why hate safety devices?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Back in the 80's the auto industry tried digital instrument panels but got push back from buyers. Besides the unconventional look they required a conscious effort to read the numbers instead of a quick scan that the needles of conventional gauges were all in the normal position.
I like a analog SPG and depth gauge for the same reason. The best dive computer display is the original Edge that came out in 1984. It has an easy to scan bar graft display that doesn't require reading numbers.
Despite the size of the package I still often use an EDGE.
I remember back in the early '70s listening to a bunch of hard core divers complaining that these new buoyancy devices were only good for those guys who couldn't figure out how to properly set their weights. You know, that they replaced a skill that everyone should know.
While times have changed, the basic truth of their statement remains.
... and so how many divers today do you think would be able to dive without a BCD? I'd guess not many ... in which case the BCD did, in fact, replace the skill ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
Yup.
For some, I am sure that that is the case - proper weighting skills became less relevant.

However, for many who dive in cold water with a wetsuit, a BCD is necessary for you to complete dives according to modern basic OW training. Back in the day, you weighted yourself to be neutral at your operating depth and kicked hard to get down. In cold water, this was a reasonable effort. At the end of a dive you simply rose back to the surface - no three-minute safety stop. Now, perhaps (I don't know) it is possible to weight yourself to be neutral at depth in warm water in a thin wetsuit and, at the end of your dive, comfortably kick downwards (to offset suit buoyancy and your consumed air) to maintain a depth of 15 feet for three minutes.
The real question has. However, I am certain that this cannot be done with a thick wetsuit to do with the origin and utility of maintain a depth of 15 feet for three minutes ... which (if you look back at previous threads you will discover) was a technique developed to compensate for divers' lack of good ascent technique (esp. when shallow) and lack of ascent rate control. If you make a good, slow, ascent, safety stops are irrelevant.
What skill?? What about regulator? What skill did it replace? We sure don't need fins. We can swim just as well with our own feet.

Give me a freaking break. God forbid we use innovation, technology or new knowledge to our advantage. Let's all go back to our caves and stay there. You can argue about every possible new tool or piece of technology that it replaces skill and thus we should just throw it away. Tell physicians to stop using their X-rays, MRI's and the like since they need to go back to using their skills.

Enough is enough. You can argue that fins are also not reliable as well and thus let's stop using them or carrying a spare on us while diving.
Commander, I believe in innovation that serves. In the 1960s I replaced my Mae West with one of the first FENZYs. It seemed like a good idea. But I found that the best thing was the surface support since I rarely, if ever, put any air in it when submerged, but ... as you know ... I still dive the FENZY much of the time, because it is the best surface support platform that I can wear.
When in Hawaii I found that many locals preferred the more traditional (in Hawaii) free-diving+fishing to scuba. I don't know - perhaps the purists eschew fins and a wetsuit too. :)
No, we wear fins and a wetsuit.
The skill Bob is talking about is proper buoyancy control. A diver who practices good buoyancy control can enter the water, dive to the desired depth, conduct his dive, and return to the surface without needing to use his BC. With this level of skill, the BC becomes an aid and not a necessity.

Fins, mask, snorkel, regulator, depth gauge and watch are the necessities of SCUBA. Virtually everything else is an aid. If one has mastered the basic skills of SCUBA using the necessities, then the failure of one of the aids does not constitute a catastrophic occurrence.

No one here has said anything about ignoring technological advances. The point being made is that these advances should not replace the basic skills for which they are intended as aids.
Aid, not necessity ... well put.
Not necessarily. If he's wearing a thick wetsuit it'll likely compress so much he'll have to use air in his BCD at the bottom.
No, if you select your rubber, and do not use the super stretch crap, compression is not outlandish ... you can weight for the depth that you dive and a flared ascent will keep you in good control.
Not a good comparison ... people dived for decades without the use of a BCD. The same cannot be said for regulator and fins.

I think it fair to state that without a BCD, most divers today would have to begin learning buoyancy control all over again ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
Yup.
How on earth would you have "good buoyancy" control without the BC? Isn't that impossible by definition? Aren't you defying the laws of physics especially if you are wearing a wet/dry suit?

We are all for good skills and proper "watermanship" knowledge and training but we all have to resort to technology to make up for our deficiencies as humans in all aspects of modern life and not just in diving.
Proper suit and weight selection combined with breathing cycle control goes a long, long, way.
When diving wearing a wetsuit U/W without a BC you are not able to control you buoyancy if you are changing depth. If you want to stay at one depth for the entire dive and not come up or go down it maybe possible.

Now to say that people have done it in the past without needing BC's, sure. People have done lots of things without the conveniences of modern technology but it either wasn't safe to do so, not convenient or they got away with it with luck.

I started to dive in Libya with no BC at all in the early 70's. I only had the tank strapped to my back for years until I got hold of the Fenzy. I survived it but it wasn't fun or safe or convenient.

Dr. Wu,

I suppose you live in a different universe. It is easy to say "nope" when you ignore basic physics and common sense.

What did you use the "Clorox bottle" for?
Clorox bottles were used by early cave divers as "BCs." I still find diving iwth my FENZY to be fun, safe and convenient ... more so since I moved to Hawaii and wear a thinner suit.
OK. Suppose you're wearing a 7mm wetsuit because of the temperature, and you want to make a dive to 100ft. Tell me how you can wear enough weight to allow you to descend and yet be neutrally buoyant at 100ft without any form of adjustable buoyancy.
Surface dive down, make your dive, flair on ascent while minimizing lung volume... rather easy.
Pass me some please.
One bag, maybe two, never three.:D
 
I, and countless others like me, dived for decades without BCs or many other modern conveniences. Yes, it was fun. Yes, it was safe. We had the training to handle it. And we did not think it inconvenient at all. We were too busy having fun and enjoying our diving to worry about it.

Just because one person does not know how to do a particular thing, does not mean that thing cannot be done by someone else who does have the skill.

You can't do it in a 7mm suit to modern day basic OW standards - the 3 minute safety at 15 feet is impractical, if not impossible, unless you "cheat" by leaving some weights on an ascent line (to attach as you ascend) or leave some on the bottom near your exit.

Edit: Thal pointed out that a three-minute safety is a work-around for poor ascent profiles. Regardless of whether this is true or not (and I believe that it is true), PADI, NAUI, etc., teach that the safety stop should not be omitted save for urgent situations. Divers can practice whatever they wish to practice. However, you can't teach the standard omission of the three-minute safety to basic OW divers. This thread is in Basic Scuba Discussions.
 
You can't do it in a 7mm suit to modern day basic OW standards - the 3 minute safety at 15 feet is impractical, if not impossible, unless you "cheat" by leaving some weights on an ascent line (to attach as you ascend) or leave some on the bottom near your exit.

The safety stops are not mandatory. It's a recommendation. I still haven't gotten into the habit of doing them. Probably never will. And why would leaving weights on a line be cheating? Wouldn't that fall into the category of "aids to diving" like the BC?

Would hanging deco tanks on a line, then, also be cheating?

The BC itself can be, and often is, used as a cheat. But what happens if it suddenly decides it needs a new (non-closing) dump valve at depth? Where is your buoyancy control then?

The point some of us here are trying to make is that a BC should be used as a convenience, an aid to diving, and not as a crutch to compensate for missing knowledge and skill.

It is true that modern training techniques rely heavily on technology to crank out the most divers possible on an assembly line in the shortest possible time. If a diver is happy diving in this manner, fine. That is his right. But for those who desire a greater mastery of the art and science of SCUBA, the old skills are still there, waiting to be learned.

I know of at least two instructors who do not teach the safety stop as a mandatory exercise. They present it as an option but focus on teaching proper ascent technique.
 
if you select your rubber, and do not use the super stretch crap, compression is not outlandish ... you can weight for the depth that you dive and a flared ascent will keep you in good control

Since it is the air that gives the insulation, not the rubber, it is quite easy to visualise a situation in which a low-compression suit would not provide enough insulation.

Surface dive down, make your dive, flair on ascent while minimizing lung volume... rather easy

Rather easy? I rather doubt that, unless you're prepared to freeze down there. Which is of course what many of the early divers did. I did at that time. They were prepared to put up with incredible discomfort and danger to indulge in their sport. Nowadays most people see the sport as a recreation, not a macho quasi-military exercise.

There is also the point that it isn't just because of an optional safety stop that you might want to be able to maintain neutral buoyancy near the surface. If you're in an area of high boat traffic you need to be able to judge when to pop up quite accurately, and an ability to maintain position can be crucial.
 
P10100166.JPG



And perhaps some undergarments?

And skill.
 
Paladin954,

If you are saying that you chose not to use a BC, you certainly have the right to use or not use any piece of gear. If you are insisting that the non-use of the BC is the better or safer way of diving, then you are way off and wrong.

It still takes a skill to use the BC and it is more convenient, safer and makes diving a lot more enjoyable.

BTW, don't military divers in modern navies still use a BC device of some sorts?
 
Paladin954,

If you are saying that you chose not to use a BC, you certainly have the right to use or not use any piece of gear. If you are insisting that the non-use of the BC is the better or safer way of diving, then you are way off and wrong.

It still takes a skill to use the BC and it is more convenient, safer and makes diving a lot more enjoyable.

BTW, don't military divers in modern navies still use a BC device of some sorts?

You don't understand what I'm saying. Use the BC as an aid to diving, a convenience, but learn proper buoyancy control so that the BC remains an aid and not a necessity. Use the BC (and other innovations) in addition to, but not as a replacement for, good diving skills.

I happen to have three BCs. I have a jacket, a wing and a horse collar. I do wear them most of the time when I dive, though I rarely put any air in them underwater. I also enjoy the freedom of diving with my DA Aqua-Master double hose and no BC.

The argument as to whether a BC makes diving safer or not will probably never be settled. Divers are an opinionated bunch. But, diving with one while possessing the skills and ability to dive without it would make one a better and safer diver, would it not?
 

Back
Top Bottom