Doubles Wing Recommendation

[boriss]

Logistics requires that depth, duration and distance be taken into consideration when planning a technical dive.

Do you actually read what you're responding to? Who said anything about planning a technical dive? You wrote that a dual bladder wing isn't needed unless one is "going very deep."

Not only are saying redundancy is unnecessary (in a Technical Diving forum, especially), but you're encouraging someone to:

Try diving in shallow water without the wing.

Your advice is dangerous and should be moderated, IMO.

 

[Rayk]

I use an Apeks 45 lb. wing and it is sweet spot for doubles and a stage(s) at moderate weather. As far as i know they don’t make it anymore but they have 40 lb version of it which is more rounded shape like Halcyon. Any of the donut shaped wings from major brands will do the job.

 

[Alaskan Scuba Dude]

Your advice is dangerous and should be moderated, IMO.

If you had read the original info, you would have seen the OP was having buoyancy issues. My suggestion was to try the dive without the wing in shallow water. Then they can rule out the wing being the problem.

 

[grantctobin]

If you had read the original info, you would have seen the OP was having buoyancy issues. My suggestion was to try the dive without the wing in shallow water. Then they can rule out the wing being the problem.

ASD/SC, he’s diving steel 100s in a wetsuit. Please don’t demonstrate your negligence and lack of training by giving even more hazardous advice.

 

[Alaskan Scuba Dude]

he’s diving steel 100s in a wetsuit.

And experiencing difficulties doing so. He may want to learn from the Sea Hunt documentary series on how they were able to perfectly dive neutrally buoyant during the early '70s. Some divers just cannot help diving like a corpse.

 

[Universl]

I took my tech classes with a Xdeep Project wing. The head-heavy phenomenon is a real problem with those wings. You're always compensating somehow (moving your fins, arching your back, etc.)
It's great on the surface but once at depth, your ass feels like it's being pulled up. Tried an Apeks 45, which I believe is discontinued, and I was absolutely flabbergasted at how easy it was to maintain perfect trim.

 

[halocline]

And experiencing difficulties doing so. He may want to learn from the Sea Hunt documentary series on how they were able to perfectly dive neutrally buoyant during the early '70s. Some divers just cannot help diving like a corpse.

Sure, learn technical diving from a fictional TV show. Great idea.

 

[Nick_Radov]

I don't know what depth has to do with it... anyone diving wet with heavy doubles and technical gear should always have a redundant wing, no matter the depth.

Don't dive in a wetsuit with heavy (negative) steel doubles in the first place. Why would anyone take that risk? It's just totally pointless and unnecessary. Have we all forgotten about the infamous incident off West Palm Beach, FL in 1998 when Andre Smith, Mike Elkins, and John Claypool all died due in large part to buoyancy problems caused by diving in wetsuits with negative steel tanks?

Aquanaut Mailing List Archive Service

Aquanaut's mailing list archives.

www.aquanaut.com

Aquanaut Mailing List Archive Service

Aquanaut's mailing list archives.

www.aquanaut.com

Aquanaut Mailing List Archive Service

Aquanaut's mailing list archives.

www.aquanaut.com

Aquanaut Mailing List Archive Service

Aquanaut's mailing list archives.

www.aquanaut.com

Dive a balanced rig. If wearing a wetsuit, that means Al 80 doubles with enough ditchable weight to roughly equal the weight of the gas in the back tanks (around 8 lbs or less assuming reasonable helium content) so that you can get neutral if your wing fails when you're at your most negative near the beginning of the dive. If you need extra bottom gas, then bring an Al 80 stage; you can always ditch the stage if you have buoyancy problems. Double bladder wings are an unnecessary convolution, an attempt to solve a problem which shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[boriss]

Don't dive in a wetsuit with heavy (negative) steel doubles in the first place. Why would anyone take that risk? It's just totally pointless and unnecessary. Have we all forgotten about the infamous incident off West Palm Beach, FL in 1998 when Andre Smith, Mike Elkins, and John Claypool all died due in large part to buoyancy problems caused by diving in wetsuits with negative steel tanks?

Aquanaut Mailing List Archive Service

Aquanaut's mailing list archives.

www.aquanaut.com

Aquanaut Mailing List Archive Service

Aquanaut's mailing list archives.

www.aquanaut.com

Aquanaut Mailing List Archive Service

Aquanaut's mailing list archives.

www.aquanaut.com

Aquanaut Mailing List Archive Service

Aquanaut's mailing list archives.

www.aquanaut.com

Dive a balanced rig. If wearing a wetsuit, that means Al 80 doubles with enough ditchable weight to roughly equal the weight of the gas in the back tanks (around 8 lbs or less assuming reasonable helium content) so that you can get neutral if your wing fails when you're at your most negative near the beginning of the dive. If you need extra bottom gas, then bring an Al 80 stage; you can always ditch the stage if you have buoyancy problems. Double bladder wings are an unnecessary convolution, an attempt to solve a problem which shouldn't exist in the first place.

Completely disagree. Ditchable weight shouldn't even be a thing in technical diving. That's an open water concept that's taught to beginner recreational divers (so they can get to the surface ASAP), just like "never hold your breath" and so on.

We bring the gas we need and the tools we need. Two AL80's hold 154cuft of gas. My HP100's @ 3600psi are ~218cuft. Gas consumption is pretty high at depth and we're already bringing additional bottles for deco.

Lastly, a technical divers' goal isn't to just get to the surface; we have decompression obligations and no matter how "neutral" you think you can make your rig, you won't be able to maintain stops without external buoyancy compensation. There are multiple tools one can use and I have all of these: secondary bladder, lift bag, DSMB and last resort... help from a buddy.

 

[grantctobin]

Completely disagree. Ditchable weight shouldn't even be a thing in technical diving. That's an open water concept that's taught to beginner recreational divers (so they can get to the surface ASAP), just like "never hold your breath" and so on.

We bring the gas we need and the tools we need. Two AL80's hold 154cuft of gas. My HP100's @ 3600psi are ~218cuft. Gas consumption is pretty high at depth and we're already bringing additional bottles for deco.

Lastly, a technical divers' goal isn't to just get to the surface; we have decompression obligations and no matter how "neutral" you think you can make your rig, you won't be able to maintain stops without external buoyancy compensation. There are multiple tools one can use and I have all of these: secondary bladder, lift bag, DSMB and last resort... help from a buddy.

Eh I think in another few years of your technical diving career you’ll look back on this post and realize you’re a little far right of center. A pair of AL80s (or a third as a bottom stage) are more than adequate for what most people are doing in open ocean for decompression diving. If they’re not, then your exposure is long enough that you’ll probably want a drysuit.

Until then, you have less than 218cf of gas in your HP100s, though I’d love to see the how you came up with 218. To continue the semantics, you in the rig you show pictures of from your ANDP class last week have ditchable weight right? It might not look like it at first sight, but your AL72s count as ditchable.

Do you dive with your second inflator connected? And do you think in an out of control descent you could connect that inflator quickly enough to stabilize yourself at a depth?