Question about “balanced rigs” and having all ballast unditchable

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!

AJ:
As long as statistics are used to prove an opinion I won't believe them. Statistics used in objective research are a whole other ball game. Statistics here are used to proof a point. So no, in this topic don't believe them. Prove me wrong with evidence and I will change my opinion:surrender::wink:
I have no idea what this means, and I used to teach logic.
 
So what you're saying is that if I use statistics to reach a conclusion that's OK, but if I then use the same statistics to explain how I got to that conclusion you won't believe it?

Why depend on statistics at all?
:soap:
You don't need a PhD in physics to understand that dropping lead will make divers more buoyant (or less negatively buoyant). You don't need to be a engineer to grasp the concept that chunks of lead have far fewer failure points than BCs. Granted, you can drop more lead than necessary, intentionally or accidentally. However, your BC can also inflate due to failures or worse, fail to inflate.

The solution to accidently dropping lead is a more reliable weight release system, not bolting it to you and pretending that there will never be a case where you might need to ditch it.
head-in-sand.jpg
There is a lot of hand-wringing over becoming too buoyant and missing decompression and safety stops. The simple fact is that DCS is far less probable, less time critical, and far more treatable than drowning. Unfortunately, there are far too many documented cases where one or more divers are found on the bottom carrying all their lead, their BCs are empty, and they are out of air. The only absolute fact in most available statistics is the autopsy reports say they drown.

I can't think of any cases where recreational divers should not be neutrally buoyant at 3M/10', an empty BC, and with less than 20 Bar/300 PSI... unless they use jackhammers for fun.
 
The solution to accidently dropping lead is a more reliable weight release system, not bolting it to you and pretending that there will never be a case where you might need to ditch it.

Name one example of a such scenario where it'd be needed to ditch weight when in a balanced rig, please.

There is a lot of hand-wringing over becoming too buoyant and missing decompression and safety stops. The simple fact is that DCS is far less probable, less time critical, and far more treatable than drowning. Unfortunately, there are far too many documented cases where one or more divers are found on the bottom carrying all their lead, their BCs are empty, and they are out of air. The only absolute fact in most available statistics is the autopsy reports say they drown.

I'd say AGE would be an interesting stat to bring into this.

However, as has been pointed out, statistics are phenomenal for showing a conclusion correct, and that same conclusion incorrect. I guess it's about understanding what it's intended to show, by which metrics, which strengths and weaknesses a statistic has - it's just that when, say, a newspaper uses a statistic, most readers probably don't sift through a lot of details to understand what the line on the graph actually represents.
It's a shame, that.
 
Name one example of a such scenario where it'd be needed to ditch weight when in a balanced rig, please.

A big, muscular, low body fat diver in a thick wetsuit using aluminum doubles, with a bcd failure at depth, and no redundant buoyancy.
A big, muscular, low body fat diver using aluminum doubles with a drysuit failure, but only carrying a 50# wing, say.
Two examples. The mistakes in both scenarios are obvious: absent or inadequate redundant buoyancy. However the sheer length of time this thread has been active shows why the OP's question is relevant.
 
Name one example of a such scenario where it'd be needed to ditch weight when in a balanced rig, please.
Surfacing OOG in a bit of chop, and the pickup not being nearby. Maybe even out of sight. Particularly if you also are of the the "no snorkel" school.

Me, I'd love to float some 5-8kg higher in the water in a situation like that. A few years ago, someone died up here because the wind had freshened while she was below, and she wasn't able to avoid breathing water as the waves broke over her.
 
Name one example of a such scenario where it'd be needed to ditch weight when in a balanced rig, please.

A big, muscular, low body fat diver in a thick wetsuit using aluminum doubles, with a bcd failure at depth, and no redundant buoyancy.

That's not a balanced rig, then.

Generally, thick wetsuits at depth aren't, due to the bouyancy swing brought about by compression of the thick neoprene.
But, we're aiming for thermal protection here, right? A thick wetsuit that's heavily compressed is really just a thin wetsuit, and not the intended thermal protection anyway.

A big, muscular, low body fat diver using aluminum doubles with a drysuit failure, but only carrying a 50# wing, say.

If the wing isn't big enough to carry the diver, it's not a balanced rig.
But if we're looking at a - say - 21L wing, how is that not enough for two ali tanks?

The mistakes in both scenarios are obvious: absent or inadequate redundant buoyancy. However the sheer length of time this thread has been active shows why the OP's question is relevant.

I agree that the issue is lack of redundant bouyancy in both cases. A drysuit would do the trick.

And I agree that my view on ditchable weight should be seen in light of prerequisiting the rig is balanced.

OK, you have a medical problem and your buddy needs to get you in the boat when seconds count.

From the surface, you need to get them out of a rig in either case. With ditchable lead, that's just one more thing to do.
From submerged, I wouldn't send an unconscious diver on an uncontrolled ascent on their own.

Surfacing OOG in a bit of chop, and the pickup not being nearby. Maybe even out of sight. Particularly if you also are of the the "no snorkel" school.

Me, I'd love to float some 5-8kg higher in the water in a situation like that. A few years ago, someone died up here because the wind had freshened while she was below, and she wasn't able to avoid breathing water as the waves broke over her.

Orally inflate the wing while using the donor's regulator.
Standard OOG training scenario, every time.

I do agree in that I also prefer to float comfortably. But that's separate from a question on ditchable weight.

----

Conversely, we see these reports about divers drowning because they "didn't drop their weight belt".
Risking AGE.
Risking DCS.
Risking surface traffic.

Balanced Rig is a universally applicable solution to the weighting/redundancy question, that's where it comes from and that's why it's used.

On a personal note entirely, I don't even bother selling jacket-style BCDs.
I see jacket-style BCDs in a contemporary setting as a marketing gimmick on par with split-fins, spare airs and those silly little rape-whistles people keep dragging along;

"Hold on, crack the window, I think I hear something"
- No rescue helicopter pilot, ever
 
That's not a balanced rig, then.

Can any wetsuit configuration be "balanced" then, in your view? You can be neutrally buoyant at 15' at the end of a dive in a wetsuit, with zero air in your bcd/wing. Yet at 80' with full tanks, you can be more negatively buoyant than you can swim up, due to wetsuit compression and the weight of carried air, should you have a bcd problem. By definition. And irrespective of whether the lead you carry is fixed or ditchable.

So what's balanced?
 
Name one example of a such scenario where it'd be needed to ditch weight when in a balanced rig, please.
Dive buddy is injured or incapacitated at depth, the same injury that incapacitated him damaged his BCD or dry suit. You are now responsible for getting him to the surface.

You now need to provide buoyancy for him and yourself. But, you both have your balanced rigs. Good luck getting him to the surface and keeping him there.

Your problem is a lack of imagination, not a lack of examples. Feel free to post an example of where having having a steel backplate with no ditchable weight increased a diver’s survivability. You asked for examples, you’ve gotten at least three... We are all waiting.....
 
"Avoid drowning, embolism, and the bends -- in that order."
Any reading this tread later should consider the physics and simplicity of surface ditchable weights, compared to the complex and shifting argument some are making for the sufficiency of a balanced rig.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom