Primary donation

[DCBC]

Why would you not breath off the BC inflator? This is a viable Plan C even for standard inflators

I don't think I would attempt to do this at depth (although I suppose it would depend upon the situation) as I have had some blow-back of water from the BC and would run the risk of aspiration. If an individual was comfortable with the procedure, it would be a viable option, but to be comfortable you have to practice and because of the molds that tend to grow in the BC bladder, practicing may not be the healthiest thing to be doing.

I am a strong supporter of CESA and practice it on most dives. If I have one breath of air, I'm good to go to the surface or the decompression stop where there's gas waiting. It is however a last resort. I would much rather CESA than be holding my breath and fight over one functioning regulator.

 

[DCBC]

This whole CESA thing just doesn't scale to deeper or overhead diving. Nor does donate an "octo". If you're going to eventually get into overhead diving, it's smart to practice how you'll play. If those protocols work at 250' deep, 3000' back in a cave, they're going to work just fine on a 40' reef.

Yes, but the majority of divers diving at 40' on a reef are not either trained, or equipped for technical diving. Different animal....

 

[Rainer]

Again, the point is, CESA just doesn't scale. At certain depths, even in the recreational range, most people just aren't going to make the surface alive. It's much, much smarter to teach and practice solving problems IN the water AT depth. That strategy will scale from 40' reefs to 400' deep dives.

I am a strong supporter of CESA and practice it on most dives.

 

[Rainer]

But for most divers, standard hoses and a jacket BC, etc are used without issues.

Your whole point of "lots of people use <insert gear choice> without problem" is also based on the reality that most people just aren't going to ever experience problems underwater. For the most part, modern SCUBA gear is remarkably reliable. If/when things do go south, however, is when more optimal gear choices, experience, and practice all come to the fore.

 

[DCBC]

Again, the point is, CESA just doesn't scale. At certain depths, even in the recreational range, most people just aren't going to make the surface alive. It's much, much smarter to teach and practice solving problems IN the water AT depth. That strategy will scale from 40' reefs to 400' deep dives.

I don't know what you mean "CESA just doesn't scale." I train beginner divers to do a successful 50' CESA and 100' for advanced. The greatest majority of diving today is above 100', it scales as far as I'm concerned.

Obviously when you're diving trimix/heliox with double or triple redundancy, or an overhead environment, CESA is a non-issue, but again this is applicable to the few not the majority. Recreational diving training agencies are training the average guy to dive above 100'.

Your statement that "most people just aren't going to make the surface alive" has its merits, however this is due to the low training standard and fitness requirement of a student to successfully meet the minimum training standard for certification. Obviously if the diver can't do a CESA from 30' the question remains if he should be diving that deeply without redundancy. Each diver must of course make up their own mind, but the CESA principle is sound. I firmly believe in the merits of buddy breathing as well, regardless of how it's taught.

As to your statement "It's much, much smarter to teach and practice solving problems IN the water AT depth." I believe that it's not an either/or thing. Students should be practiced in problem solving, but sometimes that's not enough. Having another option to choose from is seldom a bad thing.

 

[Rainer]

Your post misses the obvious fact that all choices are not equal. Learning to deal with an OOG scenario in a solid dive team is better than performing a CESA. I firmly believe that, and so do the agencies that taught me to dive, as well as all those I dive with.

I see absolutely no need to practice a "skill" that doesn't work for much of the diving I do (deep/overhead/etc). I'd rather work on team skills that scale to any depth.

I don't know what you mean "CESA just doesn't scale." I train beginner divers to do a successful 50' CESA and 100' for advanced. The greatest majority of diving today is above 100', it scales as far as I'm concerned.

Obviously when you're diving trimix/heliox with double or triple redundancy, or an overhead environment, CESA is a non-issue, but again this is applicable to the few not the majority. Recreational diving training agencies are training the average guy to dive above 100'.

Your statement that "most people just aren't going to make the surface alive" has its merits, however this is due to the low training standard and fitness requirement of a student to successfully meet the minimum training standard for certification. Obviously if the diver can't do a CESA from 30' the question remains if he should be diving that deeply without redundancy. Each diver must of course make up their own mind, but the CESA principle is sound. I firmly believe in the merits of buddy breathing as well, regardless of how it's taught.

As to your statement "It's much, much smarter to teach and practice solving problems IN the water AT depth." I believe that it's not an either/or thing. Students should be practiced in problem solving, but sometimes that's not enough. Having another option to choose from is seldom a bad thing.

 

[JeffG]

Your post misses the obvious fact that all choices are not equal. Learning to deal with an OOG scenario in a solid dive team is better than performing a CESA. I firmly believe that, and so do the agencies that taught me to dive, as well as all those I dive with.

I see absolutely no need to practice a "skill" that doesn't work for much of the diving I do (deep/overhead/etc). I'd rather work on team skills that scale to any depth.

Yea...but he has been a technical dive instructor before Jesus was even born (I don't think he has mentioned that in his last few posts, so I'll help him out here). Plus he is a big macho stud. 100 cesa..no problemo. Heck I bet he can even do 1000ft.

 

[Rainer]

Air sharing isn't "macho" enough for him.

Yea...but he has been a technical dive instructor before Jesus was even born (I don't think he has mentioned that in his last few posts, so I'll help him out here). Plus he is a big macho stud. 100 cesa..no problemo. Heck I bet he can even do 1000ft.

 

[DCBC]

Your post misses the obvious fact that all choices are not equal. Learning to deal with an OOG scenario in a solid dive team is better than performing a CESA. I firmly believe that, and so do the agencies that taught me to dive, as well as all those I dive with.

I see absolutely no need to practice a "skill" that doesn't work for much of the diving I do (deep/overhead/etc). I'd rather work on team skills that scale to any depth.

You're singing to the choir, but those agencies have changed over the years. So you don't misunderstand me, a good number of certification agencies don't seem to believe in the team approach:

1. They are certifying divers that are not competent to dive unsupervised.
2. They are certifying divers not competent to act as a valued member of a buddy team i.e. removing the necessity to be able to buddy breath, as well as the non-inclusion of basic rescue skills.
3. They compensate by including a DM, which may have no one competent to rescue him if he gets into trouble (nor is anyone assigned to).

If anything, they undermine diver dependency and I think this is a shame. We are of course free to encourage new divers to learn how to buddy-breath, increase their ability in rescue, to get involved in team diving, but some agencies are teaching CESA as a viable method of self-rescue. It may not be beneficial to just ignore this fact.

 

[DCBC]

Yea...but he has been a technical dive instructor before Jesus was even born ...

Is this a hint to remove you from my friends list? :mooner: