ARE FULL-FACE SNORKEL MASKS SAFE???

[Angelo Farina]

My take is that people who buy these snorkeling FF masks are people who have some problems with "normal" masks and snorkels.
So you cannot really compare the two groups because the main difference is not in the masks they use, but in their skills.
These FF masks allow snorkeling to people who could not be snorkeling with traditional equipment. So it is quite normal that we see a number of accidents among them.
This brings back to the original problem faced at the beginning of the eighties for scuba training. In the first 30 years of scuba training para-military methods were employed. Training was long, difficult, and required top-notch physical and mental capabilities. Who did not meet these standards was simply expelled form the course and not certified.
Then a "new age" started, PADI was claiming that everyone could become a diver. A very minimal training replaced a 6-months-long para-military training, and we have seen that people with severe physical or mental problems were being certified, and were diving successfully and with pleasure.
People almost unable to swim, or to free dive to a few meters (which were previously considered unavoidable pre-requisites for scuba diving). People who were entirely dependent on their equipment for keeping them alive underwater.
Initially it was assumed that this change could have caused a lot of accidents, whilst the reality did show that the accident ratio was not significantly larger than for the super-hero divers of the previous generations.
So I suppose that we will see the same with this new equipment, which allows to enjoy snorkeling for people entirely unfit and lacking the mental attitude for doing traditional snorkeling.
An equipment fix to a lack of skill, sure.
But it worked in the past for scuba diving, it can work now for snorkeling.

 

[CT-Rich]

I would guess that full face snorkel masks exist because manufactures sat down with focus groups of average people and asked them what they like and dislike about snorkeling. Surely one of the big pain points they identified was "I don't like that I can't breath through my nose!!" so they developed these products to target that market segment. They are targeting a market segment of not only inexperienced people, but perhaps people who don't even want to become experienced. Young kids, first timers, people wearing life vests on a booze-cruise snorkel trip who might not even be able to swim well. That's who uses these things. Therefor, when a problem happens (like, god forbid, a mask flood) they panic and possibly die because nobody ever taught them how to snorkel safely. The manufacturer just provided a band-aid solution to the nose discomfort problem.

On the other hand it's nice that they made snorkeling a little more accessible to people turned off by the nose thing, which is a lot of people. I remember preferring goggles to dive masks as a young kid. It's really important to help more people experience and engage with otherwise invisible underwater ecosystems. But man, someone should teach 'em how to swim and clear a mask. End rant.

I doubt there was corporation that did a study to decide they needed to address the nose breathing issue to sell more product. More likely it was a guy that came up with the idea and tinkered with it to fix all the issues with the design from the 1960s version. He might have gotten a patent on it or not. Manufacturers and retailers were attracted to it because it looked new and different with a higher per unit profit margin. Tourists were probably attracted to it because people who don’t like putting their face in the water could snorkel, too. And it looked safe for little Billy and Sally to play with.

The companies that were going to sell it as a branded product probably put a little more time into looking at things like CO2 build up than the generic me-too companies. The lawyers probably asked a few safety questions and the engineers said “it was safer than the 1960s version”. The shops that sell to tourists see a mask that sells for $70 compared to the $12 crap masks they usually sell. Liability is not an issue until someone jumps out of a tour boat and the operator has to pull one of the suckers back out of the water.

The people developing these masks all have a vested interest in putting them on the shelf and may think no one would so stupid to not pull the mask off if start drowning... Consumers imagine there is some great underwriting organization that protects them from faulty products and their own stupidity. If you want an idea of how stupid a consumer can be, read the warning labels on the side of a ladder.

It may be telling that first people to ban these masks are the first ones in line to get sued in an accident.

 

[Nemrod]

This really boils down to asking what are the safety concerns of putting (often) inebriated non-swimmers and non-swimming children into the ocean and fully covering their airways with a device that could flood and could retain CO2. What could go wrong?

My short career as an ocean life guard, I am disappointed to say, that the only person I got to save was a young woman who was in fact drowning in barely waist deep water on a sandbar about 25 yards from shore. I could only imagine having to guard for a boat or beach full of dog paddling non-swimmers with FFSMs!

James

 

[Rob9876]

Not directed at any one person here, but so often threads (here and elsewhere) seem to suggest that users of full face snorkels are basically physically and/or mentally incompetent. However, there are tons of people who just have issues having traditional snorkels in their mouths -- people with TMJ or other jaw issues, for example. Those people might otherwise be genius athletes for all we know. Seems like we should be happy to have more people appreciating the underwater world rather than just being snarky to people who, for whatever reason, can't or don't want to use regular snorkels.

 

[Nemrod]

Not directed to anyone either but putting a device that could restrict both airways, mouth and nose, over the face of a person who is a non-swimmer or who is uncomfortable in the water is IMO a recipe for disaster regardless of their IQ or athletic skills otherwise. And that is without consideration of potential CO2 retention. Not all seemingly good ideas are in retrospect, a good idea.

James

 

[boulderjohn]

It occurs to me that a very high percentage of people who snorkel do so on a warm water vacation, including a cruise. These people are likely not taking their own equipment with them; they are most likely renting the equipment, often as part of a tour.

I was just diving in Roatan, and I saw several such snorkel tours, with a mass of people floating on the surface with their snorkel vests. Every single one of them had a full face snorkel mask. They did not choose the masks they wore because of any personal preference over traditional set of snorkel gear. They did not choose them at all. They used what the company handed them. I doubt more than a tiny fraction had any idea there is even a controversy about them. They certainly will not be checking DAN reports before heading out on a snorkel tour.

I have admittedly never even held one in my hand, so I can only guess as to why the companies chose the FFSMs, but that guess is that there is a greater likelihood of a decent fit. I have seen many a case of a diver purchasing a mask having trouble finding a good fit, and I imagine such a person would have a real mask leak problem with the generic masks used on snorkel tours. If a FFSM offers a fit for a wider range of snorkeler faces, I can see why a company offering those tours would go that route.

Another possible reason is that those companies really don't want you doing anything resembling free diving on those tours. The mask keeps that from happening.

 

[yle]

This study strictly looks at functionality and concludes that the FFSMs should be as functional as a traditional snorkel. What we don't know is fatality rate for each. In other words, in the universe of snorkelers, how many die per year vs in the universe of FFSM users, how many die per year. If the rates are the same, then there's no difference between the two.

Having used a standard regulator for many years as a diver, and then having the opportunity to use a FFM (when I was on a dive team at the AoP, up until a few years ago), I can't imagine that the full face snorkels are as safe as a traditional snorkel. I'm sure their safety record is comparable when all goes well. But when something goes sideways for a snorkeler and that snorkeler's brain wants to just get rid of gear, I'm certain that FF snorkel will stoke panic more than a traditional mask and snorkel would.

When the target consumer, i.e. inexperienced snorkelers (because experienced snorkelers would more likely stick with what they know...) is taken into consideration, the disparity in panic stoking potential is even greater.

 

[yle]

I have admittedly never even held one in my hand, so I can only guess as to why the companies chose the FFSMs, but that guess is that there is a greater likelihood of a decent fit. I have seen many a case of a diver purchasing a mask having trouble finding a good fit, and I imagine such a person would have a real mask leak problem with the generic masks used on snorkel tours. If a FFSM offers a fit for a wider range of snorkeler faces, I can see why a company offering those tours would go that route.

Another possible reason is that those companies really don't want you doing anything resembling free diving on those tours. The mask keeps that from happening.

Good point... we assume the target market for these things is vacationing snorkelers, but it's actually the people running the tours for the vacationing snorkelers. It would be interesting to see the data they could collect on the difference in incidents, even minor ones, that their guests have with the FF vs the traditional gear (assuming the operator had records of years of using traditional snorkel gear.)

 

[yle]

Not directed at any one person here, but so often threads (here and elsewhere) seem to suggest that users of full face snorkels are basically physically and/or mentally incompetent. However, there are tons of people who just have issues having traditional snorkels in their mouths -- people with TMJ or other jaw issues, for example. Those people might otherwise be genius athletes for all we know. Seems like we should be happy to have more people appreciating the underwater world rather than just being snarky to people who, for whatever reason, can't or don't want to use regular snorkels.

I think most of the concern about FF snorkels is that they are marketed as a better way to snorkel, but the marketing ignores the potential problems a user might encounter that could be life threatening. It has nothing to do with being physically or mentally incompetent, has everything to do with the ocean being beautiful, alluring... and potentially deadly when something goes sideways.

Experienced scuba divers have the perspective to appreciate this, and it's why we study accidents. (No one suggests that victims of scuba accidents are physically or mentally incompetent... but we know they are all human, and we know whatever caused their accident can happen to any of us.)

So I think the concern comes from lack of full disclosure on the part of the people and companies pushing the FF snorkels. We want people to enjoy their FF snorkel... and we want them to have the awareness and ability to handle small problems with their equipment when they're in the ocean.

 

[Rob9876]

In brief, in the video in the original post in this thread, at about the 39 minute mark, no clear "smoking gun", but cheap, no-name (not made by scuba manufacturers) FFMs may have poor gas flow requiring more effort to breathe, which could tax the lungs and possibly lead to respiratory distress.
(also see around the 27 minute mark).

Otherwise, better quality FFMs seem to work as advertised. Good news for those (like 2 in my family) with jaw issues that make normal snorkel use difficult.