Dive buddy for air? No thanks.

[RonzoTheGreat]

subject beat to death ... dive redundant ... but practice sharing and out of air scenarios ... EVERY DIVE .... because when it happens for real, second nature ... end of story ...

 

[tna9001]

Hello, Peter.

I disagree with your assumption that the quality of a dive instructor is related to number of dives logged. Of course being well trained and well rounded are critical but, the fact that one instructor has 1,000 dives and the other 200 has no basis as a comparison regarding the quality of the instructor.

In aviation typically the least experience pilots are the ones instructing. I paid a flight instructor who had 300hours flying experience to teach my daughter how to fly. I have over 14,000 hours flying experience but the guy with 300hr is a better instructor. Now, if you want to land a dc-9 with an engine on fire on a short snow covered runway I'm your man

Experience is important and helpful when dealing with complex problems but to teach skills and procedures whether how to fly an airplane or how to dive safely has little to do with how many hours an instructor pilot has logged or how many dives a dive instructor has logged.

My premise on OOA emergency is not based on how things should be, but how they are. How many recreational divers would pass the current OOA skills test the 1st time? How often do you think they practice the skill? How well do they do their gas planning? My point is I feel the OOA standard is too complex and should be replaced by a simpler procedure and the configuration of gear that is required for that.

Using gear to reduce the skill needed to dive safely make sense. Again, every diver should be competent in every skill before the dive but that's not reality. If it does not make sense to use gear to make it easier/safer to dive then why do we use dive computers? How many recreational divers could correctly plan a day of multiple dives using the tables?

Anyhow, from the response to my opening thread I feel like I'm missing something in the discussion. Seems like the consensus is if divers would do what they are suppose to do then there is no problem and I think that's inadequate.

Thank you for you input,

Tyler

 

[Thalassamania]

I disagree with your assumption that the quality of a dive instructor is related to number of dives logged. Of course being well trained and well rounded are critical but, the fact that one instructor has 1,000 dives and the other 200 has no basis as a comparison regarding the quality of the instructor.

In aviation typically the least experience pilots are the ones instructing. I paid a flight instructor who had 300hours flying experience to teach my daughter how to fly. I have over 14,000 hours flying experience but the guy with 300hr is a better instructor. Now, if you want to land a dc-9 with an engine on fire on a short snow covered runway I'm your man

Experience is important and helpful when dealing with complex problems but to teach skills and procedures whether how to fly an airplane or how to dive safely has little to do with how many hours an instructor pilot has logged or how many dives a dive instructor has logged.

While I understand what your are saying, the thing the your simile misses is that the end of flight instruction there is a standard Government test. That's the bar. In diving there are multiple sets of training standards and no one seems to be able to agree on what the standards of the dominant agency actually mean.

My premise on OOA emergency is not based on how things should be, but how they are. How many recreational divers would pass the current OOA skills test the 1st time? How often do you think they practice the skill? How well do they do their gas planning? My point is I feel the OOA standard is too complex and should be replaced by a simpler procedure and the configuration of gear that is required for that.

If a diver could not pass the current OOA skills test the 1st time, then (almost by definition) as the saying goes, "they're a'gonna die!" if there is a problem. Now, I don't know how much simpler it can be than tapping on your buddy and taking the working regulator that is in his or her mouth and breathing off it. Until the advent of the long hose and surrendering the primary I did not think that octopus procedures where superior to buddy-breathing. I found laughable the idea that the "standard" emergency procedure was to take up a second-stage of questionable functionality that was stored in a non-standard location. Every possible solution, from long hose auxillary through pony bottles has its own inherent problems. Is the pony turned on? Did the line purge itself? Did it free-flow unnoticed and is it now empty? I don't know just what you are suggesting as a, "simpler procedure," but I expect that you get my drift. Every possible solution comes with it's own unique suite of issues.

Using gear to reduce the skill needed to dive safely make sense. Again, every diver should be competent in every skill before the dive but that's not reality.

Anytime that you can perform a comprehensive, panel-of-experts-Delphi-Forecast-design, failure mode analysis and reach consensus that a given piece of gear, with all that may effect that gear's performance, is demonstrably better than a personal skill ... I say go for that piece of gear. As someone with an extensive background (from deep submersibles) in failure mode analysis, who has applied that approach to many diving questions, I submit that the equipment mediated solution is often superficially attractive but riskier.

If it does not make sense to use gear to make it easier/safer to dive then why do we use dive computers? How many recreational divers could correctly plan a day of multiple dives using the tables?

That's a good example. Dive computers were unacceptable voodoo (like NITROX) prior to the AAUS Dive Computer Workshop. Back then, most every diver could correctly plan a day or multiple dives using tables. A group of experts came together at Catalina and after much discussion decided that, following a set of guidelines, it was reasonable to use dive computers. But the point was made, rather clearly, that dive computers were not to be seen as magical black boxes that told a diver what to do, but rather as animated tables that should be honored with at least the same amount of training as tables. Well ... the training agencies did that at first, but then drastically reduced their course requirements. So you wind up comparing apples and oranges. Yesterday's pre-computer, table user did not, IMHO, run any higher risk that today's computer user, in fact I'd guess, for a number of reasons, that their risk was somewhat lower.

Anyhow, from the response to my opening thread I feel like I'm missing something in the discussion. Seems like the consensus is if divers would do what they are suppose to do then there is no problem and I think that's inadequate.

Thank you for you input,

Tyler

Is there a easy, single solution? Probably not. One approach is to go DIR, where a bunch of knowledgeable folks have done a comprehensive, panel-of-experts-Delphi-Forecast-design, failure mode analysis on virtually everything and reached consensus (well, except for the guys that left or were later kicked out) and come up with a system that was then well tested and proven, but that depends on one (sometimes two) other like minded diver(s). Another approach is to adopt one of the other community standards (NE Wreckers, Science, etc.) and ask a lot of questions and reach your own conclusions. But no matter what you do, you need to guard against introducing more complexity and hidden problems, when you think you are making it simpler and less risky. First impressions can be wrong and can even be fatal.

 

[NudeDiver]

If you can't reach your buddy in time, either make dives you feel you can make a self-rescue or stay closer to your buddy.

Great in theory. But you're depending on circumstances beyond your control in some instances.

My last dive in Florida - I got stuck with an instabuddy. He was like rocket man. Just bolting around - had no interest in staying close to me. I couldn't keep up with him, even at full sprint! Finally, I just stopped trying. Even then, he would get some 50 yards ahead and then wait for me to catch up. As soon as I caught to him, he would take off again.

On the second dive - he just took off and I didn't both trying to keep up. He got to go make a solo dive and I think that worked out better for both of us.

I just got a pony today. Now I can make a self-rescue, no problem.

 

[rstofer]

Yesterday's pre-computer, table user did not, IMHO, run any higher risk that today's computer user, in fact I'd guess, for a number of reasons, that their risk was somewhat lower.

I would suggest that the table user was a lot safer. For one thing, when using tables properly, the diver was very familiar with his NDL and RNT for a variety of depths. Many divers wrote the ANDLs versus depth on a slate before beginning the dive. They would know, at any moment in time, exactly how long they could stay at the present depth. Sure, it was a square profile but it worked quite well. There was a lot of 'round-up' built into the system.

With the advent of the computer, every diver can push the NDL of every dive. Any safety advantage from the multilevel profile is swept away.

I don't have any facts to prove it but I wouldn't be surprised that computer divers have a higher incidence of DCI than table divers. If they can't deal with an SPG, they certainly can't deal with a computer.

Richard

 

[seaducer]

Hi Tyler,
Hey, you are not also known as Jetpack by any chance, are you? IIRC he is a pilot and lives down your way. Anyway...

I disagree with your assumption that the quality of a dive instructor is related to number of dives logged. Of course being well trained and well rounded are critical but, the fact that one instructor has 1,000 dives and the other 200 has no basis as a comparison regarding the quality of the instructor.

Dive number, no. But certainly one should have sufficient experience in diving before attempting to become an instructor. The current standards allow people who barely know how to dive themselves to become instructors. While on the one hand I can agree that if you know how to teach it, you don't necessarily know how to do it, but in my experience with practical applications, the more experience one brings to the classroom, the more they can teach, and the better equipped they are helping troubled students to learn.

My premise on OOA emergency is not based on how things should be, but how they are. How many recreational divers would pass the current OOA skills test the 1st time? How often do you think they practice the skill? How well do they do their gas planning? My point is I feel the OOA standard is too complex and should be replaced by a simpler procedure and the configuration of gear that is required for that.

Well, I can tell you this rec diver would pass 1st time, he does practice OOA procedures, he does gas plan when appropriate, and while I do have a pony bottle for when I dive solo, I also buddy dive. When I buddy up, I am a buddy. I may or may not rely on the other diver, but I make sure they can rely on me. That being said, since I do both, I do not find one way or the other to be any less complicated. Whether that is extracting my pony reg, or signaling and recieving a 2nd stage from my buddy, neither is hard to do. I also think poor instruction may contribute to some of the problems you list here. Thankfully all my instructors have been excellent ones.

Using gear to reduce the skill needed to dive safely make sense. Again, every diver should be competent in every skill before the dive but that's not reality. If it does not make sense to use gear to make it easier/safer to dive then why do we use dive computers? How many recreational divers could correctly plan a day of multiple dives using the tables?

I can, have, and sometimes still plan and execute dives based on tables. I have a computer becuase it allows much more bottom time than the RDP does.
The fundamental flaw in your statement "Using gear to reduce the skill needed to dive safely make sense" is that using gear is a skill. That one is so poor a diver that they can not plan, check their gauges, or stay close to their buddy tells me they are likely to screw up a redundant gas source as well. If you can't manage the basics, you should't add to the equation. you are coming from an aviation perspective with fly by wire controls doing a better job of inputs than a human can, but diving is not really analogous to it. Yeah, both are cool, and that is about it. Bottom line is gear gets you to the bottom, your brain is the only thing that can get you safely to the surface.

Anyhow, from the response to my opening thread I feel like I'm missing something in the discussion. Seems like the consensus is if divers would do what they are suppose to do then there is no problem and I think that's inadequate.

Most of us are divers, we take diving seriously, have done it a long time, or plan on it. Diving is who we are, not what we do sometimes on vacation. There are lots of divers who are not as interested, skilled, competent, etc. These people survive only because diving in general is pretty safe. They can't be relied on, and I doubt adding another piece of gear for these people would help them at all. If anything they would just be confused. And I understand that. When you log 5 dives a year, you are not going to be sharp.

Bottom line is that gear is a tool. Tools do not fix cars, mechanics do. If the mechanic lacks the skills, no matter how shiney his wrenchs, your car ain't driving out of the shop...

 

[Peter Guy]

tna wrote

I disagree with your assumption that the quality of a dive instructor is related to number of dives logged.

I suppose I have several responses: First, I never WROTE that "the quality of a dive instructor is related to number of dives logged" so go ahead and disagree with that -- I don't care because it isn't my contention. Second, to a very limited extent, it IS true that there will be a positive correlation between the number of dives and the quality of the instructor. An instructor who has 100 dives is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be a better instructor than one who only has 10 dives!

DIGRESSION - When I took my flying lessons, I wanted to fly with several different instructors because each one had different experiences and could provide me with different POV's. I'm glad your daughter did fine but me, I prefer being taught by someone who is not only a good teacher but who also has a lot of experiences. -- DIGRESSION ENDED

BACK TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING

Contrary to what you said I wrote, what I did, in fact write was that I believed someone who wants to become an instructor should forget about becoming an instructor until she is "well trained, well rounded AND well experienced." Do you really disagree with that?

A couple of years ago I was on a boat with an instructor in the BVI. He had over 1000 dives (I think well over) -- but what he really had was about 20 dives done 50 times each -- or maybe just 10 dives done 100 times each. I'm sure he would be able to gently and carefully take your daughter and lead her to become a competent diver in the BVI -- which would be great as long as that was all she wanted to be able to do.

Me, I think the instructor should have more to offer than that. BTW, that particular instructor just shook his head when we talked about diving here in the PNW -- he opined that he wasn't sure he could dive here at all!

Not every experienced and well rounded diver can teach -- that's a separate skill. But I believe you also need experiences of your own in order to be an effective teacher -- assuming you can teach at all.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

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.

I was the opposite. I was CONSTANTLY reaching back and making sure that little loop was pushed UP during the dive. It was almost like an OCD thing, when you never even knew if your tank was full before you entered the water, you had no way to check your remaining air and you really wanted that 3-400 lbs to be there when it started to get hard to breath.

I remember when I got a "sea view" guage (as they were called then) I was so happy and it made me much more relaxed. Too bad it took them a few years to figure that the guage should not be perpendicular to the hose.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

"Anyhow, from the response to my opening thread I feel like I'm missing something in the discussion. Seems like the consensus is if divers would do what they are suppose to do then there is no problem and I think that's inadequate."

Tyler,

First, I'm impressed with the caliber of discussion on your thread, and appreciate the exchange of ideas without all the drama.

Second, I believe you are seeing a consensus, as you perceive, and I clearly understand that you feel it is inadequate.

But turn things around:

Your proposition is that every OW recreational diver would be better served to have with them on every dive, as standard, routine equipment, a redundant source of gas in case they run out of air.

The bottom line is that this is an equipment solution to a behavioral or process problem.

Aside from being more expensive and inconvenient, it assumes that all divers should own an active response to "running out of air" as an ideal dive set-up.

What the consensus is saying, in contrast, is that all divers should understand and use a process of dive planning and execution that prevents running out of air in the first place.

You aren't missing anything in the discussion, or being beaten up.

Your proposition simply (also) establishes that "if divers do what they are supposed to do then there is no problem" - and what they are 'supposed to do' is sling a redundant gas source. You are proposing an equipment solution.

The alternate argument also states that "if divers do what they are supposed to do then there is no problem" - but what they are 'supposed to do' is to plan and execute their dives to avoid running out of air in the first place. They are proposing a procedural solution - the procedure is gas management.

Gas management does not preclude the use of redundant gas sources. But what I believe the consensus is responding with is that proper gas management ought to be the foundation, the initial process taught to new divers - not the use of an additional item of equipment.

You are not missing anything, its just most posters in the thread do not find your proposition particularly compelling. You perceive gas management to be 'inadequate'. They perceive the idea that all recreational divers should routinely carry a redundant gas source to be an expensive solution to a problem that can be better addressed otherwise.

Its just a basic difference in perspective.

Regards,

Doc

 

[tna9001]

tna wrote I suppose I have several responses: First, I never WROTE that "the quality of a dive instructor is related to number of dives logged" so go ahead and disagree with that -- I don't care because it isn't my contention. Second, to a very limited extent, it IS true that there will be a positive correlation between the number of dives and the quality of the instructor. An instructor who has 100 dives is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be a better instructor than one who only has 10 dives!

DIGRESSION - When I took my flying lessons, I wanted to fly with several different instructors because each one had different experiences and could provide me with different POV's. I'm glad your daughter did fine but me, I prefer being taught by someone who is not only a good teacher but who also has a lot of experiences. -- DIGRESSION ENDED

BACK TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING

Contrary to what you said I wrote, what I did, in fact write was that I believed someone who wants to become an instructor should forget about becoming an instructor until she is "well trained, well rounded AND well experienced." Do you really disagree with that?

A couple of years ago I was on a boat with an instructor in the BVI. He had over 1000 dives (I think well over) -- but what he really had was about 20 dives done 50 times each -- or maybe just 10 dives done 100 times each. I'm sure he would be able to gently and carefully take your daughter and lead her to become a competent diver in the BVI -- which would be great as long as that was all she wanted to be able to do.

Me, I think the instructor should have more to offer than that. BTW, that particular instructor just shook his head when we talked about diving here in the PNW -- he opined that he wasn't sure he could dive here at all!

Not every experienced and well rounded diver can teach -- that's a separate skill. But I believe you also need experiences of your own in order to be an effective teacher -- assuming you can teach at all.

Hello, Peter.

I guess I read too much into your post, perhaps it's because of my lack of experience diving

I think the diving instructor that's teaching the class should not be able to certify the divers in her own class but, I know that's not going to happen.

Like I said I'm coming at this thing from the perspective of an Instructor because that's what I'm going to be 8 or 9 months from now. I understand the limitations of an instructor with limited experience and I also understand the value of an instructor with limited experience who asks, why?

The OOA standard is makes no sense, is too difficult for the true recreational diver who most likely doesn't belong to this forum.

The fact is there are solutions to this problem. Is it going to happen? Most likely not.

In aviation there is a thing called the Practical Test Standards. The FAA puts it out and it contains the Standards the student applying for a certificate must meet. How the student meets these standards is mostly irrelevant, they just have to meet the standard. Is there something similar in diving?

I feel strongly that "Why?" and "Is this the best way?" are very important questions in any profession or sport that involve risk especially for an Instructor.

Thank you and every one who responded to my post, I value your experience and perspective.

Tyler

And I'm done posting for a while, my post count is rapidly approaching my dive count