Dive shops and training: the disconnect with reality

[idocsteve]

You misinterpreted their advice. That was not what they were suggesting. They were telling you it could be routed in a more streamlined way.

Also your bailout plan is unsafe. If you have an interest in being a safe diver you should learn about gas management.

There is no need, in an emergency situation, to have a plan that involves you swimming upwards very quickly. You can carry enough gas to ascend at a normal rate and avoid the problems that can occur due to a rapid ascent rate.

And there is no need to have so little bailout air that your plan involves waiting until you run out of air at 15ft and then ascending.

Sas,

Thank you for your concern and for clarifying that the well meaning posters of ScubaBoard were not in fact suggesting I shorten my regulator hose but rather to "reroute it" in some fashion so that it doesn't make as wide a loop as shown in the picture I posted earlier in the thread.

Not only do I practice safe and effective gas management, which leaves me with ample gas at the end of every dive, but I have previously determined that I can perform a safe ascent from a maximum depth of 130 feet using my 19cf pony bottle (not 135 feet, I erred earlier with that number which is beyond recreational diving depth), and I have also determined that I will probably have enough gas left to perform a safety stop at 15 feet although 3 minutes might be stretching it.

My bailout plan is to remain calm, control my breathing as much as possible, and use whatever gas is remaining following a rapid (as in direct, controlled, but "rather hasty") return to the surface at a safety stop if it is available to me at that time. I will definitely ascend at a greater rate than normal if I am breathing from my Pony bottle due to an OOA emergency on my primary regulator, you and any other diver are free to take your time and ascend at a "normal" rate in such a situation; I'm going to expedite, thank you very much.

My bailout plan is not "off the top of my head", rather it based on valid calculations that I did some time ago and I have determined that it is safe and reliable for me given my SAC rates, my diving abilities and the conditions under which I dive.

 

[Sas]

My bailout plan is not "off the top of my head", rather it based on valid calculations that I did some time ago and I have determined that it is safe and reliable for me given my SAC rates, my diving abilities and the conditions under which I dive.

Is there some reason you haven't posted these in response to a few people asking about it? From your other bailout plan it doesn't seem like you have done these calculations.

 

[idocsteve]

Is there some reason you haven't posted these?

I did the math and calculations years ago, when I decided to carry a 19cf pony bottle and pursue a solo diving certification. I don't even recall what they were.

 

[Sas]

I did the math and calculations years ago, when I decided to carry a 19cf pony bottle and pursue a solo diving certification. I don't even recall what they were.

Well, it's not that hard to redo them and let us know what you get.

 

[idocsteve]

Well, it's not that hard to redo them and let us know what you get.

I don't remember how to do them.

They worked then, they'll work now.

However if you'd like to go through the calculations for me since you're obviously able to run the numbers off the top of your head, I'd surely like to see them.

Unfortunately I don't have my SAC rate available but it's at least as good now as it was a few years ago, as I'm a more relaxed, experienced diver and I'm in at least as good a shape now as I was then due to staying with a regular exercise routine.

 

[Sas]

I don't remember how to do them.

It's not rocket surgery. I'm sure given you have internet access you can google it and teach yourself now on the fly. I often refer back to resources I've found about gas management.

They worked then, they'll work now.

My calculations would not consider 19 cu ft pony enough gas from 135ft hence why I am interested to see yours.

However if you'd like to go through the calculations for me since you're obviously able to run the numbers off the top of your head, I'd surely like to see them.

No. I asked first. I asked because I don't think you have any idea how to do them and it would illustrate that to others who might have no idea about your plan's foolishness so they do not think it an adequate plan.

If you post how you work it out I will post how I work mine out Though there is very helpful advice on the internet about how to do this, including an article I posted earlier. You can PM me if you prefer.

Unfortunately I don't have my SAC rate available but it's at least as good now as it was a few years ago, as I'm a more relaxed, experienced diver and I'm in at least as good a shape now as I was then due to staying with a regular exercise routine.

So what was it a few years ago then? What conditions have you measured it in? How often do you check your SAC rate? Mine can vary quite widely depending on the conditions I dive in. I take note of it after every dive and the conditions of the dive, which makes it easier to plan.

 

[idocsteve]

No. I asked first.

If you post how you work it out I will post how I work mine out

Are we talking about Scuba Diving or who is going to get to sit in the front seat?

You're the one who's so interested in the calculations, then you provide them.

I'm quite satisfied knowing I did them once, they worked for me then, and they'll work for me now. I'm not going to go back into the numbers again and figure it out just because "you asked first".

If you want to prove me wrong, or try to convince me that I'm headed for disaster every time I throw on a scuba rig then knock yourself out.

Edit

If you choose to share your figures, then please use 130 feet, as I said I erred earlier when I said 135 feet which is of course beyond recreational diving depths.

 

[scubafanatic]

Which diver in the following picture is more streamlined?

Merry Christmas Bob

....I'm gonna buck the crowd and admit diver #2 is more streamlined......the lack of hair, smooth scalp, is certainly more hydrodynamic.

 

[scubafanatic]

Thank you Bob.

I'm going to go for a hose reduction as soon as the weather clears

......maybe just put a retractor on it so it stays 'tucked in' ?

 

[Sas]

You're the one who's so interested in the calculations, then you provide them.

You seem interested in them too, given you have asked me to show you how I calculate my bailout requirements. I am interested as your bailout requirement is much less than mine (mine being about 29cf for just me) so I am curious as to why the large difference.

I am also curious as your previous bailout plan wasn't very good that you posted, and didn't even include any calculations so wondering how you can justify it.

I'm quite satisfied knowing I did them once, they worked for me then, and they'll work for me now. I'm not going to go back into the numbers again and figure it out just because "you asked first".

Well to me I would consider 19cf an inadequate amount to bail out safely from 40m. I see your plan as unsafe. Which is why I am asking you to justify it. It could just boil down to you being far less risk adverse than me, however you seem to think you are a safe diver...

It took all of two minutes for me just then to rework out my bailout for a 130ft dive, and switch it from metric, so I don't see why you can't provide this unless you have no idea how to do it.

If you want to prove me wrong, or try to convince me that I'm headed for disaster every time I throw on a scuba rig then knock yourself out.

I just don't want your advice taken seriously by anyone. If I don't change your mind I could care less. I just think people who post stupid advice should be called on it.

If you choose to share your figures, then please use 130 feet, as I said I erred earlier when I said 135 feet which is of course beyond recreational diving depths.

I noticed but figured there were many more other glaring mistakes in your posts for me to argue about and I didn't want to come across as too nitpicky.