Do you Need a Snorkel

[MXGratefulDiver]

... In your opinion.

That's all any of us are offering ...

I on the other hand, believe that it's wise to have the appropriate equipment for the conditions that you are diving in. If the conditions do not require it, I would agree with your statement. However my local conditions warrant wearing one in my opinion.

I agree ... so wouldn't it be nice to be qualifying our opinions by stating the conditions in which we're offering them?

I agree that context is everything, but disagree with your statement. I train divers to rescue their buddy, as is required by many training agencies. Every time they dive, they may be called upon to perform a rescue. In this there is no difference from a rescue swimmer's function.

What skills in any agency's Rescue program require the use of a snorkel as a condition of the rescue?

Nevertheless, it is a requirement. I don't personally believe an Instructor should drift too far away from what their Agency requires; especially in a public forum designated for "basic diver discussion."

I believe it's important to offer my students and the readers of this forum my honest opinion and the reasons why I have it. When I am teaching, I absolutely follow the standards and requirements of my agency. When I teach, I absolutely promote them. I do, however, qualify those positions in my class by telling my students what those requirements are, why they are requirements, and why ... when appropriate ... I disagree with them.

I am not training robots ... I'm training people under the presumption that diving is an unregulated activity, and the best way to train safe divers is to teach them to think for themselves. I will not hide behind standards as a way to promote ignorance or a deviation from what my agency believes to be correct. And the reason I chose NAUI as my agency is because I don't have to.

As an example, NAUI promotes buddy diving. When I am teaching ... when I am training at any level ... I promote not just buddy diving, but buddy skills well above and beyond what my agency says I need to teach. That doesn't prevent me from solo diving outside of the class. I do believe it's important to set an example to my students. I do that through appropriate planning and execution of whatever dives I choose to do.

Bob, I don't believe that I have overstated anything.

You are free to believe whatever your choose, and to state your beliefs. I am free to agree or disagree with them. That's the value of a conversation ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DCBC]

What skills in any agency's Rescue program require the use of a snorkel as a condition of the rescue?

I thought that the context was clear. Military / Coast Guard Rescue Agencies do not have their Rescue Swimmers equipped and trained with snorkels because it isn't necessary, but because it is.

Whether a person elects to use one for recreational diving or not does not change the fact that a properly trained person is more efficient in the water with a snorkel than without one on the surface. This is why the noted agencies utilize them in horrible conditions on a daily basis.

...I will not hide behind standards as a way to promote ignorance or a deviation from what my agency believes to be correct...

Ignorance?

You are free to believe whatever your choose, and to state your beliefs. I am free to agree or disagree with them. That's the value of a conversation ...

Yes, I totally agree. One person might say that they don't choose to dive with a snorkel because the diving conditions in their area don't warrant it. Another might say that they would be foolish to dive without one because of the conditions.

As I said in a previous post, it's not always required nor preferable to have a snorkel. However the fact remains that there are places on this planet where it's a very useful piece of equipment.

It's up to the diver to ascertain if it's worth the trouble of taking it with them. I think that this is what Thal was getting at.

When I dive in the open ocean, I often equipe myself with fresh water, high enery bars, a strobe light and an EPIRB / VHF transmitter. It's dependent upon the conditions you find yourself in.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I thought that the context was clear. Military / Coast Guard Rescue Agencies do not have their Rescue Swimmers equipped and trained with snorkels because it isn't necessary, but because it is.

... and how many of the divers reading this thread do you believe are Military/Coast Guard rescue divers?

Use the right tool for the right job ... holding military standards up as a test to the proficiency of a recreational diver is comparing apples and coffee beans.

Whether a person elects to use one for recreational diving or not does not change the fact that a properly trained person is more efficient in the water with a snorkel than without one on the surface. This is why the noted agencies utilize them in horrible conditions on a daily basis.

Again, you are making a generalized statement. Under WHAT conditions? Under the conditions I dive ... whether in the Pacific Northwest, California, Indonesia, Caribbean, or anywhere else I've been diving ... I am no more efficient on the surface with a snorkel than I am without one.

So what are these conditions of which you speak?

Ignorance?

Ignorance ... the act of relying on "rules" without understanding why they exist and under what conditions they apply.

Yes, I totally agree. One person might say that they don't choose to dive with a snorkel because the diving conditions in their area don't warrant it. Another might say that they would be foolish to dive without one because of the conditions.

As I said in a previous post, it's not always required nor preferable to have a snorkel. However the fact remains that there are places on this planet where it's a very useful piece of equipment.

... and it would be nice to hear of these conditions. So far the only ones I've heard specified are when you need to swim down to avoid a ship that's trying to run you over, and night diving in a squall. Most folks won't ever find themselves facing those situations.

It's up to the diver to ascertain if it's worth the trouble of taking it with them. I think that this is what Thal was getting at.

I had little issue with what Thal said up to the point where he stated that most people who don't choose to use a snorkel lack the skill to use them properly.

To my concern, that falls under the heading of "misinformation".

When I dive in the open ocean, I often equipe myself with fresh water, high enery bars, a strobe light and an EPIRB / VHF transmitter. It's dependent upon the conditions you find yourself in.

... and so would you recommend that every person who dives in someplace like Cozumel equip themselves similarly?

My issue with this whole conversation ... as it has been with all the previous ones just like it ... is that the promoters of snorkels uphold them as necessary safety gear. They are not ... they are items of convenience that ... under very limited circumstances ... can make dealing with those circumstances a little bit easier.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Thalassamania]

... and how many of the divers reading this thread do you believe are Military/Coast Guard rescue divers?

Use the right tool for the right job ... holding military standards up as a test to the proficiency of a recreational diver is comparing apples and coffee beans.

So "military" standards are inappropriate; and you say "science diving" standards are also. I have some trouble when we define things by what they are not rather than what they are. Granted, the requirement for rescue diver types is likely predicated on being under a chopper, but the requirements for a science diver, in terms of diving itself are those imposed by the same environment that recreational divers are subject to.

It is the consensus opinion, of those professionals, whose full time concern (and only concern, with no other axes to grind) is minimizing the risk that the divers they supervise are exposed to that wearing a snorkel involves far less risk than not doing so.

Again, you are making a generalized statement. Under WHAT conditions? Under the conditions I dive ... whether in the Pacific Northwest, California, Indonesia, Caribbean, or anywhere else I've been diving ... I am no more efficient on the surface with a snorkel than I am without one.

So what are these conditions of which you speak?

The only conditions that science divers are REQUIRED to NOT have a snorkel are saturation and overhead environments like under the Antarctic icepack. Each of us has every right to go to hell in the hand-basket of our choice, but your participation is the discussion here places some obligation to participate in the dialectic at a level that is more insightful than unsupported blanket statements like, "I am no more efficient on the surface with a snorkel than I am without one."

...

I had little issue with what Thal said up to the point where he stated that most people who don't choose to use a snorkel lack the skill to use them properly.

To my concern, that falls under the heading of "misinformation".

What I said was that most of the folks that I have had a chance to interact with who disdain the use of a snorkel do not know how to properly wear one and also lack some of the skills critical to using one. I stand by that.

... and so would you recommend that every person who dives in someplace like Cozumel equip themselves similarly?

I believe Wayne just said, "When I dive in the open ocean," which is not Cozumel.

My issue with this whole conversation ... as it has been with all the previous ones just like it ... is that the promoters of snorkels uphold them as necessary safety gear. They are not ... they are items of convenience that ... under very limited circumstances ... can make dealing with those circumstances a little bit easier.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

No, you are missing the major point, which is there is almost always a trade off when you decide to carry a certain piece of gear, carrying it exacts an immediate cost or increases a risk in some fashion and that must be weighed against the lowered risk or other advantages that carrying it provides. There is also a longer term cost that relates to both initially learning to use the item in fashion that minimizes costs and maximizes benefits as well as the costs associated with routine practice and drill that assures that the costs are kept minimized and the benefits stay maximized. The initial and longer terms costs of a snorkel are so infinitesimally small that even if the advantage is, as you describe it, "under very limited circumstances," I submit that it comes out on the positive side of the balance sheet.

Similarly I carry an emergency pouch on every dive. It contains flares, smoke, signal mirror, safety sausage, small light, etc.

There are costs, in terms of cash, maintenance and drag, to carrying this. But those costs are tiny when compared to the reduction of risk that this pouch might provide. Now ... I've never needed it to date. If I needed it tomorrow that'd be less than 1 in 10⁴, so should I stop carrying it because the odds are so low?

When it comes to a snorkel, let's just take a few possibilities, ones that relate to rescue, and not by any means a census of all that might occur:

1. We agree that if you are under a helicopter a snorkel makes life much, much easier. It is the difference between being able to be an active participant in what is going on and a passive victim.
2. If you have trained in mouth-to-snorkel rescue breathing you are able to transport a victim at virtually the same speed that you can swim, over a rather long distance, whilst providing in excess of 20 breaths per minute. I have not found any other technique that makes this possible.
3. It also serves in place of a pocket mask or other form of shield which you are unlikely to have with you out in the ocean.
4. If you are providing a tired diver assist, either with the victims hands on your shoulder or with a fin push you will be, more or less, face down in the water, especially if you are wearing a BP/W. A snorkel makes both these assists much, much easier.

Any one of those four items, each of which is far more likely than needing a parachute flare or smoke, greatly overpowers the minuscule cost(s) of taking a snorkel out on a dive.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

So "military" standards are inappropriate; and you say "science diving" standards are also.

I didn't say inappropriate ... I said overkill.

It's exactly the same as saying that everyone should buy DIR gear and dive DIR style. Can a recreational diver adopt those standards? Yes. Does it offer advantages? Yes. Is it necessary? Certainly not.

I have some trouble when we define things by what they are not rather than what they are. Granted, the requirement for rescue diver types is likely predicated on being under a chopper, but the requirements for a science diver, in terms of diving itself are those imposed by the same environment that recreational divers are subject to.

And everyone knows your position ... which is that all divers should be subjected to a 100-hour Open Water class with a minimum of 20 dives, and come out of it being able to tie a bowline with one hand while wearing three-finger mitts.

All very well and good ... but hardly necessary. Remember the premise of this thread ... Do you NEED a snorkel?

It is the consensus opinion, of those professionals, whose full time concern (and only concern, with no other axes to grind) is minimizing the risk that the divers they supervise are exposed to that wearing a snorkel involves far less risk than not doing so.
The only conditions that science divers are REQUIRED to NOT have a snorkel are saturation and overhead environments like under the Antarctic icepack. Each of us has every right to go to hell in the hand-basket of our choice, but your participation is the discussion here places some obligation to participate in the dialectic at a level that is more insightful than unsupported blanket statements like, "I am no more efficient on the surface with a snorkel than I am without one."

... and what rigorous logic are you using to support your argument? All I see is "I'm more qualified than you". Sorry, that pig don't fly. I'll ask again ... as I have repeatedly without getting a reasoned reply ... under what conditions (other than swimming under a helicopter) does wearing a snorkel make someone inherently a safer diver?

What I said was that most of the folks that I have had a chance to interact with who disdain the use of a snorkel do not know how to properly wear one and also lack some of the skills critical to using one. I stand by that.

... and I'll stand by my statement that while that might be your opinion, it's unsupportable.

I believe Wayne just said, "When I dive in the open ocean," which is not Cozumel.

Then kindly do define the ocean ... exactly what type of conditions are you talking about here?

No, you are missing the major point, which is there is almost always a trade off when you decide to carry a certain piece of gear, carrying it exacts an immediate cost or increases a risk in some fashion and that must be weighed against the lowered risk or other advantages that carrying it provides. There is also a longer term cost that relates to both initially learning to use the item in fashion that minimizes costs and maximizes benefits as well as the costs associated with routine practice and drill that assures that the costs are kept minimized and the benefits stay maximized. The initial and longer terms costs of a snorkel are so infinitesimally small that even if the advantage is, as you describe it, "under very limited circumstances," I submit that it comes out on the positive side of the balance sheet.

... for you. Well and good. If it floats your boat, take it. I can say the same about people who use flip-fins. If it works for you, great ... but please don't try telling me they're essential safety equipment.

Similarly I carry an emergency pouch on every dive. It contains flares, smoke, signal mirror, safety sausage, small light, etc.

There are costs, in terms of cash, maintenance and drag, to carrying this. But those costs are tiny when compared to the reduction of risk that this pouch might provide. Now ... I've never needed it to date. If I needed it tomorrow that'd be less than 1 in 10⁴, so should I stop carrying it because the odds are so low?

And your point is what? That everyone should carry a pouch like that? Good grief ... why not throw a sandwich, coupla beers, spare anchor and the kitchen sink in there? Never know when stuff like that will come in handy. Personally, I'll find a bag and spool, spare mask, and wetnotes far more appropriate to my day-to-day safety than the stuff you've got there. The difference is, of course, because of the difference in the type of diving we do and the conditions in which we do it.

Same applies with a snorkel ... it's applicability and usefulness depends entirely on the conditions in which you're diving.

When it comes to a snorkel, let's just take a few possibilities, ones that relate to rescue, and not by any means a census of all that might occur:

1. We agree that if you are under a helicopter a snorkel makes life much, much easier. It is the difference between being able to be an active participant in what is going on and a passive victim.
2. If you have trained in mouth-to-snorkel rescue breathing you are able to transport a victim at virtually the same speed that you can swim, over a rather long distance, whilst providing in excess of 20 breaths per minute. I have not found any other technique that makes this possible.
3. It also serves in place of a pocket mask or other form of shield which you are unlikely to have with you out in the ocean.
4. If you are providing a tired diver assist, either with the victims hands on your shoulder or with a fin push you will be, more or less, face down in the water, especially if you are wearing a BP/W. A snorkel makes both these assists much, much easier.

Any one of those four items, each of which is far more likely than needing a parachute flare or smoke, greatly overpowers the minuscule cost(s) of taking a snorkel out on a dive.

The first three require training that most divers won't have if they're to be of any value at all ... and #'s 2 and 3 will only work with a J-snorkel, which isn't what most divers are using these days. The fourth has some validity ... but if you're doing a fin push your face is going to be in the water no matter what type of BCD you're wearing ... and I'm going to be breathing off my regulator.

Once again ... I think it is you and Wayne who are missing the point. The discussion asks the question ... "Is a snorkel NECESSARY?" No ... it's not. It's helpful under certain conditions that 99.999% of the diving community will never have to deal with ... and if they did, they'd have difficulties coping with that a 12-inch piece of plastic tubing won't solve.

How about all you guys promoting the snorkel as some life-saving device leaving all the ships, squalls, helicopters, and specialized rescue training out of the conversation and providing some real-life examples of conditions that the vast majority of our readers can relate to?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Thalassamania]

I didn't say inappropriate ... I said overkill.

It's exactly the same as saying that everyone should buy DIR gear and dive DIR style. Can a recreational diver adopt those standards? Yes. Does it offer advantages? Yes. Is it necessary? Certainly not.

No it is not. The adoption of DIR gear requires a substantial investment in terms of money and training time that must be weighed against a gain that is clearly, open to debate.

And everyone knows your position ... which is that all divers should be subjected to a 100-hour Open Water class with a minimum of 20 dives, and come out of it being able to tie a bowline with one hand while wearing three-finger mitts.

You misrepresent my position, which is (in a nutshell) that all recreational diving programs that exist today are devolved from a program that is very similar to what I teach today. There was a time when recreational training was virtually identical to scientific diver training. Then there was a time that recreational instructor training was virtually identical to scientific diver training, but today were are in a circumstance that even recreational instructors have less knowledge and inferior skills when compared to divers who enjoy a Scripps Model training background.

All very well and good ... but hardly necessary. Remember the premise of this thread ... Do you NEED a snorkel?

The premise is "do you need a snorkel?" More precisely:

Do you need a snorkel while recreational diving, I've heard in some places it's illegal to dive without one but it's always in the way.
​

The question is asked by a recreationaly trained SSI diver.

So what is "need?" The simple answer there is:

Something required or wanted.
​

So the simple answer to the OP is:

Yes, a snorkel is something required by your training agency and your instructor. There are a few places where the use of a snorkel is, in fact, required by law or other statute.
​

... and what rigorous logic are you using to support your argument? All I see is "I'm more qualified than you". Sorry, that pig don't fly. I'll ask again

You should note that I very carefully did not use that structure. If you really want to play the stupid game, I'll do so. Shall we see whose list of qualification is longer, wider and deeper (and thus whose intromittent organ is longer)? I don't think you really want to go there.

... as I have repeatedly without getting a reasoned reply ... under what conditions (other than swimming under a helicopter) does wearing a snorkel make someone inherently a safer diver?

And you have received any number of specifications, some reasonable and some a little far out to which your only response is "Ya, but I don't think so."

... and I'll stand by my statement that while that might be your opinion, it's unsupportable.

Then we must stand in the light and be examined as to whose opinion has greater validity. I have supported mine with a fairly careful constructed analysis of cost/benefit. You had done absolutely nothing but say, "while that might be your opinion, it's unsupportable." You have done nothing what-so-ever to talk about what is incorrect in my analysis, your entire construct rest on nothing more than: you say so, so it must be true.

Then kindly do define the ocean ... exactly what type of conditions are you talking about here?

You mean you really don't know what open ocean is?

... for you. Well and good. If it floats your boat, take it. I can say the same about people who use flip-fins. If it works for you, great ... but please don't try telling me they're essential safety equipment.

You can (and do) say anything that you want to, that doesn't make it so. The question is the value of your supporting information and arguments, and we've yet to either read yours or to read your critique of ours.

And your point is what? That everyone should carry a pouch like that? Good grief ... why not throw a sandwich, coupla beers, spare anchor and the kitchen sink in there? Never know when stuff like that will come in handy. Personally, I'll find a bag and spool, spare mask, and wetnotes far more appropriate to my day-to-day safety than the stuff you've got there.

The overhead of changing the sandwich as it spoils is too high when compared to the advantage, if hunger is an issue a power bar in a waterproof container would be a much better choice. Beer is a bad idea, it dehydrates you. To carry a spare anchor you'd need to already carry an anchor, and I really can't see why one would do that, perhaps you could explain why you do. I fail to see the advantage of bringing a kitchen sink, there's already plenty of water available and connection the water supply would make it hard to swim. Wetnotes (or something similar) are also not emergency gear but an everyday item like a Bag and spool. I am ambivalent concerning a spare mask, I can catch enough of a bubble under my beetling brow to see well enough to read my gauges, but as my presbyopia worsens I may have to reevaluate that.

The first three require training that most divers won't have if they're to be of any value at all.

Well, then perhaps (if you see the goal as a good one, e.g., being able to transport a victim at virtually the same speed that you can swim, over a rather long distance, whilst providing in excess of 20 breaths per minute) then perhaps you should learn how to do so and add that skill to your courses. But that would necessitate carrying a snorkel. So I guess you'd rather teach a demonstrably inferior rescue technique to your students than pay the tiny cost of carrying a snorkel. I guess that's your choice.

The fourth has some validity ... but if you're doing a fin push your face is going to be in the water no matter what type of BCD you're wearing ... and I'm going to be breathing off my regulator.

Diving fatalities most often stem from multiple failures, such as a tired buddy needed an assist combined with an OOA (for whatever reason, use or o-ring failure, or free flow, etc.) buddy. Sure, the intersection of the set of the two failure is rather small, but so is the cost of carry the snorkel.

Once again ... I think it is you and Wayne who are missing the point. The discussion asks the question ... "Is a snorkel NECESSARY?" No ... it's not. It's helpful under certain conditions that 99.999% of the diving community will never have to deal with ... and if they did, they'd have difficulties coping with that a 12-inch piece of plastic tubing won't solve.

No, as I pointed out above, it is "necessary," though you might try to argue that should not be.

How about all you guys promoting the snorkel as some life-saving device leaving all the ships, squalls, helicopters, and specialized rescue training out of the conversation and providing some real-life examples of conditions that the vast majority of our readers can relate to?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

It's already been done, it really doesn't matter what kind of situation or example is provided you make the same response is does not actually address the issue or the example.

BTW, since when is the most efficient way to transport an inwater victim a "specialized" rescue skill that most divers should not have in their skill box?

 

[Krenath]

The thread topic asked me if I need a snorkel.

No. I do not NEED a snorkel.

I use a snorkel only when I'm snorkeling and when I'm encouraging new divers to use one.

I encourage new divers to use one because they're not yet at a skill level where they can decide for themselves if they do or don't need it.

The only piece of equipment I NEED is a tank. The rest just make things easier.

In my opinion, Thalassamania has successfully argued that a snorkel is a damned good idea, but that has still failed to elevate it to either a NEED or a REQUIREMENT.

 

[Thalassamania]

The definition of "need" is "something required or wanted." To keep it simple, snorkels are required and thus needed. To take it to the next level, you state that that they are, "a damned good idea." I would think that covers "wanted." So, despite the "or" connection, both conditions that define need are met.

Which is not to say, that you do not have the right to, despite the need to use one, decline to do so, except in those few places where doing so would be a violation of law, statute or regulation.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

No it is not. The adoption of DIR gear requires a substantial investment in terms of money and training time that must be weighed against a gain that is clearly, open to debate.
You misrepresent my position, which is (in a nutshell) that all recreational diving programs that exist today are devolved from a program that is very similar to what I teach today. There was a time when recreational training was virtually identical to scientific diver training. Then there was a time that recreational instructor training was virtually identical to scientific diver training, but today were are in a circumstance that even recreational instructors have less knowledge and inferior skills when compared to divers who enjoy a Scripps Model training background.
The premise is "do you need a snorkel?" More precisely:

Do you need a snorkel while recreational diving, I've heard in some places it's illegal to dive without one but it's always in the way.
​

The question is asked by a recreationaly trained SSI diver.

So what is "need?" The simple answer there is:

Something required or wanted.
​

So the simple answer to the OP is:

Yes, a snorkel is something required by your training agency and your instructor. There are a few places where the use of a snorkel is, in fact, required by law or other statute.
​

You should note that I very carefully did not use that structure. If you really want to play the stupid game, I'll do so. Shall we see whose list of qualification is longer, wider and deeper (and thus whose intromittent organ is longer)? I don't think you really want to go there.
And you have received any number of specifications, some reasonable and some a little far out to which your only response is "Ya, but I don't think so."
Then we must stand in the light and be examined as to whose opinion has greater validity. I have supported mine with a fairly careful constructed analysis of cost/benefit. You had done absolutely nothing but say, "while that might be your opinion, it's unsupportable." You have done nothing what-so-ever to talk about what is incorrect in my analysis, your entire construct rest on nothing more than: you say so, so it must be true.
You mean you really don't know what open ocean is?
You can (and do) say anything that you want to, that doesn't make it so. The question is the value of your supporting information and arguments, and we've yet to either read yours or to read your critique of ours.
The overhead of changing the sandwich as it spoils is too high when compared to the advantage, if hunger is an issue a power bar in a waterproof container would be a much better choice. Beer is a bad idea, it dehydrates you. To carry a spare anchor you'd need to already carry an anchor, and I really can't see why one would do that, perhaps you could explain why you do. I fail to see the advantage of bringing a kitchen sink, there's already plenty of water available and connection the water supply would make it hard to swim. Wetnotes (or something similar) are also not emergency gear but an everyday item like a Bag and spool. I am ambivalent concerning a spare mask, I can catch enough of a bubble under my beetling brow to see well enough to read my gauges, but as my presbyopia worsens I may have to reevaluate that.

Well, then perhaps (if you see the goal as a good one, e.g., being able to transport a victim at virtually the same speed that you can swim, over a rather long distance, whilst providing in excess of 20 breaths per minute) then perhaps you should learn how to do so and add that skill to your courses. But that would necessitate carrying a snorkel. So I guess you'd rather teach a demonstrably inferior rescue technique to your students than pay the tiny cost of carrying a snorkel. I guess that's your choice.
Diving fatalities most often stem from multiple failures, such as a tired buddy needed an assist combined with an OOA (for whatever reason, use or o-ring failure, or free flow, etc.) buddy. Sure, the intersection of the set of the two failure is rather small, but so is the cost of carry the snorkel.
No, as I pointed out above, it is "necessary," though you might try to argue that should not be.
It's already been done, it really doesn't matter what kind of situation or example is provided you make the same response is does not actually address the issue or the example.

BTW, since when is the most efficient way to transport an inwater victim a "specialized" rescue skill that most divers should not have in their skill box?

You win ... this rathole ain't worth the effort.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[ReeferBen]

Not that I am want to get into this debate, but going into the NEED or not definition can be taking it a bit extreme. My OW instructor used to always tell us, that a mask is a luxury item not a necessity and we should be able to handle our whether we could see or not. Would I go diving with out a mask though? Of course not. Is it necessary IMO to be able to handle all your gear with no mask or in zero vis, I think so. So a mask may not be NEEDED to dive but I doubt anyone sane would go with out one.

I do beach dives, and boat dives and either way I don't use a snorkel. I usually swim on my back in those long swims. On the one occasion I got swept away from the boat, I wasn't thinking man I wish I had my snorkel and swimming on my back against a stiff current got me back to the boat, even if it took a half hour. Would it have been easier or faster if I was face down using a snorkel, I don't think so.

FWIW I have been snorkeling for 25 years and do it alot, so I think I can properly set up my snorkel and use it effectively being a typical J snorkel or one with a purge. Yet when I dive I don't like it, it just annoys me. One of those little things that irriate me, I took it off long ago when I dive and never looked back. I don't dive off the NJ coast though and if I start that I might be putting it back on since those conditions differ greatly, and can change just as fast while your under.

A few years back a women snorkeling about 150 yards out from the beach in front of our house was struck right in the crotch by a dingy. The local driving the boat was a kid, who promptly turned around and sped away. I seem to be able to hear a boats engine while snorkeling pretty easy, the high pitch buzz usually gives it away. But would you be more or less likely to be hit swimming on you back out to a dive site or snorkeling face down? (assuming your not towing a flag)