OP
Mike and BJD,
First, thanks for the information. You both provided some good input on my questions, and pretty much answered what I asked. As you know, I am not a Tek diver, but am looking at it seriously for the future. I have been "dreaming" about having good underwater communications, and recording my observations/photo information since the 1970s. At one point, I was a smokejumper and wanted to put the excess money I was making on the fire lines to a FFM and comm gear. The "excess" did not materialize, and I needed to use all of it for my college tuition, board, and thereafter, a wedding ring. So much for some of those dreams. Well, the kids are through school, and I'm making a bit of money, so it is possible that I can finally fulfill some of those dreams.
Mike, you asked about what I saw as "inadequate" about about current tek diving. The tek diver has solved several problems, but created several others. OC Tek divers who must do repeated gas switches invite errors. Every time there is a manual switch, human error becomes a possibility. Multiple regulators require servicing; inadequate servicing and monitoring during a dive can create malfunctions. Heavy tanks, which are now necessary to carry the amounts of gas necessary for these types of dives can lead to injuries and recovery problems, even for minor mishaps (cramps at the surface, for instance). Dive boats, from the descriptions I've been getting in published literature, seem to have inadequate staffs/equipment to handle a decompression emergency, and no incentives to become more adequate (dive platforms for recovery and recompression chambers for bent divers). The heavy tanks, and the extra slung tanks, solve the problems of amount of gas needed, but then impose a burden of bulk and drag that can cause a lot of extra effort swimming horizontally.
One of my priorities for this next year is to develop underwater swimming techniques I've been playing around with for years. I like the sensation of "flying" underwater, rather than heavily swimming against my own drag. I know what real underwater swimming can be like, from my fin swimming days with the Underwater Society of America.
I enjoy underwater photography, and taking photos, so a CCR may be in my future sometime. Now, I'm sticking with my two-hose regulators to allow me to closely approach marine life (believe it or not, I took a photo of a cabazon's eyeball with a Nikonos II using a macro ring and framer, and actually had to touch him to do it). The two-hose regs are very easy to use and maintain too, so that has an advantage over CCR. But the CCR potentials are intriguing.
I have worked in safety in a number of industries, and communications has always been a premium commodity in enhancing safety. I do feel that it would enhance all divers, and yet there is a huge resistance to the concept/expense. I've had to battle this same attitude in the logging industry, where loggers felt that their "talkie-tooters" with whistle signals was all they needed. On this forum, I've seen several accidents that could have been either prevented or their effects minimized by underwater communications gear. In the 1970s I told the loggers that we could talk to the moon, and not talk between two loggers a few hundred yards away. Well, the moon seems but a memory now, but we are communicating with a machine we just put on Mars! But divers cannot talk to each other when they are twenty or fifty feet away. They may be able to see each other, but not talk to each other (of course, here in the Pacific Northwest, seeing each other can be a problem too). I am doing less solo diving now, and diving with "older" divers (heck, I'm a bit older too). So communication, I think, can make a difference. Does it not surprise everyone that we can have these discussions on the internet thousands of miles apart, and not talk to each other when in the water next to each other?
Well, time for supper. Again, thanks for answering the questions. Now let's get a dialog going about improvements we can make to all of diving (tek diving included). I may even become one sometime. I do appreciate the positive information you and the others have given. Most of the books now seem to concentrate on the sensational and dramatic, and not the wonderful reasons we go underwater.
SeaRat
First, thanks for the information. You both provided some good input on my questions, and pretty much answered what I asked. As you know, I am not a Tek diver, but am looking at it seriously for the future. I have been "dreaming" about having good underwater communications, and recording my observations/photo information since the 1970s. At one point, I was a smokejumper and wanted to put the excess money I was making on the fire lines to a FFM and comm gear. The "excess" did not materialize, and I needed to use all of it for my college tuition, board, and thereafter, a wedding ring. So much for some of those dreams. Well, the kids are through school, and I'm making a bit of money, so it is possible that I can finally fulfill some of those dreams.
Mike, you asked about what I saw as "inadequate" about about current tek diving. The tek diver has solved several problems, but created several others. OC Tek divers who must do repeated gas switches invite errors. Every time there is a manual switch, human error becomes a possibility. Multiple regulators require servicing; inadequate servicing and monitoring during a dive can create malfunctions. Heavy tanks, which are now necessary to carry the amounts of gas necessary for these types of dives can lead to injuries and recovery problems, even for minor mishaps (cramps at the surface, for instance). Dive boats, from the descriptions I've been getting in published literature, seem to have inadequate staffs/equipment to handle a decompression emergency, and no incentives to become more adequate (dive platforms for recovery and recompression chambers for bent divers). The heavy tanks, and the extra slung tanks, solve the problems of amount of gas needed, but then impose a burden of bulk and drag that can cause a lot of extra effort swimming horizontally.
One of my priorities for this next year is to develop underwater swimming techniques I've been playing around with for years. I like the sensation of "flying" underwater, rather than heavily swimming against my own drag. I know what real underwater swimming can be like, from my fin swimming days with the Underwater Society of America.
I enjoy underwater photography, and taking photos, so a CCR may be in my future sometime. Now, I'm sticking with my two-hose regulators to allow me to closely approach marine life (believe it or not, I took a photo of a cabazon's eyeball with a Nikonos II using a macro ring and framer, and actually had to touch him to do it). The two-hose regs are very easy to use and maintain too, so that has an advantage over CCR. But the CCR potentials are intriguing.
I have worked in safety in a number of industries, and communications has always been a premium commodity in enhancing safety. I do feel that it would enhance all divers, and yet there is a huge resistance to the concept/expense. I've had to battle this same attitude in the logging industry, where loggers felt that their "talkie-tooters" with whistle signals was all they needed. On this forum, I've seen several accidents that could have been either prevented or their effects minimized by underwater communications gear. In the 1970s I told the loggers that we could talk to the moon, and not talk between two loggers a few hundred yards away. Well, the moon seems but a memory now, but we are communicating with a machine we just put on Mars! But divers cannot talk to each other when they are twenty or fifty feet away. They may be able to see each other, but not talk to each other (of course, here in the Pacific Northwest, seeing each other can be a problem too). I am doing less solo diving now, and diving with "older" divers (heck, I'm a bit older too). So communication, I think, can make a difference. Does it not surprise everyone that we can have these discussions on the internet thousands of miles apart, and not talk to each other when in the water next to each other?
Well, time for supper. Again, thanks for answering the questions. Now let's get a dialog going about improvements we can make to all of diving (tek diving included). I may even become one sometime. I do appreciate the positive information you and the others have given. Most of the books now seem to concentrate on the sensational and dramatic, and not the wonderful reasons we go underwater.
SeaRat
