Mounting tanks upside down

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

trymixdiver once bubbled...


and you be be like the rest who dont know because they havent tried it.

I was against the long hose primary until i dove it, it just plain works better.

Andy

Trymix I meant if I had a 7' hose I'd stow the "extra" length bungied to the tank or something so it would reel out if pulled. Walter told me how the DIR crowd does it and I won't argue w/ that method. It is just if I were to start from scratch w/out knowlege of how others do it, I would not use the DIR method of hanging the long hose, my mind works differently.

Other points raised deal with removal of BC...some firefighters practice removing their SCBA for squeezing through tight spots so that isn't an issue either. Yes, it would require a major re-think of equipment configuration (and associated costs) and that, to me, represents the biggest problem with a change.

Randy I agree completely w/ your full assessment of "valves down".
 
In Commercial Diving in the oil patch, bail out bottles are mounted upside down on a diver harness with a heavy rubber backplate.

The reasons for this, in my experience, are

1. The tank valve and regulator are less likely to become entangled.

2. The bailout hose mounted to the helmet lays cleanly along the side of the tank to connnect to the common over the shoulder manifold block on the helmet- again less chance of entanglement.

3. The valve down mounting does allow the tank to be turned on and off by the diver.

From my experince, the tank valve must be positioned around the base of the back to keep it streamlined with the body and allow it to be turned on and off. For example, if a person has a short torso and they normally would have an 80 tank hanging down below their tush, diving valve down would have the tank valve below their tush. Therefore, tanks must be sized to the individual diver.

IMHO, the reason scuba divers use a tank valve up is to allow for standardization of the AL80 which is still the most widely used tank. Diving it valve up allows it to be used by the widest range of divers.

Is there anything wrong with diving valve down, No, just requires a different equipment rig.

Yes, diving tank valve down will get you some looks and questions, but remember, it wasnt too long ago the Scuba Stores had strong opinions against Nitrox, Rebreathers, and Full Face Masks. It still amazes me to see those same stores and people promoting Nitrox and selling rebreathers.

Did the scuba shop's individual research advance these technologies to the next plane? No, PADI and NAUI put out a training manual and created new courses for the shops to offer and after seeing people run to TDI and other organizations for training and certification.

Just my two bits
 
Commercial Diving Perspective

While I was working in the Gulf of Mexico as a commercial diver, we NEVER dived with valves up. Why?

First, the valve down position allows the tank to be turned on or off by the diver. Typically, a bailout bottle is left in the off position until it is needed.

Second, to protect the valve on the tanks from debris from above.

When I was back in commercial diving training,, one of my instructors who was a saturation diver for many years was asked where the valve up thing came in Scuba.

His response was that diving valve up allows use of a standardized tank size by divers with a range of different heights. Hence, an aluminum 80 can be used by a 5'4" female or a 6'2" male and the tank valve will be in same relative position behind a diver's shoulders. This allows a dive ship or dive operator to have one standard size tank for all. In addition, as you mentioned, in the olden days of scuba, the double hose regs needed to be positioned behind the head to function. When the double hose went away, no one saw a need to change.

As far as comments that diving valve down exposes the valve to greater risk. Commercial diving exposes equipment to considerably more abuse then scuba will. Banging into steel structures like oil platforms, ship hulls or diving bell hatches as the diver climbs in and out. Given the stringent safety laws and regs that commercial diving adheres to, if diving valve up decreased the risk of valve damage, tanks would be dived valve up.

As far as comments that diving valve down exposes the tank to damage when taking if off. When you remove the tank and harness, you remove one arm and swing the tank down with other arm. In my experience, I never once banged a valve taking it off.

In practice, the tank is secured with giant hose clamps to a rubber backplate riveted into a commercial harness. Link to see a commercial harness below -

http://www.millerdiving.com/harnes.html

(they kinda look like a backplate / wing setup minus the wings,,,dont they?)

In use, the regulator hose which is equipped with a quick disconnect is run up the side of the tank connecting to the bailout valve on a helmet. This keeps the hose streamlined with the body and not bowed out behind the divers head.

As a note, commercial divers will use bail out bottles ranging from a single 50 to double 120's depending on the dive.

I personally still dive valve down in standard commercial fashion with the only addition being stanless steel valve guards to set the tank on when on the boat in the tank rack.
 
On my manifolds, shutting the pillar valves won't keep gas from going from one tank to another as the article describes.

This probably sounded like a pretty good idea in the diveshop after a few cases of beer.
 
Uncle Pug:
2) it isn't streamlined
I would agree on all your points except this one. The bottoms of the tanks being flat is not ideal but that could easily be changed.

The hose routing "appears" to be much more streamlined. Down low and out of the way of any entanglement hazard unlike the typical arrangement most use with all the hoses run off the top the hoses are exposed to hazards much more than this set-up appears to be. I may be wrong but it looks OK to me.
 
A nice, easy to read article one guys reasons for using an inverted twinset who actually *dives* an inverted rig, as opposed to making fun of one on the internet.

http://www.nigelhewitt.co.uk/diving/rig.html

One thing you *cannot* argue is that it's easier to reach to valves. (but Im sure someone will try)

I guess you guys also used to make fun of commercial/military divers 15+ years ago for breathing gases other than air.
 

Back
Top Bottom