Do you dive with a snorkel!??

[Ghetto Diver]

^ um, thebee... wasn't implying they are.

oh, and Rambo here straps a knife on his leg, as well as shears on bc and carries/uses snorkle

 

[DCBC]

Snorkels ...are a hazard underwater because they cause mask and entaglement problems , and they are not necessary, and in fact, counterproductive for most surface swims. In fact they make surface swims more difficult because a snorkeler only has half a kick, whereas a diver on his back has the full kick available. ...Swimming on the surface with the face in the water is not particularly smart in the ocean, where there are boats. Divers swimming on their backs can see and communicate easily with boats.. thinking that having a snorkel extends ones abilities, gets people in trouble frequently...

I don't know where you got your training, what your level of experience is, or how much "ocean swimming" you've done, but I don't agree with your comments. The choice of any piece of diving equipment is dependent upon the dive to be undertaken and the situation (its likelihood of being required). It's largely a matter of personal choice.

Entanglement with a snorkel is not a problem if it's carried properly. I don't deny you your right to choose, but as an Instructor, I don't think it helpful to suggest that by carrying a snorkel a diver will have a false sense of security. Divers should have a good understanding of the limitations of their equipment before they are certified.

 

[Thalassamania]

The reason computers replaced tables was because SDI stopped using tables. PADI had members asking for it to be stopped a long time but until SDI stopped using tables, no one else took the plunge. (Just like how I had to become an IANTD instructor to teach Nitrox, PADI just lets others take the legal leap and if it is safe follows.)

IANTD? You could have taught NITROX as a NAUI, ANDI or TDI instructor.

Unless you are willing to call the head of SDI a NAUI person (I mean he is (and he is also a PADI person, etc.) but then again, so am I a NAUI person), and claim his credit.

SDI, (for that matter even TDI) had not been thought of then.

In many places, swim tests-gone. In many places, dive tables- gone. In much of the real world of diving in the open ocean, snorkels-gone. For real safety reasons.

Were I looking for "real safety reasons" I think credibility would be given those with decades of experience, especially when there is a virtual consensus on the subject with the opposition being able to do no more that call names and evidence a woeful lack of historical background.

The only reason to use snorkels is inertia. Eventually we will recognize them as the foundation of a separate exciting worthwhile activity. Until we do, we will turn out divers who will only get themselves into trouble trying to use snorkels in the real ocean, and we will never have real free-diving training.

All my students get "real free-diving training." Why don't yours?

I love free diving, and I love snorkeling. I wish they woould get the heck oout of diving and be recongized as the worthwhile syand-alone activities they are. I would love to take a good free-diving course.

Free diving is a highly worthwhile stand alone activity ... but the skills it requires are also the scuba diver's reserve chute.

Every student say the same thing about reg/snorkel exchange: Why? Espcially when I give them much better ways to be on the surface with the heavy tanks underneath them, (not on top of them rolling them over all the time). Every single one of them wonders why they would ever use a snorkel instead of the much better options avaiable to them in non-emergent situations, and none of them trust them in rough conditions because they fail to protect the airway unless a really irregular breathing pattern is used, and even then they choke the person using them randomly (random because the person cannot see the waves coming.)

Students should learn both. The best way learn how to protect their airway (a useful scuba emergency skill) is with practice using a snorkel. Your seeming inability to transfer that skill to your students is no basis for suggesting that those of us who are routinely successful in that endeavor are creating a safety problem.

For those who say a snorkel makes a surface swim easier, what????

I say that often it does. Are you contradicting me? On what bais?

Pleas come take my open water course where I will show you three different ways to move on the surface that are far, far more efficient than snorkel use with scuba on. And safer too.

There is no such thing as safer, "safe" is a binary. Try, "with less risk," that permits your language to make sense even if your logic fails.

 

[beanojones]

I say that often it does. Are you contradicting me? On what bais?
There is no such thing as safer, "safe" is a binary. Try, "with less risk," that permits your language to make sense even if your logic fails.

As usual, all outstanding points. I appreciate that you have a tremendous amount of experience, and that your opinions are formed on the basis of that experience. (I would appreciate you trying to not make it personal.This is not about my abilities, or lack thereof, as an instructor. It is about whether snorkels belong on divers.)

Unfortunately, there are many people for whom snorkels are just what they learned with, so they think they are necessary, and diving without them is somehow "dumbing down" diving. My argument is with them, not you (I think).

As I have mentioned before, though I am in terms of PADI instructors, an accomplished free diver, I know full well I am not even close to be what I consider a decent free diver. Because PADI mixes snorkel use in with OW training and says that anyone who is an instructor, can also teach free-diving, the level of instruction in free diving is appalling. Simple test for a free diving instructor should be dive to 30m/100 ft comfortably. I can only occasionally do that.

Since PADI instructors (and for that matter NAUI instructors) are rarely accomplished free divers, they can hardly be decent teachers of it.

Snorkels don't make surface swims easier for beginning divers, it makes them incredibly frustrated because the weigh to the tank suspended over the body pushes them into the water, and sloshes around on their back. In fact, the most common point of frustration for an OW diver is that utter lack of balance that trying to hold a 35 lb. tank halfway out of the water causes. People have mentioned the weight of a 10lb head. Well, a tank weighs three times that out of the water, and is not actually connected to any muscles. It is just a way to convince divers that they can never get stable with a tank on, so it is actuall couterproductive to teaching diving itself.

As an accomplished free-diver you rightly think of free-diving and a snorkel as a reasonable option, and it is for you, but it is absolutely hazardous for most certified divers who are using those damn flex snorkels that rattle around underwater, and which flex to dunk the top of the tube in any amount of wind or waves. Not to mention students are rarely taught proper breathing on a snorkel, not do they ever practice using it in anything other than pool like conditions, so even if they have a non-flex, stable-on-the head snorkel, they end up having to spit the snorkel out and gasp for air in waves and chop.

So if safe is a binary, then snorkels are not safe, because they leave divers in a worse situation (head down with the mouth underwater, popping up to gasp for air, when the body is in a pose which forces their head back into the water, with a tank pressing them into the water.) On the other hand, swimming on the back leaves their face clear of the water, with the heavy tank beneath and stable, with plenty of warning when waves are coming, and plenty of awareness of the surroundings (boats and other divers). And it leverages the "learned through a lifetime of breathing" patterns, not the "never learned properly and/or never practiced" snorkel breathing patterns.

A dive begins before the diver enters the water and ends when the diver is out of the water. People who are not capable of executing that sort of planning will run into troubles eventually.

As mentioned, if someone wants to wear a snorkel for fun, or just because they like one that's the right reason.

If people think think they have a snorkel for safety, they are almost certainly not thinking through (except for the very,very few accomplished free-divers who have the breath control to hit 30m/100 ft consistently), because they have just never thought through the potential conditions throughout a dive, and never been given better options for surface swimming. Those better options are not part of PADI's OW course (but they are part of mine). These better options absolutely should be part of the course (in place of anything to do with snorkels), because they are all about proper buoyancy awareness, and putting the negatively buoyant pieces of equipment safely under the diver on the surface, instead of on top of the diver (which drives them into the water, the opposite of what a diver on the surface needs). Not to mention the tremendous efficiency advantage of having the full kick available when on the back, instead of the weak half kick from the face down pose.

The difference is kick strength alone is enough reason to never teach people on scuba to swim face down, as is necessary with a snorkel. Snorkelers and free divers have much less mass to push, so the weak kick does not really effect them as much. But you know, as I know, if you really have to cover ground free-diving dropping down a couple of meters allows the full kick and easily doubles your speed. (ignoring for a moment bow wake effects, which are of course part of things.)

Snorkels with scuba gear: much slower, no situational awareness, sudden loss of ability to breathe in real conditions, lack of balance, non-releasable negative buoyancy parts tending to push the diver under. Sounds like a good list of reasons to get snorkels off of divers to me.

So far the main reason for non-free divers to carry them is only tradition. "I learned it that way, dammit, that's the way it should be. Removing snorkels is dumbing down diving! McDiving! Damn kids, get off my lawn!"

---------- Post added ----------

Can anyone tell of someone being in serious trouble or injured because of using a snorkel or not? Gets back to my "Who cares?"

Yes frequently, and all the time. Giant stride in, switch to snorkel, wave hits, diver chokes on water, then spits the snorkel because it is full of water, and sucks in a mouth full of water.

This is the main reason why most mooring spots are littered with weight belts, because the diver is in trouble, the weight belt gets ditched to get their head clear of the water, and they get back on the boat and are done diving for the day, and maybe for life, because what is fun about choking on water? All because they had a snorkel on their mask. Without the snorkel, they would have a reg in, or have enough air in their BCD to get their mouth clear of the water. (My take: reg in from when you move to the back of the boat to when you are back standing on the boat. That's why I say keep some air in the tank: to keep the reg in until you are standing on land.)

Take the snorkel off their head, and they keep their reg in, wave hits: nothing happens. Or if they learn to swim on their back they are fine too.

Remember, fun divers are not my students. They are someone else students from all over the world, so I get to see what results from someone else's teaching. Snorkels cause all sorts of safety issues, and solve absolutely no problems. And having them on divers encourages people to switch from a "safe in every condition" second stage to a "safe only in limited conditions" snorkel.

On the other hand snorkeling is fun, and so is free diving. But having a tank on the back makes snorkels a bad idea.

 

[TMHeimer]

Beanojones, Though I've never worn a snorkel just for fun (but as a necessity when snorkelling), I do agree that it's an OK reason to wear one if someone just likes to. I can see exactly what you are saying in your last post about people getting in trouble for misuse of a snorkel, and I agree completely. I guess my perspective is that of someone who snorkelled for 40 years before learning to dive. I have never tried to extend my freediving past, say, 12 feet-never had any reason to. But it does bring up something that has always puzzled me. I know it happens all the time--people who have never snorkelled (or swam....other thread)-- taking up scuba. You'd think the logical steps might be 1. learn to swim 2. learn to snorkel. 3. Scuba. I watch students in the pool learn how to clear a snorkel...huh? I think I figured out the "blast" method in about 1969. Also, they are shown how to make a descent head first with snorkel...First time I saw that I thought "There are people taking diving who haven't done this?" You won't take in a mouthful of water if you know how to snorkel. If some slips in there, blast! I surface swim a lot on my back, then switch to snorkel just for variety--to maybe see the bottom, etc.-- fun, I guess. Your points are well taken--you have to know how to use the thing. If you don't you should learn how, or at least not use a snorkel--your examples point that out.

 

[stronj1]

I don't use a snorkel. My hair always got tangled in them!

 

[dfx]

time to remove my subscription from this thread lol

 

[UWRCN]

I have seen wreck divers, they all wear back plates with wings. These are good for working in an overhead environment but not so good at keeping your head out of the water on the surface.

Don't inflate it until your OPV purges. And lean back on it. I have never had a problem on the surface.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[beanojones]

Don't inflate it until your OPV purges. And lean back on it. I have never had a problem on the surface.

Or take it off and ride on top, if it is a long enough surface swim. Same deal as swimming on the back in terms of kicking efficiency: the upper body above the BCD and tank puts the fins further in the water allowing a full power kick.

---------- Post added ----------

Your points are well taken--you have to know how to use the thing. If you don't you should learn how, or at least not use a snorkel--your examples point that out.

See the thing is I love snorkeling, and freediving.

But they are not related to diving by anything but tradition. All of the behaviors differ, breathing patterns, buddy systems, etc are different. What's the most important ruls of diving? Never hold your breath. WHat's the most important skill to learn about diving? Breath control to achieve neutral buoyancy. Now in the middle of that I am supposed to teach breath hold diving, and a completely irregular breathing pattern, and a completely unrelated buddy system.

In Hawaii, snorkel breathing has to be forceful blast of half lung volume, and slow inhale on every breathing cycle or a free diver will suck water. This is what I mean about teaching snorkeling in quarry and pool-like conditions. Unless the diver has been taught correctly (almost no one is) and practices regularly (almost no one any practice does at all), they just regularly breathe. Someone said somewhere else "Well if conditions are like that, I just won't go snorkeling." Which is the right response, because a snorkel is useless if rough conditions for all but a very very few people. And yet we continue to treat it like a safety device of last resort, instead of a bad idea to turn to. On the other hand inflating a bcd (and ditching weights if need be) in bad conditions to establish positive buoyancy is always a good idea.

And we continue to deny this separate activity, a worthwhile and fun separate activity, its due as worthy of a stand alone class. Free diving is a far more demanding sport. It should not be thrown in as an afterthought and confusing set of practices with a diving course, especially when the end results is badly remembered behavior that even if perfectly learned, and practiced, is inadequate to real world conditions.

Since there are ways to not need the snorkel on the surface (especially since not using one has some real safety advantages, and huge efficiency advantages) anyway, why teach a skill that gives people bad options and a flase sense of secuirity? It's like putting a swim test in a diving class. Swimming is never an intelligent option for a diver in trouble so why does it even matter if they can swim? Which is why swim tests have been removed or made optional in favor of MFS tests by some agencies. If we put it in a diving class, students of course think it is related to diving.

Hawaii and other islands where people like to snorkel have unpredictable waves, so the protected snorkel spots like Hanauma Bay are popular with snorkelers. But get to the real ocean, and snorkels are only for those who are actually regularly go free-diving in Hawaii. It is always the swimmers and experienced (but not experienced in Hawaii) snorkelers who get themselves into trouble, because Hawaii is a little place in a big ocean, and the land mass makes essentially no difference to the ocean. Even experienced free-divers drown here, and they are not being weighed down by a tank.

Since snorkeling is not safe for the those experienced in Hawaii waters, how can it be safe for those without experience? Why teach people how to snorkel ineffectively as part of a diving course? Pool snorkeling does not even need to be taught, because the snorkeler can just pop their head out of the water, and drain the snorkel. That's not true for someone with a tank of their back, which pushes them into the water.

---------- Post added ----------

I don't use a snorkel. My hair always got tangled in them!

It was not the snorkel it was the plastic clip or the rubber snorkel keeper.

Get a neoprene snorkel keeper and it will no longer pull on your hair.

 

[supergaijin]

Most divers have come to accept that snorkels have their role to play in diving- not in all situations but there is still a use for them... in some situations.

In many places, swim tests-gone. In many places, dive tables- gone. In much of the real world of diving in the open ocean, snorkels-gone. For real safety reasons.

The 'real' safety reasons you give are that the snorkel can somehow flood the mask leading to a breath-held ascent. I have personally dived in some fairly nifty currents both with and without snorkels. Turning the head a certain way can indeed increase drag and open the mask. The same strength current can also open your mask by turning the head or making a grimace. I would suggest firstly that a diver that cannot clear their mask without panicking shouldn't be diving, and secondly they shouldn't be anywhere near currents strong enough to wobble the mask.

Every student say the same thing about reg/snorkel exchange: Why? Espcially when I give them much better ways to be on the surface with the heavy tanks underneath them, (not on top of them rolling them over all the time). Every single one of them wonders why they would ever use a snorkel instead of the much better options avaiable to them in non-emergent situations, and none of them trust them in rough conditions because they fail to protect the airway unless a really irregular breathing pattern is used, and even then they choke the person using them randomly (random because the person cannot see the waves coming.)

Students are not the people that should influence which gear to be used as they have no experience to know what can be the real reason for having said gear. The snorkel-regulator exchange is a litmus test if anything else- if they cannot do this skill with ease, they shouldn't be diving. Water does enter the snorkel quite regularly when snorkeling with or without scuba, which requires the snorkeler to monitor their breathing and be proficient at snorkel clearing ie. lifting the chin and blasting. That isn't a big ask even for Japanese girls with the lungs the size of whoopie cushions.

For those who say a snorkel makes a surface swim easier, what????

Please come take my open water course where I will show you three different ways to move on the surface that are far, far more efficient than snorkel use with scuba on. And safer too.

Please come to my house reef where in order to dive, one must cross a barrier reef which is exposed at low tide. If one wants to negotiate between the large porites corals without using tank air, one needs a snorkel. Snorkels have their place.

I think the main thing to take away from this thread is that snorkels are a legitimate tool for diving in certain situations. Are they a life-saver? Well... that can be argued, but if you're adrift at sea and your options are either to dump your tank and swim back, or wait and hope that someone finds you before nightfall... then in that specific scenario, yes a snorkel could well mean the difference between life and death.

Gotta love snorkel threads!