Sharing air to extend bottom time

[RTee]

Technically, you are not supposed to share air. Sharing air is a signal for an "out of air" situation on one of the diver's part, while at depth. This means you immediately start to head up to your safety stop, and lacking a safety stop, go ahead and surface. That's what all the classes teach.

However, if you have someone "hoovering" air, and have some type of pre-dive game plan, then it's a group call. However, with my students, the regulations say "low air, go up". Period. I would say it is generally a very bad idea, because if you accidentally breath the other tank down, too, then what?

Says who...folks keep going back to the point that you can only do air share for OOA situations just because major agencies only teach air share for those situations. It does not mean it cannot be used for other diving related things that do not involve malfunctions or emergencies as long as the other guidelines and principles are respected. Doing so represents a very myopic way to approach diving. What is the difference for one individual to borrow a cup of air at the beginnng or at some point in time during the dive or starting the dive with a low fill for one of the diver...None. You are not infridging on anybody's reserve as long as you do not go below your RBT or the minimm PSI you set-up for that very specific dive.

DM sharing air...I think we need to be careful with that one as it has to be situation specific. I will repeat what I said earlier. I was a part of a very experienced group who ended up diving with a DM that most people knew. At the last minute, an individual joined our group. He proved to have an horrendous SAC and was all over the place. If the DM had not shared air with him, our entire group would have been out after 20 mins or so...I don't think so. On that dive, the DM only had to look after one individual, and it was the butterfly diver as we could all take care of ourselves and look after our buddies and vice versa. I had no problem with him sharing air, I had no problem with him going up top cover and letting me and my buddy lead the drift dive along the wall. He even brought buddy back to the zodiac and then remained in over watch. All the other divers just kept following us and when we hit the predetermined time we looked at him, pointed at our watch and let him know we were coming up as a group for the 3min safety stop. We still had plenty of air left. We all knew each other having dove together for the better part of two weeks in location and many times before locally. Gee whiz, I was back on the boat with 1250 psi (45 mins avg 45 ft) on the first dive and 800 psi (54 mins - 35 ft avg) for the second.

 

[redacted]

I am okay with any operator making rules on how I'm supposed to dive while using them. It's my choice then if I want to continue to use that operator.

I'm OK with it as long as the rules are established before the contract is agreed to - that is, the money changes hands. Unilaterally add new rules after that and the contract may be voided.

No air sharing to extend the dive is part of the contract, not part of how we are going to conduct the dive at hand.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

One thing that I think that this thread brings out into the open is the whole concept of agency sanctioning of an individuals prefered methods of diving. If I look back at my own experience, I have to wonder how the different ways that I dove prior to any agency accepting the practice would have faired in this type of discussion. here are a few that come to mind:

1) Nitrox....
2) Solo diving
3) Deep air
4) Night diving
5) Cave diving
6) Wreck diving
7) Any number of other specialties that now cost money to be able to "legally" use

Divers that had been doing these types of dives way before they became main stream, developed the process before it was accepted by any agency and they became standard practice. Maybe the guys that are using the air share concept to extend their diving pleasure are just a wee bit ahead of the pack.....

Yeah the whole idea of only being able to engage in underwater activities that have previously been officially sanctioned by PADI
is beyond ridiculous. I think this attitude is very revealing of Devondiver's thought process.

Clearly his perspective falls within "one tail of the bell curve" (and I don't think it is the right one).

 

[Mr Carcharodon]

The thought process seems to be that doing anything not mentioned in a PADI text and duely certified is expressly forbidden if not immoral and bordering on evil. I will continue in my evil ways none the less.

 

[diverrex]

I have not ever shared air to extend a dive but since my wife uses considerably less air than I do (and I'd say I'm average or better with air) I would consider doing so at the start of a dive. If we each received a tank with 3,000 psi and there was any easy way to do so on the boat before the dive I'd take maybe 300 psi from her tank so I'd start with 3,300 and she with 2,700. I wouldn't consider that unsafe to do so. I don't see that much difference in sharing to start the dive such that we breath her tank down to 2,500 and then I switch to mine with it's 3,000 psi, that would probably make us more equal though she would probably still finish with more air than me (she just doesn't use much). It isn't so much of task overload to be unsafe and we would not have gone below her reserve. It really just balances things some so we could each have a longer dive instead of ending it when I'm down to 500 psi and she still has maybe 1,200.

 

[DevonDiver]

Andy, I don't recall (and I don't have the stomach to go back and reread all this drivel) you wrote that this was a dangerous practice, but SeaCobra did write "bad, unsale and inane?" To each is own.

Well, for the record - I don't think it is unsafe.

I think it is 'less safe', depending on the quality of the diver who would attempt to use it. If the relative safety of the technique is dictated by the (undefined) capabilities of the diver - then it is not something that can be advocated generally.

I think it is 'less preferable' to other options. The scenario being; only 'standard tanks' are available at a dive operator, air consumption differs between members of a buddy team and there is a desire to extend bottom time within NDL limits. IMHO, the ideal solution would be an appropriate sized cylinder - but if that's not an option, the next preferable solution would be double tanks - which is (now) very attainable through access to a recreational sidemount course.

OF COURSE "some divers" may be placed "in a position of task-loading...." Gee, who'd of thunk that "some divers" can't handle this! Andy, this is a "straw man" arguement at its worst.

Not at all Peter. It was a response to the claim that this technique was explicitly provided for during OW training. If that were true - and a diver reached some 'performance requirement' for air-sharing to extend bottom time, then it falls to reason to expect that any qualified diver should be competent to achieve this.

I see that as a claim that it is taught within OW... and yet not suitable for any qualified diver. I see that as a huge inconsistency.

there are several instances where a diver may have a "gas emergency" necessitating air sharing that do NOT require ascent (for example, switching to a non-working reg...

Are you implying that you don't teach tech students to abort a dive, when experiencing a regulator failure?

Who has "recommended that technique to student divers?"

You have - by claiming that this technique is provided for during OW training... and in your insistence that it has a wider context than purely being an out-of-air ascent procedure.

Hey, I do a lot of things while diving that I do NOT "recommend" to student divers -- especially Open Water Divers.

Yes, but (as I've previously mentioned) those are defensible by reference to appropriate, specific courses of training. That is not so with 'air-sharing to increase bottom time' - as there is no specific training that teaches that skill in that context.

What you don't seem to get is that it is truly an insignificant act.

I don't see anything insignificant about an 'authority figure' (an identified dive pro) publicly advocating , on a global forum - read by student and novice divers, a technique that they know would not be sanctioned by any of the diving agencies, especially the one that certified them as an instructor.

---------- Post added ----------

If you want me to respect your opinion then some modicum of respect for differing opinions must be made as well. In this case, you voice your opinion as some sort of hard fact and that any opposing view is simply wrong and therefore not a valid opinion.

What I voice as 'facts' are;

- The agency training standards and instructor guidance - as applicable to the conduct and goals of air-sharing within training courses.
- The definition of "unsanctioned" in relation to the agency position on the technique being advocated.
- The definition of "self-sufficient" in relation to the technique being advocated.
- The liability, and consequent agency support, for an instructor who might formally present this technique, in this context, on a training course.

What I voice as 'opinions' are;

- My recommendations on the order of preferential solution to the issue of insufficient gas supply for a planned dive.
- The safety and effectiveness of those relative solutions.
- The need for self-sufficiency, particularly in the relationship between gas carried and gas used.

I see nothing wrong with sidemounts at all, I just said that the option was unrealistic in the same setting that I would share air with my wife. That being a vacation dive on a charter that has a limited tank inventory.

Again - I don't want to go off-topic with sidemount discussion, but... if a diver is allocated a single tank for each scheduled dive, then sidemount is a realistic option.

There is however a significant number of divers that don't need or require the use of one to enjoy diving. Thar's just my opinion however.

I agree. BP&W is a case of 'want', not 'need'. Increasing gas supply is a case of 'need', not 'want'.

Assuming that a recreational diver desires to remain self-sufficient and only use sanctioned and formally taught/assessed skills... then sidemount is the only accessible solution for all levels of qualified diver.

I love to see an official agency ruling on the subject but first, describe again where I've advocated an actual unsafe diving practice.

That a diver should enter the water, knowingly, with insufficient gas to complete their planned dive.

 

[redacted]

This is starting to remind me of some of the discussion 10+ years ago of solo diving. How many agencies sanction that practice now?

 

[DevonDiver]

Yeah the whole idea of only being able to engage in underwater activities that have previously been officially sanctioned by PADI
is beyond ridiculous. I think this attitude is very revealing of Devondiver's thought process. .

Ethics and responsibility tend to underline my thought process....a legacy of what was instilled in me when I was a military officer. I won't make commentary on how I view your attitude or thought processes.

If someone can't see the difference between publicly advocating/teaching... and privately participating in, then they shouldn't be in a scuba instructor.

That said, if someone can't see the importance of role-modelling and supporting the ethos of the agency they choose to represent, then they shouldn't represent themselves as an instructor.

The issue of 'sanction' only applies to comments in this debate that have attempted to assert that 'air-sharing to extend bottom time' is a skill that is explicitly taught or approved by an agency or where the liability attached to teaching that skill, in that context, without the explicit approval of an agency has been questioned.

YOU are free to do what YOU want on YOUR private dives.

As an instructor, in a teaching or advisory capacity, YOU are not free to do what YOU want. You are supplying the agency's course, to the agency's standards, under the agency's name...teaching skills only in the context and manner that the agency approves of.

In addition, as an instructor, I find it highly unethical that you would advocate a practice from a position of authority, in full knowledge that such a practice is not sanctioned by the agency from which you draw your authority.

As an instructor you have a responsibility to clearly identify between your own private opinions and the teachings of the agency your represent publicly...where such issues differ. Failing to do that may lead other divers to incorrectly perceive that your private opinions as being representative of the agency.

Whilst you personally may scoff at 'agency recommendations', your publicly announced status as a 'scuba instructor'..and therefore, agency representative... is likely to confuse or mislead many divers. People may assume that you are acting in an 'advisory capacity', rather than a personal, private capacity.

You were only granted 'instructor status' by your agency because you agree to abide by their rules, ethics and recommendations. To do it 'their way'. I don't know of any agency that grants such status on the basis of 'diving awesomeness' and thus permits their instructors to do, and say, whatever they want as representatives of that agency.

Air-sharing, for the explicit purposes of extending bottom time, is neither taught, nor sanctioned, by PADI. To claim otherwise is erroneous.

A diver's individual choice to use that technique remains unaffected - beyond any relevance they may personally attach to the above mentioned agency support/recommendation/sanction of the technique.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

So tell me Devondiver would you have a problem with an entry into a Florida spring made wearing full scuba gear via a rope swing deployed from a tree?
How about riding a bicycle in full scuba gear (with the mask on the forehead) to the dive site; is that an unsanctioned activity?
How about practicing ditch and don in 60 feet of water (with resting at the surface) between the ditch and don?
How about using a fishing pole underwater to catch fish?
How about walking under the ice upside down using the floatation in the legs of the dry suit or, heaven forbid, a vest BC?
Or how about swimming down 60 feet with just a pony bottle under your arm to free up a stuck fish...
or wearing scuba gear and being towed behind a boat from a home-made sled and an old ski rope?
How about fishing for 200 lb grouper using underwater ropes, a hook, live bait and a lift bag to get the fish to the surface?
How about splicing together regulator hoses and pneumatic power tool hoses and using them to operate pneumatic tools underwater to accomplish various tasks?
How about swimming down to submerged air filled "habitats" and hanging out and talking in the trapped pressurized air bubble?
How about doing 15 minutes of a night dive by moonlight alone without any artificial lights (solo)?
How about fabricating a pneumatic, giant hypodermic needle device which is powered by a bc inflator hose and using it to insert into a struggling fish's head to scramble their brain in a hurry?
How about spearing large fish and allowing them to tow you around large structures such as a shipwreck in an attempt to land them and allow them to expend enough energy to be man-handled?
How about spearing fish in close proximity to potentially deadly sharks?
How about smashing sharks in the face with a speargun in an attempt to preserve your catch?
How about sticking both hands into a dark, muddy hole in the hopes of retreiving a large American lobster which has the ability to break bones in an instant with an over-sized crusher claw?

Seriously, of all the "fun" stupid human tricks I've done underwater (I'm sure there are several more as well), sharing air with my son to allow him to stay down a few minutes longer is pretty far down on the list of SCUBA sins..

 

[GROBIOG]

...Assuming that a recreational diver desires to remain self-sufficient and only use sanctioned and formally taught/assessed skills... then sidemount is the only accessible solution for all levels of qualified diver...

lol, I was contemplating using it as a signature, but people reading it may think I'm agreeing with it.
Very amusing though. lol