They all have drawbacks. This isn't about pimping our chosen configurations... it's about pros and cons. I'd love to hear more about your configuration, but I don't believe for a second that anything mentioned in this thread is ideal, for everyone, on every dive. Any chance of some balance and detail?
There is a chance, but much depends upon the audience. For example, a disadvantage that's not listed for the long hose is that it interferes with having a snorkel deployed on one's mask ... that precipitates another series of decisions.
At the end of the day there is no right or wrong option. You have to evaluate every option available add decide what's the best for you.
If I had to enforce/train someone it would be the long hose, it is the best option for all diving conditions and environments. :gun:
Agree on the first part, but the second part philosophically violates that first part. YMMV, but if I had to train someone in this area, I'd give them the tools with which to examine and prioritize what the trade-offs are, with case study examples, so that they can then make an informed decision for their dive environment(s).
I haven't used an Air II since shortly after humans discovered how to make fire but from what I can remember of the one I had, the cracking pressure was so high that breathing from it was like trying to jump-start a car by sucking on the muffler.... and when it DID open it breathed positive.... It was most peculiar to use it.
Are they still that bad? If so I would add "performance sucks" to the list of cons
Personally, I think the biggest "con" of the long hose is that people get all excited about them because they hear people they respect talking about it on the internet and then they start to use them without any training (and/or thinking).
It appears that a lot of dive training today is "Do It This Way" without really giving the student the tools he needs to subsequently do on his own a pros/cons assessment on the underlying the reasons why setup ABC "works", at least for application in dive environment XYZ.
Most students in an OW course are taught that the OOA diver is responsible for "acquiring" an air supply in an OOA situation and most people who actually recieved training on using the long-hose were taught that the OOA diver is "given" the reg.
It's a subtle difference, maybe but it can lead to mixed signals and mixed signals in an OOA situation can result in accidents. From what I've seen people sometimes "dress the part" without really knowing what they're doing and never even think about this, let alone practice with it.
Agreed. I can recall many old "This can happen to you" articles where the donor's first hint of trouble was that the OOA diver
"...suddenly snatched my reg from my mouth without warning..." Needless to say, that right there screams problems, since the OOA's actions resulted in an unnecessary increase in stress...but of course, it probably happened because the OOA himself was near panic.
... so I would add "unfamiliarity with proper AAS protocol and/or zero formal training" to the "long hose" section, because it *does* apply to about 80% of people who use it.
It is bad enough that most Rec divers probably never practice OOA donation skills, but to change configurations and then not practice them either is probably made worse by that jigger of overconfidence that came from reading all that stuff on the Internet about how much "better" the different approach was. With virtually zero practice time conducted wet (with or without a buddy to be the OOA recipient) for either one, there's not going to be a clear better/worse choice, unless we postulate the increased risk of gear entanglement from a longer hose primary (and/or necklaced secondary). Given all of the strong words that come in this area regarding "stuffing" or bungeeing of extra hose length, it is a very real concern.
And finally, my main objection to the traditional octopus is that it needs to be attached in such a way that it will come free when needed and remain in place when stowed.
What's IMO as significant is a hardware issue: most 2nd stage designs today aren't "side breathers" (like the old TUSA or Posideon regs) and as such, when the donor hose isn't long enough, the OOA may try to use the regulator in an upside-down configuration, and for some configurations, the regulator's exhaust tee may interfere with the diver's mask (dislodging it, or preventing the diver from getting it in his mouth).
While it is easy to say that a long hose solves this problem, it really only masks it by making it less hard for the OOA to use the donor's regulator "right side up": the Right Solution is to not accept using any regulator that manifests this positional sensitivity.
That's definitely a con, if that happens. Assuming that a diver was initially taught with a 'standard' rig, then the need for update training applies equally to either AIRII or long-hose.
The difference, that I can see, is that training does exist for long hose (intro-to-tech, intro-to-doubles, tech, fundies etc etc), where I've never seen any specific inclusion of AIRII procedures in a course syllabus.
As such, there does exist some loose form of precedent that long-hose use requires training. I don't see any such precedent within the community that applies to AIRII specific training.
Overall, its an example where training standards have become lax because hardware reliability generally us to "get away" with it. Since OOAs are from a Marketing perspective "Scary Stuff", it is very unlikely that we're going to see the Agencies be proactive in this area.
Interesting that Long hose donate is waaay out on front in the poll.
It shows that the board does not actually represent a true cross section of the diving community; as at least 90% are actually diving with a standard Jacket BCD, reg & octo set-up.
Agreed. Of course, the challenge is to see if all of these AAS systems will really get beaten up with a fully comprehensive list of their Cons along with their Pros. Otherwise, we're not really being an objectively honest broker.
-hh
