le cousteau questions

[Nemrod]

I don't want to be safe and I don't want others deciding for me what I need to be safe. I don't want to wear seatbelts or helmets or parachutes or any of that, oh, wait, that is what we used to call FREEDOM, something we are loosing everyday here in the Peoples Republick of Amerika.

"Did Lindbergh fly the Atlantic in a 757 with advanced GPS navigation? Did Columbus sail with an inboard for backup (and GPS as well)? Did John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, et al., go into space with the most advanced safety options of today?"

I don't understand the point, they might have chosen to go as they were! This is to me like watching a marathon while sipping a cool beer on the couch vs. actually running the thing. I have run a marathon several times, I could have taken a car with seatbelts, airbags, ABS, computer navigation, On Star and airconditioning but that ain't running a marathon and dressing up in an entire dive shop inventory of safety gear is not diving, not vintage diving anyways. N

 

[drbill]

Nemrod- The point is that those early explorers, including Cousteau, did their thing with the equipment available at the time. When Cousteau began diving, there was relatively little available in the way of dive equipment. My point was to judge the explorer not by today's equipment standards, but by those of the time. As I mentioned, many of us didn't use BCD's during the period in question.

Dr. Bill

 

[rndboulder]

"I believe the Cousteaus required BCD's before that. The first time I ever used a BCD was while diving with Jean-Michel and his team in 1989. It was required equipment by that point. I don't remember them while working on the Alcyone in 1985 or 86." drbill

I guess a clarification is in order. I don't doubt that BC's were in use by the Cousteau teams as mentioned. I was referring to the film records. There was often a differentiation between the support diver’s equipment and the divers on film. The films released in the mid 90's and even the footage filmed by The Cousteau Society in 2004 featured divers sans BC and sporting double hose regs. It is important to realize that the films only present a very limited and calculated snapshot of the whole story. This is particularly the case with Cousteau.

Here is a link to film clips from ranging from Cousteau's first dives to 1990's:

http://www.cousteau.org/en/cousteau_pics/film_excerpts/?sPlug=1

-Ryan

 

[ScoobieDooo]

I think we could discuss this until the cow's 'come home.' We no-doubt are amidst an ever-changing world today laden with goods and knowledge that we didn't possess 30 yrs ago. Has it all been good and a true advancement for our society? Hard to say. Each one of us has to decide that for ourselves. But, like it or not - its upon us.

For the most part the past 30 yrs has brought us significant development in gear and techniques to dive deeper and stay longer more safely. Its hard to say if divers are better or worse today because of things such as computers, super-fast scuba certification agencies, etc.

One thing for sure is - its here and like it or not we'll have to deal with it, learn from it, and try to use the knowledge in a positive way to incorporate changes that will benefit all who choose to dive.

 

[padrediver]

As Walter suggests here, Cousteau was a pioneer. Of course he preferred the double hose Mistral... he and Gagne invented it. How many of us used SPG's, BCD's or an octopus when we started diving? I didn't start using most of those until the late 80's or early 90's.

Did Lindbergh fly the Atlantic in a 757 with advanced GPS navigation? Did Columbus sail with an inboard for backup (and GPS as well)? Did John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, et al., go into space with the most advanced safety options of today?

Dr. Bill

Bill, I am in total agreement. Bell didn't use fiber optics for his first telephone calls.
For a shot of me at age 13, 1965, click my avatar.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

I'm going to jump into this a bit, having been gone for awhile now. But I do have some opinions.

Concerning Cousteau's equipment in the 1970's, BCs were not needed by Cousteau's divers, and were not used by either the on-screen or off-screen divers. This can be seen from his publications, such as Three Adventures.. My understanding is that most of the Cousteau diving, and their wet suits, were made for warm water diving. No BC was necessary, as there was no need to compensate for buoyancy loss of the wet suit. It was too thin to loose buoyancy.

I dove in the US Air Force, and we did not use BCs either during that time period, but did have LPUs (Underarm Life Preservers) that we dove with. In warm water, we did not need any means of buoyancy compensation. It is only in cold water, with thick neoprene (closed cell) wet suits, that BCs became needed. I helped develop them, and tested them in the 1970s (with publications in NAUI News, and the IQ symposiums).

Concerning safety, I think Cousteau's divers had advantages that most recreational divers did not. First, they had immediate access to a deck decompression chamber. I've tried to get the DIR folks to think about this, but apparently the need is lost on this group. Second, for their deep dives, they had submersible chambers, which they could get into and decompress in an air environment. Third, they dove in groups. Fourth, they did not need as much redundency in their equipment as the double hose regulator is actually simplier, and has far fewer potential failure points. The Mistral regulator, for instance, has 6 moving parts (diaphragm, two levers, a pin, a seat, and a spring). They had O-rings on their cylinders only, and so there were no O-rings to blow on reguators. The Cousteau Divers, in their original yellow triple tanks, kept 1/3 of their air supply as their reserve; in their quad rigs, it was 1/4--basically a full cylinder devoted to reserve. Finally, any regulator mechanical failure was to a free-flow situation (excepting cutting a hose).

While many divers figure that the Cousteau team was not diving safely, they really did have a different philosophy about it.

John

 

[Nemrod]

"While many divers figure that the Cousteau team was not diving safely, they really did have a different philosophy about it. "

Yes, I think you are exactly correct, they had a different philospohy than currently in vogue. When you look at how they operated from as unbiased view as possible you see that they actually did have a method and safety was part of the plan.

Recently while diving vintage I encoutnered a group of DIR sorts who made a point of informing me that "there is reason those things are no longer used". They were referring to my 1958 Mistral. When I asked them what those reasons where they could not provide an answer and instead kinda gave me a quizical look as if to wonder who could question their authority. Of this team of five I witnessed their dive end in failure due to one regulator free flow and then another diver had a failure that I was unable to determine what it was. I had no problems reaching the bottom of the dive site at about 110 feet and waved at them as I passed--go figure. As a pilot I have often heard it discussed in hanger flying sessions what would be preferred, one good engine or two poor ones? I think I would have to go with the "one good engine choice", but that is just me. N