Give up my primary regulator???

[chrisch]

The majority of poorly rigged AS regs are on people trained by other agencies. ...

Really? You have hard data to support this point of view? Or is it just your wishful thinking perhaps? I have never in my life asked people with a poorly rigged AAS who trained them.

When teaching, or just diving, with people trained by PADI et al I find they generally stay behind me - used to diving in a group and following a guide/DM.

You are actually making a fool of yourself now Edward. This is an international board with some of the worlds best divers on it. They are all going to follow your lead? Sorry mate you are too ridiculous to bother with the rest of your post.

If the AAS is not stowed correctly or safely deployable, should you be diving with that diver in the first place? IMHO if they haven't thought about that they are probably not a safe enough diver in the first place.

Fair enough - I try not to dive with people that have not thought about how to assist me if I need it. However the debate is about the "instabuddy" and whether or not such a person will take a primary regulator or wait for misunderstanding to drown them.

Primary donate only works if the gear is stowed correctly.

Really? The regulator is in your mouth you take it out and donate it. I fail to see any stowage issues.

Pass a new diver 7ft of hose and don't explain it or practise and watch what happens.

What happens Neil? Under what circumstances are you passing the diver the hose?

Same on octo donate.

Ahh. Clarification. They take the regulator, breathe from it and surface. What was the problem again?

 

[Colliam7]

From my perspective, the issue is not nominal – there is not an ‘either-or’, ‘yes-no’, ‘right-wrong’ outcome. It is certainly not a matter of ignoring your training, vs ignoring other suggestions. It is actually a matter of building on your training. What I am suggesting is that there is a greater likelihood – in a venue like SB, compared to a single shop or interaction with a single instructor - of a new(er) diver being exposed to a diversity of ideas and information (including some nonsense), from which they can expand their information base, and as a result of which they ask more questions – of users on SB, of instructors, of shop staff, of other divers. I cannot teach my students everything they might want to know, should know, or even need to know, within the current structure of dive training. I certainly cannot explore all the subtle nuances of the myriad of equipment / procedure / training issues that are regularly discussed here. But I can respond to questions that students and divers come to me with as a result of reading threads on SB.

And, while I agree that there are perils if one decides to blindly ‘take the advice of a stranger who owes you no duty, may be completely unqualified to teach‘, I would suggest that goes on every day in more than a few dive shops around the world. That young, relatively inexperienced, open water diver working as a retail clerk in a dive shop is telling people - with genuine sincerity and the best of intentions - things that are financially advantageous for the shop but which may not represent good advice. Again, I am a LDS advocate. But, that doesn't mean I do not have some concerns about things I see.

Nonsense is like a weed, it will take root anywhere there is reasonably accepting soil, and an absence of limiting conditions. What is good about SB and similar venues is that there is a considerable amount of modulation - cognitive herbicide - regularly being applied, and nonsensical ideas are likely to be ‘called out’ rather quickly, and aggressively. As with chemical herbicides, sometimes ‘good’ plants can be a bit damaged by indiscriminate application. But, more generally, good ideas stand the test of discussion. SB discussions don’t provide answers – i.e. they don’t offer a one and only one truth. They are more likely to stimulate other questions. At the very least, the intensity of discussion in some threads might be an indication that an idea is controversial.

You very reasonably refer to the ‘stranger who owes you no duty’ and that is a valid consideration. ‘Duty of care’ is considered to be a characteristic of a profession, and it is appropriate to contrast the applicability of DoC between a) the instructor in front of you (being paid in a professional capacity to train you), and b) posters on the anonymous, pseudonym-riddled internet, where no such duty exists. But, there is also a balance between the quality and value of the duty of care responsibility that an instructor assumes and exercises, and the knowledge and competence upon which s/he bases the delivery that duty of care. I cannot speak for all ‘professions’. At least in health care disciplines, continued professional development is not only an expectation but now a requirement of continued licensure in many countries. That requirement is not a guarantee of competence, but it does increase the statistical probability that a practitioner does not remain mired in information that was current at the time of initial professional credentialing, but has long since been discarded as flawed, or incomplete, or inadequate. And, irrespective of the requirements for licensure, the vast majority of health professionals I work with proactively pursue continued professional development – subscribe to journals, maintain membership in professional organizations, attend conferences, participate in webinars, etc. If scuba instruction is a professional pursuit (and I personally consider it to be so), then there should be a much broader emphasis on continued instructor development and currency than I see today. And, I am not just pointing fingers at others. I concluded earlier this season that I have become a bit complacent, and that I am not altogether happy with my teaching – preparation, delivery, follow-up, etc. So, I have committed (to myself) to change that. I am meeting standards. But, my students deserve better.

I have a friend who is a shop owner and an instructor. He regularly says that he considers a backplate to be technical dive gear, and not appropriate for recreational divers. As a consequence, his shop does not stock backplates / wings (which is his prerogative) and, when asked about that equipment, he makes it clear to his customers that they should never consider a BP/W rig. It is not a matter of him saying, ‘Here are the relative advantages and disadvantages of different types of BCDs, and here is why I do not think a BP/W offers any advantages for the recreational diver.’ He also is one who discourages his students and customers from going on SB, because ‘there is a lot of bad information out there.’ Even though he is a friend, and fellow instructor, I wonder whether his students / customers might be getting some bad information. It isn’t a matter of a favoring particular gear configuration. It is a matter of telling students and customers things that are simply . . . rubbish and nonsense.

I certainly do not suggest that anyone blindly accept what they read, or are advised to do, on SB - or any other internet venue. But, I am very definitely suggesting that they go out on SB, and for that matter on YouTube (where there is some tremendous educational content), and expand their knowledge base, and energize their questioning behavior. I much prefer that my students extend their knowledge, and ask me more questions.

 

[Bob DBF]

Actually the BSAC method makes perfect sense to me. Train the OOG diver mug you for your safe second, and train the donor not to panic when someone latches on to their alternate second.

Donating is fine if you know what is going on and/or you are dealing with your buddy. I have been mugged for my primary twice, not my buddy and from behind, and it would have been a bad day in each case if I was a novice diver at the time. If the diver had been trained to take the safe second it would have been a nonissue.

As for divers not stowing the safe second properly and dragging it in the sand, the issue of not having enough time in OW to insure the production of a good thinking diver might come up.


Bob

 

[Edward3c]

Really? You have hard data to support this point of view? Or is it just your wishful thinking perhaps? I have never in my life asked people with a poorly rigged AAS who trained them.

I've been running the BSAC South Scotland regional training sessions since 2007. Before participants can dive I need to see their dive qualification. So yes, I do know which agency trained them.

 

[chrisch]

Actually the BSAC method makes perfect sense to me. Train the OOG diver mug you for your safe second, and train the donor not to panic when someone latches on to their alternate second.

It is an idea with merit.

Donating is fine if you know what is going on and/or you are dealing with your buddy. I have been mugged for my primary twice, not my buddy and from behind, and it would have been a bad day in each case if I was a novice diver at the time. If the diver had been trained to take the safe second it would have been a nonissue.

Your example shows the issue quite clearly. If everyone followed the same protocol then all is well. However your personal experience shows that a diver should be prepared for someone to take their primary unexpectedly. I am glad you handled it and are here to tell us about it. If primary removal were introduced at an earlier level more people would be able to handle it too.

As for divers not stowing the safe second properly and dragging it in the sand, the issue of not having enough time in OW to insure the production of a good thinking diver might come up.
Bob

We are all human. Humans seek profit and fail to follow rules. To survive the cruel world in which we find ourselves it is advisable to gain knowledge. Primary donate is but one technique and (to return to the OP) it is out there. A well trained diver should be able to cope with it, or donate their primary when the circumstances dictate it. Saying it is wrong and ignoring it is not the way forward.

 

[Bob DBF]

If everyone followed the same protocol then all is well. However your personal experience shows that a diver should be prepared for someone to take their primary unexpectedly. I am glad you handled it and are here to tell us about it. If primary removal were introduced at an earlier level more people would be able to handle it too.

If a novice diver is trained to deal with someone unexpectedly yanking their primary second out their mouth perhaps we should bring back the harassment drills prevalent when I was first trained. Primary removal is not, from what little knowledge I have, taught by removal by supprise from behind.

It was a non event for me, however the other diver probably still remembers the ass chewing.

A well trained diver should be able to cope with it, or donate their primary when the circumstances dictate it. Saying it is wrong and ignoring it is not the way forward

A well trained should be able to cope with most problems and make it to the surface alive. I now donate my primary, as I use a bungeed backup, I have to explain the procedure to most that I buddy with as this configuration is not the norm. That being said, I have used a lot of different procedures since I started buddy breathing on a Double Hose in '62, and all of them have worked just fine.

Any system and its procedures work for that system and its adherents, it just has to be made clear what procedures need to be used when divers are using different systems.


Bob

 

[Neilwood]

Really? You have hard data to support this point of view? Or is it just your wishful thinking perhaps? I have never in my life asked people with a poorly rigged AAS who trained them.



You are actually making a fool of yourself now Edward. This is an international board with some of the worlds best divers on it. They are all going to follow your lead? Sorry mate you are too ridiculous to bother with the rest of your post.



Fair enough - I try not to dive with people that have not thought about how to assist me if I need it. However the debate is about the "instabuddy" and whether or not such a person will take a primary regulator or wait for misunderstanding to drown them.



Really? The regulator is in your mouth you take it out and donate it. I fail to see any stowage issues.



What happens Neil? Under what circumstances are you passing the diver the hose?



Ahh. Clarification. They take the regulator, breathe from it and surface. What was the problem again?

My point (which should possibly have been clearer) is that give a new diver a 7ft hose configuration as their gear and watch them get tangled up.

As a number of posters are agreeing (including a number of long hose users), the main thing is explain and train the system you propose to use.

 

[Colliam7]

I have been mugged for my primary twice, not my buddy and from behind, and it would have been a bad day in each case if I was a novice diver at the time. If the diver had been trained to take the safe second it would have been a nonissue.

I can see this from a couple of perspectives. I won't say one is 'righter' than the other. I may have a different preference.

a) I understand the point that you are making, about training divers to take the alternate air source. That is what has been done as long as I have been diving, and is still done today in the vast majority of cases. That is how I was taught. That is how I was taught to teach. That is how I have been teaching for many years. I would frankly be surprised if the divers that 'mugged' you were trained any other way. Yet, they went for your primary. I suspect that a stressed, possibly panicked OOA diver is VERY likely to forget all of that training, and go for whatever they can find. I am actually not at all surprised they went for your primary; at the same time . . .

b) I have to think the 'not out of air' diver is in a much better situation to both manage an OOA situation, AND respond to the unexpected. I also think training for the prospective donor has a higher likelihood of being recalled, when needed. So, I can just as readily see the value of training divers to go for their alternate as soon as somebody mugs them for their primary (or their primary gets knocked out of there mouth, or pulled out, etc.).

So, in my case:

I am perfectly happy to have OOA divers mug me for my primary. In fact, I invite them to - that is why I put a yellow purge cover on the second stage that is in my mouth. Frankly, I dive in reasonably good horizontal trim 95% of the time (alas, I am not perfect), and I would be surprised if the OOA diver could actually find an alternate in 'the triangle', irrespective of how securely it might be attached. Now, with my configuration, they can actually find that alternate pretty easily - right beneath my chin. But, why would they bother reaching for that, when there is a big, fat, juicy, second stage with a yellow purge cover sticking out in front of my face, saying 'take me'?

Therefore, if you are OOA, and diving near me, whether you are my buddy or not, and you go out of air - take my primary (please). I am trained, and ready. You can be sure it is a good second stage (hey, I am using it as my primary), and you can be sure it is working (hey, I am breathing from it). And, I know EXACTLY where my alternate second stage is - right there beneath my chinny-chin-chin on that bungee necklace. I also know it is working, because I test / breath from it periodically throughout each dive.

So, ♫ you take the primary, and ♪ I'll take the alternate, and ♬. . well, I may not end up 'in Scotland a'fore ye', but both of us will probably end up safe and sound on the surface, around the same time.

As for divers not stowing the safe second properly and dragging it in the sand, the issue of not having enough time in OW to insure the production of a good thinking diver might come up.

YES!! Notwithstanding all of the efforts of training agencies to establish standards, and train instructors in applying those standards, the excuse of the economics of dive training seems to prevail in some cases. I may not like it. But, I can't say it isn't reality.

Frankly, if everyone was well-trained, and everyone followed their training, this discussion would almost be moot.

 

[Storker]

I teach my students the yellow hose primary method if using rental gear. I feel that keeping the yellow in your mouth may assist a diver in remembering which one to take.

I bought my reg set used. Standard octo setup. Then I bought a LH/BO hose set and converted to a LH/BO setup. Next thing I did was swapping the yellow faceplate on my xtx40 with the black faceplate on my xtx100. I now have a yellow faceplate xtx100 as my primary and a black faceplate necklaced xtx40 as my secondary. And if I dive with an irregular buddy, I make sure to brief them throughly about primary donate.

Works for me. So far, at least...

 

[Storker]

This is precisely the reason for using a necklace octopus and donating your primary. There is no rubber holder gripping the mouthpiece, You know where it is at all times. If it ever leaked or freeflowed you would know immediately. It won't come loose and drag in the sand. It takes a second or two to get it into your mouth. It's such a simple solution yet so many won't even consider the option because it's not the way they were taught.

It's all about being prepared. Back in the Bronze age when I used a standard octo setup, I did a checkout dive after getting a new BCD. Ran an oog drill. Didn't find the octo (slight difference in the location of the right shoulder D-ring). Thought "screw it", donated my primary and had plenty of time locating my secondary to get breathable gas. No big deal.