Dual bladder wing?

[Red Sea Shadow]

But rolling with something just because standards allow it doesn't mean its smart. Standards say a double bladder wing is ok. So? Its still dumb and should be ignored.

Standards say 130' is fine too. Back on the boat with 500psi. Snorkle on every dive. Standards don't always mean best, or even well though out.

Imagine when each instructor ignores whatever he's not comfortable with. What do you think will be the outcome?

An instructor candidate is exposed to the agency standards during the instructor training course. If he doesn't like it he should find himself another agency.

 

[PfcAJ]

EVERY ow agency teaches those above things. I guess we should all keep teaching it because a book says its ok.

What if the instructor thought for himself and didn't teach unsafe practices?

 

[Red Sea Shadow]

Then the instructor should go establish his own agency and put whatever standards he wants.

If the instructor is issuing a specific agency c-card, he should fulfill the agency's course standards.

Let's go the other way round. What if something wrong happens and the student was injured? What do you think will happen to the instructor when the investigation uncovers that he was violating the standards?

 

[LiteHedded]

Then the instructor should go establish his own agency and put whatever standards he wants.

If the instructor is issuing a specific agency c-card, he should fulfill the agency's course standards.

Let's go the other way round. What if something wrong happens and the student was injured? What do you think will happen to the instructor when the investigation uncovers that he was violating the standards?

probably nothing.

 

[Red Sea Shadow]

probably nothing.

Probably nothing, but if he's following the standards then SURE nothing.

 

[PfcAJ]

I think you're misunderstanding me.

If agency A says "double bladder wing is ok", but we know that it isn't, but drysuit is, then teach drysuit.

If agency B says "be back on thre boat with 500 psi", but we know that's dumb, rock bottom gas is better, teach that.

If agency C says "max depth 130", and we see evidence that 100 is a better cutoff, teach that.

By doing it better you catch the "standard" while ignoring the stupid parts. In all my examples, you are within 'standards' but doing it smartly.

 

[Colliam7]

I am trying to ask a serious question, ...Are the rules so inflexible that a tech instructor will refuse to train me because I do not have a dual bladder or dry suit? I said I would have a lift bag but I have no idea how that would help if I jumped off the back of a boat fully loaded with a failed bladder by the time I got it out and filled I would be near the bottom(assuming I was unable to swim it up, but if I can swim it up then like I said i would have time to use it).

You could ask one. The only course that I have heard that requires that is the PADI Tech courses.

The PADI/DSAT courses require 'two sources of buoyancy control'. It is recommended that these be either a single bladder wing and a drysuit, or a dual bladder wing. But, beyond that, there is instructor discretion. So, one answer to your original question is, 'No. A dual bladder wing or a drysuit is not specifically required.'

As to whether this is 'inflexible' or not, consider the context. The course sequence encourages redundancy (buoyancy control, lights, regulators, etc.) throughout, and emphasizes diver safety and thoughtful assessment of the risks involved, etc (notwithstanding the debate about use of air at 165'). I suspect most instructors would agree, that a situation where you needed redundant buoyancy is quite uncommon. But, it is not unheard of, and many divers are not able to swim double steel tanks to the surface from 150' (to pick a number). Personally, I would not take on a tech student who did not have a) a dual bladder wing (both inflators connected to a LPI hose, or b) a single bladder wing and a drysuiit (both inflators connected to a LPI hose), or c) two single bladder wings mounted to the backplate (both inflators connected to a LPI hose, NOT one connected and one available for oral inflation). I frankly don't want to accept the liability, associated with a one chance in a million (or less), that a student suffers injury or death because of a primary buoyancy failure. But, that is my approach (and, I even believe that you can quickly deploy a lift bag, with training and practice, to stop an uncontrolled negative descent). There are probably many experienced and capable instructors who would allow the use of a lift bag / SMB as a second 'source of buoyancy control', and possibly even some who would allow the addition of a certain amount of 'permanent positive buoyancy' to the rig as that second source. And, I think that a lift bag/SMB probably qualifies according to the PADI standard, but I have never called PADI to ask. I don't think the rules are inflexible. Certainly, I don't think that requiring 'two sources of buoyancy control' is inflexible. If you or anyone else does, though, that is your / their privilege. You are not required to train with a particular agency, or a particular instructor. You are free to choose what is best for you. An instructor is not required to accept you as a student if he/she believes that your gear, and/or approach to technical dive training, is unsafe.

 

[Red Sea Shadow]

I think you're misunderstand me.

If agency A says "double bladder wing is ok", but we know that it isn't, but drysuit is, then teach drysuit.

If agency B says "be back on thre boat with 500 psi", but we know that's dumb, rock bottom gas is better, teach that.

If agency C says "max depth 130", and we see evidence that 100 is a better cutoff, teach that.

By doing it better you catch the "standard" while ignoring the stupid parts. In all my examples, you are within 'standards' but doing it smartly.

No problem with that.

My point is to stay within the standards. Doing it the way you like is no problem at all.

 

[ucfdiver]

What if something wrong happens and the student was injured? What do you think will happen to the instructor when the investigation uncovers that he was violating the standards?

Well, one instructor killed a student on deep air recently, and nothing happened. One took students to Eagles Nest who weren't cave trained, and when they went back (they died this time), nothing happened.

I'd say the agencies won't do anything.

 

[Red Sea Shadow]

Well, one instructor killed a student on deep air recently, and nothing happened. One took students to Eagles Nest who weren't cave trained, and when they went back (they died this time), nothing happened.

I'd say the agencies won't do anything.

Nothing happened doesn't mean nothing could have happened.

When the instructor is up to the standard then nothing could happen. When he's not then he hopes nothing happen.