Backplate/wing: set-up questions concerning buckle and weights.

[jlcnuke]

@tbone1004

FYI - I've known many people who could barely keep themselves at the surface without fins on, and certainly not while holding a 10 lb brick... they managed to just pass the 10 minute tread water though - so you can take the "anyone can swim without fins with 10 lbs b.s. and put that back in your pocket, because not every certified diver can. And that "dive physical" you were talking about earlier, that was a nurse recording blood pressure, heart rate, temperature, and a doc listening to the chest while breathing in and out and then a few weeks later signing a form. My 310 lb, 5' 5", 72 year old dad 'passes" it.

Also, I'm sure for the dives I have coming up in a week and a half you'd probably be in much different gear, but I'll be diving my $300 regulator set in ~44°F water to past 100 ft with a jacket BCD; tons of rec divers do the same every year and we aren't diving with doubles or redundant 1st stages etc. We haven't been taught that any such thing is necessary or even prudent. In fact, I'll be doing those dives with an instructor, during a dive course...

To you, I'm sure that's absurd I imagine based on your posts, but your standards are not what all divers are taught. That's my point here.... if you're going to publicly label yourself as an instructor, AND you're going to post diving related "instructions" in a basic forum, they should be posted in such a way that people trained and certified with any major agency (not just the way you think they should have been trained) under any routine and accepted training practices will be able to safely and responsibly utilize. IMO, that's not what I've seen here and why I suggested moving it out of the basic forum.

I think I've beat that horse though and we'll either agree or agree to disagree at this point (though I suspect the latter) so I'll stop derailing this thread.

 

[Exigent]

I've known many people who could barely keep themselves at the surface without fins on, and certainly not while holding a 10 lb brick... they managed to just pass the 10 minute tread water though

Said people have no business scuba diving. They become a liability to themselves and anyone they may be diving with in the event of BC failure.

 

[johndiver999]

If you need to add weight to be neutral at 15’, it *can* be ditchable, but it doesn’t *need* to be unless you cant swim it up.

As for using a light plate and adding weight, that’s totally fine. I don’t drag a steel plate down to the Cayman Islands. I bring my nice light weight aluminum plate. I put some weights in the cam band pouches. If I wore a wetsuit (like I do from time to time in Florida) some weight goes on a belt so it’s ditchable.

As long as you can get to a point where you can kick your feetsies and get to the surface, how you get there is pretty secondary in most cases so long as ditching doesn’t result in being out of control. You never want to be out of control.

Exactly. Simple and concise.

If someone wants to proclaim that 7 mm suits are inherently unsafe below some particular depth, then I can accept that opinion. But the idea that:

Balanced = No ditchable lead .....

is not consistent with my thinking.

 

[The Chairman]

I think not all divers could do your 10 lb. brick test

I missed tbone's "test", but ten pounds is pretty easy to swim up neutral. One of my graduation exercises is for my students to get perfectly neutral, and then start to pick up 2 pound weights and breathe them neutrally. Women must successfully breathe at least 4 pounds to neutral and men must accommodate 6. They've gotten neutral with those weights only by adjusting how they breathe, not by adding any air to their BCD. The student record for this is 14 pounds and I've successfully breathed 18 pounds neutral.

A balanced rig is great, but I have never heard a requirement that you have no ditchable weight. When I dive steels I hardly ever need weight. When I dive Als, I need a lot of weight. The real problem comes with scads of exposure protection. If a diver with a dry suit ditches all their weight, then they become an ICBM missile being propelled to the surface. It doesn't make sense to possibly put yourself in that much jeopardy. Better to only have a few pounds that are ditchable So that ascents can be arrested if needed.

 

[MichaelMc]

A balanced rig is great, but I have never heard a requirement that you have no ditchable weight. When I dive steels I hardly ever need weight.

Balanced with option of moderate ditchable makes sense to me. Moderate ditchable if your ballast allows it. Enough to help but not to make you a rocket if lost or ditched. Reconfiguring gear to get 2 lb. ditchable is likely not worth it. 4, maybe. 6, sure.

 

[tbone1004]

I'm not going to condone negligent instruction as done by most of the agencies. I will not teach to those standards, nor will I censor what I'm typing to so called "beginner divers" that have poor instruction. Instead, I will continue to offer what I believe to be valuable information for those that care to read it. If you are going to look at one portion of a statement and ignore the rest of it, then there is no point in a discussion because that one point is not the entire message. The entire message is blow and go as taught by the industry is stupid, "ditchable weight" as they define it is blow and go. It is not let off a small portion of lead to just allow you to kick up to the surface before your suit starts assisting, it is not ditching lead at the surface in an emergency to allow you to stay afloat. Differentiation between those two scenarios is very important and it is NOT what the industry teaches. If you can't accept that there is a difference, fine, but when I wrote the first post, the concept of "ditchable lead" was referring to what the industry refers to as "ditchable" as in, "blow and go". That is not compatible with any sort of balanced rig concept because it is incredibly dangerous.

 

[Brian G]

Since we've been a bit off topic for a few pages now, I figure there's no harm in asking what kind of scenarios would make ditching weight at depth the safest course of action? In the PADI manual they say IF you are out of air and IF you're not close to your buddy and IF you are too deep to make a controlled ascent, then ditching your weight and making a buoyant emergency ascent is the way to go. They also mention that there is significant risk by doing so. Is there a scenario where you are not out of air where ditching weight at depth is a good idea? I really see ditching at depth a very last resort option.

 

[johndiver999]

A BC failure comes to mind.

 

[MichaelMc]

The entire message is blow and go as taught by the industry is stupid, "ditchable weight" as they define it is blow and go. It is not let off a small portion of lead to just allow you to kick up to the surface before your suit starts assisting, it is not ditching lead at the surface in an emergency to allow you to stay afloat. Differentiation between those two scenarios is very important and it is NOT what the industry teaches.

I agree 'blow (tons of ballast) and go (shooting to the surface)' is very risky.
I did/do not understand that 'ditchable weight' meant that.
Yes, distinguishing:
A) ditch a ton and shoot up, ('blow and go")
B) drop a little to help start you up, and
C) drop some on the surface
Is very important.

If you can't accept that there is a difference, fine, but when I wrote the first post, the concept of "ditchable lead" was referring to what the industry refers to as "ditchable" as in, "blow and go".

I accept there is a difference.
It was not at all clear that your use of "ditchable lead" meant A, and not B or C. There had been one mention of a rescuer going for your weight belt tail, and one mention that 'dropping ballast is like plan D', to get up, but without specifying how much ballast so it could be A or B. Ok, they did start with swim, inflate, or drop. But that was one mention three posts before yours and you responded to the original post. I can see how this started in confusion on terms, but it really was not clear that you felt or feel that 'ditchable weight' only has the meaning 'blow (a ton) and go'.

That is not compatible with any sort of balanced rig concept because it is incredibly dangerous.

Agree it is risky. (though less so than eventually breathing water)

 

[MichaelMc]

A BC failure comes to mind.

Which you should be able to swim up, if you're diving a balanced rig, which is tbone's whole point. And that 'drop a ton and shoot up' is really dangerous, that it is incompatible with the principle of being able to safely swim up your balanced rig. See the description of balanced above. From that description, possibly ditching *some* weight just enough to make that possible, without becoming a rocket, if you can not solve it that way, then you need redundant buoyancy.

Mine is that having ditchable, even when not needed for the above, as well is not a bad extra safety measure for a bad day.

And that it's bad to say " 'ditchable weight' is bad", when you really just mean
" 'blow (a ton of ballast) and go (shooting up to the surface)' is bad, and that if you always have a balance rig you don't really... need the other two cases anyway. Not that there is anything wrong with those two, but you don't really... need them."
Which is all very different from " 'ditchable weight' is bad (incompatible with balanced)".

Having 30 lb. ditchable in one flimsy pocket about to fail is really bad, as it will turn you into a rocket. But that is " 'being stupid about ditchable weight' is bad". Not " 'ditchable weight' is bad".

And when I say 'ditchable weight', I mean ballast that one can drop.