To those considering an OW class...

[TheRedHead]

It only becomes dangerous when we have divers who are too unconfortable and not able to control their position well enough to impliment it...in other words, the other holes in entry level training are what makes buddy breathing difficult.

I don't think buddy breathing in and of itself is stressful, but without a mask I found it somewhat stressful. You have lost your source of breathing and the ability to see your buddy clearly who has control of the regulator. You have to have complete trust in your buddy, particularly when the regulator is attached to his or her tank.

It seems to me that for buddy breathing to work well, there has a be a large degree of trust in the buddy. I see people with such poor buddy skills I have to wonder if they could manage it without someone getting hurt. It is also something that needs to be practiced. Most people don't even practice sharing air with an alternate. I think there is a larger cushion for error in sharing with an alternate as opposed to buddy breathing.

To me, it is not a matter of skill per se, but a matter of trust. I can do an OOA drill with my buddy on descent and confirm that his alternate is working. How can you ascertain how well your buddy will react in an emergency?

 

[MikeFerrara]

Because PADI says you should be doing a CESA instead? OPPS! Did I say that out load:shakehead.

After all their order is
Normal Accent
Buddy Assisted normal accent
CESA
Buddy Breathing.


Now I don't know about you, but personally, I failed (intentionally) when asked to put these in order as I personally think that the chances of a safe (non bending experience) ascent while performing a CESA, from any depth is questionable, and believe that if there is sufficient air in buddy's tank (which there should be if you've done proper gas planning), that the chances of both making it to the surface safely are greater using buddy breathing (assuming that merely donating a secondary is not possible).

Given that PADI doesn't require buddy breathing to be taught and that there are so many instructors who don't teach it, what sense does it make to have buddy breathing in their little priority list at all? Is it really the 4th choice for a student who hasn't learned it?

 

[Storm]

Given that PADI doesn't require buddy breathing to be taught and that there are so many instructors who don't teach it, what sense does it make to have buddy breathing in their little priority list at all? Is it really the 4th choice for a student who hasn't learned it?

Sorry I didn't know it was not widely taught. It was taught in my OW, during 4th confined water dive, but was very limited...kneeing stationary in the shallow end.

But it does not surprise me that it is not taught by many instructors following the PADI ciriculum....ther are so many elements, that I feel are fundamental, that are not taught, that one more on the list it all that shocking.

Little fundamentals, like actual buoyancy control, proper weighting and tim, alternate fin kicking, proper buddy assistance (air share ascents), real dive plannig and real gas management, and some that are not so basic, but IMHO needed before a diver in sent out to dive oin their own, like shooting a DSMB, basic rescue, and dive site evaluation and basic gear evaluation.

You want to see a monkey with a math problem, ask a new diver how to evaluate the best type of regulator (one that is diaphram or piston controlled, sealed or not sealed, etc).

I also think that (and this may be specific to PADI) that one class and/or confined water dive, should be devoted to demonstrating the different types of BCs (BP/Wing Vest, Back Iinflate rec style). Just witness the amount of internet training that occurrs on this board when a new diver ask "What should I buy", or "Which type BC should I get", or "How do I choose a regulator".

My wife and I now use a BP/Wing set up, (I'm not going to advocate either type) but if we had been given the opportunity to see both types in action, perhaps I wouldn;t have two vest BC sitting in the basement, and I'll probably have to eBay soon. Again this is type of education make the diver a bit more self sufficient, aware, and perhaps a bit better prepared to go out on their own.

When a ciriculum is developed that basically dumps raw rookies into the various diving commuities to finish the job, there is a problem...and it seems that every prson I talked to said the same thing..."go forth and find a mentor and learn the rest from them". MY answer to that was not appreciated by one DI...I bassicaly asked, "so what did I just pay you for"?

 

[jbd]

Now some might argue that buddy breathing has the potential of creating a potential second victim scenario. That belief is predicated on the assumption that both divers are at risk when buddy breathing so the practice is discouraged. As the practice is discouraged it is not practiced sufficiently enough for the student diver to become proficient enough in the task. The cycle is self perpetuating.


I put forward that if the drill were to be taught and practiced the student would become proficient in the task to the point where buddy breathing would be no more of a risk than donating a secondary.

Seems a fair assessment to me

IMHO, students are taught to use a CESA before attempting to buddy breath for training liability reasons only. Take an average OW check out dive. Most are done in thirty feet or less of water, where a student can simply blow for the surface. The agencies probably figure that if an OW student panics or has a problem instinct will take over they'll head up anyway, so they might as well be taught how to do it a safely as possible.

I personally think this wrong headed, and being a diver who has had a serious OOA at depth (95 feet) it's a good thing that I personally put CESA in the bottom of the list.

I agree that this is wrong headed thinking. It's far better, IMO, to teach skills that lessen the probability of panic UW.

Essentially I agree with most of the rest of your comments although I'm not really clear what is meant by lengthening the courses. The OW course is only six sessions which are 2 hours of classroom and 2 hours of confined water time each followed by the typical 5 or 6 OW cert dives. Basically covers three weeks on the calendar. Totals about 24 to 27 hours of training not including the OW dives. Doesn't seem unrealistically long to me nor do I feel like there is insufficient time to accomplish what I want with my students.

 

[jbd]

I don't think buddy breathing in and of itself is stressful, but without a mask I found it somewhat stressful. You have lost your source of breathing and the ability to see your buddy clearly who has control of the regulator. You have to have complete trust in your buddy, particularly when the regulator is attached to his or her tank.

I agree with the point you are making, but it is through training and practice that this trust is developed. While I don't mean to toot the DIR horn, it is one of the good things about DIR--the training and skill sets are consistent. A few years ago I had a chance to dive with a scubaboard member whom I had never met until we dove together. We had each just taken the DIR-F course in different states. The dives went very well as we knew what to expect from each other even though we were essentially insta-buddies. The problem in the mainstream diving community is that I may teach buddy breathing to full proficiency but any other instructor may not teach it at all which leads to inconsistency in training and divers that can't have similar expectations of each other. This forces a lack of trust in your buddy and forces you to take the riskier route out of a bad situation. This IMO, is not doing the diving community any good and I lay fault with the agencies for this.

How can you ascertain how well your buddy will react in an emergency?

You can't make an accurate assessment of this until you see it actually happen. From past experience though I can assure you that the more thorough, more consistent and practiced the skills are, the more likely one is to respond appropriately in a real emergency.

 

[Debay777]

wow, the more I read the better I feel about my instructors. I though that they moved a little fast, we were a very large class after all, and that they missed some of the finer points of bouancy control and trim. HOWEVER, we did extensive buddy breathing training. In the pool we had to buddy up. One had to remove mask/snorkel and swim blind while using the buddy's octo. We had to swim to the deep end of the pool and back following the edge of the pool. when we got back in the sahllows we had to don the mask clear it and go back to our own air w/out sitting on our knees or surfacing. We also practiced swimming while sharing the same regulator. We did these same exercises in the pool and open water. Im amazed at what PADI and other oragnizations consider a priority in the classroom/pool. I feel very fortunate that we were taught how to behave in an air emergency.

 

[TheRedHead]

While I don't mean to toot the DIR horn, it is one of the good things about DIR--the training and skill sets are consistent.

I wasn't aware that DIR-F taught buddy breathing. My buddy and I were trained by the same IANTD instructor and I don't have an issue with trusting him. But with a stranger I don't have that trust and as a female, I would be on the losing end of a regulator tussle.

 

[jbd]

I wasn't aware that DIR-F taught buddy breathing. My buddy and I were trained by the same IANTD instructor and I don't have an issue with trusting him. But with a stranger I don't have that trust and as a female, I would be on the losing end of a regulator tussle.

They don't. My point in referring to them is that all people trained by them have the same skill set across the board. Relating that to the "mainstream" dive community, if all divers learned buddy breathing there wouldn't be any reason for the mistrust that you have with other divers. There wouldn't be a regulator tussle to deal with.

 

[Dive-aholic]

wow, the more I read the better I feel about my instructors. I though that they moved a little fast, we were a very large class after all, and that they missed some of the finer points of bouancy control and trim. HOWEVER, we did extensive buddy breathing training. In the pool we had to buddy up. One had to remove mask/snorkel and swim blind while using the buddy's octo. We had to swim to the deep end of the pool and back following the edge of the pool. when we got back in the sahllows we had to don the mask clear it and go back to our own air w/out sitting on our knees or surfacing. We also practiced swimming while sharing the same regulator. We did these same exercises in the pool and open water. Im amazed at what PADI and other oragnizations consider a priority in the classroom/pool. I feel very fortunate that we were taught how to behave in an air emergency.

The no mask swim and mask replacement is a required skill set for PADI. Maintaining neutral buoyancy while donning your mask is not. Kudos to your instructors for including that. Buddy breathing is optional. I don't see much value in it. Most divers dive with an alternate regulator. So why should anyone have to share one regulator?

 

[Thalassamania]

They don't. My point in referring to them is that all people trained by them have the same skill set across the board. Relating that to the "mainstream" dive community, if all divers learned buddy breathing there wouldn't be any reason for the mistrust that you have with other divers. There wouldn't be a regulator tussle to deal with.

Your point about the skill suite is very well taken. One of the joys of being part of a scientific diving program is the complete interchangeability of buddies within the program and the very similar skill suite of divers from other institutions.

If I might comment on buddy breathing, computers, DIR and diving instruction: Buddy breathing is an excellent case study in what happened to diver training. Auxiliary regulators did not become widespread until the late 1970s (they existed, but if memory serves they were not “required” for students by all the major agencies until the mid 1980s). Buddy breathing had been taught, as a matter of course, and was practiced during each pool and open water session. Divers were taught a rather rigid and standardized methodology that worked well, even with buddies who did not know each other and divers were taught to discuss buddy breathing prior to every dive and to actually do it (as practice) at the start of every dive. Many instructors and divers viewed auxiliaries as a solution in search of a problem seeing them as just another scam to benefit the manufacturers and shops.

There were a few, rather horrific, double fatalities that were thought to have involved buddy breathing failures. These incidents were the raison d'etre for the addition of auxiliary use to the standards of all the agencies. Because of the “common sense” conclusion that auxiliary use does not require as much training as buddy breathing, with only a sham of study or debate, the amount of training required was reduced soon thereafter. I was intimately familiar with what went on. It remains my view that auxiliaries were used as an excuse to slash hours (which was a forgone conclusion going into the discussion). There was not real examination of what I felt to be the base issue, “how many hours are needed to produce a diver?”

The push to substutute auxiliary use and then reduce the minimum hours in an entry-level course from 40 hours with five dives to as little as 18 with two dives succeeded, though many instructors arguing that buddy breathing was an important confidence building and equipment manipulation skill that should be kept, even when divers are equipped with auxiliaries.

The lack of standardization both in design and use of auxiliaries was soft-pedaled. At this stage there were Octos that could come off left or right, up or down, and that may or may not be in a pocket. Not to mention integrations with BC inflators, pony bottles with many different mounting systems, spare-airs, etc. The best the industry could come up with was the “golden triangle” approach. So we took something that was well taught and rigidly standardized and replaced it with a additional piece of equipment that, two decades later, we are still arguing about how to use.

It was at this point (mid-1980s) that science programs started requiring auxiliaries and, given the number of combinations and permutations, took the approach of surrendering the primary and making each diver individual responsible for their own auxiliary choice. This is, to me, something so sensible that I simply cannot understand why it is not an industry standard.

Despite warnings that this would happen in the late 1980s, much the same occured with respect to dive computers. This reduced what should be a valuable tool for a knowledgeable diver, to an additional sale that was, at the same time, another excuse to reduce the amount of required training.

Quality instructors resisted (and continue to resist) these reductions. Auxiliaries were incorporated into courses without reducing hours and computers were embraced without gutting the decompression lectures and instructions in table use. But, by and large, the training agencies pushed (and continue to push) diver education in the direction of substituting equipment sales for training time and equipment dependence for skill development.

I find some details in the DIR regime a bit strange and, in my experience, some of their base premises to be confused. But that’s not the point, the standardization of rig and procedures produces a true “insta-buddy” team that works … the details that give me pause are, as far as I can see, overshadowed by what can be gained.