Ditching the poodle jacket

[Deep South Divers]

You didn't ask.

Why would I? Reg failure = thumb dive. Simple. Actually, reg failure = fix reg before diving... And KNOW that it's fixed. But if the failure at depth was unavoidable, then thumb the dive.

If you can fix it, then great - it's not a reg failure. But if my fix didn't hold, then I'd have shut it down and thumbed the dive.

Why is this so complicated?

It was not any different.

...Except that this time, it really WAS fixed.

You said that there was a loose screw... Did you tighten it topside? If you did, how did it get loose again at depth?

I just have no idea. The servicing found nothing. As they were not my regs I spoke to the owner and as she was away I dropped them to her usual reg technican. She told me later it ended up being a standard service. As far as I know, she has not had an issue with them since.

Okay, so apparently they were serviced recently, and someone forgot to tighten that screw.

On finding this, I'm surprised that you trusted them at all... But certainly when they were a problem a second time, you should have ended the dive.

I do not see inflexibility as a good thing to have when diving. Not every situation is the same.

You're right - but there's a tremendous amount of value in having standard responses. It makes solutions quick, decisive, and predictable, and everyone on the team always knows what the other diver is doing and thinking.

You see it as "inflexibility." We see it as "Plan the dive, dive the plan." We see it as "muscle memory." We see it as "standardized systems."

Sure, but some times our plan is not concrete but we have set boundaries on the variations we can make to plans. Perhaps this is the same thing as you are saying though.

No, I'm saying, "Plan the dive, and dive the plan." This, "our plan is not set in concrete" isn't a plan. Plan it, dive it - what's the complication?

My training has discussed fixable and non fixable issues with various bits of equipment, with the stress on not doing something you are uncomfortable with. So I do not have set rules such as this. And I do not think a leak is the same as a failure (depends how big, etc) and assess each in the context in which it happens.

OMG... I don't see how you can dive like that.

When I tell my the boat captain, "I'll crack the surface at 20 minutes," I crack the surface at 20 minutes. That way, he knows that at 21 minutes, there's a problem.

If a reg doesn't do exactly what you had planned for it to do, then it's a failure. If you can't fix it (absolutely positively), thumb the dive - no exceptions. Why would you want to be submerged with a faulty reg, anyway?

Because life is not cut n dry.

Why not?

Life is what you make it. Learned that in diving, too... Later reinforced by cancer and chemo.

If you're not in control, then who is? Life is everything that you make it. If you say you'll have 18 minutes of bottom time, then have 18 minutes of bottom time. If you don't know how much bottom time you're gonna have, then make a decision and stick by it. Your dive - your call. Your life.

Curious. Why do you say that I say things that I have not said then?

Like what? If you give me a specific question, I'll give you a specific answer.

Fair enough. I don't agree so we can leave it there.

Cool. I like that.

Because I do not find it complicated to ditch and don my BC.

Me neither... I also don't find it complicated to leave it on, either. So unless I can find a really good reason to take it off (or any other piece of gear, for that matter), I believe it should stay there. So far, I've never been able to find a really good reason to take it off.

And nothing to indicate I am a man, so why I assume I am one?

...Because most people in the diving world are. Sure, it's getting more even, but it's still a male-dominated activity.

I don't care if your a man or woman or what, personally... But if you want the world to know you're a woman, you might want to do something to indicate it... Face pic, first name (assuming yours shows obvious gender) in signature... Something.

Else, you'll probably get a lot of "hes" and "hims."

It's in my profile.

Yeah, I saw that - now. I don't generally do a profile check on everyone. Not 'til I spend hours debating with them on ScubaBoard.

Sure. Instead you can look at people's profiles before using gendered language (which is what I do) or use gender neutral language.

Too much work. <-man response If you're not willing to identify yourself as one of the minority genders in this activity, then I'm going to assume that you really don't care if we accidentally call you "dude."

It's no big deal.

Yep, "No big deal."

It just tells me a lot about someone when they assume I am male.

Really? Well, it just tells me a lot about someone when they assume that I know that they're the minority gender, especially when they've given no indication one way or the other.

If you don't care to mention it, then I'm going to assume that you don't care. And if you don't care, then why should I care what gender you are? No big deal, right?

Well, then I'd agree with you all of the time, but then we'd both be wrong.

Heh. OMG - you ARE a female.

But this whole discussion started from a comment from InTheDrink about BC removal not entire scuba unit removal so I am unsure why you have gone on and on about entire scuba unit removal in response.

Because many divers (myself included) see a dive system as a holistic system... That is, the entire system depends on the function of everything else. When someone says, "doff and don their BC," I must assume that they mean tank, regs, everything attached to the BC, and possibly even their ditchable weights and/or integrated weight system, too... What, are you going to doff and don your BC, but keep your tank(s), regs, and the things clipped off to your D-rings, too? I mean, what's the plan if you're going to doff and don your BC, but not the "whole scuba unit?"

I don't know why you brought it up then as no one was asking about entire scuba unit removal. I am sure it has happened though.

I'm sure it has, too... But it's not something that I've ever personally seen, even though the urban legend continues to be told about the diver who was diving and came across a fully-rigged system laying in the sand. He was just about to make off with it, when a guy on a breath hold came out from under a rock and put his rig back on. That was the specific scenario that I said "doesn't happen" and that a diver should never separate himself (okay, HERself) from their life support.

Now we're talking in circles about what "separate" means, when it's okay, what constitutes a "BC" and what constitutes a "scuba unit," and whether or not the reg should or shouldn't stay in the diver's mouth. For a while, this had something to do with entanglements - I don't even know if that's the reason any more.

Hey, I've got a good idea... Let's just leave the freakin' thing on, hunh? Put it on before you get in the water, take it off after you get out. Simple.

Because we were talking specifically about BC ditch and don. Not all the rest of what you have been going on about. So I felt no need to clarify. You are the one who muddied the waters with breath holding and so forth. Perhaps you should have been the one to be upfront about it.

No, we were talking specifically about the urban legend of the diver that came across the fully-rigged scuba unit... Remember? I think it's back on page 2 or 3 or something...

...So I was very "upfront" about it. Now we're talking about how many ways we can screw up a perfectly good thought process with exceptions.

(continued)

 

[Deep South Divers]

And this is precisely why I have been arguing the point. As that is what I have been talking about.

No... The original point was "NEVER separate yourself from your life support..." Remember? Now we're off on a Aussie tangent...

Again, you were the one who brought that up, not anyone else.

Yes... Lol... Where's that Monty Python skit again?

I would never say never with anything to do with diving.

Oh, I can think of a dozen or so... "Never hold your breath." "Never dive with people with unsafe attitudes." "Never try to breathe the water." There's plenty - although I'm afraid to mention them, as you may try to debate them with me.

If my rig got so hopelessly tangled underwater that after ditching and donning my BC I could not free it well then I am going to let it go and surface. There are always exceptions and to be inflexible is not a good thing, in my opinion.

Okay. Fine. Great idea. Let's all leave our life support systems and do free ascents. Know what? Maybe we need to write PADI and do a "Leave your life support and do a free ascent" specialty.

Again with the misreading! I said I didn't know if it was an AGENCY or the INSTRUCTOR's requirement.

I didn't misread.

If not the agency, then which instructor?

I have done courses where I have had to do things beyond the agency standards because the instructor prefers to do extra things. Perhaps in this case is the same. For goodness sake, read my posts properly. This is yet another example of you misreading my post! You even quoted exactly what I said, yet you did not read it properly.

No, I read it. Give me the person/agency/instructor/government/whoever that makes a doff and don a requirement for a trimix certification.

Who required your buddy to do a doff and don as a requirement for his/her trimix certification?

Again with putting words in my mouth. I never said scuba diving was no big deal. I said that an aspect of it, ditch and don, was no big deal. Again, please read my posts and respond to what I have said, not what you think I have said.

Yeah, but see, that's where our thought processes differ - when it comes to scuba diving, the whole thing is a big deal... For whatever reason, you want to segregate and divide everything into tiny little parts, and decide what to do in each and every situation, differently from the rest. You maintain that "doff and don" isn't a big deal, and I'm telling you that separating yourself from your life support is a majorly flawed thought process. You want to see the micro, I want to see the macro. You accuse me of making "blanket statments," but you're making so many exceptions that the rule no longer applies.

Ok. I have never argued that it is no big deal for someone to leave behind their scuba equipment.

You just did, right up there. ^^^^^

No official training. But they are simple devices to add and remove hardware from.

Yeah, but after looking at your profile (aren't you proud of me?) I see that you're a software tester. Okay, you may not be officially trained as a hardware person, but clearly you're a computer person.

I have not been talking about situations where the consequence is going to be death.

Ummmm... It's diving. Insurance companies consider it a "high risk activity," and if done incorrectly, yes, the consequences are death and/or injury. See, again, you're trynig to separate this down into "donning and doffing," but we're talking about donning and doffing underwater, while diving. Actually, we were originally talking about the urban legend of the diver that found a fully rigged scuba unit on the seabed and almost made off with it... But I wont tell the story for a fifth time. Yes, in an activity (scuba) where the consequence for doing something wrong is trauma or death, the equipment can be considered "life support," and should be treated as such.

I'm shocked that someone who has recently finished their cavern course feels otherwise.

Quite enjoyably, thanks for asking.

Smartass.

Ahh see I don't always start with a full tank. The other day I had 140 bar left over from a dive last week so I jumped under a 5m pier to use up the rest of it. Didn't want to waste over half a tank!

OMG... You just wanna argue to argue.

Because what you are telling me to do, goes against all my dive training, and all of the experience I have accumulated so far. And you are a complete stranger so I don't see why I would listen to you over instructors and friends who combined have vastly more experience than you.

Oh, I would definitely stick with what you've been trained to do... I would never recommend listening to a complete stranger over your instructors!

That said, please give me the name and contact information for the instructor who is teaching you to separate from your life support equipment and go hunting "bugs" in a crack or under a ledge that you can't get to unless you doff your rig. What instructor is teaching this course?

...And before you go and say, "I'm just talking about donning and doffing your BC," please tell me the agency or instructor that is requiring that for a trimix certification.

I highly doubt it. If you knew me you would know that very few female stereotypes can be applied to me.

Well, this one seems to fit you pretty well. Breaks your heart, doesn't it?

We are two different people who have two different opinions about something? And nothing more than that? It happens.

Sure, it's possible... Please support your argument and tell me who is requiring an open water doff and don for an advanced course like trimix.

I am sure some people use them here. But it is not allowed. No one I have dived with has used one.

Well, I have dived with many "bug hunters" - some of whom use sticks, and some of which don't. There's a whole group of them here in SC - a club of maybe 50 guys in Charleston.

As much as I've dived with various members of that group, I've never once ever seen any of them doff their gear and chase a lobster down a hole.

I think a tickle stick would make them easier to catch so they might not need to.

I dunno the dynamics of it all, but that sounds logical to me.

n=1 where n is you. Not a valid statistical sample size. Neither are the thousands of dives you have done when you think about how many dives have ever been done

Okay, but *I* am not the sample. The people I have dived with are what I'm basing my opinion on, and that's a much larger sample than n-1.

I would argue that I've had hundreds of buddies... I couldn't even begin to have any idea how many. And in all of those, not ONE person has ever doffed their rig and ducked under a ledge, looking for a bug?

Look, I don't know whether or not you consider that conclusive, but in statistics, it's considered a high degree of confidence.

Okay, so you know someone who did it once... Or does it regularly. That ONE person is a horrible statistical sample, too...

I knew someone once who dove with one pink fin, and one blue fin. No kidding. Just because I once saw one person wearing two different fins doesn't mean that it's a good idea and that I should base purchases - or advice on purchases - on this one example. Yet, that's exactly what you're doing... Telling the original poster that doffing and donning underwater is a required skill (or at least recommended) and that it should be a consideration in gear purchase... Because there's this one place in Australia where people doff their rigs to hunt bugs. Even worse, it may be one or a handful of ones that practice this.

The concept is silly. Keep your life support on, John.

 

[Sas]

Why would I? Reg failure = thumb dive. Simple. Actually, reg failure = fix reg before diving... And KNOW that it's fixed. But if the failure at depth was unavoidable, then thumb the dive.

As I said, I thought I knew it was fixed.

If you can fix it, then great - it's not a reg failure. But if my fix didn't hold, then I'd have shut it down and thumbed the dive.

Same.

Why is this so complicated?

I've been asking that myself, each time I read your posts.

...Except that this time, it really WAS fixed.

You said that there was a loose screw... Did you tighten it topside? If you did, how did it get loose again at depth?

Yes I did tighten it topside AND had it looked at by someone who knows a lot more than I do about regs. If you had read my previous posts you would have seen this. And as I have said a number of times I do not know why it became loose at depth.

Okay, so apparently they were serviced recently, and someone forgot to tighten that screw.

No, they had not been serviced recently (about 100 dives or 8 months since last service). They were serviced after this problem. Again this I have mentioned before. There were no problems in two days diving before hand nor the dive I did after this.

On finding this, I'm surprised that you trusted them at all... But certainly when they were a problem a second time, you should have ended the dive.

Well, here is what happened again as you haven't read it properly before. There was a leak on the surface. I fixed it. It was checked by someone who services regs. All looked good. Regs sat on my tanks, pressurised for about thirty minutes. I did the dive, part of the way through the dive, they started leaking again. A buddy fixed it. I was feeling comfortable with this second fix so I continued on (had lots of air left, leak was minor). If it had happened again, I would have ended the dive. It did not reoccur on the rest of the dive OR the second dive I did after this. They were then put in for servicing. Servicing found no issues that could indicate why this had occured. I am still at a loss to explain it.

You're right - but there's a tremendous amount of value in having standard responses. It makes solutions quick, decisive, and predictable, and everyone on the team always knows what the other diver is doing and thinking.

I agree.

You see it as "inflexibility." We see it as "Plan the dive, dive the plan." We see it as "muscle memory." We see it as "standardized systems."

I don't dive with people who have a standardised system in general. We all have different gear configurations. I see arguments for and against standardisation. If I had my way, I would prefer my buddies to dive the same way as me, in the same gear. But I think personal preference is important.

No, I'm saying, "Plan the dive, and dive the plan." This, "our plan is not set in concrete" isn't a plan. Plan it, dive it - what's the complication?

Because on shallow dives, I never know what will end my dive - air or cold. So we have a range in which we plan to end the dive.

When I tell my the boat captain, "I'll crack the surface at 20 minutes," I crack the surface at 20 minutes. That way, he knows that at 21 minutes, there's a problem.

Same here. If I give a runtime to a boat I stick to it. I have not said anything to the contrary in this thread so I am not sure why you are giving this example.

If a reg doesn't do exactly what you had planned for it to do, then it's a failure. If you can't fix it (absolutely positively), thumb the dive - no exceptions. Why would you want to be submerged with a faulty reg, anyway?

How can one ever be sure then that their fix is 'absolutely positively' done? How do you know, even having taken apart your reg setup, that you have fixed it properly? You don't, just like I didn't know for sure.

I did not think the reg was going to leak again and I had good reasons for thinking this. I have only had reg problems on one other occasion and I thumbed the dive as I did not feel comfortable with them. On this dive I did feel comfortable and in fact I was right as they were fixed, for good, on the dive.

Why not?

Life is what you make it. Learned that in diving, too... Later reinforced by cancer and chemo.

Life is partly what you make it but not always. There are things that happen that are beyond one's control and this happens in diving too.

If you're not in control, then who is? Life is everything that you make it.

Bullocks. Tell that to my step-brother who was run over in a hit and run accident whilst crossing the road after someone ran a red. I suppose he's now responsible for his permanent brain damage and paralysis then if life is, in fact, everything that you make it? I could go on with examples but I am sure you get the point.

If you say you'll have 18 minutes of bottom time, then have 18 minutes of bottom time. If you don't know how much bottom time you're gonna have, then make a decision and stick by it. Your dive - your call. Your life.

I don't always have a set run time before I go in for a dive. For example, yesterday I was doing some shallow shore dives (i.e. around 5m) with a buddy to practice for his cavern course. I asked how long he wanted to dive for and he said between 70-100mins. We got cold at 85mins and ended the dive. This is how I plan some dives. Other dives, like decompression dives I have very strict run times that I stick to.

Like what? If you give me a specific question, I'll give you a specific answer.

There's a few coming, just be patient.

Me neither... I also don't find it complicated to leave it on, either. So unless I can find a really good reason to take it off (or any other piece of gear, for that matter), I believe it should stay there. So far, I've never been able to find a really good reason to take it off.

Well if it is not complicated to take off or to leave on, why do you keep referring to it as so unsafe?

...Because most people in the diving world are. Sure, it's getting more even, but it's still a male-dominated activity.

That does not excuse assuming the wrong thing.

I don't care if your a man or woman or what, personally... But if you want the world to know you're a woman, you might want to do something to indicate it... Face pic, first name (assuming yours shows obvious gender) in signature... Something.

I don't have a pressing need for people to know. I just think people that use gendered language without verifying gender are lazy.

Too much work. <-man response If you're not willing to identify yourself as one of the minority genders in this activity, then I'm going to assume that you really don't care if we accidentally call you "dude."

A wrong assumption but you've been good at that through this thread.

Really? Well, it just tells me a lot about someone when they assume that I know that they're the minority gender, especially when they've given no indication one way or the other.

I don't care if you don't bother to check or if you ever find out, if you stick to using gender neutral languages.

 

[Sas]

Because many divers (myself included) see a dive system as a holistic system...

I don't.

That is, the entire system depends on the function of everything else. When someone says, "doff and don their BC," I must assume that they mean tank, regs, everything attached to the BC, and possibly even their ditchable weights and/or integrated weight system, too... What, are you going to doff and don your BC, but keep your tank(s), regs, and the things clipped off to your D-rings, too? I mean, what's the plan if you're going to doff and don your BC, but not the "whole scuba unit?"

I am talking about a standard ditch and don of a BC. You can keep the reg in your mouth. I leave things clipped where they are.

I'm sure it has, too... But it's not something that I've ever personally seen, even though the urban legend continues to be told about the diver who was diving and came across a fully-rigged system laying in the sand. He was just about to make off with it, when a guy on a breath hold came out from under a rock and put his rig back on. That was the specific scenario that I said "doesn't happen" and that a diver should never separate himself (okay, HERself) from their life support.

I was never talking about your urban legend and neither was the post that kickstarted this discussion.

Now we're talking in circles about what "separate" means, when it's okay, what constitutes a "BC" and what constitutes a "scuba unit," and whether or not the reg should or shouldn't stay in the diver's mouth. For a while, this had something to do with entanglements - I don't even know if that's the reason any more.

A BC is a BC. A scuba unit is tank, regs, BC and anything else attached to that. Simple really.

Hey, I've got a good idea... Let's just leave the freakin' thing on, hunh? Put it on before you get in the water, take it off after you get out. Simple.

And 99.99% of my dives are done like that. I do ditch and don when practicing skills though, and once outside of skills as mentioned already.

Oh, I can think of a dozen or so... "Never hold your breath." "Never dive with people with unsafe attitudes." "Never try to breathe the water." There's plenty - although I'm afraid to mention them, as you may try to debate them with me.

I hold my breath when taking photos sometimes to steady myself. If you said 'never hold your breath when ascending' then I would agree. The other ones I agree with though, but they are different to reactions to problems underwater, which is what I was discussing.

Okay. Fine. Great idea. Let's all leave our life support systems and do free ascents. Know what? Maybe we need to write PADI and do a "Leave your life support and do a free ascent" specialty.

What would you do then, if you got entangled and could not free your BC? And there was no one to help you?

I didn't misread.

If not the agency, then which instructor?

A friend's instructor. Either you are accusing me of lying or my friend. I don't know what either of our motivations would be for lying about this. I have no idea why my friend would make up what skills he had to do. He specifically mentioned he was comfortable with every skill he had to do on the course, other than two and that he needed to practice midwater ditch and don of his gear with his twins + 2 deco bottles, as well as OOA without a mask in midwater having to swim to his buddy to get air. He joined me for a dive one day, shallow night dive where he practiced ditch and don with two decp bottles and twins. I don't know why he would have lugged all these tanks on a shore dive to 10m and then do ditch and don for laughs... Can you think of a reason?

No, I read it. Give me the person/agency/instructor/government/whoever that makes a doff and don a requirement for a trimix certification.

I know the instructor's name but I don't really care if you believe me or not. If you say it is not an agency requirement, then it must be the instructor's requirement. Some courses have instructors who require more than the agency requirements. In a recent course I had to demonstrate valve drills as well as do a few extra skills, as well as do a dry caving climbing session, which are not part of the standards.

Yeah, but see, that's where our thought processes differ - when it comes to scuba diving, the whole thing is a big deal... For whatever reason, you want to segregate and divide everything into tiny little parts, and decide what to do in each and every situation, differently from the rest. You maintain that "doff and don" isn't a big deal, and I'm telling you that separating yourself from your life support is a majorly flawed thought process. You want to see the micro, I want to see the macro. You accuse me of making "blanket statments," but you're making so many exceptions that the rule no longer applies.

Well we disagree on how we look at scuba then and neither is going to change our mind so lets move on.

You just did, right up there. ^^^^^

No I did not. I have never said one should separate from their scuba gear. I do not consider ditch and donning of a BC as separating from one's scuba gear.

Yeah, but after looking at your profile (aren't you proud of me?) I see that you're a software tester. Okay, you may not be officially trained as a hardware person, but clearly you're a computer person.

Again with the assumptions. I moved out of home long before I became a software tester but have always done "tech support" of computers throughout my teenage years for my mother - self taught. I used to be an accountant, not a software tester. I don't think I have done work on my mother's PC since becoming a software tester. I actually test banking risk analysis software, so taking apart computers has never been part of my job description anyway.

Ummmm... It's diving. Insurance companies consider it a "high risk activity," and if done incorrectly, yes, the consequences are death and/or injury. See, again, you're trynig to separate this down into "donning and doffing," but we're talking about donning and doffing underwater, while diving.

I don't think scuba is high risk at the recreational level. Driving is far more dangerous to me that diving, but no one thinks twice about that.

Actually, we were originally talking about the urban legend of the diver that found a fully rigged scuba unit on the seabed and almost made off with it...

No you were talking about this. No one else was.

But I wont tell the story for a fifth time. Yes, in an activity (scuba) where the consequence for doing something wrong is trauma or death, the equipment can be considered "life support," and should be treated as such.

I thought we agreed to not rehash this topic?

I'm shocked that someone who has recently finished their cavern course feels otherwise.

Feels otherwise in what way? I actually find the cavern diving that I do a lot more safe and comfortable than diving in the ocean. There are no swells or currents to deal with, no deadly critters like blue ring octopuses and the viz is a great deal better (50m versus 5-10m in many caves though there are some that are low). Also navigation is easy as I have a line to follow. MUCH MUCH easier than ocean diving in nearly all ways.

OMG... You just wanna argue to argue.

Yes, I like arguing but I did have a point. You said 'always start the dive with a full tank'. I think this is a blanket statement that I could not follow. As I said I did a shallow dive to finish off the rest of my tank - is this unsafe? It's not following your blanket rule.

Oh, I would definitely stick with what you've been trained to do... I would never recommend listening to a complete stranger over your instructors!

Yep.

That said, please give me the name and contact information for the instructor who is teaching you to separate from your life support equipment and go hunting "bugs" in a crack or under a ledge that you can't get to unless you doff your rig. What instructor is teaching this course?

I have never been taught in a course to bug hunt. I never said so - again you are putting words in my mouth. I have never done bug hunting and I never will. So why are you asking these questions if you, in fact, read my posts properly?

...And before you go and say, "I'm just talking about donning and doffing your BC," please tell me the agency or instructor that is requiring that for a trimix certification.

So you are saying I or my friend is lying about that? What on earth would be my motivation for doing this?

Well, this one seems to fit you pretty well. Breaks your heart, doesn't it?

Which stereotype seems to fit me well? I was going to say you seem more like a stereotypical woman - as you are more irrational than I as well as more emotional with all your emotive examples of drunk driving and so on.

Well, I have dived with many "bug hunters" - some of whom use sticks, and some of which don't. There's a whole group of them here in SC - a club of maybe 50 guys in Charleston.

As much as I've dived with various members of that group, I've never once ever seen any of them doff their gear and chase a lobster down a hole.

Well because you've never seen it, it must not be true /sarcasm

I would argue that I've had hundreds of buddies... I couldn't even begin to have any idea how many. And in all of those, not ONE person has ever doffed their rig and ducked under a ledge, looking for a bug?

This does not mean that I have not seen it.

Okay, so you know someone who did it once... Or does it regularly. That ONE person is a horrible statistical sample, too...

I was never trying to argue that it is a common thing. I was just trying to show that you were incorrect to say it NEVER happens. (there's that dangerous NEVER word again).

I knew someone once who dove with one pink fin, and one blue fin. No kidding. Just because I once saw one person wearing two different fins doesn't mean that it's a good idea and that I should base purchases - or advice on purchases - on this one example. Yet, that's exactly what you're doing... Telling the original poster that doffing and donning underwater is a required skill

I think ditch and don is a very good skill to have, just in case. It also builds comfort. And if you are a solo diver, it is an especially good skill to have. It isn't hard. If it was, then perhaps your argument would have some validity.

(or at least recommended) and that it should be a consideration in gear purchase... Because there's this one place in Australia where people doff their rigs to hunt bugs. Even worse, it may be one or a handful of ones that practice this.

I never said this was the reason why one should know ditch and don. Stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.

Anyway, I'm done here. I gave you multiple chances to stop misinterpreting my post or twisting my words and you keep failing to do so. I find this disrespectful and quite frankly, boring. I like debate, but only when someone remains respectful and actually sticks to the points I am making, not the points they think I am making.

 

[hg frogman]

To the OP (InTheDrink) :
Doffing a BP/W in a hurry while one has to climb back on the RIB is doable but needs some practice.

As a prerequisite, I found that it helped me to wear my computer on the right wrist.

First I make my left hand then left fore-arm slip underneath the left shoulder's webbing, then I remove this webbing (ie left arm and shoulder are now free) ;

then and only then I open the waist buckle and remove the crotch strap ;

and then I get rid of the whole unit.

This can be done while still breathing from the primary during the whole process (provided the hose has the regular length, ie about 90 cm/3 feet ; with a long hose some other preliminary step may be necessary ; anyway long hose isn't much useful for open water diving and for me it can be a PITA, eg to get back on the RIB). Useful in choppy seas.

So I don't feel the need for a shoulder quick-release, but some others (with much more impressive credentials than me, eg Mark Ellyatt) think otherwise.

Hope this is clear because my English has limits.

 

[burna]

This thread is fantastic!

So much catching up to do.

 

[Deep South Divers]

Yes I did tighten it topside AND had it looked at by someone who knows a lot more than I do about regs. If you had read my previous posts you would have seen this. And as I have said a number of times I do not know why it became loose at depth.

No, they had not been serviced recently (about 100 dives or 8 months since last service). They were serviced after this problem. Again this I have mentioned before. There were no problems in two days diving before hand nor the dive I did after this.

You know, Sas, you keep saying things like, "If you'd read my posts, you'd see that I said this before - the screw came loose." Sas, I read your posts. You're not saying anything new. It's really irritating when you sit there and repeat yourself.

I'm aware that you have said that the screw came loose. I'm aware that you attempted to fix it, but did not - then dove with it anyway. I'm aware that it caused a leaking problem at depth, and you repeated the repair again. According to your story, this time, your repair worked.

Sas, screws don't just come unscrewed... You can repeat yourself until you're blue in the face, and accuse me of not reading your posts, but the bottom line is that your story's not making any sense... Or you at least have never diagnosed the problem. Why so careless? I would think that if I had a reg failure (a leak is a failure, just not catastrophic) I would want to know why and how to fix it - especially if they're borrowed regs.

Your lax attitude about the entire ordeal has me wondering about your story - what are you leaving out? Did it really happen?

Since you used it to prove a point (that it would have been a reason to doff your rig at depth, had you been solo diving), I am very curious what really happened. Your description of the issue, it's return, your reaction to it, and the subsequent lax attitude about it don't seem consistent with the way I've seen people handle regulator failures in the past.

Well, here is what happened again as you haven't read it properly before.

No, I've read it. If you had read MY posts, you would see that I have read it, and I keep telling you that, and I'm tired of telling you that.

Your stories are causing me questions, Sas - they're suspicious. I keep bringing them up because they've got inconsistencies in them... Not because I'm reading them partially or because I'm misinterpreting them.

If you can't understand that, then perhaps I can get someone else to explain it to you.

There was a leak on the surface. I fixed it.

You may have fixed a symptom, but clearly, you did NOT fix the problem, or it wouldn't have returned during the dive later.

It was checked by someone who services regs. All looked good. Regs sat on my tanks, pressurised for about thirty minutes. I did the dive, part of the way through the dive, they started leaking again.

...Because a screw had "loosened" itself again? Sas, screws don't just loosen themselves spontaneously.

A buddy fixed it. I was feeling comfortable with this second fix so I continued on (had lots of air left, leak was minor).

Depends on the reg. Yours may have been leaking at a high pressure seal inside the reg that could have led to a catastrophic loss of gas.

I wouldn't consider ANY reg leak "minor" by the way... And it's a little shocking to hear someone say something like that.

...But I'm curious how you explain a screw unscrewing itself spontaneously, and even after being tightened before.

...Why you would trust a second fix that was identical to the first (which didn't work), I have no idea.

...But what I see are inconsistencies with what happened in your story and what I see happen in real life. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say, "Hey, look, my reg's leaking... No big deal." That makes me question the validity of your story.

If it had happened again, I would have ended the dive. It did not reoccur on the rest of the dive OR the second dive I did after this. They were then put in for servicing. Servicing found no issues that could indicate why this had occured.

Yeah, that's another inconsistency. A vital part of your breathing system spontaneously backs out screws, and there's no problem discovered with it? I would think that the technician would be very interested in properly diagnosing the "haunted" reg.

I don't dive with people who have a standardised system in general. We all have different gear configurations. I see arguments for and against standardisation. If I had my way, I would prefer my buddies to dive the same way as me, in the same gear. But I think personal preference is important.

Well, maybe after a few more years of doing it, you'll look back on your words, "I think personal preference is important" and realize how silly they were.

Personal preference comes into play when you're talking about clothing, the color of your car, and the type of drink you order at the bar. When it comes to life support equipment, personal preference matters not, and there is tremendous value in standardization.

If you keep diving (and the haunted reg doesn't kill you), you'll learn that on your own.

How can one ever be sure then that their fix is 'absolutely positively' done? How do you know, even having taken apart your reg setup, that you have fixed it properly? You don't, just like I didn't know for sure.

No, but you have a "reasonable assurance" when you've rebuilt and repaired them 100 times before.

Sas, screws don't just spontaneously back out. And when people's regs leak, generally the diver that's using them doesn't say, "It's no big deal." Something doesn't "jive" about your story. Are you telling me everything?

I did not think the reg was going to leak again and I had good reasons for thinking this. I have only had reg problems on one other occasion and I thumbed the dive as I did not feel comfortable with them. On this dive I did feel comfortable and in fact I was right as they were fixed, for good, on the dive.

What was different about the second fix (that "really fixed them") from the first fix (that "didn't really fix them")? Yes, I read your response to that question above... But clearly, there WAS a difference, if you had confidence in the second fix, when you knew that the first didn't work.

Life is partly what you make it but not always. There are things that happen that are beyond one's control and this happens in diving too.

Of course there's things that you can't control... But even those things, you can control your reaction to them or your attitude about them.

Your "exception IS the rule" attitude is very disturbing, Sas, particularly with how it relates to diving.

Bullocks. Tell that to my step-brother who was run over in a hit and run accident whilst crossing the road after someone ran a red.

It's not "bullocks" - you're talking to a cancer victim here. Life is EXACTLY what you make of it. You can't control the hand you're given, but everything else is a choice, Sas. What you make of it all is totally, completely, up to you... And that's not a "sometimes."

I don't always have a set run time before I go in for a dive. For example, yesterday I was doing some shallow shore dives (i.e. around 5m) with a buddy to practice for his cavern course. I asked how long he wanted to dive for and he said between 70-100mins. We got cold at 85mins and ended the dive. This is how I plan some dives. Other dives, like decompression dives I have very strict run times that I stick to.

...And you're comfortable with doing things differently (sometimes planning, sometimes "winging it," and sometimes planning a "range" of time) on every dive, with no consistent skill sets being developed?

Well if it is not complicated to take off or to leave on, why do you keep referring to it as so unsafe?

...Because it's an unsafe philosophy to separate yourself from your life support when you need it to prevent death. The philosophical ideal is enough of a reason for me to keep it on, but here's another reason: Because I'm lazy. I don't want to have to work any harder for no reason, and doffing and donning is work.

...So unless you can give me a really, really good reason for needing to separate a diver from his life support, I would say that it should stay on.

My question is... Why would anyone have the propensity to remove themselves from their life support in the first place? Why would anyone believe it's part of a "trimix certification?"

That does not excuse assuming the wrong thing.

I don't have a pressing need for people to know. I just think people that use gendered language without verifying gender are lazy.

A wrong assumption but you've been good at that through this thread.

I don't care if you don't bother to check or if you ever find out, if you stick to using gender neutral languages.

Look, Sas... If you want the world to stop calling you male-gendered pronouns within the realm of the online scuba world, take control of the situation and make it obvious that you're a female. If you're not willing to clearly communicate that to the general public (ie - only mention it buried in your profile), then the general public will assume you're one of the majority divers (male) or that you don't care about the issue whatsoever. If you don't care, then they won't care... And they'll call you "he."

Sas, there are some things you can control, and some things you can't... You can't control that the general public will default to "he." That's what the legal system does, that's what religious books do, and that's what most storytellers do... So it's become standard practice. What you CAN control is clearly stating that you're not a "he," if that bothers you. Communicate your gender, and, as a rule, people will be thrilled to refer to you using feminine pronouns.

...So in much the same way as diving (and the rest of life), yes, you ARE in contol of this - even if you can't control the general public's propensity to default to a male-gendered pronoun.

I don't.

Yes, I can see that.

 

[Deep South Divers]

I was never talking about your urban legend and neither was the post that kickstarted this discussion.

The post that kickstarted this discussion was me saying "NEVER separate yourself from your life support." Your exceptions to the rule "doff and don" focus and explaining why it's a good idea to constantly change ideals and favor personal preference over standardization and/or consistency has all been a tangent.

A BC is a BC.

Tell ya what... I'll try it on you:

"Sometimes."

A scuba unit is tank, regs, BC and anything else attached to that. Simple really.

"Not necessarily."

And 99.99% of my dives are done like that. I do ditch and don when practicing skills though, and once outside of skills as mentioned already.

Ditch and don... What? Just your BC, or the whole scuba unit?

"Yeah and no - sometimes I do, too, and sometimes I don't."

I hold my breath when taking photos sometimes to steady myself. If you said 'never hold your breath when ascending' then I would agree. The other ones I agree with though, but they are different to reactions to problems underwater, which is what I was discussing.

"Occassionally." "Depends."

What would you do then, if you got entangled and could not free your BC? And there was no one to help you?

Here, I'll try the rest of your debating techniques:

"If you had READ MY POST before, then you would have seen what I said. Why do you not read my posts? Can you not read?

What I told you before was that I have never once in 23 years ever been entangled enough to warrant removing myself from my life support system. The most I've ever been entangled (which has only been maybe half a dozen times) was at the valve, and I simply reached back and pulled the line off my valve. I've never been entangled worse, and I've never seen anyone else get entangled worse. I have never come close to needing to remove my BC for an entanglement.

Interestingly, I'm a commercial diver - specifically called out to handle massive entanglements underwater on a regular basis... Shrimp and fishing boats that ran over their own nets and lines and need to be disentangled. I am often swimming in a virtual rat's nest of fresh, clear, entangling monofilament, string, line, cable, and chain... Sometimes, it's even a large net - which has been specifically engineered to ensnare. I have done literally hundreds of these kinds of dives (entanglement dives) over many years - and never once have I ever had to remove my BC to disentangle myself. In fact, I've never once had to cut myself out of a situation - I've always been able to simply remove the entanglement with care.

...But assuming that it were to happen to me - I was to become entangled... And I couldn't untangle myself... And I couldn't just cut the line and free myself... And I somehow couldn't reach the entanglement... Then I would notify my buddy and ask him to disentangle me.

...And if I became entangled... And I couldn't untangle myself... And I couldn't just cut the line and free myself... And I somehow couldn't reach the entanglement... And I was diving without a buddy... And ALL of the above bizarre situations were to happen at once... MAYBE then I could justify disassembling myself and my rig to free myself from the mess. I don't know - I've never gotten to that point, even though I'm the guy that's diving under the 100-foot longliner that's got literally 11 miles of mono (the really good, commercial stuff, too) stuck in his propeller.

That you consider the threat of entanglement so common that you practice for it is odd to me. You practice doffing and donning your BC for the exponentially remote possibility that you may, at some point need the skill, but you've never practiced an OOG drill in a restriction?

A friend's instructor. Either you are accusing me of lying or my friend.

I didn't accuse anyone of lying. You'll know when I do - I say something like, "You're lying."

When I say things like "There's something wrong with that story," or "something's not jiving here," or "are you sure you're telling me everything?" That's because I suspect that something is wrong with the story, or something's not jiving, or that I'm not being told everything. When I think you're lying to me, I'll say, "You're lying!"

I don't know what either of our motivations would be for lying about this.

I have some suspicions, but what difference does that make? What agency or instructor required a doff and don to get a trimix certification?

I have no idea why my friend would make up what skills he had to do.

Who said anyone was making up anything? You said that someone required it, and I said, "Who?" Who was it?

He specifically mentioned he was comfortable with every skill he had to do on the course, other than two and that he needed to practice midwater ditch and don of his gear with his twins + 2 deco bottles, as well as OOA without a mask in midwater having to swim to his buddy to get air. He joined me for a dive one day, shallow night dive where he practiced ditch and don with two decp bottles and twins. I don't know why he would have lugged all these tanks on a shore dive to 10m and then do ditch and don for laughs... Can you think of a reason?

Perhaps it was a requirement? Perhaps that's what he felt like doing? I don't know... I wasn't speculating. All I asked was, "Who required it for a trimix certification?"

You're the one that brought up the concept of lying... Feeling guilty about something?

I know the instructor's name but I don't really care if you believe me or not.

Well, what is the instructors name, then? I don't care if you don't care if I believe you or not. You were the one that said it was a requirement, and I want to know why.

If you say it is not an agency requirement, then it must be the instructor's requirement.

Agreed. Whose requirement was it? I'd like to call or email them and find out why. Certainly they must have a good reason!

Some courses have instructors who require more than the agency requirements.

Yep, that's how it's been with many of my instructors, too.

In a recent course I had to demonstrate valve drills as well as do a few extra skills, as well as do a dry caving climbing session, which are not part of the standards.

"Well, if you had READ MY POSTS, you'd see that all I was asking was, "Who required it?" Why don't you READ MY POSTS?"

No I did not. I have never said one should separate from their scuba gear. I do not consider ditch and donning of a BC as separating from one's scuba gear.

"Sometimes."

I'll say it again, like I said it before y'all jumped all over my stuff... NEVER separate yourself from your life support equipment. The rest of these tangents are YOUR points, not mine.

I don't think scuba is high risk at the recreational level. Driving is far more dangerous to me that diving, but no one thinks twice about that.

"Occassionally."

No you were talking about this. No one else was.

"Not all the time."

I thought we agreed to not rehash this topic?

"Sometimes there are exceptions."

Feels otherwise in what way? I actually find the cavern diving that I do a lot more safe and comfortable than diving in the ocean. There are no swells or currents to deal with, no deadly critters like blue ring octopuses and the viz is a great deal better (50m versus 5-10m in many caves though there are some that are low). Also navigation is easy as I have a line to follow. MUCH MUCH easier than ocean diving in nearly all ways.

"Well, it all boils down to personal preference. I think that's important."

Yes, I like arguing but I did have a point. You said 'always start the dive with a full tank'. I think this is a blanket statement that I could not follow. As I said I did a shallow dive to finish off the rest of my tank - is this unsafe? It's not following your blanket rule.

"Partially. I think sometimes you get it, and sometimes you don't... But only some of the time." Why don't you read my posts correctly?"

Which stereotype seems to fit me well? I was going to say you seem more like a stereotypical woman - as you are more irrational than I as well as more emotional with all your emotive examples of drunk driving and so on.

I never said anything about female = irrational. Who said that? WHY DON'T YOU READ MY POSTS CORRECTLY?

I don't usually feel that way most of the time sometimes.

Well because you've never seen it, it must not be true /sarcasm

"Sometimes."

Look, in my statistical sample of about 7,000 dives done all over the Western hemisphere, I've never once seen it. Sure, that's not to say it have never once happened, but the statisitical analysis has a fairly good sample so it can be hypothesized with confidence.

This does not mean that I have not seen it.

Perhaps you have. I don't know. I don't even have confidence in the words that you say that I DON'T doubt... You seem hypersensitive to being called a "liar" (nobody has yet, but you're already defensive about it), and you make claims that your argument was a REQUIREMENT by someone to pass a trimix certification course... But won't tell me whose requirement. I don't know for sure if you're lying or not, but I haven't even had that thought process yet... The term "lying" is something that you brought up.

With this knowlege and these eccentricities, my inclination is to question your data when you tell me that you have seen people doffing and donning their rigs to chase bugs down holes that wouldn't allow them access if they brought their life support... Especially since the data that I have gleaned clearly says the opposite.

I was never trying to argue that it is a common thing. I was just trying to show that you were incorrect to say it NEVER happens. (there's that dangerous NEVER word again).

I consider the word, "sometimes" more dangerous when it comes to diving.

I think ditch and don is a very good skill to have, just in case. It also builds comfort. And if you are a solo diver, it is an especially good skill to have. It isn't hard. If it was, then perhaps your argument would have some validity.

None of your arguments in that paragraph are a substantial reason why you'd want to remove your life support at depth. You simply say, "It's easy to do," and give that as a reason to do it. Then accuse me of not having a valid argument!

To that, the only thing I can say is, "Every so often. Maybe."

Anyway, I'm done here.

Good.

I gave you multiple chances to stop misinterpreting my post or twisting my words and you keep failing to do so.

Yeah, well, I've given you multiple chances to validate your points, and you haven't. I also gave you multiple chances to back up your claims, and you have never taken the opportunity to do that, either. Instead, you misread my posts, then accuse me of doing the same, and then go off on a tangent, accusing me of something I never said (that you were a "liar"). I'm convinced you just wanted to argue. You even agreed with that accusation.

I like debate...

Yes, we can see that.

 

[InTheDrink]

Ok, let's chill for 5.

(pause)

Ok #1 - when I said doff/don I was talking about the practice as taught in OW. This does not include any breath holding or being away from your rig. It's simply not having the BC/harness attached to you. Reg is always in your mouth. Just so we're all clear what I, and most others chipping in, have been talking about. No-one, unless I'm very much misreading the posts is talking about leaving your kit, holding breath and swimming off somewhere. If I somehow gave you that impression my apologies but that was never the point that I and I think others have been discussing.

#2. I think you should apologise to Sas and retract your last post. I know her, she does not lie, she is extremely safe, adheres to protocols and drawing into question her honesty about fixing an issue underwater that appeared to be fixed over water is quite bizarre. I think you're the exception and not the rule if every fix you've ever applied (in whatever situation) has worked first time and has been in a provable position first time. Various modes of failure (serious or not) manifest at different pressures so it is impossible to be completely certain that a fix has worked until testing it. That's why in my work we have Dev, Test, UAT and Prod environments - establishing that something definitely works in real life generally only gets truly proved once it's in a real-life setting. And even then it's context dependent. But I'm digressing - main thing is you should retract your post cos Sas does not lie and I, and I'm sure others on this board, would resent your suggestion otherwise. And don't for a second think that weasle words like saying you weren't calling here a liar, just questioning whether she was telling the truth, will hide your implication from anyone reading.

4. You see life as black and white. And call it so. I can lots of positives from this, however it's not an accurate reflection of reality. I'm happy with reality, which is generally grey and nearly always context dependent. In diving there are many times that decided protocol must be observed and absolutely (e.g. someone thumbing the dive). I'm happy with certain absolutes and happy with certain grey areas. You are too, but you're just being selective to make you argument.

5. Ok, just once and for all, tell us why you think that doffing your rig is so dangerous. Reg still in mouth of course, let's not get confused again. What is so dangerous about this?

I'm pretty exasperated. You don't argue 'straight'. Whether you realise it or not, you do bend people's words, misquote or apparently either don't read or deliberately misconstrue. I've been trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt but I'm struggling.

And the other thing - when I titled my thread 'ditching the poodle jacket' my intention was to discuss BP/W choices - I didn't realise the whole thing would ironically or poetically turn into a thread about ditching/doffing/donning your BC.

Anyhow I ordered. I couldn't wait any longer. For those with any interest here's what I bought:

Oxycheq Mach V Wing
Freedom plate
Oxycheq Deluxe Adjustable Harness System
Oxycheq Crotch Strap
Oxycheq Medium Weight Pocket
Oxycheq X-Pocket
2 x Oxycheq Cam Strap with SS Buckle

I'm pretty excited. Anything anyone would add to this list or that I've forgotten? Feedback I've had is that an STA really isn't required for the Freedom plate.

Thanks,
J

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

Ok, let's chill for 5.

(pause)

Ok #1 - when I said doff/don I was talking about the practice as taught in OW. This does not include any breath holding or being away from your rig. It's simply not having the BC/harness attached to you. Reg is always in your mouth. Just so we're all clear what I, and most others chipping in, have been talking about. No-one, unless I'm very much misreading the posts is talking about leaving your kit, holding breath and swimming off somewhere. If I somehow gave you that impression my apologies but that was never the point that I and I think others have been discussing.

#2. I think you should apologise to Sas and retract your last post. I know her, she does not lie, she is extremely safe, adheres to protocols and drawing into question her honesty about fixing an issue underwater that appeared to be fixed over water is quite bizarre. I think you're the exception and not the rule if every fix you've ever applied (in whatever situation) has worked first time and has been in a provable position first time. Various modes of failure (serious or not) manifest at different pressures so it is impossible to be completely certain that a fix has worked until testing it. That's why in my work we have Dev, Test, UAT and Prod environments - establishing that something definitely works in real life generally only gets truly proved once it's in a real-life setting. And even then it's context dependent. But I'm digressing - main thing is you should retract your post cos Sas does not lie and I, and I'm sure others on this board, would resent your suggestion otherwise. And don't for a second think that weasle words like saying you weren't calling here a liar, just questioning whether she was telling the truth, will hide your implication from anyone reading.

4. You see life as black and white. And call it so. I can lots of positives from this, however it's not an accurate reflection of reality. I'm happy with reality, which is generally grey and nearly always context dependent. In diving there are many times that decided protocol must be observed and absolutely (e.g. someone thumbing the dive). I'm happy with certain absolutes and happy with certain grey areas. You are too, but you're just being selective to make you argument.

5. Ok, just once and for all, tell us why you think that doffing your rig is so dangerous. Reg still in mouth of course, let's not get confused again. What is so dangerous about this?

I'm pretty exasperated. You don't argue 'straight'. Whether you realise it or not, you do bend people's words, misquote or apparently either don't read or deliberately misconstrue. I've been trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt but I'm struggling.

And the other thing - when I titled my thread 'ditching the poodle jacket' my intention was to discuss BP/W choices - I didn't realise the whole thing would ironically or poetically turn into a thread about ditching/doffing/donning your BC.

Anyhow I ordered. I couldn't wait any longer. For those with any interest here's what I bought:

Oxycheq Mach V Wing
Freedom plate
Oxycheq Deluxe Adjustable Harness System
Oxycheq Crotch Strap
Oxycheq Medium Weight Pocket
Oxycheq X-Pocket
2 x Oxycheq Cam Strap with SS Buckle

I'm pretty excited. Anything anyone would add to this list or that I've forgotten? Feedback I've had is that an STA really isn't required for the Freedom plate.

Thanks,
J

Sounds perfect!

An STA is a moot point with the Freedom Plate. There is no way to put one on and no reason to. A Single Tank Adapter is something that's used on a conventional plate that was originally intended to be used with twin cylinders but is being adapted to be used with singles.
The Freedom Plate was designed to be used for single cylinders only therefore a STA has been designed out of the system because there's nothing to adapt.
There are no 11" center holes to mount an standard STA or a channel to hide the wing nuts or nylocks that would typically be used to hold on an STA on a conventional doubles plate.
The Freedom Plate is flat and narrow in the upper portion in an effort to get the tank right in close to the divers back by avoiding and bypassing contact with the shoulder blades to drastically reduce profile and streamlining/slipstream, and therefore efficiency.
In every situation regardless of wether the rail is used or not, the cam slots in the plate are always used to hold the tank onto a Freedom Plate.
Where as on a conventional plate when an STA is being used the cam bands go through cam slots on the STA, and then the STA is attached to the plate with it's own wings nuts or nylocks/sex bolts etc.

IMO, an STA is just one more thing that adds height and gets in the way of getting the tank closer to your body. That's why I eliminated it because it's unnecessary for a properly designed dedicated single tank plate.


John: You already know this via our pm's. But I just wanted to explain further for people who might be reading this thread to help them understand.

Eric