Originally Posted by -hh
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.
That's a really good point, that I hadn't even thought of. I guess many of us just don't associate snorkels with long hose.
We don't think about it because historically, the long hose has its roots in cave diving. Under minimalist Hogarthian principles, a snorkel in a hard overhead environment doesn't do much for us, so the snorkel thus becomes an "unnecessary" piece of equipment that can be safely eliminated. For that application, that was a good decision.
Trying to then carry the long hose over into the proverbial "All" environments, we find that having a snorkel does once again have some value, such as on surface floats (or swims), so now we're trying to figure out how/where to carry it, if maybe we need to increase its complexity by going to a folding snorkel, etc, etc. These are all derivative compounding from the long hose ... and hopefully, we've taken a cold, hard look at that long hose to make sure first that it really is better than other alternatives, etc. This conclusion is still TBD/open.
I can recall many old "This can happen to you" articles...
I think there is a certain validity in assessing equipment performance under sub-optimum conditions. In reality, I think the majority of air-shares are relatively placid and controlled. For the sake of assessment, I think it's necessary to consider the worst case scenario (panicked 'snatcher') amongst the potential scenarios... because they can happen and the equipment and drills concerned need to function just as well at those times.
For the same reason, I also think that training should encompass those worse-case scenarios.
Agreed, but there is that big elephant in the room (the "Diving Shouldn't Have Scary Stuff" in the Marketing message mantra) that's going to be hard to dislodge. The irony is that for this and for this:
Yes, this is a common issue in training courses. I wish I had a dollar for every student I've seen secure a donated regulator upside-down. I don't think that 'mask interference' is the worst result - in many cases the victim will have severe difficulty clearing the upside-down reg... which can be a fast-track to a panic reaction.
...this is where I'm increasingly of the opinion that the old "Old School" training had it right where they included various (and contrived) "Confidence Drills". As I now understand this
(disclaimer: partly from my professional work with the Stress and Motivated Behavior Institute and others), it appears that these "Drills" were employing what we now know as elements of Game Theory-based exercises as a means to more safely replicate a stressful environment, such a through competitiveness-based motivations (which can be as simple as keeping score). Essentially, it isn't "scary" if it is presented as a skills competition.
I agree and disagree. If a long hose configuration is more intuitive, then it is preferable. That said, a side-exhaust regulator AAS is also a very intuitive option for novice divers. Having used Poseidon Jetstreams and Cyklons for many years, I can agree that they are very straight-forward for air-sharing (more so on a long hose). I just wish there international availability for service/spares were better, or I'd still be using them.
Agreed & understood. My main point here is merely that AAS "Choice A" could be manifesting itself as superior because of the contribution of the non-availability of more suitable hardware. True, this doesn't mean that "Choice A" doesn't have other advantageous considerations (such as facilitating a single-file exit in a cave restriction), but this again gets back to the element of "All" environments: a figuratively "too long" hose also has implications that a stressed diver can also use that extra length to get out-of-reach and thus out of control of the rescuer. The concern illustrated here is that we may have the potential for rankings to change depending upon the "what's the worst thing that can happen?" contingency planning assumptions we've made. At the same time, we're not going to be able to solve everything either...we're going to have to accept these limitations too.
Having a defensive attitude towards your own preferences really diminishes the educational value of threads like this.
It is always hard to be unemotionally objective. Fortunately for at least me, there's things about
all of the configuration options that I loathe
What it really comes down to IMO is having a solid basis to understand where a (any) solution's weaknesses lie in addition to its advantages, and understanding the context upon where those plusses and minuses are important ... and where they're not (multidimensional significance testing with both Probability & Consequences). The adage of "Chasing Unseen Demons" is a generally good approach, but this can be very easily taken too far overboard...a good example of this are Quick-Disconnects in the context of the typical Rec tropical OW environment instead of a deep entangly overhead.
-hh
