but on any ITS events* its a bog standard BC, with
a standard weightbelt and absolute minimal crap attached, because that's what the majority of students on
the course will be using and why i'll be advising them to think carefully about how personal kit choices can
effect the students they will eventually be teaching.

*Mind on Tech Courses, wing/BP fill your boots :)


TH

BSAC Technical Instructor & Instructor Trainer :)
 
#4 · (Edited)
That's cool. Sorry, I didn't mean to pick on bsac especially, just that at the moment they're who I dive with. I feel that, for most recreational agencies, the approach taken chooses comfort or easiness over best practice (and from what i can tell, best practise has remained largely unchanged for 15 to 20 years, plenty of time to update the books).

For sure, there isn't regulation against the use of the equipment (except for the bsac reg against long hose usage for ocean divers), but there does seem to be a preference or idea of what equipment and techniques are ideal for beginners which i believe sacrifices a degree of safety just to speed the process of teaching. More importantly I feel it spreads poor attitude or approach to diving, because the initial teaching is being stuck with religiously even as a diver progesses and extends the limits for their diving. Alternative equipment configurations are seen purely a matter of personal preference rather than a means of improving diver safety, and the same could be said for certain practices and techniques.

Inverted regulators are popular with the club I'm at (I'm actually the only one who doesn't when using either a single cylinder or twinset. I also use wing, harness and long hose whether it's single cylinder dive in 6m ow or twins and stages in a cave, the key concepts remain the same for all my diving situations), but I know that some of these guys are making their lives very difficult indeed by following the recommended inverted alternate regulator setup because they can't reach the alternate themselves. Their hoses are too short/stiff.

Typically being quite overweight, and boldly sticking with the book which dictates that a drysuit must be used as your primary buoyancy control device I feel facilitates an uncontrolled ascent as there is a large amount of air in the suit moving around which is much slower to dump than if it were in a bcd. But there is either no, or very little mention of this idea in books across the agencies, that there are alternatives (I guess what I'm getting at as well, is that the book offers few alternatives to things like regulator configuration, drysuit techniques, etc and so students aren't able to make informed decisions and choose themselves what is best because there is no understanding on the pros and cons of a particular method if only one method is recommended/explained). And their buoyancy control and profile is typically lumpy.

The same goes for tank labelling as well, it is taught that we must always check what is in our tanks by analysing it, so why put massive permanent stickers with nitrox or whatever? How do we know there's nitrox in there, and if it is nitrox, then what percent? (Let's not forget that air is just nitrox21) I was having a chat with a few guys who seemed to be shocked by the idea that i analyse my tank myself every single time i dive, and i completely ignore whatever is written on the tank. I then label it myself. The guys i spoke to assumed that the big sticker means gas will always be as dictated by that sticker. I feel this is a common issue over most agencies, and is largely the fault of the agencies in how teaching is directed to be taught.

Referring specifically to books for recreational divers, across a lot of agencies, poor technique is sometimes encouraged, or a poor approach.

i just feel that when considering these beginner books and courses, they lack too much info, and occasionally provide advice and practise which is plainly wrong. (It obviously gets worse when we're dealing with holiday divers at big resorts, but that's a separate issue for another day).

Overall, my feeling is that safety is not the number one priority for recreational agencies, but ease of diving or comfort takes priority to the extent where accident occurrence falls within an 'acceptable' frequency or range.
 
#5 ·
<snip>

Inverted regulators are popular with the club I'm at (I'm actually the only one who doesn't when using either a single cylinder or twinset. I also use wing, harness and long hose whether it's single cylinder dive in 6m ow or twins and stages in a cave, the key concepts remain the same for all my diving situations), but I know that some of these guys are making their lives very difficult indeed by following the recommended inverted alternate regulator setup because they can't reach the alternate themselves. Their hoses are too short/stiff.
Not sure what you mean? ' recommended Inverted regulators'? I used to dive inverted twin sets before moving to CCR. On a single cyl recreational dive on holiday with the crowds, I'd have my alternate on my left within the standard triangle area. There's little reason I'd personally need to use it, I've never even heard of a reg failing closed. (Having said that I still practice using it just in case someone I'm with decides to grab my primary in a panic) On a twin set, my alternate reg resided on a necklace, coming from the right hand side. Which is pretty irrelavent as I dived Cyclons :)
I know of candidates on a PADI instructor course that could not cope with an alternate reg on the left of their buddy and could only cope if it came from the right and was stored using a specific clip and attached to the diver's shoulder!

A much better argument normally forms when we discuss primary donate versus alternate donate :)


Typically being quite overweight, and boldly sticking with the book which dictates that a drysuit must be used as your primary buoyancy control device I feel facilitates an uncontrolled ascent as there is a large amount of air in the suit moving around which is much slower to dump than if it were in a bcd. But there is either no, or very little mention of this idea in books across the agencies, that there are alternatives (I guess what I'm getting at as well, is that the book offers few alternatives to things like regulator configuration, drysuit techniques, etc and so students aren't able to make informed decisions and choose themselves what is best because there is no understanding on the pros and cons of a particular method if only one method is recommended/explained). And their buoyancy control and profile is typically lumpy.
Not sure what book advocates diving 'quite' heavy and just using the drysuit, if I owned it, it would go in the bin. I too use dry suit for comfort only. BC device is for BC but don't over-weight. If you mean carrying enough to be neutral with empty cyls at end of dive, then yes, over-weighted at the start of the dive, that's what the BC is for. These days, diving a CCR, correct weighting is all important, but again, just enough gas in suit for comfort, no more. It's interesting which agencies advocate dry suit versus BCD and at what parts of their training levels.

The same goes for tank labelling as well, it is taught that we must always check what is in our tanks by analysing it, so why put massive permanent stickers with nitrox or whatever? How do we know there's nitrox in there, and if it is nitrox, then what percent? (Let's not forget that air is just nitrox21) I was having a chat with a few guys who seemed to be shocked by the idea that i analyse my tank myself every single time i dive, and i completely ignore whatever is written on the tank. I then label it myself. The guys i spoke to assumed that the big sticker means gas will always be as dictated by that sticker. I feel this is a common issue over most agencies, and is largely the fault of the agencies in how teaching is directed to be taught.
No, it's the fault of the instructors or the divers themselves. I know of no agency that advocates not checking the gas composition and then labeling contents by the end-user before usage.
As for the big stickers, I think they are really only to warn non-nitrox trained divers that there may be something other than air in the cylinder! Don't even get me started on the EU valve rules for nitrox versus air.

Referring specifically to books for recreational divers, across a lot of agencies, poor technique is sometimes encouraged, or a poor approach.

i just feel that when considering these beginner books and courses, they lack too much info, and occasionally provide advice and practise which is plainly wrong. (It obviously gets worse when we're dealing with holiday divers at big resorts, but that's a separate issue for another day).

Overall, my feeling is that safety is not the number one priority for recreational agencies, but ease of diving or comfort takes priority to the extent where accident occurrence falls within an 'acceptable' frequency or range.
Again, much of it comes down to the target audience and also the instructor. Agencies have a responsibility to ensure their training code is followed but at the end of the day it's the instructors that deliver the training that effect the final outcome.

As for using large reels versus spools, there are pros and cons to both. As an instructor, the students I teach have to demonstrate competency at using the kit they have. Personally I use spools, heavy reels and drop spools where the occasion merits it. The mistake in my opinion is not to educate about the pros and cons and proper usage of both.

I think most of your observations could come down to observing some laziness in what is being taught and what is being done in practice. Some people also choose inappropriate courses. One shouldn't choose to do a PADI OW course and expect to learn CBL or do a BSAC Ocean diver course and expect to learn the CESA. The instructors should stick to the sylabus and require that the students meet the performance requirements and master the skills being taught. Too many people want to pay for a certificate, not for mastering skills and there are too many instructors out there willing to do this!

When I learnt to dive, BCDs were the devils own devices and even the emergency cylinder on the ABLJ was going to kill you with a fast ascent at any moment. Things moved on but to get around the rules about BCD usage the club I was in had, I got a wing instead :teeth: ! I also had to do A B and C tests, swimming in a weight belt, kit recovery from the bottom of the pool etc etc etc and then only after many weeks I was allowed to use the ABLJ in the pool ... and learn to dive all over again. Who teachs all this now to entry level recreational divers?


There is an agency that I believe has a standard set of practices right from their entry level through to their tech and cave quals and appear rigorous. GUE. However, I know GUE trained divers that still avoid following the standard practices when it suits them. So who do you blame, the diver,instructor or agency?

It does come down to acceptable risk. There are three things which help us reduce the risk: Knowledge/training,equipment,experience. You can add 'buddy' to the list and depending on your view they either help or hinder.

As for teaching for comfort, I'd never dream for example of starting to teach a new diver to mask clear while hovering. First, teach to mask clear kneeling and also teach hovering. Then put the two together IF the sylabus requires it. Also I'll not teach a recreational diver to manage stages, there's no point even though it's a necessary skill for tec diving.

Disclaimer: This is a rant on the internet. Get instruction from a well respected instructor who actively dives the kind of stuff he is teaching rather than just teaches it and who ideally has more than one agency's instructor credentials.
 
#6 ·
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I realise I could quite easily be stirring things up a little, but I just want a discussion.

Yep the inverted regulator. This is the recommended BSAC regulator configuration, to invert your octopus to allow easier donation to a buddy. Basically the octopus just points away from the owner and towards the buddy. In addition, for the majority of recreational divers, the hose is incredibly short. Possibly this is the manufacturer supplying rather short standard length hoses when the regulator is purchased. Those clips are universally terrible, and very inconsiderate to your buddy. (and something which is directly aimed at BSAC, although I wish to talk about recreational diving very generally and not point specifically at 1 agency, why does BSAC remove the option to teach long hose at the early stages of diving? immediate comfort over safety? i.e. substituting practise for immediate ease?)

Regulators typically won't fail shut, they have upstream valves so are designed to remain open during a failure (some second stage Poseidon regulators have downstream valves, so the second stages will fail shut in the event of a free-flow).

Ah, interesting you mention the instructor who couldn't deal with the regulator from the other side. In some ways, I'm also trying to touch upon this point- how engrained we can become in a certain configuration or style of diving. In some ways that's what DIR is trying to achieve, and I guess that's ok if you see it as the safest system around (personally I do, but incidentally had never heard of DIR until recently, even though my configuration + the way I was taught is pure dir - I'm very new to diving, hence the discussion). But since diving is continually advancing, and certainly at the top end it is, are we slightly less safe in our unwillingness to adapt or try something new? i.e. is their perhaps too much emphasis on sticking to something one has grown accustomed to? (not that it's bad to be comfortable, we must of course achieve a level of comfort. But do we stick to that idea even when safer options are available? Most recreational divers I feel will never move over to a long-hose for example, especially if they never do a tech course. But there's nothing stopping a recreational diver using a long-hose. So why not teach it early?)

I'm all for primary donate. The advantages, in conjunction with a long-hose, are clear. So why is it not practiced from the beginning of a divers training by more agencies? The long-hose and primary donate has been around for a very, very long time. Are we sacrificing added safety for comfort here?

Ah no, of course, the book says we should be adequately weighted to take into consideration the additional buoyancy we gain from using a tank. What I meant was that a new diver will typically be diving slightly overweight. We all do to some extent I think, and we slowly remove weight if and when we see appropriate. But if we are diving slightly more weighted than necessary (even considering tank depletion), and only using our drysuits for buoyancy control (which is stated in recreational books as how things should be done) then we'd be having more air than necessary in the drysuit. That's not a particularly ideal situation, as you guys seem to be quite aware of. So why is it still in the books as the preferred way of using a drysuit?

Well, because it's easier I guess. Does that mean we substitute practise for ease? And like the long hose, the benefits (or in some instances necessity) for using your bc to c your b is quite clear.

Do you also think it is the responsibility of the instructor to not stick too religiously to recreational dive books when teaching, for instance in the drysuit case? Or to introduce alternative ideas in conjunction, or even just go with what might be considered current best practise? (I agree that there is laziness, or perhaps poor approach to diving among some instructors)

To be honest, I asked my cave instructor about drysuits before coming back to England. He simply told me - you will be instructed to use it for buoyancy control, please don't + explained why. And when I did my drysuit course, I followed the instruction of my cave instructor and not my drysuit instructor during the training dives. But actually during the course, there was no mention of this alternative idea of using the bcd to control buoyancy . I brought it up beforehand in the lectures, but not much was really said about it, I was essentially re-read what the book said. That's just a personal example I don't really want to get hung up on. But should so much be left to the discretion of the instructor? What's stopping alternative perspectives being written into the recreational books?

Right, I tend to hold the same approach. A spool, unless something else is required to fulfil a specific requirement. Perhaps it's just where I am at the moment, but absolutely everyone has it in their head to use a bloody great wreck reel to deploy an smb. And I'm wondering if books or teaching doesn't efficiently put across the features of equipment which are truly valuable, or certain ideas of what we should all want to achieve from our equipment are not displayed in the books? I personally think that equipment forms the foundation of absolutely everything. From there, everything can build upwards.

I do every now and then make suggestions in my club, and I very often here things like - ah it's just personal preference, or something like, well the book says this so I must do this, etc. There seems to be a narrowed perception that, to put it frankly, the book/original instruction is the only way to do things. There are safer ways of doing things that overall promote better diving (safer + environmentally conservative) than is currently in a few of the recreational books.

I was wondering if someone would mention GUE. I don't have any gue training. I do like to try and keep tabs on what they are doing though, and I believe that some of my instructors have been trained by gue as well. Perhaps standard practise is not the best way of doing things in certain circumstances and I think this is more so for other typical recreational standards. In some ways, I want to ask the question, why don't other agencies take more from the gue approach. They train what is largely accepted to be the safest configuration of equipment and attitude, train for longer, and I get the sense that I would be quite comfortable diving with a newly qualified gue diver. I probably wouldn't say the same about new divers on other agencies.

No of course, skill sets must be built upon gradually. But I wouldn't sacrifice the cleanliness of my equipment by taking a reel rather than a spool, just because a reel might be more comfortable (sorry to use the same examples over again).

Thank you for your posts. I'm trying to build up a picture of what's happening around me, and my background to diving is completely different to the divers around me at the moment. I tend to just keep my head down and remain as self-sufficient as I possibly can in the water (whereas I get the feeling that the attitude here is that everything will be ok because I am with my buddy). My recent experiences have been quite poor to be honest, in the sense that I'm not able to freely talk about alternative ideas or concepts, even if they are more or less common-practise (like the drysuit thing).
 
#7 ·
TBH you've kind of fallen into the trap of thinking way past what the vast majority by a
factor of 90% + will end up doing, that is learn a basic diver grade so that they can go
on there hols and point at pretty fish once a year.

Soon as you have that in your head the reasons for a lot of standard training becomes
clear.

A BC is used, because despite the Internet Fora perception that everybody is diving a
wing and long hose, the reality is that the world continues to dive on a BC and standard
length Octopus. Yes we could teach using a wing, but unless the students are also using
a wing that just makes me a bit of an uberdick for making there life complicated.

Long hose, primary donate etc.?
BSAC teach the grab method, which is by far the most realistic scenario, being trained not
to expect an OOG signal. If the donor was using a long-hose the only available reg would
be the primary, which would make it primary take and the possibility of an inexperinced diver
ripping the reg out of a similarly inexperinced diver and both having no reg in at a critical
moment. If BSAC taught signal/donate as in the old days, long-hose would be absolutely
fine, but with grab, just doesnt work.

Where BSAC is wrong here is making long-hose no go at all, when it would sit quite happily
at Dive Leader/Mix gas level, but that's another thread :)

As for the drysuit, well sadly that's become a neccessity by the need to cater for lazy
Instructors :(
BSAC say you must use the Drysuit for Buoyancy, ON THE COURSE ONLY this is supposed to
be because it's a single form of buoyancy, easier to control and less likely to get it wrong
with a feet first ascent etc. However if the Instructor weighted the students right and were
in full attendence, the natural progression would be to use the BC as per the pool and then
the suit for squeeze and warmth. That way only a minimal amount of gas would be in the
suit which could easily be handled by auto/cuff dump.
Instructors MUST teach drysuit only on the course, but afterwards what you use is down
to the individual.

Same with reels/spools, a decent reel is a bigger diameter and easier to wind up, yes you could
use a spool, but why overcomplicate when learning?


Need to turn the question around,

In the main the type of training the rec agencies use is right for the vast majority of divers that
will never get past an entry level course. As we cannot EVER know what 10% will progress past
that point and of those the 5% that will go onto more advanced techniques and skills it would be
morally wrong to cater for the 10% let alone the 5%, on the sole basis that they might have to relearn
a memory skill. If you ask the average technical diver/Instructor almost all didnt do the wing/long-hose
route from day one, but started way back doing a PADI OW or BSAC OD course etc, so even this one
point is debateable.

In essence, teach divers to dive on hols first and give them the skills to cope well with the kit they
are most likely to encounter. If they come back with a bit more experience and want to progress
then start to introduce other elements and go as far as you like :)
 
#8 ·
http://www.bsac.com/page.asp?section=3201
http://www.bsac.com/page.asp?section=2395

'The core assumption was that the octopus was primarily intended for use by a buddy as there were a limited number of occasions when such a configuration would be of use to the diver themselves. One of the key recommendations was , as Sophie identifies above, that the octopus should be routed so that it can be presented to an ‘Out of Gas’ buddy in the most comfortable way possible'

BSAC teach the 'grab it' approach where the OO diver grabs the AS. This can work just as well in my experience with long hoses. However, the only time I've heard of and experienced a buddy OO, they've actually grabbed the donors own reg! When quizzed after, the reponses have been along the theme of 'It was the first one I saw and I needed air'.

http://www.bsac.com/faqs.asp?section...sked+Questions

I believe every diver should be a 'thinking diver', not one that just follows what they have been taught, for many of the reasons you outline. So as a diver I don't always agree with agency specifics. Atitude in water is a good example. I don't believe that a horizontal position in water is always the best position to be in. I do believe that divers should be able to hold such a position in a stable way when required and know when this is appropriate however. Also, when teaching a sylabus I believe it is important that the instructor stick to that sylabus for many reasons.

Dry suit training is one of the annoyances I have, if thinking outside of specific qualification or agency requirements, then 'experience' transfer from a good experienced instructor is often just as, or more valuable.

PADI for example would allow an instructor who doesn't have the Dry Suit Specialty Instructor status to do the 'Adventure Dive: Dry Suit, including therory and practical in pool and open water work. That just has to be a non-sense policy, surely a student's first exposure to such new kit should be by an instructor experienced in, and qualified to teach it if the dry suit specialty requires a specialty instructor? PADI responded that it is up to the instructor to assess whether they are capable of teaching the Adventure Dive, not them.

Teaching dry suit only control of bouyancy is easier and easier for the student to master as they have just one variable bouyancy bubble. But, in real life this is not the way many people dive and there are reasons not to do this. I've seen people dive this way, only to open their dump valve fully on the dry suit prior to ascent (poor technique). Obviously they are then heavy all the way to the surface, hanging onto the shot line or DSMB reel for support! The mechanisim of dry suit bouyancy control is somewhat different if using an automatic shoulder dump versus the manual cuff dump.

Having said that, on my CCR, I'm weighted such that I don't have to use the BC for control, just the dry suit as there is so little 'extra' bouyancy needed in the norm. In 'warmer' climates, then I use just the BC to control my set bouyancy in a wet suit using the CCR.
 
#11 ·
Terry, the wing, BP, OPH is primarily for OWIC & PIE. I have a 20 year old BCD for any pool work plus IFC. I agree with wearing the same kit as students but TBH, other than pockets & possibly a shoulder release clip a BCD & a wing/harness is the same


TG

Sent from my iPhone using Timmytalk (hopefully)
 
#12 ·
Does it have a point break or a continuous loop, a single break or one on both sides,
is the crutch strap over or under the weightbelt, or has it got stirrups, does it have
integrated pouches or trim, is this a complaint wing :) or does it use bungies, what
lift does it have, will there be a problem during CBL if overinflated and what about when
surfacing, will it push the casualty forward if a bit too enthusiastic.

Ok playing devils advocate here, but I think throwing buoyancy workshops at weight/trim
issues, are way down the line when we should be addressing what Instructors and as a result
students use on such events.

A student is a sponge, an Instructor candidate is a mega-sponge, BSAC even encourages it's
candidates to use good ideas, but if your point of reference is flawed, how do they know?

I've got nothing against a wing, be a bit daft seeing as a have a load here myself, but struggle
with the concept of everything is ok, when plainly some configs look like a dogs dinner.

I'd like BSAC to do a new section in the IFC poolside prior to waterwork to look at kit config
and trim, then build on that in subsequent courses. Maybe then with the trickle effect we'd
end up with a situation where a wing/BP is fine, because it's a thought out system (as it is)
and matches up with a similar thought out system (the BC), but until that time when it's
all addressed, it's very difficult to call foul on a crap BC config when the nextdoor bloke is
in a bastardised long-hose (now octopus)/bp/wing that was cobbled together an hour before.

Until that day i'm in a standard BC, same as what students use all the way through on all
events OWIC & PIE included :)
 
#14 ·
I'll write a proper reply in a sec, but just a quick idea regarding the same basic equipment you've mentioned above Megan. That to me sounds like we're edging on the idea of standardisation. In which case might it make more sense to standardise the dir setup? I think we're all fairly familiar with the advantages. Why bother with all the 'typical' rec stuff? Rhetorical question, i kind of get it, but dont believe its validity. It's ultimately not as safe, i dont like the idea of an acceptable risk. I believe in making things as safe as possible.

And of course bsac, in all their wisdom, dont allow it for courses haha..
 
#15 ·
It's ultimately not as safe, i dont like the idea of an acceptable risk. I believe in making things as safe as possible.

And of course bsac, in all their wisdom, dont allow it for courses haha..
Sorry, but you are wrong in part. Knowingly or not, you ARE always accepting a level of risk just by the fact you go diving. Therefore you are putting whatever measures in place consciously or not, such that the residual risk is acceptable to you.

Even with a redundant gas supply you are accepting the risk associated with the fact both can fail ( or other non obvious fail mechanism can be present, .. see end of post), the increased risks of entanglement, hazards associated with fatigue, physical strain placed on the body to carry the extra kit, increased risk of falls on the boat etc etc etc but you are reducing the risk of the hazard of not being able to breath.

By taking extra equipment you are actually likely exposing yourself to increased hazards and therefore extra risks, it's just that they are different ones. The problem comes when one puts measures in place to reduce risk but then also fail to assess new hazards and risks. Example: In order to reduce the risk or running out of gas, including deco gases, diver A decides to take twin cylinders for his bottom gas and two cylinders each of his 40% and 100% deco gases. He's now carry huge amounts of weight and has a high level of drag and increased risk of entanglement or entrapment when penetrating a wreck. The risk of the latter can be reduced by the diver removing his deco cylinders and leaving them on the outside of the wreck. (A risk reduction strategy). However, this in it's self introduces a new risk. ..... some git might steal them.

It's not just equipment or training that reduces risk, but also what it is that you actual do. NDL diving with a clear surface is far less risky than decompression diving or no clear surface diving (cave or wreck penetration) for example as there are extra hazards. The extra training and equipment one uses for such dives is there just to reduce the risk to an acceptable level again.

Beyond learning the mechanism of using the kit one has, training in the early days of learning to dive is associated with strategies to limit risk of certain hazards of being underwater.

I dive a CCR, most would argue that a CCR is more risky than OC. I choose to dive a CCR and I choose to perform CCR dives on shallower dives, ( and incidentally carry the same bailout cylinders I'd use on deeper dives) rather than OC on those dives, in order to build up my experience on the unit and that configuration. This is a risk reduction strategy for deep CCR diving.

Another example is the teaching of buddy breathing. For many years we taught this as well as AS usage, the idea being that the divers had another 'tool's their armoury or put another way, the idea was to reduce the risk associated with running out of air. However, as this skill is hard to learn than AS usage, more time was being spent teaching it and then behold, in an emergency situation what tended to happen was that divers resorted to this muscle memory or over-learnt skill of buddy breathing as an immediate reaction rather than the correct action of going to an AS which is far less risky than buddy breathing. I've seen similar issues where a diver has purchased a pony cylinder for extra safety. However, when I've sprung an OOA drill on them, they immediately located and used my AS rather than use their own pony! So funnily enough they though they were reducing the risk of themselves not being able to breath but ended up reducing the risks for their buddy!

One more real example I have 1st hand experience of. This is not a 'this happened to someone else and i heard it on the grape vine' this is a first had known account of an accident. Basically a diver carried a pony as well as a 12ltr main cylinder. In short he died through drowning as he mistakenly put this pony reg in his mouth and rolled off the boat. He ran out of air during the dive, no surprise. So he removed his reg and then located his pony reg, only to find it didn't give him gas. Uncontrolled ascent to the surface resulted in his demise. His main cyl was found still to be full on examination. There were a lot more factors that contributed to this but, if he hadn't had a pony and a 12ltr cyl but had a 15ltr instead, it would not have happened. More complication and more kit is not always the answer.
 
#16 ·
Yes i agree with you. Sorry, I didn't mean we should take more kit with us. That is, or can be, confusing or simply unnecessary.

But i felt you were hinting at standardisation for a moment. Everyone having the same kit. And then i'm wondering what you might think if a 'dir' rig (just to keep explanation short, typing on phone etc) should become more standard, and to teach in as well and learn in.

For sure, theres always a risk, but i think we can somewhat reduce it simply by diving a more robust rig, like long hose, bp, dir etc. (obviously with required training and understanding). Whether it's felt there's a need? I personally feel that in some instances a more robust rig may have at least improved the odds in some accidents.
 
#18 ·
Naa, I'm putting both sides of the fence :)

There are arguments for and against just about everything in diving!

What I really hate is when someone says "It must be done this way" or "only XYZ kit can be used because it is the only right kit to use". I don't have a problem at all with best practice or frameworks and fully believe these are most useful. My other peeve is that we don't educate in risk or risk mitigation enough. We need to explain not just the what but the why. Divers should not be sheep, but think and challenge. We do need a sound starting point though, in my opinion with good reasoned alternatives.

We see it all the time, organisations and people hate things that are 'different' or are a change and are slow to adapt, dive organisations are no different:-

examples

BSAC88 tables rather than Navy tables
Jacket BCDs when they came out.
wings
Dive computers
Nitrox ( probably my favourite example with BSAC totally banning it's use within clubs as it was dangerous with no benefit ).
accelerate decompression techniques
Trimix
CCRs ( just read some of the arguments over which CCR is 'best'! )
Recreational CCRs

If we just did what we are told and used specified kit then innovation and development suffers and safety doesn't have the opportunity to improve either.
 
#20 ·
Sure, standardisation has a place in recreational diving. "Recreational" being anyone diving for recreation, including all them fancy pants "tec" divers :)

But when considering the diving accidents that are harming recreational divers I'm not seeing how strandardised kit would prevent them. Standardised training and skills level sounds good. Everyone singing from the same hymn sheet and all that.

But just because a stroke is wearing the same kit as everyone else on the boat doesn't make him (her) safer. He (she) will still dive beyond their ability etc..

That's what's hurting people.

Looking at something like GUE. The benefit of their system isn't standardised kit. It's standardise training and skills. Plus, anyone subscribing to that type of thing obviously takes their diving seriously and has a considerable level of spatial and situational awareness (not that these are exclusive to fancy club members!).

It's not standardisition of kit that make GUE a good system it's their entry and onward qualification criteria that filter out the liabilities!! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Garspeed
#23 ·
99% of the worlds divers use a jacket BC, reg with bog standard octopus and wetsuit - that's pretty much standard "recreational" kit and is perfectly adequate for the diving they do. Anyone who wants to advance should be able to evolve their kit as their diving changes.

GUE training is good but if that was the minimum standard, 90% of divers wouldn't bother - the vast majority want to be able to look at pretty fish on holiday for a couple of years before they move on to the next hobby.
 
#21 · (Edited)
now you're on the right track. I started diving with BSAC in 1982 and have seen a lot of training schemes and systems come and go in the intervening years. once upon a time BSAC divers were considered some of the best trained divers in the world, however things don't stand still and equipment and knowledge has progressed and diving moves on, but one thing that fundamentally changed was the mindset and spirit of the BSAC training scheme. the training scheme used to weed out people who 'couldn't hack it' quite early on and develop thinking divers, then along came the woolly family friendly, everyones a winner, risk averse, diving for all bollocks and TBH the training scheme became a bit of a joke at the higher levels. mediocrity came to be seen as acceptable and providing 'formative feedback' seemed to be frowned upon. BSAC now appears to be more cub scout/brownies mentality than weed out the unsuitable and develop the best mentality. the result is that BSAC training has come to be seen in some circles as inferior and less 'cool' than some of the other newer agencies with their 'new and improved' train hard dive easy ethos.

However that not withstanding you'll find that many BSAC divers are still pretty damn good compared to the average warm water diver and some are head and shoulders over some other divers from 'cooler' agencies. However agency bashing is pointless, it's not the agency that matters it's the individual diver's ability to think and act that seperates good divers from mediocre divers.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top