Sharing air to extend bottom time

[windapp]

Technically, you are not supposed to share air. Sharing air is a signal for an "out of air" situation on one of the diver's part, while at depth. This means you immediately start to head up to your safety stop, and lacking a safety stop, go ahead and surface. That's what all the classes teach.

I personally would skip the safety stop in an emergency air sharing situation or at least drastically shorten it, only using it as a chance to ensure a nice slow accent speed for the last 5 m.

 

[redacted]

Well, my first option if not within touching distance of my buddy, would of course be if I could swim to him/her and get air from there instead of going up..
But its two completely different things, really. If you share some air to "even out" the consumption or if youre already OUT OF AIR is quite different.

Yes, obviously two very different things:

One of them is not permitted by some dive professionals and the other is.

One is deemed to be safe and the other is deemed to be too risky.

....

 

[Peter Guy]

Andy, I don't recall (and I don't have the stomach to go back and reread all this drivel) you wrote that this was a dangerous practice, but SeaCobra did write

The reason it has been a deep dark secret is that in reality we all know that this is a bad, unsafe and inane practice.

"bad, unsale and inane?" To each is own.

Andy wrote

At the very most, I believe that using air-sharing in the context of prolonged periods during the regular course of a dive may place some divers in a position of task-loading, which may be detrimental to their overall stress level and ability to cope with any further negative stimulus. Does that make sense?

as if ANYONE has argued to the contrary. OF COURSE "some divers" may be placed "in a position of task-loading...." Gee, who'd of thunk that "some divers" can't handle this! Andy, this is a "straw man" arguement at its worst.

Andy, you wrote

The drill may not include an actual ascent - a consideration for the fluidity of the lesson - but the context is that it is simulating an ascent.

I think you know this is not true. There is NO mention of "simulating an ascent" in the PADI Tec Basic Distinctive Specialty (a D.S. for RECREATIONAL divers) and, of course, there are several instances where a diver may have a "gas emergency" necessitating air sharing that do NOT require ascent (for example, switching to a non-working reg or doing a valve drill and accidently turning off both valves). Here is the language -- where does it say an ascent is being simulated or otherwise planned?

Respond to a simulated out of gas emergency by signalling a team mate, switching to the teammate’s long hose second stage, then swimming 30 metres/100 feet using the long hose regulator and maintaining contact with the team mate.

I don't view this in the context of an ascent but within the context of an exit which is exactly the same actions as doing an air share specifically for the purpose of extending BT. In fact, I'd defy anyone to identify any thing different from doing this exercise and doing what Lynne and I have done.

And your last bit of straw man argument

Of course, that's not necessary for personal use - only if you want their legal support should a liability case ever be raised - having recommended that technique to student divers.

Who has "recommended that technique to student divers?"

Hey, I do a lot of things while diving that I do NOT "recommend" to student divers -- especially Open Water Divers. Among the many things I do that I specifically RECOMMEND that Open Water Divers NOT do are:

a. Take a camera diving;
b. Solo diving;
c. Deep diving;
d. Tri-mix diving;
e. Mandatory decompression diving;
f. Cave diving;
g. TEACHING scuba diving;
h. and on and on.

Just because I do do all this things doesn't mean I recommend them. Nor does the fact that I do them effect in any way I can identify my liability.

Andy, I get it you think this is wrong. What you don't seem to get is that it is truly an insignificant act.

 

[Tigerman]

Yes, obviously two very different things:

One of them is not permitted by some dive professionals and the other is.

One is deemed to be safe and the other is deemed to be too risky.

....

Well, I was more thinking along the lines of sharing air to even out the consumption means you HAVE air, while being out of air and considering a CESA kinda mean youve for some reason lost your supply of gas completely..

 

[Fish-R-Man]

One thing that I think that this thread brings out into the open is the whole concept of agency sanctioning of an individuals prefered methods of diving. If I look back at my own experience, I have to wonder how the different ways that I dove prior to any agency accepting the practice would have faired in this type of discussion. here are a few that come to mind:

1) Nitrox....
2) Solo diving
3) Deep air
4) Night diving
5) Cave diving
6) Wreck diving
7) Any number of other specialties that now cost money to be able to "legally" use

Divers that had been doing these types of dives way before they became main stream, developed the process before it was accepted by any agency and they became standard practice. Maybe the guys that are using the air share concept to extend their diving pleasure are just a wee bit ahead of the pack.....

 

[diverrex]

I'll at least admit that this thread has me open to the idea of sidemount. I can see the value in locations only offering 80s.

I don't feel air share always means you must immediately ascend. Depending on where you are in the water it may be safer to air share swimming horizontal awhile to your exit point.

I understand the idea that an agency must sanction an action for it to be taught. I don't buy that for all conditions and all circumstances every dive action needs to sanctioned by an agency. Sometimes there is a better or at least a preferable way for specific conditions.

I am okay with any operator making rules on how I'm supposed to dive while using them. It's my choice then if I want to continue to use that operator.

 

[windapp]

I don't feel air share always means you must immediately ascend. Depending on where you are in the water it may be safer to air share swimming horizontal awhile to your exit point.

I think when people are talking about immediately ascending, what they really mean is proceeding safely to the exit point. Obviously, you won't ascend out of a wreck, and if you are in strong current where the only way to get up close to the boat is to ascend a line, you are going to swim to the line first (depending on the amount of air available to be shared of course).

This actually brings up a good point. If you are in a situation where an air sharing could be extended by these kinds of circumstances, you want to be confident that your buddy isn't going to panic and breath down your tank before you can get out.

---------- Post added ----------

I was thinking about this issue a little bit more. Air sharing to extend bottom time when one person's tank is already at the exit pressure seems like a dangerous practice to me. What happens if the donating person has a regulator failure? Now each have half of the agreed upon exit air. It seems far more prudent to share at the begining of the dive.

 

[MarkHerm]

A few years ago, I was on a liveaboard in the Galapagos, and a father/son did this. The DM said "no way". and tired to get them to surface. An after-dive argument ensued, to the point the Captain got involved. Basically, not allowed, and the father/son backed down (to the point of having to be told the agreement they signed said Captain is ultimate authority).

Please name the specific liveabroad so I can avoid it in the future. It's not that I need to share air to extend bottom time every time I dive (I think I have ever done this once with my buddy) but I really dislike dive professionals parenting their paying customers because of personal belives regarding dive preferences. I agree with Peter, it is a totally insignificant event with no real world risk attached for any competent diver. If this "technique" really imposes a problem for a certified diver with some diving experience, those divers shouldn't be in the water at all.
Note, I don't recommend this procedure to be performed regularly but I don't see the any issue with it either in order to prolong bottom time for a couple of minutes on a shallow reef dive during vacation to better match gas.

 

[dpaustex]

Well, part of the problem in the Galapagos is the visibility is very limited. Not to mention currents and down currents. You're supposed to be an advanced diver, with the highest of skill levels (on that boat). The rest of the group "mutinied", and we didn't want this clown in our group - ever.

---------- Post added ----------

I would skip it, too, if the situation warranted (note, I said "lacking a safety stop"). Safety stops are simply recommended, not required. But in an OOA, people tend to ascend a bit too quickly. One important task of the "provider" is to control ascent rate, too.

 

[Teamcasa]

...To present a different opinion and different options. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you want me to respect your opinion then some modicum of respect for differing opinions must be made as well. In this case, you voice your opinion as some sort of hard fact and that any opposing view is simply wrong and therefore not a valid opinion.

You believe sidemount is unrealistic - I believe that view originates from ignorance. Same sort of blind argument we got from the anti-BP&W crowd who couldn't see beyond the 'tech origins' of configuration. As sidemount becomes increasingly prevalent in the recreational community, views will change.

I see nothing wrong with sidemounts at all, I just said that the option was unrealistic in the same setting that I would share air with my wife. That being a vacation dive on a charter that has a limited tank inventory.

BTW, I don't really believe there is an anti-BP&W crowd. There is however a significant number of divers that don't need or require the use of one to enjoy diving. Thar's just my opinion however.

I don't intend to demean or shame anyone. That is neither my intent, nor reflected in my words. I simply offer the facts that I'm aware of and suggest my opinions. How those make you feel, is truly your issue to deal with.

Ok, and again, thanks for making my point.

You should not advocate unsafe diving practices 'as defined by the major scuba agencies'. Do we need to get an official agency ruling on this?

I love to see an official agency ruling on the subject but first, describe again where I've advocated an actual unsafe diving practice.