but how often do you swim on your back without the need to turn
Very often. Just pick a transit on shore and keep that lined up.
and either swim face down or to check to see where you are on a long surface swim?
So just roll over, hold breathe, have a look with reg in then revert to back if not far enough. Assuming you can see the bottom at all.
Why would you be doing stupidly long surface swims anyway - find a boat or more suitable site!
It is inevitable that one has to turn around and swim face down and thus needing to use their snorkel on long surface swims to avoid going off course.
No its not. Use shore transits, roll and look, revert to back. Its not inevitable at all if you're competent.
It is almost always that divers swimming on their backs get off course by considerable distance when they are trying to swim back to the boat or shore (exit point).
Really? I assume you have statistics to prove this most-likely invented "fact" ? I can counter by saying ive seen a large number of people completely miss the rock they were aiming for by insisting on swimming face down and in the water completely missing drift. Navigation is not a valid reason.
When these divers are off course they will unnecessarily spend more energy to correct their course than they had to if they used their snorkel and swam face down.
You're inventing a link between a snorkel and navigation that doesn't actually exist. Try again.
I personally swim face down with snorkel when doing any type of surface swim but switch to on-back just to alternate find kicks or when tired but then go back to face down swimming position. Having a snorkel in this scenario is obviously of great value and it would add to the comfort and safety of the diver.
Again rubbish. Give one DECENT reason as to why not having a snorkel is dangerous. Snorkels are NOT safety devices. I do 100% of swims on my back chatting to buddy. I don't get lost on surface swims and ive never died from it.
As to swimming on the surface using the regulator SS, I dont know why on earth would anyone do that considering that the air in the tank is finite and would not last that long compared with the free air all around us on the surface.
Have you any idea how low consumption rates are at the surface? Actually, no. Clearly you don't. You also seem to forget than if the swell is more than 8 inches that overpriced plastic snag hazard on your mask wont help at all and you'll HAVE to use the regulator.
I think that it is poor planning and very irresponsible Gas Management to waste air from tank on the surface before going U/W with the abundance of the free air around us.
No. Poor planning is attempting a long surface swim in conditions which aren't suitable and relying on a device which is useless in the conditions to do so.
People are going all crazy with the various types of redundancies in their air supply they carry on their backs, sides, etc. only to waste it on the surface where dont really need to use it!!
Again demonstrating a massive misunderstanding for surface consumption rates. Also a misunderstanding about gas management and what redundant gas planning actually means.
I am not sure that I understand this scenario or what a shot line is in this context. If this person is that quick to panic to shoot up to the surface and not have the presence of mind to think through their situation calmly and rationally, you shouldnt have taken them that deep anyways (did they have a Master Diver Card on them?
).
Yes because every recreational diver is completely calm when their mask is suddenly ripped from their face in the dark and freezing cold water knocks the wind out of them at the same time. Welcome to the real world, most recreational divers panic when their mask is suddenly ripped and cold water punches them in the newly exposed face.
Given the above though im guessing you dont do much real world diving.
Depth is irrelevant. This is a standard recreational dive site and a popular one (and wasn't with me - if he was i wouldnt have allowed him to dive with it). If they hold and bolt from 4m they're just as dead as 40m.
Why would they pull on anything to free from Kelp? Wasnt the diver able to use his hand to free the snorkel from Kelp?
Because it sticks out into the water. The same as anything else gets tangled. This isn't nuclear physics here. You can only use your hands IF you know its caught and IF you can feel it to untangle it. Try that with 7mm gloves or 3 finger mitts with no tactile sensation at all. First you normally know is turning head around and finding mask goes. Again, real world.
In addition, wouldnt it been possible that the Kelp would have gotten caught on another piece of equipment such as tank valve, knife, etc.
Knife no unless you're a complete retard and wear it on your thigh. Tank valve yes it COULD but less of a change (not using dinosaur a-clamp helps). Also unlike a snorkel you NEED a tank to go diving so have to accept the risk of that. You dont need a snorkel as it provides no benefit so why increase the risk for no gain?
[quote I see that the issue here is not the snorkel but more in terms of the divers skills and training. We cant blame it on the snorkel.[/quote]
Why increase the chances of an incident for no benefit? Why put yourself in a position where you have to go into problem solving mode for no reason at all? People using and relying on snorkels are generally using it as a crutch to make up for poor skills in terms of dive planning and actual dive conduct.
Dont we teach our students to that if they or their equipment are ever caught on any type of line or marine life U/W, they should, Stop, Think and then react and take appropriate action??
Again real world experience seems to be lacking. Yes you stop think, act if you KNOW you're tangled. That relies on you KNOWING. If the idiotic bit of plastic is snagged with no drag and then suddenly rips mask off when you turn your head pulling it taut you'll get no notice.
We also teach students not to run out of air, not to crash into the bottom, to be comfortable without a mask and proper dive planning. In the real world with real divers they do run out of air, they do crash into the bottom, they hate taking their mask off and have no concept of planning. Theory is great but it only works in the class room not in the real world with real people.
I tell my students that it is one of the worst things to keep pulling or fighting on any piece of equipment that is caught (or perceived to be caught) under water. We teach them that they should proceed slowly and cautiously to free themselves as not to make it worse or compound the problem.
Again that's great if you know you're caught, if you can reach and if you can feel. Often none of that is the case.
I am not sure of what you mean by the in and out of a current statement. There many factors that would lead a mask to leak including hair and/or hood under the skirt of the mask, strong current pushing on the side of the mask, etc.
Yes there are but again you HAVE to wear a mask, you HAVE to wear a hood and you aren't going to get hair shaved off. The hood and mask are essential parts of dive gear. They play a vital role in the dive. A snorkel provides no benefit so why increase the risk and effect of current for no benefit? Snorkels are also bigger per area and due to the pivot point on the strap cause leaks far far more easily and in smaller currents.
They can all be handled as long as the diver is calm and reasonable in their reaction to these inconveniences. With proper training and experience, they can all be handled without any adverse effects.
Yes. And in the real world divers generally aren't as calm, trained or experienced as people would like. Again though, why increase risk for no gain. I could if i wanted carry a big nest of barbed wire with me on the dive. Chances are it'd get snagged on something, chances are i could get it free if i tried. The question is why would i want to carry it? It confers no benefit to me and just increases the inconvenience and risk. A snorkel is the same.
If the diver still cant handle them and/or is prone to panic, then there are more underlying serious issues with their training that should be addressed before we blame it all on one piece of equipment or another.
Yes but welcome to the real world. Divers aren't text book perfect. And why increase the chances of them doing something wrong for no reason?
If a person is dumb enough and cant tell his snorkel from his BC LPI or anything else, they shouldnt be diving IMO.
Yes. but they do it in the real world.
One should, again, look at their training and at the standards of the agency that let them go in open water without the proper familiarization of their equipment.
Unless you're going to single handedly retrain all the worlds divers and introduce mandatory 3 or 6 monthly skill assessments to make sure they stay current that isn't going to happen. Again, theory is nice, real world is different.
These types of mistakes only indicate that the person in question did not have enough time in their course to become thoroughly familiar with their equipment and/or gain the proper skin and scuba skills. Snorkels have nothing to do with that.
If the snorkel wasnt there it couldnt have happened. Im not going to glue reindeer antlers to my hood for the same reason - they increase the chance of something happen and i dont gain anything from doing so.
You can also argue that the BC LPI is bad since divers confuse it with the snorkel, cant you?
No you can't. An LPI is a primary part of dive gear. They NEED it to safely perform the dive. They don't need a snorkel.
I suppose that your argument and most others that do not advocate the use of the snorkel are largely due to the fact that in some agencys training standards skin diving skill
Free diving is fine if you want to go free diving. But once you strap diving gear on it has absolutely no use at all. I enjoy playing squash, i enjoy rugby. Both are sports. But i dont take a squash raquet to play rugby.
As a NAUI instructor, I am fortunate to be able to teach all of the requisite and proper skills to train diver who are able to handle themselves and their equipment safely.
Yes and every instructor says that. Agency is irrelevant. They ALL allow you to train a diver to mastery of the skills. Be that PADI, SSAC, BSAC, NAUI or anyone else. Agency has nothing to do with it. And in the real world you're going to come across divers who aren't trained by you, who did fast track courses, who havent dived for 6 years, who arent comfortable or confident in the water when things go wrong.
In fact, since I teach the proper use of snorkel in the confine water part of the course prior to open water training, my students have gone through most of the issues that can face them with snorkel use
I teach it too. The standards say i have to. I also teach them proper use of a snorkel when diving and that proper use is stuffed in the pocket where it cant interfere with the dive or cause problems.
The rest of it just sounds like an advert for you so not going to bother quoting it. There is a wider world full of divers outside 1 instructor in 1 pool convinced he's doing it right.
