Ken Kurtis
Contributor
It's mentioned in the talk that a number of operators in Hawaii ban us the use of FFSMs because they think they're too dangerous or have experienced too many problems.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.)
As many of you have said, it's not so much whether or not they perform the same as a regular snorkel/mask combo (the study indicates that they do) but when something goes wrong, does experience level (or lack thereof) of the snorkeler combined with design or performance characteristics of the FFSM contribute to the fatality? Even though the study tested how quickly people could get the mask off, no one was panicking when they were trying to do it. My unsubstantiated no-data-collected GUESS is that the panic response changes the equation dramatically. And that's something this study didn't attempt to measure. (Aside from ethical concerns as to whether it would even be proper to do so.)