Unit doff/don question

[MichaelMc]

But that doesn't answer the person's question in Dive Training mag. he does have it all in the BC.

If doing the dive/skill at a disadvantage doesn't work for you, stop doing it at a disadvantage... . Set up your gear so you don't have to. Hopefully agencies do not need a standard of "If hitting your head with your weight pockets hurts, stop doing that".

My not embolizing depending on keeping my grip on a heavy strap while doing other things doesn't seem a good plan to me. Now, if I'm wearing just a dive skin, that strap would not be heavy, no matter where I put the ballast.

 

[TMHeimer]

If doing the dive/skill at a disadvantage doesn't work for you, stop doing it at a disadvantage.... . Hopefully agencies do not need a standard of "If hitting your head with a hammer hurts, stop doing that".

My not embolizing depending on my not letting go of a heavy strap does not seem a good plan to me. Now, if I'm in a dive skin, that strap is not heavy at all.

I don't disagree. Then again, Boulderjohn mentioned when teaching OW he had students do it both with only belt and only integrated. I agree that if you have like 30-40 pounds in the BC and may embolize if you drop it because you have on a thick wetsuit and would cork, you are doing something very unwise.

I'm just curious as to why THIS "stupidity" is apparently not addressed by agencies, yet in Search & Recovery you are taught never to use your inflator to raise an object that is more than 10 pounds-- if you drop it you will be in a runaway ascent. Same thing it seems.

 

[boulderjohn]

Well yeah, some are suggesting not to have all your weight in the BC. ...

Perhaps an agency standard should then be you HAVE to have a belt too if you have over a certain amount of weight?

Agencies can only have standards for what happens in training. They have no control over the decisions you make in your personal diving.

If there were to make a standard like that for training, should they do so because a couple people on ScubaBoard suggested it? They usually look for stronger research results before setting absolute policy.

I guess it also gets back to what would happen if you got yourself in a weird situation-- like the kelp example given, or perhaps sudden current, whatever? Is it dangerous to have a ton of weight only in the BC in real life situations (as opposed to being able to do the skill in a pool in a course)? Should it be something agencies address in training?

If you look at the PADI OW course for what to do in the case of entanglements, you will not see them telling you to take off your BCD. You will see them directing you to have your buddy assist you.

Years ago, a person who worked with the RSTC said in a discussion like this that the primary reason for the exercise was to have the student demonstrate comfort in a challenging task while under water, not really to teach a skill actually used in diving. That is why it is only done in the confined water session.

 

[MichaelMc]

If you look at the PADI OW course for what to do in the case of entanglements, you will not see them telling you to take off your BCD. You will see them directing you to have your buddy assist you.

Years ago, a person who worked with the RSTC said in a discussion like this that the primary reason for the exercise was to have the student demonstrate comfort in a challenging task while under water, not really to teach a skill actually used in diving. That is why it is only done in the confined water session.

RAID OW explains the skill value as:
"If you should become entangled while you are underwater and your buddy is nowhere to be found, you may need to remove your scuba unit to free the entanglement and then replace the unit."

They only do it in confined. And go negative to do it, which makes its entanglement practice limited to near the bottom.

 

[TMHeimer]

John, That is very interesting. I have wondered why that skill wasn't done on the check out dives. I really had no idea that any of the 24(?) skills were only specifically for comfortability/task loading underwater. The only one I ever was aware of like that was the equipment exchange in the DM course. Thanks for the PADI info.
I think I was told or read somewhere that the only reason you'd do this in real life was in fact entanglement. But that was probably just an instructor's (or someone's) thought.

MichaelMc, Yes, I see that RAID may figure you are most likely entangled near or on the bottom. That brings about the question like you said, what if you're entangled in the water column? Is that a reason the skill should be taught neutrally buoyant (as opposed to on knees, let's not get into that)-- in case you get caught in a kelp forest?

All interesting stuff, but away from my OP about what this guy asked in Dive Training and Alex Brylske's response.

I'll parahrase the question from the article:
"I picture myself doing this drill..or for real..floating away after removing BC because I am wearing no weight on my body. What does the dive instructor community have to say about updating this skill? How might it be done differently if most or all of the weight is in the BC and not worn on the body?"

Brylske's reply:
"Instructors have discretion to interpret a standard based on circumstance. In the case of independent weight belt and BC the option is simple--remove, replace one, then the other."

OK, makes sense. Doesn't answer the question. Also, seems here Alex is talking about
weight system removal, not unit removal with all weights in BC.

"The student must demonstrate competence with whatever system they are using. I am unaware of any organization mandating teaching both......instructor has discretion of requiring both (or either). Students should train on their own equipment. If a diver purchases unfamiliar equipment they should seek instruction/supervision from a professional until they have mastered its use. In your case, if you learn equipment removal only with a weight belt, then purchase an integrated system, you should definitely follow this advice."

I follow all Alex says and of course agree. To me, he has danced around answering the person's question.

Perhaps one answer could be-- Use common sense with where you put your weight and don't do anything (stupid) in case you have to remove your unit.
Another may be the agency saying: "We at ____ agency are telling you that if you are in a thick wetsuit or drysuit and carry more than____ pounds you should put some of it on a belt, not all in the BC, because this_____ may happen."

 

[Lostdiver71]

The instructor in an Open Water class should address weighting options. If someone uses a large amount of weight it is a good idea to put some of the weight on a belt instead of leaving all of the weight in the weight pockets. Also your wetsuit will compress and lose buoyancy the deeper that you go, that is why on deeper technical dives you need more lift from your BCD or wing.

 

[TMHeimer]

The instructor in an Open Water class should address weighting options. If someone uses a large amount of weight it is a good idea to put some of the weight on a belt instead of leaving all of the weight in the weight pockets. Also your wetsuit will compress and lose buoyancy the deeper that you go, that is why on deeper technical dives you need more lift from your BCD or wing.

Agree about splitting the weights-- but we all do. Again, not the person's question about what the (agencies') policy/advice should be. As you said "it is a good idea...." -- but, I ask, is it dangerous for me not to? You know, it's also a good idea to have a back up computer, but if you don't, your not gunna die.
Side question, just curious--I'm not a tech. diver, but why would you get more lift from the BC if you have a belt instead of all the weight in it? How does that affect air you put in your BC and the lift it gives you?

 

[Lostdiver71]

I apologize and was not clear in my answer. The weight is the same wherever it is. A wetsuit loses buoyancy at depth and most of the weight used by a diver in a wetsuit is to counter the buoyancy of the suit. So a thick suit that has 20 pounds of buoyancy at the surface would have approximately 10 pounds at 33 feet and 5 pounds at 66 feet, so the deeper you go the less buoyant you are. This is approximate because some suits compress less than others. So at a deeper depth you will not have the same problem of floating away from your gear if you have integrated weights that you would have at 15-20 feet. The comment about technical diving was a poor example. For instance if you have a wing with 28 pounds of lift and 30+ pounds of weight if you go too deep you could actually not have enough lift to get back to the surface. It is usually only a problem in deep water on larger people who are wearing thick wetsuits and are diving at depths beyond the recreational limit without the proper equipment.

 

[TMHeimer]

I apologize and was not clear in my answer. The weight is the same wherever it is. A wetsuit loses buoyancy at depth and most of the weight used by a diver in a wetsuit is to counter the buoyancy of the suit. So a thick suit that has 20 pounds of buoyancy at the surface would have approximately 10 pounds at 33 feet and 5 pounds at 66 feet, so the deeper you go the less buoyant you are. This is approximate because some suits compress less than others. So at a deeper depth you will not have the same problem of floating away from your gear if you have integrated weights that you would have at 15-20 feet. The comment about technical diving was a poor example. For instance if you have a wing with 28 pounds of lift and 30+ pounds of weight if you go too deep you could actually not have enough lift to get back to the surface. It is usually only a problem in deep water on larger people who are wearing thick wetsuits and are diving at depths beyond the recreational limit without the proper equipment.

Yeah I understand that. Buoyancy in general is easier the deeper you go. I guess the guy asking the question was talking about pool or shallow OW training depths mostly.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

I drill my OW students from day one to distribute the weight they are carrying between 2 or more systems based on the amount of lead they are using. And to have the option of only ditching part of it.