Should I switch to BP/W?

[-hh]

Well now ... if you'd like to see the flammage subside, I suggest you stop provoking it.

Bob, the provocation between the two of us started in post #37 and again in #40. You'll notice that I wasn't the author of either.

How DARE you suggest I'm not following standards?

I know for a fact that its not stated within ANSI Z86.3 or the RSTC Standards.

And as I stated - - and you've confirmed - - that I didn't believe that it is within the specifics of the NAUI training standards (I do not have a current set to have checked it myself). As such, it is merely your personal training choice.

I asked for you to explain your rationale for why you teach what you do. Since you couldn't cite the Standards, your explanation has been that the additional work taskload step that's you've introduced 'is not all that complex' (sic).

My response was that since the step could instead be completely eliminated, what is your rationale for why its necessary to not to do so? Classical KISS principle.

As I said to Stephen, I'm not inflexibly against 'WB under' - - it is just one factor in a much larger risk management contingency planning, and there will be occasions in advanced technical diving and so forth where the risk from WB entrapment is preferable to the alternatives. I do however, strongly disagree with your assertion (clarification: what I believe is your assertion, although written here with a bit of hyperbola) that it is effectively appropriate for everyone everywhere always.

I’m won't argue that people sometimes die with their ditchable weight still in place … clearly that happens. But the fact ... in and of itself ... doesn’t really say anything about what caused the diver to die, or whether their death might have been prevented by ditching the weight. Nor does it address the efficacy of one method of doing so versus another.

Sure. And as you go on, there's a lot of fatalities that are most likely contributed to by cardiovascular failure and so forth. What most dive accidents have in common - - and has been known for longer that I've been diving - - is that sitautions go from bad to worse when the diver's work taskloading capability is exceeded.

Yeah, I know: "unclip/reclip is not hard". True, but not having to do it at all is even easier. That translates into a lower work taskload...Always.

- What type of equipment was the diver wearing? Do the statistics support a theory that one method is inherently safer than another? My bet would be most of these incidents involved divers wearing a standard BCD that didn’t include a crotch strap … therefore the protocol question isn’t a factor.

Your conclusion is flawed in at least two ways.

First, those divers who survived because they were able to ditch aren't part of your victims sample size, so you cannot claim that the protocol question wasn't a factor.

Second, those that did not survive were (for whatever reason) not capable of performing a task of "N" step complexity. As such, if the task becomes more complex ("N+1"), it will also be unsuccessful for these victims - - as well as for some percentage of those that were able to survive when it was only an "N" complexity work taskload. As such, your claimed conclusion lacks a valid basis.

FWIW, I'll note the potential the traditional fallacy of "most victims were PADI" template that might also be present here too. If anyone's not familiar with what I'm referring to and how it could apply, please ask separate to any other comments.

- How many of those divers lost consciousness before they died?

100%. And we know that when loss of concisousness is an imminent risk, the more complex the task is, the less likely that it will be able to be accomplished.

This again hearkens to what the rationale is for why a more complex (N+1) procedure is justified in being advocated over a simpler (N) procedure.

- How many of those divers died due to being in a state of panic … which precludes the ability for rational thought? In other words, were they in such a mental state that equipment configuration didn't matter ... they were not rational enough to follow even the simplest protocol?

Yes! This is exactly why I've been giving you a hard time on this: when divers die despite the "simplest" protocol, then it is inevitable that even more will die when the protocol becomes more complex.

This increase in risk (due to higher complexity) is only a justified trade-off when it results in some tangible reduction(s) in risk(s) someplace else within the overall risk management assessment. I'm willing to assume there is some benefit that hasn't yet been articulated, which means that in simplest form, my question is merely: "where is it?".

you’re simply cherry-picking facts on an as-needed basis to support what you’re already inclined to believe.

Its not what I "believe", Bob: It is a cold hard fact that all trained skills are perishable. The term that the layman is familiar with calls this "Atrophy".

This is why skills must be practiced, so as to maintain proficiency in them. And when we apply this in contingency planning, what this means is that the most reliable safety protocols are the ones that are the simplest and that rely the least number of human-based skills (quantity and complexity are both factors) to perform.

Every human has a work output limit, and as a human approaches his physical exertion limits, this stress reduces his ability for cognitive thought. As such, there are known immediate, tangible benefits to the quality of decision making if the physical stress on the diver can be reduced (or prevented). In other words, they'll make fewer bad decisions and fewer mistakes in executing the plan.

For but one starting point for more information on this human perception and performance subject, I can professionally recommend this research organization: http://www.umdnj.edu/smbiweb/ .



-hh

 

[willy wonka dives]

i prefer to use a plate and wing style and yes you can pack that thing into nothing for long distance travel. the only real big learning curve is getting your bouyancy set to where you had it with your old bc. also on the surface the wing is going to want to push you face down, easiest way to combat that is lay on your back.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Bob, the provocation between the two of us started in post #37 and again in #40. You'll notice that I wasn't the author of either.

As ar as I'm concerned, there is no provocation between the two of us at all ... nor am I interested in creating one. I was under he impression you were complaining about another poster (your Reply 59).

I know for a fact that its not stated within ANSI Z86.3 or the RSTC Standards.

And as I stated - - and you've confirmed - - that I didn't believe that it is within the specifics of the NAUI training standards (I do not have a current set to have checked it myself). As such, it is merely your personal training choice.

Then why did you imply that I am not teaching to NAUI standards? I DO have a current Standards & Procedures manual, and I use it regularly.

I asked for you to explain your rationale for why you teach what you do. Since you couldn't say cite the Standards, your explanation has been that the additional work taskload step that's you've introduced 'is not all that complex' (sic).

Actually, you asked no such thing ... you told me how long you've been diving, gave me your instructor's NAUI number, told me to explain what in diving has changed to justify a change in protocol, and asked me why it is now considered an acceptable risk to configure in such a way that weight is no longer ditchable (see your Reply 38).

At no point did you ask me to explain my teaching methods. If you had, I would have answered the question. But since you were making assumptions I considered irrelevent to my previous comments, I saw no reason to respond to your statements.

My response was that since the step could instead be completely eliminated, what is your rationale for why its necessary to not to do so? Classical KISS principle.

Um ... I just went through your responses to me and cannot see where you asked any such thing. You made an assumption that this had something to do with NAUI's standards and procedures, and asked me why they changed. You then implied that perhaps I'm not teaching to standards. You then realized that your comments are based on a flawed assumption and state that you knew they were not in the standards. Sounds to me like you just want a debate ... in which case I will state that you're on the wrong board. Take it to your "friends" on rec.scuba ... there's a reason I don't waste my time over there.

As I said to Stephen, I'm not inflexibly against 'WB under' - - it is just one factor in a much larger risk management contingency planning, and there will be occasions in advanced technical diving and so forth where the risk from WB entrapment is preferable to the alternatives. I do however, strongly disagree with your assertion (clarification: what I believe is your assertion, although written here with a bit of hyperbola) that it is effectively appropriate for everyone everywhere always.

I never asserted any such thing.

Sure. And as you go on, there's a lot of fatalities that are most likely contributed to by cardiovascular failure and so forth. What most dive accidents have in common - - and has been known for longer that I've been diving - - is that sitautions go from bad to worse when the diver's work taskloading capability is exceeded.

Yeah, I know: "unclip/reclip is not hard". True, but not having to do it at all is even easier. That translates into a lower work taskload...Always.

Your conclusion is flawed in at least two ways.

First, those divers who survived because they were able to ditch aren't part of your victims sample size, so you cannot claim that the protocol question wasn't a factor.

Ah, but it's YOU who keeps bringing up the dead divers as examples of why the protocol is important. I'm simply pointing out that if you want to quote these incidents as example of "facts" and claim we need to "learn from history", then you need to look at those facts in a larger context.

Second, those that did not survive were (for whatever reason) not capable of performing a task of "N" step complexity. As such, if the task becomes more complex ("N+1"), it will also be unsuccessful for these victims - - as well as for some percentage of those that were able to survive when it was only an "N" complexity work taskload. As such, your claimed conclusion lacks a valid basis.

I maintain that you are attributing to me "claimed conclusions" that I never made. HH, I am not interested in a debating contest. If you wish to show me where I made any such claims, please do. Otherwise, I maintain you're just jerking people around in circles for the sake of "winning" an argument. Don't waste my time like that.

FWIW, I'll note the potential the traditional fallacy of "most victims were PADI" template that might also be present here too. If anyone's not familiar with what I'm referring to and how it could apply, please ask separate to any other comments.

Here you are once again introducing something into the conversation that has no relevence ... to what end?

Yes! This is exactly why I've been giving you a hard time on this: when divers die despite the "simplest" protocol, then it is inevitable that even more will die when the protocol becomes more complex.

Sorry, I'm still tryingto figure out why you're giving ANYONE a hard time on this. YOU are the one who came in here with hard and fast "protocols" (reply 34), and calling anyone who didn't agree with you stupid and deserving of death (reply 59).

Its not what I "believe", Bob: It is a cold hard fact that all trained skills are perishable. The term that the layman is familiar with calls this "Atrophy".

This is why skills must be practiced, so as to maintain proficiency in them. And when we apply this in contingency planning, what this means is that the most reliable safety protocols are the ones that the simplest and rely the least number of human-based skills (quantity and complexity are both factors) to perform.

Well ... now we're talking. I agree with you. Safety skills should be practiced to the point where they can be performed mechanically, while task loaded. This is something I instill in my students from Day One. Atrophy only happens if you let it.

Every human has a work output limit, and as a human approaches his physical exertion limits, this stress reduces his ability for cognitive thought. As such, there are known immediate, tangible benefits to the quality of decision making if the physical stress on the diver can be reduced (or prevented). In other words, they'll make fewer bad decisions and fewer mistakes in executing the plan.

No argument there ... where I disagree with you (your comments in your Reply 34) is that there is one, and only one, acceptable protocol that should be applied in all cases. That's where I entered this conversation ... and where I think I'll leave it.

I'm not interested in a "debate" with someone who cannot keep his own quotations straight, and who attributes to me things I never said.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[The Kraken]

Wow !!! What a read . . .

"Should I switch to BP/W? - YES !!!

the K

 

[midwestdvr]

Wow! I never expected such heated discussion regarding this topic. Anyway, I'm seriously thinking about switching. I do like like the streamlined look of the BP/W set up. Will probably get an aluminum bp since I usually travel to go diving. Thnx for the info, y'all.

 

[waynne fowler]

Wow! I never expected such heated discussion regarding this topic. Anyway, I'm seriously thinking about switching. I do like like the streamlined look of the BP/W set up. Will probably get an aluminum bp since I usually travel to go diving. Thnx for the info, y'all.

Yes it has been a bit heated, but for the most part it has been a good kinda heat. The kind that keeps you warm on a cold winter night,
more importantly though if you have read all the post you will be going away from this thread with more information than you bargained for and some seriously intelligent things to ponder.

Thanks all I learned some things here.

 

[BabyDuck]

But doesn't this then mean that you're around +6lbs positive at the end of said dive?


-hh

it should by pure math, but it doesn't. i don't have difficulty holding stops or following sloping contours. i can't say why, which is why i stressed i'm only one data point. maybe i'm a freak of nature!:05:

 

[GreenDiverDown]

Wow! I never expected such heated discussion regarding this topic.

Oh, this is a pretty typical Scubaboard "discussion"!

Unfortunately, it's not near so much fun when it happens on a dive boat. I once was held back by a California liveaboard captain who happened to notice that my weight belt was under my crotch strap... he thought that I had just slipped up when donning my rig. After thanking him, I explained that it was done purposefully. He objected and wasn't about to let me dive. I just didn't have it in me... standing at the gate... to start a long explanation of my reasons for my configuration. Fortunately, a mutual friend stepped in and assured him that I was "O.K."

A couple of other things...

An assertion was made earlier that a drysuit looses its inherent buoyancy upon compression. This is not exactly correct, however. One of the advantages of a drysuit... aside from its superior thermal protection... is that it can maintain its buoyancy throughout the dive. Therefore, at the beginning of the dive, when the diver is the most negatively buoyant, there is no additional negative buoyancy added upon compression as in the case of a wetsuit. Or... the loss of positive buoyancy as experienced with a wetsuit does not occur with a drysuit. This, in effect, mitigates a large portion of the diver's "overweighting" at the onset of the dive. One could also add that the drysuit can function as a redundant source of lift.

This applies to our discussion in that when trying to achieve a balanced rig in cold water, dives with ceilings, or prolonged exposure situations, a drysuit may be required. It also brings up another thought on the weightbelt/crotch strap deal... specifically... weight belt under when dry, over when wet.

I haven't thought about that in a long while because I rarely use a thick wetsuit these days. But I remember this as a GI3'ism (something George Irvine once said). What do you guys think about that? IMHO, it would only apply to those diving a balanced rig outside of "the system"... solo divers and same ocean same buddy types being extreme examples. Do you think that this would apply to team diving where there is no need for the "emergency buoyant ascent"?

 

[halocline]

Will probably get an aluminum bp since I usually travel to go diving. Thnx for the info, y'all.

You might consider a SS plate if you normally dive with 6lbs or more on your belt. Since most travel destinations rent AL80s, the steel plate offsets the buoyancy of the aluminum tank well and puts your weight and buoyancy sources very close to each other, in the vicinity of your lungs. It's not much more hassle to travel with a steel plate; only an extra 4 lbs or so, and for most people using AL tanks it's better for trim.

 

[JeffG]

You might consider a SS plate if you normally dive with 6lbs or more on your belt. Since most travel destinations rent AL80s, the steel plate offsets the buoyancy of the aluminum tank well and puts your weight and buoyancy sources very close to each other, in the vicinity of your lungs. It's not much more hassle to travel with a steel plate; only an extra 4 lbs or so, and for most people using AL tanks it's better for trim.

or you can use an Alum plate with a couple of trim pockets to hold weights and keep the weight of your luggage down.