Dive buddy for air? No thanks.

[Teamcasa]

OK, I'm a newb but I have a question about a backup strategy. How about the old fashioned J valve? Is the operation just not reliable enough?

The J valves were very unreliable. They were easily dislodged, and the diver who breathed his last breath all too often found, when he went to access his reserve, that it wasn't there any more. (Disclaimer: I never dove J-valves, but my husband did, and has told me these stories.)

The old J-valves worked fine and they were reliable. The problem was we divers were not. We would not check the position frequently enough and then, all too often, found out they were in the reserve position.

Many of us, myself included were much to cavalier about our diving back then. We were young, indestructible and fearless. If you take those traits and combine them with diving, it is a miracle any of us survived.

Thankfully diving today has moved forward in its thinking, training and concerns for diver safety as evidenced by this thread.

 

[Web Monkey]

Most OOA emergencies are easily solved with redundant air.
. . .

If you look at the current configuration standard, all that's needed is 1 more 1st stage and a small tank. All the diver would have to know if he runs out of air is: Find your secondary which should be easily accessible and start your accent. It can not get any easier or safer than that.

While it's a bit of a philosophical issue, better training and proper initial equipment selection would eliminate the need for extra equipment (the pony).

Even though a pony does work (I even use one now and then), it's not a replacement for a buddy and also adds additional equipment to the OW class, which is already difficult enough.

Teaching, demonstrating, verifying and testing student's gas planning and execution would be much more helpful than another piece of equipment.

Terry

 

[rstofer]

Hello, Doc.

I completely agree with you, having a buddy in the water is invaluable. I'm not focused on air, I'm learning about the sport from the perspective of becoming an instructor and I think the standard for dealing with OOA emergency is flawed.

Would you agree that much of recreational divings safety record is due to the reliability and ease of use of modern diving equipment?

Most OOA emergencies are easily solved with redundant air.

Most diving accidents are caused by diver error, this tells me that the training is inadequate and Instructors expectations of their students are unrealistic.

I'm sure most instructors would prefer to have more time with their students before signing them off but that's a different discussion.

Requiring each diver to have two independent air sources just makes sense. It surely does not compromise the team it enhances it.

If you look at the current configuration standard, all that's needed is 1 more 1st stage and a small tank. All the diver would have to know if he runs out of air is: Find your secondary which should be easily accessible and start your accent. It can not get any easier or safer than that.

Thank you for your input,

Tyler

You keep skipping the part where there are no OOA emergencies that aren't diver induced. Why should there EVER be an OOA situation? Other than entrapment and equipment failure.

As a new instructor, you will be required to teach the program exactly as it is written. You can recommend redundancy but not require it. And you certainly won't change the standards; there is far too much static inertia.

You are working hard to define and solve a problem that doesn't exist. In nearly every case, the diver messed up. Adding another tank won't solve the problem because the diver is just as likely to start with an empty pony as breathe their primary tank to exhaustion. If a diver is careless, they can be careless on multiple levels. In fact, the existence of the pony may give the diver a false sense of security. They won't bother to check the SPG as they assume the pony will provide their backup. Heck, they might as well streamline the rig and ditch the SPG.

I know how much air is in my tank. I probably don't go 2 minutes without checking. It's easy! The SPG is right there on my D-ring. How hard can it be? Glance down and there it is!

What you should really teach is defensive driving. More people die on the way to the dive site than die from diving. I invented that statistic but it is probably true.

Check out the DAN statistics. Look at the number of experienced divers that are dying. It certainly isn't because they lack OW training. It's probably not due to a lack of redundancy. It's due to their making more risky dives. It doesn't matter if they have redundancy when they lose the line in a silted-up cave. One of the most highly respected divers in history died this way. Bad stuff happens!

You aren't going to sell your requirements on the industry. Some folks may opt for a pony bottle out of preference. But nobody wants to be required to lug an additional 20# bottle and regulator. Sure, it might have neutral buoyancy but it still has mass and inertia. You have to work harder to move it through the water. Beach entries and exits are hard enough without adding even more weight. Some will do it, some won't. I'm thinking about it...

If the diver would just watch the SPG, they wouldn't need a pony for recreational dives.

Richard

 

[Thalassamania]

The old J-valves worked fine and they were reliable. The problem was we divers were not. We would not check the position frequently enough and then, all too often, found out they were in the reserve position ...

While I agree with everything else that you say, I beg to differ with you on the question of J-Valve reliability. Lt. Mike Fitzgerald of the U.S. Navy Safety Center conducted an exhaustive study of the J-Valves that were in Navy Diving Lockers back in the 1970s. He found several problems, the worst one being that a relaxed diver could often breathe right through the reserve cut-off, that is to say enough gas leaked past the seat to permit slow inhalations without pulling the lever down. Mike's work resulted in the removal of the J-Valve from the navy's approved equipment list.

 

[Peter Guy]

tna -- you wrote that you started this thread from "the perspective of becoming an instructor." I hope you will shy away from that "perspective" -- at least for quite a while. I've come to conclude that one of the problems which has lead to your question is the way that some divers became instructors. From the beginning their focus was to become an instructor as opposed to focusing on becoming well trained, well rounded AND well experienced divers who then decide that becoming an instructor would be a good thing to do. But I digress from what I believe is the important fallacy in your thinking, which comes from the following statement:

Most OOA emergencies are easily solved with redundant air.

There are several reasons why I believe this is a fallacious statement:

a. Most OOA emergencies result from poor initial planning -- i.e., not having enough gas on your back to do the dive you think you are going to do. This is caused by not understanding your own gas needs (people have no idea how much they actually breathe while diving) and not understanding the planned dive's gas needs (you need a LOT more gas to do 20 minutes at 90 feet than 20 minutes at 30 feet). A redundant gas source will NOT help you make better initial plans, a REAL buddy will. A REAL buddy will be able to examine your dive planning assumptions (or ask you want they are!) and make an independent assessment of how valid those assumptions may be.
You think that's not real life? Maybe because you haven't been diving with REAL buddies. Here's an example I had -- insta-buddy for a very familiar dive to about 100 feet. On the way out to the drop point I ask -- "What tank you using?" "X" he says. (OK, I realize there should be enough gas for him AND me -- no problem.) "How long you planning on staying down? "Until 'puter says come up!" (Hmmm, NOT a good sign -- I think -- so we then agree on an expected turn time based on the rule of 120.) There -- a simple gas plan that SHOULD make sure we have neither gas nor NDL issues -- and we didn't.

b. The other problem with your statement is that IF you have "the typical recreational vacation diver" I think I can guarantee you that they will NOT have practiced using their "redundant air supply" just as they typically don't practice doing air shares after class. And since that mythical/typical diver won't be diving their own equipment, EACH time they rent they are likely to have a different configuration -- which will add to confusion if/when the OOA situation occurs. At least being trained to share air is pretty well standardized -- you go to your buddy, slash your throat and either receive, or grab, a reg that you can see. Trying to remember where the devil the "redundant" reg is on a gear setup you rented that morning is just asking for MORE trouble.

While many people dislike the "DIR" mindset, I hope that all people can agree that there are some aspects of the philosophy/mindset upon which we can all agree -- things like "Practicing your training" is a good thing! As another poster wrote, without reference to DIR, using gear to solve a skills issue may not be the best approach -- which is a DIR tenet. In your OOA situation, the issue is really that too many people are NOT good buddies -- that is, they don't have the situational awareness necessary to provide the redundancy that I think we ALL can agree is needed when you are underwater (that is, we can all agree having a redundant air supply is needed -- not that we agree on anything else!).

For the reasons stated earlier, I think you are on the wrong track by thinking adding another bottle/hose/reg is the solution to the rare issue of running OOA. The solution is for people to learn to be better buddies because a buddy can provide so much more than just your next breath -- he can keep you out of the situation in the first place. And isn't that the preferred solution -- not to have an emergency at all?

 

[Teamcasa]

While I agree with everything else that you say, I beg to differ with you on the question of J-Valve reliability. Lt. Mike Fitzgerald of the U.S. Navy Safety Center conducted an exhaustive study of the J-Valves that were in Navy Diving Lockers back in the 1970s. He found several problems, the worst one being that a relaxed diver could often breathe right through the reserve cut-off, that is to say enough gas leaked past the seat to permit slow inhalations without pulling the lever down. Mike's work resulted in the removal of the J-Valve from the navy's approved equipment list.

I don't know anything about that study, but I do recall many of us switching out the old valves as SPG's came into vogue around that same era. Keep in mind, I was 18 in 1970 and the clarity of my recollection is dubious at best.

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

tna -- you wrote that you started this thread from "the perspective of becoming an instructor." I hope you will shy away from that "perspective" -- at least for quite a while. I've come to conclude that one of the problems which has lead to your question is the way that some divers became instructors. From the beginning their focus was to become an instructor as opposed to focusing on becoming well trained, well rounded AND well experienced divers who then decide that becoming an instructor would be a good thing to do.

Slow, deliberate clap, rising in cadence and intensity as I rise from my chair into a standing ovation.

 

[Teamcasa]

<snip>
b. The other problem with your statement is that IF you have "the typical recreational vacation diver" I think I can guarantee you that they will NOT have practiced using their "redundant air supply" just as they typically don't practice doing air shares after class. And since that mythical/typical diver won't be diving their own equipment, EACH time they rent they are likely to have a different configuration -- which will add to confusion if/when the OOA situation occurs. At least being trained to share air is pretty well standardized -- you go to your buddy, slash your throat and either receive, or grab, a reg that you can see. Trying to remember where the devil the "redundant" reg is on a gear setup you rented that morning is just asking for MORE trouble.

While many people dislike the "DIR" mindset, I hope that all people can agree that there are some aspects of the philosophy/mindset upon which we can all agree -- things like "Practicing your training" is a good thing! As another poster wrote, without reference to DIR, using gear to solve a skills issue may not be the best approach -- which is a DIR tenet. In your OOA situation, the issue is really that too many people are NOT good buddies -- that is, they don't have the situational awareness necessary to provide the redundancy that I think we ALL can agree is needed when you are underwater (that is, we can all agree having a redundant air supply is needed -- not that we agree on anything else!).
<snip>

Emphasis mine.
Peter is dead on right. The real difference between a no panic OOA situation and a full blown panicked diver with eyes as big as hubcaps is training and familiarity with their gear configuration and their buddies gear setup and their buddy's familiarity with their own setup.

I also agree the despite anyone's attitude toward DIR training, it is more training and any type of training that makes divers better, I'm all for it.

 

[Thalassamania]

Peter, Bravo!

tna -- you wrote that you started this thread from "the perspective of becoming an instructor." I hope you will shy away from that "perspective" -- at least for quite a while. I've come to conclude that one of the problems which has lead to your question is the way that some divers became instructors. From the beginning their focus was to become an instructor as opposed to focusing on becoming well trained, well rounded AND well experienced divers who then decide that becoming an instructor would be a good thing to do.

Yes!

But I digress from what I believe is the important fallacy in your thinking, which comes from the following statement:

There are several reasons why I believe this is a fallacious statement:

a. Most OOA emergencies result from poor initial planning -- i.e., not having enough gas on your back to do the dive you think you are going to do. This is caused by not understanding your own gas needs (people have no idea how much they actually breathe while diving) and not understanding the planned dive's gas needs (you need a LOT more gas to do 20 minutes at 90 feet than 20 minutes at 30 feet). A redundant gas source will NOT help you make better initial plans, a REAL buddy will. A REAL buddy will be able to examine your dive planning assumptions (or ask you want they are!) and make an independent assessment of how valid those assumptions may be.
You think that's not real life? Maybe because you haven't been diving with REAL buddies. Here's an example I had -- insta-buddy for a very familiar dive to about 100 feet. On the way out to the drop point I ask -- "What tank you using?" "X" he says. (OK, I realize there should be enough gas for him AND me -- no problem.) "How long you planning on staying down? "Until 'puter says come up!" (Hmmm, NOT a good sign -- I think -- so we then agree on an expected turn time based on the rule of 120.) There -- a simple gas plan that SHOULD make sure we have neither gas nor NDL issues -- and we didn't.

I have not "run out of air" since the early days, when you expected to do that at the end of almost every dive. But I have had a number of air-sharing situations that had nothing to do with running out of air. I'll grant you that the handfull of such incidents, when compared to the total number of dives I've done, is not significant.

b. The other problem with your statement is that IF you have "the typical recreational vacation diver" I think I can guarantee you that they will NOT have practiced using their "redundant air supply" just as they typically don't practice doing air shares after class. And since that mythical/typical diver won't be diving their own equipment, EACH time they rent they are likely to have a different configuration -- which will add to confusion if/when the OOA situation occurs. At least being trained to share air is pretty well standardized -- you go to your buddy, slash your throat and either receive, or grab, a reg that you can see. Trying to remember where the devil the "redundant" reg is on a gear setup you rented that morning is just asking for MORE trouble.

The failure of the "typical recreational vacation diver" to practice air sharing on every dive is, IMHO, just one more failure of the "typical recreational course."

While many people dislike the "DIR" mindset, I hope that all people can agree that there are some aspects of the philosophy/mindset upon which we can all agree -- things like "Practicing your training" is a good thing! As another poster wrote, without reference to DIR, using gear to solve a skills issue may not be the best approach -- which is a DIR tenet. In your OOA situation, the issue is really that too many people are NOT good buddies -- that is, they don't have the situational awareness necessary to provide the redundancy that I think we ALL can agree is needed when you are underwater (that is, we can all agree having a redundant air supply is needed -- not that we agree on anything else!).

For the reasons stated earlier, I think you are on the wrong track by thinking adding another bottle/hose/reg is the solution to the rare issue of running OOA. The solution is for people to learn to be better buddies because a buddy can provide so much more than just your next breath -- he can keep you out of the situation in the first place. And isn't that the preferred solution -- not to have an emergency at all?

Perfectly said, we will not solve any of these problems as long as we keep trying a solve a skills problem (which is usualy a training problem) with the addition of a piece of gear that the diver is usualy not trained to use.

 

[fyrdyvr]

So, why not use a truly redundant system for recreational diving?

I am a recreational diver, and will not go below 60' without my 30 cuft pony. My train of thought is it may add weight, cause drag, blah blah, but if something happens and I need it...its there! My motto is Plan for the worse and hope for the best