Breathing off the BC

[roakey]

blacknet once bubbled...
Please cite for us your authority to supercede N.O.A.A. and your credentials that outranks anything that N.O.A.A. puts out in this manner.

Sorry Ed, I just have the nasty habit of not turning off my brain when I read something. Anywhere.

Ok, how's this:

Everyone -- It's your choice, if you're ever OOA, either follow NOAAs advice and fumble around trying to determine what's wrong delaying your getting gas, or immediately signal your buddy and start the process of getting gas before you start looking into the problem.

Better Ed? Personally I don't see much a decision to be made there, but if it makes you feel better...

Roak

 

[Popeye]

NetDoc once bubbled...
it is obvious that Doug Frederick, aka "Popeye" is quite angry with me and has stopped being reasonable. He has continued to insult me even as I have tried to provide as much info as to my methodology and why I use it. While I have tried to be patient with him, I have reached the point where I cannot continue with his attitude and the way he twists my words. I wish him the best, but will put him on my ignore list for now.

However, if any of you are in need of clarifications from me on this subject, then please feel free to ask. You will be treated with respect and not called an "arrogant buffoon", "a train wreck", nor will I accuse you of "arrogantly crushing ideas" (didn't know I had that much influence) or the like. If you ask me questions (like whether I am certified as an instructor) I will do my level best to answer them and not greet you with a hostile question in it's stead.

It is easy to get into the trap of name calling and baseless accusations and so I have avoided this. They add nothing to the discussion and only cast the writer in a bad light. Maybe one day he can leave the vindictive one finds on Rec.scuba and learn to debate in a more civil tone. If the insults were directed at another user I would have moderated him a long time ago. Since they are at me, I will leave them so as to not create any conflict of interest. It has been a long standing tradition among the regulators on WWW.Scubaboard.com that we do not moderate threads in which we participate.

If any of you feel that I have crossed a line in any of my posts, please feel free to PM another moderator (or even me) or use the "Report this post to a Moderator" link that is found at the bottom of each and every post. Please be specific as to how you feel I have erred. I am a big boy, and I really do not mind at all.

Run! Forrest, Run!

When it comes time to bet on your own words, you flee.

At any rate, everything you had to offer is here in black and white, for all to see and read, spin and blame as you will.

To bad you don't have the mettle to back your own philosophy with action.

I can do what I say, and with ease.

I can, and will, ESA from 70 ft, on my wing, cut my way out of not one, but two, entrapments, wearing a -flamingo hat-, -blind folded-.

Which people here say -cannot be done-.

Anyone wanna bet, money to DAN, line forms on the left.

Someone else will have to provide a video camera.

And a flamingo hat.

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[blacknet]

roakey once bubbled...

Sorry Ed, I just have the nasty habit of not turning off my brain when I read something. Anywhere.

Ok, how's this:

Everyone -- It's your choice, if you're ever OOA, either follow NOAAs advice and fumble around trying to determine what's wrong delaying your getting gas, or immediately signal your buddy and start the process of getting gas before you start looking into the problem.

Better Ed? Personally I don't see much a decision to be made there, but if it makes you feel better...

Roak

Hello,

Sorry, nothing personal.

I'm calling BS on this one. If you are going to rebuke standards I want to know quoted material, including authority, page numbers, sections and so forth. N.O.A.A. IS a very reliable authority on this issue and this same procedure is taught thru the sport diving community.

The first step in evaluating an out-of-air situation
should be to confirm that the apparent air loss is real.
Before reacting precipitously, the diver should stop, think,
attempt to breathe, and, if it is possible to do so, proceed
with a normal ascent.

The passage you are questioning, quoted above, does not call on extensive sleuthing but to make sure you are really out of gas before doing anything else. This can include simply remaining calm and attempting to take another breath.

Ed

 

[roakey]

blacknet once bubbled...
I'm calling BS on this one.

Feel free. I'm always saying that the mainstream recreational community is way behind the curve (and hiding behind their "standards") when it comes to a better and more efficient response to the OOA emergency. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that I think that the government, which has a long history of clinging to outdated standards long after the private sector has abandoned them, has missed the boat on this.

The technical community has this one figured out. It evolves faster than a manual can be revised. The recreational community and, hopefully, even the government will follow suit someday. Until then feel free to cling to that outdated "standard."

Nothing personal, of course.

Roak

 

[fins wake]

This thread is beginning to run like the Techdiver ones. Y'know, use of the words "schmucks" and "train wrecks" and stuff. I'll say no more, especially as I was a bit peeved myself with some issues last night (my time) but I'm back to my cheery self this morning.

I think there's enough info here to make our positions clear and enough discussions on methodology to make it clear to the - observant - casual reader what is sensible, and what isn't. Without the afropithecine posturing ...

Everyone -- if you even vaugely suspect that you're OOA, get to your buddy and get gas. Analyze later when you have all the time in the world. If it turns out you were a flake and forgot to turn your gas on for example, turn it on and if you're OK to go, signal OK and continue the dive.

Yes!

You know, if it’s your dive, you get to pick your buddy. Don’t let anyone pressure you in to taking someone you don’t want either.

Yes, this can't be stressed enough! I've learned this the hard way! (Ever wonder why I'm so anal on diving safety practices and have this interest in diving incidents and accidents? Still, I was lucky!)

Ok, that's the constructive part. Now for some mopping up:

If any of you feel that I have crossed a line in any of my posts, please feel free to PM another moderator (or even me) or use the "Report this post to a Moderator" link that is found at the bottom of each and every post. Please be specific as to how you feel I have erred.

Nope, you're fine, NetDoc! Keep up the good work.

Your Swedish buddy, who's doing his best to defend you, purports himself to be an author and journalist, seemed ok with it's usage. To the point of apologizing for his correction. But since you're smarter than all other "lesser" divers, I'm sure you're smarter than he is, too.

I happen to agree with NetDoc's position in this thread, yes. I'm not Swedish, incidentally, but I would be happy to buddy NetDoc anywhere judging by his posts. That's high praise.

As for good old 'aegis', let's end on a lighter note. I once got lost on one (an Aegis, that is) and spent some time on lower decks asking the ratings for the way back up to the 'con'. It's a nice ship! (And good job I'm one of the good guys, eh?)

EDIT: typos in penultimate sentence. (That won't do for a hack, will it? Especially when writing ad hominem. [Although ad hominid is pretty telling] ... )

 

[Popeye]

fins wake once bubbled...
(And good job I'm one of the good guys, eh?)

My jury's still out. Being a wordsmith, you can write one thing, and say another, rather easily. I found your points rather partisan.

EDIT: typos in penultimate sentence. (That won't do for a hack, will it? Especially when writing ad hominem. [Although ad hominid is pretty telling] ... )

"Ad hominid" is what was sent to me, by the person whose last post was "Ad hominem".

 

[PhotoTJ]

Boy, you guys are entertaining!

 

[TCDiver1]

roakey once bubbled...

The tester looked confused for a few seconds, then signalled OK and we went to the next drill. At the surface he commented "I never thought of going for the octo (sic) in such a situation."

Mainstream training institutions, keep up the good work! (NOT!).

Roak

Most mainstream training agencies have multiple skills they require to recover primary and secondary regs. Students learn their options, instructors can make their recommendations as to which is best in any given situation.

For the purposes of a lost primary drill, recovering your secondary first and then finding your primary is arguably the best option to commit to memory in most cases. No argument there. But don't make it sound like mainstream standards don't cover alternate air source recovery .... they do.

Besides i'm not sure what mainstream agencies have to do with a tester or test to become an aquarium diver? Do one of these mainstream agencies own this aquarium?

 

[HammerNoMore]

PhotoTJ once bubbled...
Boy, you guys are entertaining!

You should see Popeye go in a forum where he is not restricted by the censorship of moderators.

It is, at times, really quite impressive.

 

[Popeye]

Ahem

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But a theoretical chance of hypercapnia beats a 100% chance of drowning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The chance of hypercapnia is not theoretical. It's a physiological certainty, if you do it long enough. Problem is, how long is a piece of string?

Longer than the drowning string? Only one way to find out. I will stand corrected, however and say "The theoretical chance of hypercapnia onset during the ESA".

Which is almighty slim. Not much chance of self-generating that much CO2 in that timeframe.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what you're saying is, that re-breathing the air, as opposed to keeping it in your lungs, uses the same O2?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, if you go back and read the passage again, you'll find I say that you'll be breathing progressively smaller fractions of oxygen. Your metabolism accounts for the missing moles. Is this really such a difficult concept?

Yes, actually.

If I have, say, 4 liters of air in my lungs for 120 seconds, my body will use a certain percent of O2, and generate a certain percent of CO2.

Now, if I breathe that same 4 liters in and out of a closed container for the same 120 seconds, say a plastic bag, or a LPI/bladder, you seem to be telling me that there will be a significant decrease in O2 percent, and a significant increase in CO2 percent.

I am definitely having difficulty with that concept, could you please explain it (you may be right, clue me in).

Go slow, I didn't make it through highschool.

Please keep in mind that, what ever less than optimal percentages are produced, are still better than aspirating water.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus, you just may have some gas in the BC, enriching your mixture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This I grant, if you're diving enriched air and feeding the BCD off the same source. Won't do anything for the elevated ppCO2's which you are poo-pooing, though.

But you're poo-pooing drowning, the alternative.

You keep implying that I'm suggesting people float the reef, OOA and huffing their LPI.

I'm talking about a last ditch effort to see the sun, after your ESA goes radically south.

What you're saying is, you'd rather drown than risk hypercapnia.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus, you keep O2 content you would otherwise vent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, minus the O2 you're metabolizing and again, you seem to think the air you rebreathe is pristine. It's not.

I think no such thing, and have stated it several times.

I deal with CO and CO2 daily, and know their hazards.

I've only said it's better than the alternative.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet it's easily vented if necessary, for ascent control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, a first change of tack! However, it is not easily vented, this procedure in fact needs tons of practice.

No change of tack at all.

Buoyancy will have to be controlled during whatever type of ascent you make, and has nothing to do with re-using a breath or two, or twenty, from your BC.

Why, according to you, would controlling buoyancy during ESA take "tons of practice"?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, we were on the couch,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are we? I thought the whole thread was about getting up from 75 feet.

The whole quote, which you brutally snipped:

"Now, that may be a very difficult choice for some of you, but, I came around to my decision pretty quick. To really put this to the test, sit on the ----->couch<-----, and time a breath hold. If you really want to be accurate, vent your ooooooooooooo sound like you were ascending. See how long you got. Take a bag, or your BC, and breath into that. Since I know we all maintain our gear properly, it should be clean inside. No overexpantion danger here. Don't do it till you pass out, you'll get plenty of warning. Have someone else there if you're nervous. Compare your time. There's your answer. How long is an ESA from 90 ft (my average drift depth)? 30ft/m preferable, 60ft/m probable. 90-180 seconds. Let's see ya hold your breath for 3 minutes in a high stress situation."

That was pretty slippery, hope it wasn't on purpose.

Wouldn't be a prime example of journalistic integrity (speaking of oxymorons...)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes no sense during a single tank OOA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then why are you even participating in this thread? It makes a lot of sense to me. If one has to use this method at all, which most newbie divers shouldn't.

Here again, cleverly snipped, and grossly out of context, Hmmmmmmmmm:

(As an aside, -you- claim the "vast" majority of OOAs happen to "newbies", why shouldn't they use this method?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is a fair amount of timing with this method and the first time you try it your -------->buoyancy control goes down the tubes<-----. But ---->you breathe in and then exhale into the WATER<------."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is my understanding of GUE:s technique as well, and again, we're talking highly advanced divers being trained by highly skilled instructors. I'm sure MHK can comment on this."

"Makes no sense during a single tank OOA. First, ---->control of buoyancy is an ESA issue<------. You'll need to make adjustments whatever the case. Secondly, ---->why waist air when we have a small and finite supply<--------? Third, we're only doing this because our trip up has been delayed."

Kane is talking about breathing a supplied LPI, no need to re-breath with fresh supply. So, as I said, this has no application to single tank OOA. And IIRC, this is your cite for NetDoc's "Better Method" of BC breathing, which would be waaaaaaaaaaaay off base.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, control of buoyancy is an ESA issue. You'll need to make adjustments whatever the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not really. Once you're on an ESA in a real emergency you will be trying to reach the surface ASAP going "aaaaa" ...

First, NAUI says "no vowels, please" NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.

Consonants only.

Secondly, your change of tack here is directly contradictory to your previous statement:

"Yes, it would rapidly become very positive. In fact, you'd probably have to breathe out into the water in order to avoid an uncontrolled ascent with all its attendant risks of lung-expansion injuries, AGE and decompression sickness."

Please clarify for us: Is buoyancy control an issue during ESA or not, and, which one of your statements is incorrect?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, why waist air when we have a small and finite supply?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gosh, this is difficult, isn't it? The air emanating from your lungs is not pristine! If you don't want to waste it, get a closed-circuit rebreather with a proper scrubber!

I'll just let everyone enjoy that remark and the value of it's contribution a second time. No comment is necessary.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, we're only doing this because our trip up has been delayed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You really will have to specify why it is delayed.

This one, you get to find for yourself.

I've repeatedly stated that breathing a BC is a back up plan for difficulties during ESA, a secondary option.

Since you missed this, more than once, you may want to reread the entire thread.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good info(the 9 points), but as Rick Murchisom pointed out, completely off topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I disagreed with Rick already before my last post, but I have no need to pick a fight with the board's regulators. NetDoc's points were aimed at the newbie diver being given the idea that somehow the BCD is an emergency gas supply to be used whenever needed.

Obfuscation.

You guys have this really neat sub-aquatic "who's on first" going on:

" What should I do during OOA?". "Don't OOA". "Yeah, thanks, but, what if I do?". " Just don't. Train properly". "Okay, I will. Now, if I OOA...". "You won't, if you're properly trained". "Sure, but sometimes it happens". "Not with proper training". "But if it does...". "It can't"..."If you're properly trained".

Thanks, guys!

This thread, and the last one, deal with what happens -after- an OOA happens.

Instead of closing the barn door after the horse is alread out, you guys are locking the horse out of the barn.

I doubt that there's a single person on the board that doesn't train to avoid OOA.

Yet they happen, sometimes due to equipment failure, and without warning.

Some times while solo, sometimes while OOB, sometimes without a clear path to the surface.

So, sometimes your peachy little scenario might not work.

I never proposed this idea as an alternative to regular procedure, or proper training, only as an additional technique that could be lifesaving in some situations.

I clearly stated somewhere back in the fray that a conventional ESA is -my primary plan-.

Your callous disregard for hypercapnia (and hypoxia) is worrying.

Your callous disregard for drowning is even more worrying.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it's just obfuscation here, for lack of substance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you've read - or understood - nothing of what people are talking about? Lack of substance? Dear me ...

See above. And courteous ad hom is still ad hom.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to be alive to get a headache.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You may well end up with more than a headache ...

Still have to be alive.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No different from any ESA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, surfacing the way you describe is different from any ESA. Ever wondered why submariners don't learn your technique? If it actually worked, it'd be a lot easier.

Taken out of context (buoyancy control) yet again, seems to be a trend.

But since you mentioned it, two words: Momsen Lung.

Sure, they had a scrubber, but it's much closer to my method than yours, re-breathing their one lungful of O2.

With Dr Paul's SETT 5 minutes, they should be able to ESA from at least 300 feet, wonder why they don't adopt your method?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it odd that the nay sayers dance gingerly around the solo diving issue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't! I disapprove of solo diving, although I can see its use for certain forms of wreck or cave exploration. I'm absolutely against solo diving for OW newbies. There is no ambiguity here. And if I go on, somebody will split this thread, right?

Back to who's on first:

"I have to use my own air". "No, your buddy will have it". "But he may not be close enough". "Training dictates that he is". "Er, thanks, but, what if he isn't. where will I get gas?" "From your buddy".

The bottom line is, you refuse to address the -simple reality- of intentional, or unintentional solo, because ti shoots your method into flames.

Solo is a reality, and your head is in the sand.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't advocate teaching it to "newbies". Any certified diver has the same er, aegis, as you over what they wish to learn, regardless of experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read that sentence again. Then again. Then a third time. It is the best example of an oxymoron I've seen for a long time ...

Only from an elitist viewpoint. If a diver has a c-card, they are now responsible for themselves. Just like solo or tech, the average diver has the right to make up his own mind how, where, and when he dives, instead of "PADI Police" divers that assume superiority because of seniority..


__________________