Octo

[John C. Ratliff]

Captain,

This thread started out with the simple question, what year did the octo begin? It's a history of the octo. That is part of vintage diving, as we tried to figure out means of solving problems. Since this developed in the 1970s, and several double hose regulators were developed with LP ports (first the Sportsways Hydro Twin, Nemrod Snark III and AMF Voit Trieste II; and now, the Phoenix Aquamaster and Mossback Mk III), it is a part in my way of thinking of vintage diving. Part of the history of diving is the "why" of things--in this case why was the octopus regulator, and other alternative breathing devices, developed. Cousteau's original patent foresaw this, as the third cylinder was essentially a reserve cylinder in his system, as explained in the patent.

SeaRat

 

[captain]

The when and why question was answered early on and really is a general scuba question given that generally vintage is defined as prior to about 1973 the last year the two hose regulator was in production in the US.
As the octo didn't make it's appearance until several years later and didn't become commonly standard until the late 80's and buddy breathing was the instructional norm prior to the octo becoming generally standard I really don't see it's significance in this section. just trying to keep it real.

 

[Luis H]

Below is a copy of page 12 of the 1978 DACOR catalog (sorry about the quality).

I find it very interesting that the Octopus is being offered on the same page as the double hose regulator. Is there a connection between double hose regulator and the octopus… well they are on the same page. :evil:

My understanding is that DACOR continued to build and sell double hose regulators in the US until 1979 or 1980, but maybe even later.

A link to this catalog is in this thread.
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/vintage-equipment-diving/287446-old-dacor-catalog-online.html

 

[John C. Ratliff]

It was in the mid-1970s that there was a lot of discussion within the diving instructor community about different emergency techniques. Captain, I was diving double hose regulators at that time, and remember distinctly trying to incorporate the octo into my double hose diving. This was why I bought my Trieste II, as it has both LP and HP ports, and yet was a double hose reg. I have quoted Jon Hardy's paper on equipment, but he also delivered another paper at IQ9 titled Diving Accidents--Why? Here is selected parts of that paper (it is a rather long paper).

ABSTRACT--Over 100 people lose their lives each year in scuba diving accidents. URI has done excellent work but has not been able to review causative factors. Over 700 accident reports on file at NAUI Headquarters were reviewed taking a close look at possible causes. Training accidents were reviewed separately with special tabulations dove on particular problems. Eight significant areas of causative factors were identified. Commentary with recommendations are provided on each area with particular emphasis on training modifications.

The paper has a Table I which goes into the causative factors, including medical and psychological factors, dangerous environmental conditions, buddy system failure, equipment difficulties, running "Out-Of-Air," Ascent Difficulties, Entanglement, and Buoyancy Control Problems. In the section on "Ascent Difficulties," Jon had this to say:

Recommendations & Opinions

Buddy breathing has become an area of increasing concern. It is a difficult skill, to learn and maintain, and often appears to be unsuccessful. Since the frequency of successful buddy breathing ascents verses other forms of ascent is not known, recommendations in this area are limited. But in order to give some indication of which ascents are being used, an informal survey of ascents made under emergency conditions by experienced divers was conducted. All possible types of scents were mentioned as having been used successfully, but independent emergency swimming ascents were by far the most often given as the successful method used. Buoyant and octopus ascents were the next two most commonly mentioned successful ascents.

Using the insights gained from repeated detailed readings of these ascent accidents, the best available recommendations for diver ascent procedures are (in order of preference):

1.

...to be finished after supper...

 

[duckbill]

Using the insights gained from repeated detailed readings of these ascent accidents, the best available recommendations for diver ascent procedures are (in order of preference):

1. ...to be finished after supper...

Cliff hanger? That was cruel, John- just cruel!

 

[John C. Ratliff]

Cliff hanger? That was cruel, John- just cruel!

Duckbill, my apologies. But I'm trying to loose some weight to fit into an old Harvey's wet suit I've had since the 1980s, and I was pretty hungry. When the wife calls up, "Supper's done!!!" while I'm in mid-keystroke, I kinda drop everything and head toward food. I'm down four pounds so far this month though.

Now, where was I? I was in the middle of the quote from Jon Hardy. So I'll pick it up from the top of the paragraph.

Using the insights gained from repeated detailed readings of these ascent accidents, the best available recommendations for diver ascent procedures are (in order of preference):

1. Make a normal ascent after stopping activity, breathing easily and getting control of the situation.
2. Make a shared air ascent, using the buddy diver's extra regulator, if the buddy is so equipped and is closer than the surface, or if there is an obstruction to the surface (ice, cave, wreck, heavy kelp, etc.)
3. Make an emergency swimming ascent in a manner as near to a normal ascent as possible: looking up, regulator in mouth, swimming a bit faster, exhaling more and inhaling less (lungs at near normal volume).
4. Make a buoyant ascent by ditching weights and/or inflating the buoyancy system; with the regulator in mouth, looking up, and exhaling more rapidly.
5. Make a buddy breathing ascent only when the other options are not available.

In a comparison of ascent difficulties with general accidents and training accidents, ascents moved from sixth place to second place; from 10 percent to 20 percent of the causes. But also note that general diving accidents were involved 78 times while training accidents only 24 times. Ascents are definitely of serious concern during diver training, but the simplistic answer of not providing ascent training would simply move some accidents from training situation to general diving situations and most likely cost even more lives. The changing pressure during scuba diving is a unique and possibly risky aspect that does need more careful attention.

In order to more effectively and safely teach ascents, during diver training, some recommendations are possible from reviewing these accident reports. Instructors should:

1. Provide lecture coverage on all forms of ascents used by sport divers.
2. Provide pool or shallow confined water training in normal, octopus, emergency swimming, buoyant, and buddy breathing ascents. Several of these procedures can be practiced horizontally.
3. Provide open water training in normal, octopus, emergency swimming ascents and buddy breathing in a stationary position.
4. Provide complete training in lecture, pool and open water on buoyancy control during ascents, descents, at the surface, at the bottom and in midwater.
5. Make all open water emergency swimming ascents as similar to a normal ascent as possible, i.e. regulator in the mouth, looking up, going slowly, lung volume as near normal as possible.
6. Have divers look up as much as possible wile mking all ascents.
7. Make careful use of medical history forms with medical exams and chest x-rays when needed, plus take special care with any student who has recently had a cold, or is a heavy smoker.
8. Provide close supervision during all ascent training.

Instructors during open water ascent training should:

1. Not have students make any ascent that cannot be stopped or that is done at a high rate of speed, such as a buoyant ascent.
2. Not have students make "free ascents" or do "blow and go".
3. Not have students' air turned off.
4. Not have students buddy breathe vertically.
6. Not have students take the regulator out of their mouth during ascents.
7. Not have students make anything but normal ascents from depths greater than 40 feet.
8. Not put students under undue pass/fail stress during ascents.

These are the best recommendations available after repeated review of the available accident reports. Far more research needs to be done on ascents. The problems and the solutions are not simple or obvious. All of these recommendations came from specific fatal cases where the lack or use of a particular procedure definitely appeared to contribute to the accident.
Hardy, Jon, "Diving Accidents--Why?", Proceedings of the Ninth Internatinal Conference on Underwater Education, Sponsored by The National Association of Underwater Instructors, September 29-October 2, 1977, Lou Fead, Editor, 1977, pages 106-108

Jon had a bit more in the first part of that section in a Table IV (which I don't know how to format here, so I'll present in linearly). He said:

Table IV provides additional detail on the apparent problems which caused buddy breathing to fail. There appears to be a problem when buddy breathing is aborted. This aspect needs more study.

Table IV

PROBLEMS DURING BUDDY BREATHING ASCENTS/Cases/Percent

1. Aborted and changed to swimming ascent/20/43%*
2. Disorientation or panic/15/33%
3. Struggle over regulator/4/9%
4. Unable to clear regulator/4/9%
5. Donor runs out of air/3/6%
TOTALS/46/100%

*I added the "%" sign for clarity.

I have heard on this forum that "I don't need no stinkin' octo..." and that buddy breathing works just fine. My purpose here is to show the historical context which led to the octo becoming a part of normal gear. It happened during the vintage time period (see below for two photos of the type of gear I was diving during that time, and note the BC built into the back of my wet suit by Bill Herder, Deep Sea Bill's Dive Shop in Newport, Oregon). For solo diving, an octo is not necessary, and may cause as many problems as it could solve--I had my octo off my Mossback MkIII get tangled with fishing line last year, for instance. If on a buddy dive, and both divers are familiar with buddy breathing and have practiced it, it may work out fine; the cases I've seen don't show that always to be the result though.

Now, for some context--there recommendations were made by Jon Hardy 33 years ago. There is much newer information available now at the DAN Fatality Workshop.

SeaRat

 

[captain]

John don't get me wrong, I have no problem with octos, I just feel that in the interest of purity in what we or I consider vintage methods of conducting a vintage dive the octo is not a part of it.

I have on occasion used an octo when diving my Phoenix with modern equipment divers who have no buddy breathing training or skills. My vision of vintage is using the basics that were in use at the beginning, tank, regulator, mask, fins, weight belt and flotation vest or orally inflated horse collar BC.

Modern diving methods and equipment using a double hose regulator does not fit my vision of vintage. I will make one exception and that is use of a computer.

Do we keep using the evolution of equipment and training to constantly move forward in time what is considered vintage, I think not, it is what it is.

Can we say an M16 is vintage because it is part of firearms evolution, I guess you could if you want to trace assault rifle development back to the German Stg 44 of WW ll.
Actually I think this thread should be moved to possibly basic scuba or general equipment sections.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

Photo by Bruce Higgins, from Clear Lake, Oregon

Captain,

I have been reviewing my dive logs and entries (some of mine are extensive). Here is one from my dive log:

Dive Location: Clear Lake Participating divers: Bruce Higgins, John Ratliff
Date: 28 July 74
Depth: 65'/45' (Capillary Gauge)
Diver #: 193/194
Entrance Time: 5:20/6:30 Exit time: 6:03/7:20
Water Conditions: Extreme Clarity (Visibility ~100-150'), Altitude 3001'

Dive Plan:
Make repetitive dives to test the newly procured dry suit under field (Temp) conditions.

Observations:
Undergarments for the suit were: 1/8" neoprene boots, 1/4" neoprene pants, 1/4" neoprene vest, a cotton long underwear shirt under two sweaters, the second a turtleneck, and a wool "stocking cap" hood. Three finger mitts and a full-face mask were used with the dry suit. Two dives were made, the irst 43 minutes long & the second 50 minutes long. Twenty-five pounds of lead were needed to submerge and I was still a bit light on the 1st dive. Thirty pounds were used during the first part of the second dive, which was too much. There was some water in the suit at this time & it therefore had lost buoyancy. Some water came in through the oral inflation tube, but most came through the front seal. At one point the oral inflation tube didn't inflate the seit & led to an inadvertent (but not dangrous as the ascent was slowed by turning upside down and swimming down) ascent. The legs of the suit din not balloon, which would have happened with a Unisuit. During this first dive no cold was felt at all except on the hands and chin. During the second dive water entered the suit and my feet and left arm began to feel cold (but still not as bad as with a wet suit). The hood stayed dry, & the only disadvantage here appears to be the tight seal pushing against the lower jaw and also leaving the chin exposed. The inflation mechanism worked very well to compensate for loss of suit volume and preclude suit squeeze.

No decompression limits are easy enough to exceed at sea level when a diver is warm and the diving itself very interesting. Add to this the altitude factors and factors which increase the likelihood of decompression sickness such as extreme cold and work during the dive, and its very easy to exceed no decompression limits. Factors which probably helped us to avert a decompression problem were that we did not experience any extreme factors which would have increased the likelihood of decompression sickness other than altitude, and the fact that we spent a lot of time at depths shallower than the deepest depth used for decom calculations. On the 1st dive the deepest depths reached were down in conical springs and most time was spent at ~45'. On the second dive we spent ~15-20" at depths of 5-15 feet and this time was included as bottom time at 45 indicated depth, which wasn't truly a bottom time. However, this does show that more planning is necessary on my part for these dives to preclude an actual problem involving time spent underwater in excess of no decompression limits. To deal with this problem I will do the following:

1. Use a divemaste's log sheet to keep track of times, depths, bottom times, etc.
2. Include in my diving log a slide rule, depth gauge corrections for altitude and fresh water &/or NuWay or N-Calculation dive tables, &
3 Figure and plan 2nd & 3rd dives before the dives, allowing either surface interval time or setting depth limits to keep within no-decompression repetitive dive limits.

Special Problems & their proposed solutions:
1. Oral inflator can't dump air fast enough to preclude an inadvertent ascent, and may be pinched so that no air can escape. Solution--replace it with a 1" diameter hose & oral inflation system from vest buoyancy compensator.
2. Get a clamp or some other system which will close the suit entry chute watertight.
3. Tape sharp edges on the Mar-vel Pak to keep it from cutting the dry suit, then use it to take some weight off the belt (looks like ~40 lbs for salt water.
4. No decompression repetitive dive time was inadvertently exceeded. See discussion on reverse side of this sheet (now above) for solution to this problem.
5. Buoyancy/weight ratio with the suit is very critical. Used 25 lbs on the 1st dive & 30 lbs on the second, and was too heavy on the second dive. The air tended to bleed from the face seal and would not allow me to gain much + buoyancy. A life vest is required for emergencies.

Now, note that I was using a Trieste II double hose regulator, with an octopus. I did not even note that, and it had no effect on how I dove that day in 1974. So, because I was using an octopus, I was not diving vintage? Double hose regulator...1974...dry suit trial with an Aquala dry suit; that is not vintage simply because I was using a Trieste II with an octo?

Well, after looking at the dive logs, I did not make much distinction about which regulator I was using at the time. I made a number of dives in a week's diving at San Nicolas Island, California with the USAF. we were able to get onto the island, which is a military reservation, as we were military divers doing currency dives. On my last dives on June 21, 1974 I made these entries:

Special problems and their proposed solutions:
1. This was a prob. my last dive here, so I've got to figure a way to get back here!!
2. Used double hose regulators for all scuba dives. Used:
Blue 50 fathom--Dive #s 5 & 3
Mistral--Dive #s 2, 4, & 6
Downstream vale of "50 fathom" reg tens to leak at high tank press, but is no problem below ~2000 psi. Breaths well, even at low tank pressure. Has almost Mistral performance.
3. No probs w/ sharks this trip.

The only difference in this case was that with the twin 72s (military harness), or our jump tanks (military harness), we used either our USAF regulators, which would be a single hose Calypso (no gauge, no other hoses), or I used my double hose regulators. We wore Underarm Life Preservers (LPUs), and no vest or BC. So were we vintage diving with the single hose regs? Or was I only vintage diving when I had the double hose reg on. Here, no octo, so maybe both styles were vintage diving? We really did not think that way at that time.

To me, vintage diving is using the old equipment from the 1950s to the 1970s, both single hose and double hose, and enjoying them. We were actively developing BCs at that time (1970s). Does that disqualify us from being "vintage"? I don't know. I use my Para-Sea BC on most dives--if I use a Trieste II or Mossback Mk III or Sportsways Hydro-Twin with an octopus, do I cease to be vintage diving? I don't thinks so, as it is so different from today's divers experience. If I dive my Aquamatic with a second regulator, am I vintage diving--I think so, even though I still have a backup just in case.

I have looked at the Basic Scuba forum here, and they are not talking at all about the history of dive equipment. Those divers are looking at how to fix some of today's problems, which regulator to select, how to use the dive computers, etc. History belongs in the Vintage Diving forum. But, that is simply my opinion, and I respect that you have a bit different outlook--we all do, and that's what makes this interesting.

SeaRat

 

[captain]

John I don't disagree with what you are saying but you were the exception not the rule, your para rescue and research diving made you the exception to what was generally being done. All through the 60's, 70's and even 80's if anyone I dived with had an octo they were the exception not the rule. My whole point is that, yes some, a very few used pony bottles and octos but the were the exception and mostly dive specific, deep wreck, under ice and research. And no you weren't diving vintage you were diving an advanced equipment configuration for the time.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

Captain,

Thanks, I take that as a compliment. I was probably not that representative of divers as a whole because of my USAF activities and my NAUI Instructor status. I've been looking at past issues of NAUI News, and found out a few things. I'll post more tonight.

SeaRat
NAUI #2710 (retired)