Spreading communicable diseases via regulator

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!

The real question is why do tech and cave divers dive this way. They are the most extreme among us, I would think they know what they are doing.
Well, I made myself the same question the first time I met a diver following DIR rules. He did know the method very well, but was entirely incapable to explain me the reason of many technical and behavioural rules he was following very obediently. He was simply trained that there is only ONE right way: the DIR way (which by definition is "right") and any other approach is wrong.
So I started reading on the topic, and discovered the explanation for many technical and behavioural choices, which were sensible in the context they were developed. The point is that they are not the only way to face some problems typical of extreme environments (such as caves and wrecks), and furthermore, in a different environment, other technical choices are possibly better.
Just think about the famous "frog kicking" and the Jet Fins. It can be effective for moving slowly in still water in a tight enclosed space, where the bottom is covered by mud and sediment and you do not want to raise it. It is entirely wrong in other situations, for example at Maldives inside a channel in the barrier, where the water flows like a river, and you need long, powerful fins, and the most efficient kicking available. Same about keeping your hands partially stretched in front of you. Again, good in a cave, so when visibility is limited you hit the rock with your hands and not with your head.
But it increases significantly the drag, better to assume a more hydrodynamic position if you want to swim fast in an open, obstacle-free environment.
Or this emphasis about staying horizontal in any case. When you dive along a vertical wall, here in Mediterranean, covered by Paramuricea and red coral, and with deep cavities with lobsters inside, you manage yourself much better staying perfectly vertical. It will be easier to look inside the cavities without over stretching your neck, and making photos at the critters.
Also the long hose is a requirement inside a narrow tube-like passage, but it can just be a problem in open water, as it allows your buddy in distress to reach for the surface staying above you, filling his BCD and pulling also you to surface too quickly. A hose of more reasonable length (my secondary yellow hoses are 1.00m, my primary is just 0.75 m) forces the buddy to stay in "face contact" with you, and you will be able to grab the control of his BCD if he is using it improperly.
Conclusion: while sensible for the specific usage they were developed for, all these "technical" rules, equipment and behaviours should be evaluated for the context where you are diving, and for the buddies who dive with you.
It is wrong to consider them as religious rules, to be followed always without reasoning.
And to consider people making different evaluations and choices to be invariantly "wrong", because only DIR is the "right way"....
 
I'll bet money that he put the necklace on after routing the long hose, that's about the only way it would get caught on the necklace.

I don't know what are the protocols for other agencies that use a long hose, but in GUE the pre-dive check includes showing to your buddy that the long hose is not entangled. As is this is done after putting the necklace on, I do not see the issue here if you follow the established protocols.
 
The real question is why do tech and cave divers dive this way. They are the most extreme among us, I would think they know what they are doing.

And not all Cave Divers dive this way.

The British Cave Diving Group explicitly reject the DIR approach as not appropriate for British Cave conditions.
Equipment for British Cave Diving
Now let’s look at gear & techniques for British cave diving. Many divers will have come across the ‘Hogarthian’/ ‘Doing It Right’ philosophies promoted by the WKPP, GUE, etc… No argument – these principles are perfect for the large, deep, easy-access springs, and the open water sites they dive. The value of the techniques and gear configuration is reflected in the amazing explorations they have carried out with few accidents. As the old saying goes – the proof of the pudding. Sadly, such gear configuration and techniques cannot be used in British cave diving. Let us explain why…
See: Cave Diving British Style (an essay) - Cave Diving Group
 
I don't know what are the protocols for other agencies that use a long hose, but in GUE the pre-dive check includes showing to your buddy that the long hose is not entangled. As is this is done after putting the necklace on, I do not see the issue here if you follow the established protocols.

Exactly, I would also bet though he had 50 dives on it, he never recieved any actual training on the config.


This boils down to a simple thing. Train and dive the config your most comfortable with, make sure you pratice it regularly so in an emergency you will not panic and can assist someone who is.

After my pratice and experience I feel that the long hose has less potential problems for an already bad situation. I will continue to use one, especially since I'm moving to doubles for my local diving. If I travel I will configure a single tank set with long hose and necklace because that is what I'm most comfortable with.
 
You appear to believe BS. Good luck.

The BS is the massive over reporting being done. Several states have been caught and confirmed over reporting deaths. Actual death rate between .1 and .3 percent that's about flu rate last I checked.
 
The BS is the massive over reporting being done. Several states have been caught and confirmed over reporting deaths. Actual death rate between .1 and .3 percent that's about flu rate last I checked.
In my city, Parma, the number of deaths in March was more than 200% of the number of deaths we had in the same month of previous years. Not all these additional deaths have been caused directly by the virus infection, it is estimated that approximately 30% of them are caused indirectly, because the ICUs where saturated by COVID patients, because several doctors were ill or dead, so they could not visit patients at home, and because many not-critical therapies have been temporarily suspended for concentrating all the personnel on treating the thousands of COVID-19 patients requiring help for surviving...
Here the official numbers (from ISTAT) for Parma form 20 February to 31 march:
Parma.jpg

Parma was not the worst Italian city, we are the sixth one. In Bergamo the number of deaths in March was 568% than in previous years...
Bergamo.jpg

If no action had been taken, we would be now even worst than this, with a number of monthly deaths 10 times larger than normal.
It is definitely a bad idea to leave the virus spreading uncontrolled.
If you want to see the data in all Italian towns, look at the interactive chart here: Istat, a marzo morti in aumento del 49.4% Bergamo, incremento record: +568%

Sorry for going off-topic, but when someone says that COVID-19 is just "like a normal flu" I tend to react...
 
I'll bet money that he put the necklace on after routing the long hose, that's about the only way it would get caught on the necklace.

I don't know what are the protocols for other agencies that use a long hose, but in GUE the pre-dive check includes showing to your buddy that the long hose is not entangled. As is this is done after putting the necklace on, I do not see the issue here if you follow the established protocols.

The DAN report says that the long hose became entangled in the harness. The most likely harness snag is the canister (or substitute) that the long hose is routed under.

The secondary regulator was pulled out of place because the OOA diver was tugging at the primary hose which (surprisingly) was not long enough to reach him.

The lesson I draw from this is one small snag in a crisis situation can cause a cascade of events which are difficult to recover from.

Here the donor put himself in danger by giving up a working regulator. When the OOA diver could not get enough length on the hose he started to pull forcefully. Now the OOA diver could breathe but the donor couldn't. The donor ended up panicking and bolting to the surface.

For open water diving, I have yet to see a convincing argument for the long hose loop. I have worked as a DM in resorts and encountered a few (not many) OOA and low on air situations, all in conventional secondary donate. All worked effectively.

I cannot imagine how adding additional complexity to an already stressful situation can make it any safer.
 

Back
Top Bottom