Alec Pierce Scuba - Long Hose Good or Bad

[Ayisha]

So PaulW, what’s your take on OW divers using a Scubapro AirII? To use it, the donating diver has to give the OOA diver the working regulator in their mouth. Then, the donating diver, who now has no reg in their mouth, switches to their AirII.

Alec doesn't like the AirII, so maybe Paul doesn't?
Alec didn't like the AirII for the same reasons of associating the primary hose in the mouth for the "victim", potentially having 2 people without regs in their mouth, plus his "kicker" of not being able to control the ascent because the hose is in the donor's mouth. (His assumption is a vertical ascent of course, with the highest point of the BCD being the shoulder dump).

 

[Bob DBF]

Look at the picture right here:
View attachment 549541
It's logical to take out one of those regulators to help someone else. That would be the yellow one. That's the issue.

The issue is that no one who is defending the long hose would use a yellow reg on a necklace because it would send the wrong message to other divers. The few who do use yellow, use it on the primary. It inflamatory to misrepresent in order prove one's point.

For is disclosure I use a 40" hose and bungeed backup, my diving does not lend itself to using an actual long hose.

Personally, I have never had a yellow reg, or hose, and have tried every reg configuration I have heard of since I started with my first Doublehose. Each configuration has its points, good and bad, depending on what one wants to accomplish. From my experience all work well, having an alternate second being better than not, ongoing practice being the key.

What would make sense in a training video, would be to accurately represent every configuration, show how each works, and discuss with divers how important it is to check and understand your buddy's configuration. All of them work, even better when you know the proper procedure.


Bob

 

[MichaelMc]

Paul, In the situation of the picture of Alec, which reg to donate is a good question.

Someone mentioned a variant of the primary donate + necklaced backup in which the backup is also of donate-able length, routed under the left arm, and can be pulled free of the necklace. So in that setup, both can be donated, and the backup can be taken successfully by on OOA diver. In this case the necklaced backup would likely be yellow, as it is available to be taken. It is primary (or secondary) donate with fallback of secondary take.

Say we change the hoses in the picture of Alec to this variant of primary donate, and ask your question of which makes more sense to donate. I would donate my primary. Yes, it adds some small risk that I have difficulty getting my backup in. Yet I think it reduces a larger risk of how stressed the other diver is and how that may negatively impact me. Feeding them a reg that is visibly working, as I was just breathing from it, reduces that risk.

The OOA diver is an unknown panic possible risk. Who I want calm and not clawing all over me. Me switching regs is a simple tiny risk, which I will very likely finish before we even meet for me to give them air. I'm happy setting up for the tiny risk over the large unknown risk of a panicked OOA diver. Particularly as it gives me other benefits, among them a backup ready to breath under my chin in case my primary fails for some other reason.

I'm comfortable underwater, yet I also think a good number of the students I've assisted in teaching, if educated on the issues and setup with that scenario, would make the same choice of donating primary. Particularly if they were worked up to it with swap to backup drills, hand me your primary and swap to backup drills, now do OOA with your friend who is pretending to be stressed/panicked drills. I think they would pick donating primary, to get their friend calm.

A downside of the common short necklaced backup is that *if* the OOA diver does a take, the only viable option is from the donor's mouth. It is primary donate with fallback of primary take. The necklaced reg is too short to be much good. *Personally* I'm not worried about suddenly losing my primary. I'll just switch to my backup, that's why I have it, right under my chin. I do not have it set for no hands access, but all access takes is moving it up a few inches by hand. Hence I use a short necklaced backup. If that worries you, you might go with the alternate version with a longer backup under the left arm (and a left hand reg).

So why don't all using primary + necklaced backup use a longer backup? Maybe as take might be rare and they are not too concerned about losing the primary if it is taken. The extra complexity of the longer backup seems not a good tradeoff. And complexity adds risk.

But you might just try adding a short necklaced backup to your solo rig. It would be very streamlined, and unlikely to interfere with kelp swims. Things happen on surf or rough shore entry/exit. I like having a reg right under my chin that I can just pop in if I lose my primary from being tumbled or what not.

ETA: If the necklaced backup is short, I agree it should not be yellow, but the primary could be yellow if you wanted. In the modified primary donate above, with a longish breakaway backup, the backup being yellow makes most sense.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Just spent the weekend teaching OOA to 8 students using a standard AAS. Amazingly none of us died.

Looks like we dodged a bullet!

Did you practice sharing air through a swim through?

 

[Graeme Fraser]

Did you practice sharing air through a swim through?

CW dive 3 does include combined air depletion, AAS swim and ascent, but admittedly not through a restriction. However, as OW students we do make it clear that they are neither equipped nor qualified to tackle an overhead environment.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

CW dive 3 does include combined air depletion, AAS swim and ascent, but admittedly not through a restriction. However, as OW students we do make it clear that they are neither equipped nor qualified to tackle an overhead environment.

Have you read this thread? Recreational overheads, especially wrecks

 

[BlueTrin]

Have you read this thread? Recreational overheads, especially wrecks

Your link is really interesting because I really thought that overhead was almost forbidden when doing my PADI classes.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Your link is really interesting because I really thought that overhead was almost forbidden when doing my PADI classes.

It has to do with the reality that people want to go into wrecks without training. There is money to be made to take people inside "safe" (no such thing) wrecks. I think there is a huge normalization of deviance here. There was a report on FB about a death in Coron, Philippines where a group of 4 divers, all in single tanks, were taken inside a deep wreck. IIRC, it got silted out, so the guide took two divers out at a time. The guide was low on air after taking the second pair, leaving the 5th diver still inside the wreck to get another cylinder. Upon reaching that diver, he was found dead.

Obviously, no agency would condone this situation, it is an extreme case. But it happens every day. Fortunately, most of the time, everything works out fine. Unfortunately in the Coron case, it didn't, and the scuba and tourism industry together sweep these incidents under the rug.

First, the link I provide I am vehemently against. While unlikely, if someone going through a swim through or a wreck and suffers catastrophic gas loss, what then?

Secondly, there was another report of a diver with an Air2 who had to share air with a buddy who went OOA. They were shore diving and to get to the dive site, they went through a swim through. Because they couldn't return through the swim through sharing air, they had to climb over the reef to get back to shore.

So if a diver is vehemently against going into a swim through/small wreck, then I think a standard configuration works for OOA, as they can go straight to the surface. if however they ever go inside a wreck/swim through, that configuration has a significant Achilles heel.

 

[Graeme Fraser]

It has to do with the reality that people want to go into wrecks without training. There is money to be made to take people inside "safe" (no such thing) wrecks. I think there is a huge normalization of deviance here. There was a report on FB about a death in Coron, Philippines where a group of 4 divers, all in single tanks, were taken inside a deep wreck. IIRC, it got silted out, so the guide took two divers out at a time. The guide was low on air after taking the second pair, leaving the 5th diver still inside the wreck to get another cylinder. Upon reaching that diver, he was found dead.

Obviously, no agency would condone this situation, it is an extreme case. But it happens every day. Fortunately, most of the time, everything works out fine. Unfortunately in the Coron case, it didn't, and the scuba and tourism industry together sweep these incidents under the rug.

First, the link I provide I am vehemently against. While unlikely, if someone going through a swim through or a wreck and suffers catastrophic gas loss, what then?

Secondly, there was another report of a diver with an Air2 who had to share air with a buddy who went OOA. They were shore diving and to get to the dive site, they went through a swim through. Because they couldn't return through the swim through sharing air, they had to climb over the reef to get back to shore.

So if a diver is vehemently against going into a swim through/small wreck, then I think a standard configuration works for OOA, as they can go straight to the surface. if however they ever go inside a wreck/swim through, that configuration has a significant Achilles heel.

I don't disagree with you, but would argue that a diver in this environment should be both qualified and equipped, not either / or. From my recollection, the point made in the video was that long hose primary donate was sometimes being adopted by new divers without specific need or training.

Again, I am not arguing against the benefits, just stating that in normal recreational diving, a standard configuration is perfectly acceptable.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I don't disagree with you, but would argue that a diver in this environment should be both qualified and equipped, not either / or. From my recollection, the point made in the video was that long hose primary donate was sometimes being adopted by new divers without specific need or training.

Again, I am not arguing against the benefits, just stating that in normal recreational diving, a standard configuration is perfectly acceptable.

Hence I said:

So if a diver is vehemently against going into a swim through/small wreck, then I think a standard configuration works for OOA, as they can go straight to the surface.

I do believe that normalization of deviance has added some overheads to normal recreational diving that also gets abused by negligent dive ops (yes, the agencies can't police this, but they know it happens. Saying no to any overhead is what I'd like to see happen), and I discuss this with students now as well as have them sharing air single file with the receiver in front. I think the industry overall has its head in the sand (or a dark place) and it isn't taking care of new divers properly on this issue. My opinion of course. Statement in my signature stands.