Rope signals

[BladesRobinson]

Along the same subject, how many of you are using communication gear? I know DRI is a big proponent of hardwired communication.

Dive Rescue International promotes keeping "safety" in Public Safety Diving. We have supported Underwater Communication Systems for years, as long as they (hardwired comms) are used in conjunction with line signals. We recommend that line signals be the "primary" form of communications and the voice comms be used to augment safety. This procedure will assist in conserving the diver's air supply and will allow operations to continue should the comm system fail (with Risk/Benefit factors being considered; i.e. rescue mode).

Additionally, electronic communications used by public safety divers is recommended by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and required by all Public Safety Dive Teams working under FEMA as a Federal Resource.

 

[renpirate]

That was meant to be a compliment by the way, since I was trained by your org.

 

[ffdiver]

my only problem with using the simpler signals is that, using lgs signals mapping of sight with lots of information is an excelent tool during operations. Im just having issue trying to deciede what is best for my team...im in charge of training newer divers and getting the team back into order.

 

[bridgediver]

You can speak directly to my post if you like. I'm right here.

Perhaps I'm mistaken about which came first the (the chicken or the egg) I'll retract the remark about DRI using recreational signals. I guess I just find the recreational "flavour" of DRI within your PSD text - the majority of its content is of recreational procedures with very little to do with PSD. I found it difficult to find a definate seperation between the 2 disciplines within the program. You obviously know more about DRI than I do, I'm just speaking about how your material has been presented and how I undersatnd it.

Our team used to follow DRI doctrine for about 15 years so I'm pretty sure we were using them right.

Just because the "majority" uses one method doesn't make it the best. Look at PADI; they're the biggest scuba training agency but a vast number of people wouldn't say they were the best.
2 of those agencies, maybe 3 depending on what you think "new" is are very new to the scene of PSD education as you know so I'm not so sure that the DRI method is THE standard. Certainly not here in Canada.

My points and opinions still remain. The DRI signals are limited.

Like I said, try both methods and procedures for several dives - make sure you understand them both (get the proper training). Role play through every conceivable problem that might take place and see which method works out best. People can make up their own mind.

I do have one question though. You say that the US Navy procedures are inadequate for SCUBA and are better used for surface supplied. For PSD, we are always tethered are we not? Who cares about scuba? We are more akin to surface supplied "type" than a free swimming scuba diver. The only thing different with us is that our air isn't surface supplied - everything else is though.


Mark Matheson
Water Rescue Team Leader
Lethbridge Fire Dept

As one of the owners of Dive Rescue International, (DRI) I would like to "clear the air" on how the Public Safety Diver line signals were developed.

When Dive Rescue International was formed (1977), many of the recreational dive programs were teaching the U. S. Navy line signals because those were the only ones around. The founders of DRI felt the line signals at the time were grossly inadequate for SCUBA use since the original purpose of these signals was for surface supplied air diving. Because both law enforcement officers and firefighters were consulted when the DRI program was developed, the DRI founders discovered that the OATH (okay, advance, take in slack, help) system had application, with minor modification.

To download a graphic and Public Safety Dvier line signal description, please visit: http://www.iadrs.org/images/IADRSO~1.PDF

I have reviewed my personal library in determining the use of line signals in recreational during the early years.

1955 The How-To book of Skin Diving, pages pages 111-114, USN signals
1962 The New Science of Skin & Scuba Diving, page 186-187, USN signals
1967, Aqua Lung / U. S. Divers Lesson Plan for Skin & Scuba Diving, Hand signals only
1968 The Skin Divers Bible, page 107, USN signals
1970 The New Science of Skin & Scuba Diving, page 204-205, USN signals
1977 PADI Standard Diving Signals, Pages A7 - A10, Hand signals only
1989 Jeppesen Open Water Sport Diver Manual, page 2-10 and 2-11, Hand signals only
1991 PADI Rescue Diver Manual, Line signals not discussed, Compass Use Only, Pg 129
1993 PADI Encyclopedia of Recreational Diving, Line signals not discussed

The MYTH that Dive Rescue International uses signals developed by the recreational diving community has been perpetuated by a competitor and has no basis in fact.

Today, there are at least five agencies (listed below) offering PSD training.

• LGS uses US Navy signals (AKA the "recreational" dive signals from 1955-1970)
• PSDA uses both USN and the DRI signals
• ERDI uses the DRI signals
• IANTD uses the DRI signals
• DRI uses the DRI signals

Another words, four out of five agencies providing PSD training in North America use standardized PSD line signals. It is unfortunate that a person who posted to this forum finds the DRI signals "inefficient" when most PSD teams in North America use these signals very effectively. (I have to wonder if he was using the signals correctly)

I will agree with the poster though. Line signals should be practiced and known by everyone on the team. I also believe it is easier to learn fewer signals as opposed to more. Fortunately, my opinion is also supported by three out of four competitors and a huge majority of public safety divers in North America.

Respectfully,

Blades Robinson, Director
Dive Rescue International (DRI)
www.DiveRescueIntl.com

 

[leam]

Yup ffdiver, you've joined a lively crew!

I'm the training officer for my team and there are two factors I consider most important in making these sorts of choices. Since there are other response teams in the area one of my prime considerations is interoperability. Most teams around us aren't big enough to never expect cooperative responses so uniformity is key functionality. It's also an ICS mantra.

The second criteria is capability. If your team is full-time and dive only then the extra capabilities of the LGS system might be best for you.

Also, given that you're in New York, check around with other teams. Team LGS is in the North East and does a lot with cold/ice training. If you have Mutual Aid agreements with other teams find out what they use and where they were trained.

Our team is all volunteer and covers dive, swiftwater, and wilderness search. Since our primary water areas are man-made our dive operations are in places where there was a lot of undergrowth and debris. Given that the local rednecks try to sink things like Christmas trees and beer cans instead of throwing them away we are seldom tethered because the bottom isn't "level" enough. We use DRI signals because our other local teams do and because it's more likely to be remebered. We also use commo but not hard-wired back to a tender. If there is an issue that really needs more communication and the radio won't work then we mark it and surface.

ciao!

leam

 

[Diver18]

We use LGS signals with COMM. Should COMM fail we have backup rope signals.

 

[ReefGuy]

We use DRI with comms.

 

[Thalassamania]

LGS all the way. If you need something more complex I suspect you need voice comms.

 

[Yotsie]

We use DRI signals with wireless comms. We also have hardwired comms that we use if the call requires.


Paul

 

[grumpie]

We have been using DRI rope signals for 20 years and they have never failed yet. We train 2 times a month year round. We also have hard wire comm gear with aga's. We have 4 mark sevens and 2 mark 5. I have never found that DRI was rec based but then maybe the Instructors we had were better.
grumpie......