Is safe second really needed?

[muddiver]

(Edit for clarity) If you are diving around a bunch of strangers of unknown training and skill levels, you are being a better emergency buddy to them if you have a reg to donate, and if that reg is in one of the places they have likely been trained to look for it. (eg, snatch it from the PADI triangle, or you donate your primary and use a necklaced or inflator-integrated backup.)

You aren't obligated to think about how to be a better buddy to a pack of strangers, but it's the decent thing to do.

That was my point. But, some people seem to think that a regulator slung around ones neck on an extreamly long hose is the norm in the diving community.

Other than one diver (a SCUBA board regular) and SCUBA board, I have never seen the long hose set-up in use other than for deep cave penitration or wreck diving.

Back to the original question, IMHO (ooo I used a blogger acronym) the safe-second/octo is just a convenient method of sharing air to help a second diver to the surface. It is not a necessary item of equipment that can be replaced with a number of other techniques.

 

[Thalassamania]

Yes MD, the answer to the OP, "Is safe second really needed?" is simple: "no."

 

[pittyyofool]

if some of the fellows coming out of Whidbey Island Naval Air Station and Fort Lewis are anything to go by, military trained divers really don't transition well into decent civilian dive buddies ... it's simply not what they were trained for ...

One of my dads friends is an EX Navy Seal. He is an @ss hole to some people (dept. of fish and gain) but other wise he is a nice guy, just don't question his logic. He comes with us to our yearly week long lobster trip. He is a great diver and excellent hunter. I have learned allot from Steve like the "same day same ocean, I have a buddy somewhere" rule. Another amazing thing about this guy is he, just knows where everyone in the group is under water at all times. If navy divers posses this super human skill. (I don't know if they all do.) Do they need to "fit in" and stay near there buddy?

Now you're just being obtuse.

Do you honestly think that learning the physics of diving is all there is to it?

aren't the physics the base that the skill was developed to compensate for.

And do you believe that all divers should dive doubles with no BC or safe-second?

no but it is possible.

Yes ... the ground rules are completely different.

Ask yourself how much it costs ... in terms of money, resources and time ... to train a Navy diver?

the navy also has $1000 toilet seats in an outhouse. You can't compare government cash to civilian cash.

What is the purpose (mission) of that training?

to stay alive and complete your task safely with out incident, for you or your team. Nobody likes to fill out incident reports.

What is the focus?

same as above

What is the average age and physical condition of the typical Navy dive student?

most likely 18-25 and in great shape. What does that have to do with ones capability to learn and do a basic skill. Brain power is not greatly effected with aging or fatness.
where the young great physical shape helps is in lower nitrogen absorbtion because nitrogen loves fat cells.

How much of that training is relevent to civilian vacation diving?

everything that is non-combat orientated.

Yes ... the ground rules are completely different.

really?

 

[Nemrod]

Captain wrote Well Captain, I think I qualify as one who IS able to judge by this standard -- at least how today's training compares to what I had 40+ years ago.

Disclaimer -- I have a very small database from which to comment -- I only took one Scuba class 43 years ago at my University. I heard about my dad's NAUI class. I only have been involved with a few classes the past 4 years -- PADI, NAUI, UTD, GUE, TDI and only a few instructors. I am NOT the expert that Thal is for example. This is just from my personal experience.

What was "better" 40 years ago -- "Watermanship" training -- especially the time spent on learning "The Art of Skin...Diving" which was used as a precursor to "The Art of...Scuba Diving." As a result of spending 4 weeks (as I recall) working on our skin diving skills, the mask skills that cause so much trouble with new divers was bypassed.

I honestly don't remember much, if anything, being "taught" about "buoyancy control" but since we had nothing to control our buoyancy except our lungs there probably wasn't all that much to be taught. In the pool you were more-or-less neutral anyway so it wasn't a big deal -- swim down, swim up -- don't hold your breath on the way up.

I definitely wasn't taught anything about "protecting the environment" while diving -- to the contrary, picking coral, collecting shells, grabbing turtles was part of what we did.

And I really could go on.

This is NOT to say that the current OW/AOW classes wouldn't create more competent divers if the instructors actually took the time to establish "mastery" of the basic skills in addition to really working on trim and buoyancy. But, at least in my experience, there is a lot more to learn to be a competent diver today than there was 40 years ago.

I can't help but think that some people may be looking at "The Golden Age" through some foggy lenses.

Also a continuously active diver for 43 years here and I WAS taught buoyancy skills among many other things no longer taught and the rest I picked up along the way, don't need an instructor anymore, don't have a LDS, don't wanna be a DM. Did they teach you to cinch that waist strap down, lol, ? It is OK to learn from the school of experience and hard knocks.


N

 

[DaleC]

That was my point. But, some people seem to think that a regulator slung around ones neck on an extreamly long hose is the norm in the diving community. Other than one diver (a SCUBA board regular) and SCUBA board, I have never seen the long hose set-up in use other than for deep cave penitration or wreck diving.

One big point that is usually missed in most discussions is the geographic origin of the poster. In the PNW/W.C. some divers take a more technical approach to recreational diving as they have to contend with the temps, current and low vis. Of four regular buddies I have, three of us use the longhose config. (and none of us are tech divers), 2 use canlights and all have redundant air sources.
It would also go a long way to explain why northern divers are less "enthused" by a minimalist rig. To us it is just not applicable. The closest one could come to minimalist reasonably would be a Hogarthian rig.

I have learned allot from Steve like the "same day same ocean, I have a buddy somewhere" rule. Another amazing thing about this guy is he, just knows where everyone in the group is under water at all times.

Again, geography is everything. In clear vis maybe one can guestimate where everyone is but in our vis one long blink and you could/would be unintentionally solo. That's the reason we can't dive your way. We want to carry big lights (better buddy contact), redundant air sources (so we don't have to ESA into ripping currents or boat traffic) etc...

I never have.

I think attitude is everything Captain. I originally posted harshly here because it sounded like an ego trip more than an equipment discussion. If one enjoys diving their rig of choice, conveys their enthusiasm to others in a positive way and doesn't "rub it in their faces" there really isn't much of a problem. Most people are curious but unsure as the rig goes against what they've be taught is safe (just like soloing). Be polite, take the time to educate others and most people will respond positively. It doesn't matter if it's a vintage, minimalist, HOG or DIR rig.

 

[Slonda828]

I can agree with that 100%. I am concerned for other divers, not the OP and his buddy. Rightly or not, other divers will have expectations about their gear--and then there is the skill issue. "Do it better" is not a contingency plan.

If they are off on their own, good for them. With anyone else sharing the site, it's reckless. We all have a responsibility to be a good buddy to anyone who needs us.

You sound like Iceman from Topgun.

 

[Slonda828]

and because like any other military personnel, a certain percentage of casualties are considered "acceptable".
(Grateful Diver)

My God man, were you ever in the military? I don't know what books you've read, but I was an officer in the military and I can tell you from experience that there is no such thing as "acceptable" when it comes to casualties. Maybe the news tells you that, but I sure as hell never felt that way about my men. I do not speak for the entire military, but I did not know any leader who was willing to accept a fellow serviceman's death. You should be careful what you say, there are quite a few of us around this board, and I for one do not take kindly to things like what you said.

 

[captain]

My God man, were you ever in the military? I don't know what books you've read, but I was an officer in the military and I can tell you from experience that there is no such thing as "acceptable" when it comes to casualties. Maybe the news tells you that, but I sure as hell never felt that way about my men. I do not speak for the entire military, but I did not know any leader who was willing to accept a fellow serviceman's death. You should be careful what you say, there are quite a few of us around this board, and I for one do not take kindly to things like what you said.

Knowing that casualties will most likely occur is entirely different than saying they are acceptable. We know people will be killed in auto accidents but that knowledge does not make it acceptable.
If you be so cold as to just put a monetary value on a soldier's training cost and time then losing that money and time to a casualty is unacceptable.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

My God man, were you ever in the military? I don't know what books you've read, but I was an officer in the military and I can tell you from experience that there is no such thing as "acceptable" when it comes to casualties. Maybe the news tells you that, but I sure as hell never felt that way about my men. I do not speak for the entire military, but I did not know any leader who was willing to accept a fellow serviceman's death. You should be careful what you say, there are quite a few of us around this board, and I for one do not take kindly to things like what you said.

If you be so cold as to just put a monetary value on a soldier's training cost and time then losing that money and time to a casualty is unacceptable.

Now that is taking my statements just a bit too far out of context.

If I were to guess it would because they are subjected to "cost is no object" training ... the taxpayer pays for it ... their "mission" is different (they aren't training to go on vacation) ... they have direct access to an on-board hyperbaric chamber (making ESAs a lot more acceptable), and because like any other military personnel, a certain percentage of casualties are considered "acceptable".

There really isn't any point in comparing military training to civilian training ... the "ground rules" are just too different.

I was responding to someone who was comparing military scuba training with recreational training.

Would you agree, perhaps, that a soldier's scuba training is a bit more expensive than the typical recreational scuba diver is either willing or able to pay for?

Would you suggest that casualties are NOT part of typical military operations, or planning?

I think some of you guys are ... as previously noted ... just looking for a bar fight.

What say we stick to the topic, with a bit less of the "attacking the messenger" tactics?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Nemrod]

There are internet experts for sure, Captain is not one of them, owned his own shop, professionally skippered his own boat for hire, licensed skipper, been a diver all of his life, master mechanic, master diver by deeds, not by some series of boutique courses. At some point the dogma must bend to reality, there are those who are simply trying to point out that you can dive however you wish but in fact much of the equipment we use today is not really needed in all circumstances and a diver who chooses not to use all of the extra stuff is not dangerous or foolish, there is a different path for those who seek minimalism. If this challenges some divers, causes others to become angry and give "evil" stares etc, just take a Prozac and learn to deal with the fact that there are people who will never "conform" ever.

N