Spare Air - Sorry!

[Dr Wu]

Folks who say you can hold your breath for the same period of time have never breathed out, found nothing to inhale and been down deep in the dark with a buddy who panics and won't donate air.

Most folks find that an uncommon event and rarely get a chance to try your methods.

I am pleased things always work out well for you when it does happen.

 

[DevonDiver]

I disagree. If you exhale your last breath before you start a CESA another few breaths of air would be beneficial.

I understand the logic behind this. However, it isn't enough for me to advocate SA as a suitable emergency resource. Given the wide range of more suitable alternatives, that would entirely deal with an OOA situation and enable a normal ascent... I just don't think there is a need for SA.

Not for a properly trained diver.

True. But then...properly trained divers tend to opt for proper equipment. From my experience, in real life as well as on this forum, the majority of people enquiring about or advocating SA tend to be novice divers, who do not understand the limitations of the air capacity in relation to their SAC/RMV.

Besides which, what % of global OW and AOW divers would you consider to be 'properly trained'?

Any diver that would use a SA to locate their buddy at depth in an OOA situation, isn't very well trained imo and is a hazard to even be in the water in the first-place.

Agree 100%..... and yet we've seen 2 examples of this mentality on this thead alone.... both by novice divers.

That's an assumption Andy, which you can't substantiate.

I've yet to find an OW student that couldn't complete a CESA from 12m, regardless of circumstances. I strongly suspect that any divers could complete one from 18m if their lives relied upon it. The key is to react fast and appropriately. Adding options and choices introduces the element of problem solving / decision making into that scenario, which substantially deteriorates the speed and efficiency of the necessary emergency reaction.

OOA divers shouldn't have an issue with getting to the surface from within the 0-18m range. What kills them is a failure to achieve positive buoyancy once they reach the surface. The statistics (DAN and BSAC) point towards a strong trend that divers surface then sink and drown.

That, in turn, points towards bad training and/or a failure to keep drills and procedures fresh and up-dated. Reliance on gadgets like SA, causes a false sense of security - which increases the likelihood that a diver would neglect to develop/maintain their core emergency skills.

I'd hazard to guess that some air is better than none, even if you're not an experienced diver.

As I've said before - my counter-argument to that statement is the effect that 'some air' can have on the psychology of the diver and also the speed of appropriate reaction in an emergency.

If a diver is at 16m and their air supply abrubtly ceases...they look for their buddy. No buddy near-by, so their natural instincts is to immediately ascend. Kick, kick, kick, "aaahhhh"...at the surface...'phew!'. Action-Reaction. Add a SA to that equation.... how many other options have to be considered and decisions need to be made? How many more chances for the wrong choice or critical delay start to present themselves?

Of course you are free to apply whatever personal definitions you like, but understand it is only your definition and is not shared by everyone.

Agreed. I do like my reasoning though. It differentiates between a device that assists in an emergency and a device that resolves an emergency.

No one is suggesting that you are not free to have your own personal opinion Andy. I personally believe that doubles with redundancy is the way to go. I do not however look down on another person's choice to carry a pony with a single tank, use a spare air, or decide not to carry redundant air at all. How much redundant air is required will depend on the situation, but I'm repeating myself...

For sure...I agree. I don't "look down" on divers for their choices. I believe it is a matter of education.

Except for debating on this board, the only issue I've had with SA in real life is that I don't consider it as a sufficient redundant air source for wreck penetration. This has meant a few delicate and informative conversations with divers at my centre. However, we aren't debating overhead environment diving now.

 

[irishsquid]

Sudden illness, disorientation, and entanglement are not just potential inconveniences, they can be quite hazardous depending on the circumstances. OTOH, with proper buddy techniques, OOA 'should' be merely an inconvenience... So, lets hear it. What do you think might cause you to go out of air?

Disorientation, entanglement under the right circumstances. With a sufficient redundant air supply, they may be an inconvenience, but; without it, I agree with you that they can become quite hazardous.

 

[BoltSnap]

Sudden illness, disorientation, and entanglement are not just potential inconveniences, they can be quite hazardous depending on the circumstances. OTOH, with proper buddy techniques, OOA 'should' be merely an inconvenience.

"Sudden illness, disorientation, and entanglement" are mere inconveniences if you have enough air/gas supply to handle these inconveniences and make it up to the surface safely. Running out of air/gas makes any "inconvenience" a major problem. Thus, your air/gas supply is the most important factor in your safety.

I can't believe that we are going back and forth on how important our air/gas supply is U/W or if there is something that is more important. I suppose you are just arguing just for the sake of argument.

 

[Max Speed]

Well "Devon Diver" where to begin? I think if you slow down a bit and re-read my post carefully we can have a somewhat more polite discussion.

I don't intend to hand in my certification card.

I don't intend to to spend a lot of time at depth looking for a buddy and never said I would. What I said was that a few extra breaths makes it a lot easier to close on your buddy and arrange to use his octo. I do believe that that procedure IS what is taught.

Apparently in your world your buddy is never more than a couple of feet away and your buddy is completely reliable in an emergency. My world is a bit more uncertain and I have a variety of buddies. Hence the spare air to add some self reliance.

I have completed an emergency ascent from 70' in near freezing water in the dark. It was difficult. The regulator instantly and completely failed to deliver air. At that point I had nearly empty lungs. The buddy assigned to me just stared at me and backed away when I gave him the out of air sign. At that point I made the decision to surface on my own. One or two more breaths would have made things quite a bit easier. (And might have given the "buddy" time to settle down and donate some air.)

Yes, my wife and I each own a spare air and if I'm deep and NOT diving with my wife I will clip hers to the other side of my BCD. That provides more than enough air to get to the surface and is very unobtrusive. With a single spare air at any recreational depth I still have enough air to relieve the stress on the ride up. Two just makes it easier.

Frankly, given the attitude you have expressed towards spare air devices I expect that you also eschew things like motorcycle helmets and seat belts because they interfere with movement and vision and give a false sense of security. If you were a cop would you pass on a small caliber BUG just because that would give you too many choices, "might" fail to stop your opponent and might slow down your decisions if your primary jammed?

Just like I respect the right of folks to ride a motorcycle without a brain bucket, I like to think they respect my right to wear one. Similarly I have no problem if you have the skills and confidence and feel no need for a spare air. I, on the other hand, have unexpectedly fallen on my face a few times.

 

[UaVaj]

I have completed an emergency ascent from 70' in near freezing water in the dark. It was difficult. The regulator instantly and completely failed to deliver air. At that point I had nearly empty lungs. The buddy assigned to me just stared at me and backed away when I gave him the out of air sign. At that point I made the decision to surface on my own. One or two more breaths would have made things quite a bit easier. (And might have given the "buddy" time to settle down and donate some air.)

Yes, my wife and I each own a spare air and if I'm deep and NOT diving with my wife I will clip hers to the other side of my BCD. That provides more than enough air to get to the surface and is very unobtrusive. With a single spare air at any recreational depth I still have enough air to relieve the stress on the ride up. Two just makes it easier.

 

[Max Speed]

Most folks find that an uncommon event and rarely get a chance to try your methods.

I am pleased things always work out well for you when it does happen.

I hope it's uncommon! Not quite sure what you mean by my "methods".

The only method I have is to get to the nearest air source (buddy, hang tank, or surface) without trying to breathe water.

 

[Max Speed]

Did you have a comment?

 

[DevonDiver]

Did you have a comment?

His use of a smilie had a certain conciseness to it.... but hit the nail on the head perfectly.

Well "Devon Diver" where to begin? I think if you slow down a bit and re-read my post carefully we can have a somewhat more polite discussion.

I did read it carefully. Yours was an innocent post that highlighted some naive perspectives that I remember sharing a long time, and many thousands of dives, ago.

I don't intend to to spend a lot of time at depth looking for a buddy and never said I would. What I said was that a few extra breaths makes it a lot easier to close on your buddy and arrange to use his octo. I do believe that that procedure IS what is taught.

What is taught is: an immediate ascent using CESA.

Look now, I can understand that you simply don't understand what I am trying to explain regarding emergency psychology and the development of instinctive reactions to enable rapid and effective responses.

Why not try re-reading some of my posts in this thread - and get your head around the psychological issues that need to be addressed. I talk from considerable experience in this area and it would be beneficial knowledge for you to have. It may shape your perceptions a little and allow you to understand the 'bigger picture'.

I am not looking for an arguement.... merely trying to explain some concepts that you have not encountered yet. No antagonism.

Apparently in your world your buddy is never more than a couple of feet away and your buddy is completely reliable in an emergency. My world is a bit more uncertain and I have a variety of buddies. Hence the spare air to add some self reliance.

I make use of the appropriate diving techniques that apply to any given dive. Generally, I am diving with students or fun divers and I am the most experienced diver in the group. I am very self-reliant and take every reasonable measure to safeguard my health and life.

When the circumstances demand it, I use appropriate gas redundancy. I plan my gas requirements for the dive. At no point on any dive, of the 000's I have done, has a Spare Air been chosen as an appropriate gas redundancy.

I have completed an emergency ascent from 70' in near freezing water in the dark. It was difficult. The regulator instantly and completely failed to deliver air. At that point I had nearly empty lungs.

Congrats. Glad you got up safely. It's good to see that the training works...and that the concept of CESA is applicable.

The buddy assigned to me just stared at me and backed away when I gave him the out of air sign. At that point I made the decision to surface on my own.

I would have chosen differently. My buddies's AAS is mine. If they are panicking, then take control of the situation. As you say..you can't rely on your buddy to supply the AAS.... but then again, you are taught on OW course to help yourself to the air.

Get contact (grab them), locate and secure the AAS. Breath. Communicate with your buddy and direct the ascent. Take control.

One or two more breaths would have made things quite a bit easier. (And might have given the "buddy" time to settle down and donate some air.)

In this case, Spare Air would be a 'crutch' for bad drills and hesitancy in taking control of an emergency.

Yes, my wife and I each own a spare air and if I'm deep and NOT diving with my wife I will clip hers to the other side of my BCD. That provides more than enough air to get to the surface and is very unobtrusive. With a single spare air at any recreational depth I still have enough air to relieve the stress on the ride up. Two just makes it easier.

There is no argument on earth that could suggest that multiple SA are an appropriate gas redundancy source...when compared with other options.

If you've calculated your air requirements (accelerated SAC, ascent time, depth etc) and you have enough Spare Airs festooned about your person...then yes, you can make an ascent with them. However, that is just a compromise based upon a financial decision to not spend your cash on an appropriately sized AAS cylinder.

Hell, you could do the complete dive on Spare Air, if you cluttered yourself with enough of them. It'd be shockingly irresponsible though.

Frankly, given the attitude you have expressed towards spare air devices I expect that you also eschew things like motorcycle helmets and seat belts because they interfere with movement and vision and give a false sense of security. If you were a cop would you pass on a small caliber BUG just because that would give you too many choices, "might" fail to stop your opponent and might slow down your decisions if your primary jammed?

I'd use the appropriate tool for the task. That is what I am advocating. I do not see Spare Air as an appropriate tool for the task. Even your posts illustrate the need to improvise and compromise because you use them. You don't need to make those compromises if you opt for an appropriate redundant air system.

Using your analogy, I am not arguing against the benefits of a BUG. I am debating which calibre is needed to be effective. The SA equates to a one-shot .22. A pony is a 7 round mag 9mm. A set of doubles is a .45 In this instance... your assailant is wearing body armour. Is the one-shot .22 appropriate?

Just like I respect the right of folks to ride a motorcycle without a brain bucket, I like to think they respect my right to wear one. Similarly I have no problem if you have the skills and confidence and feel no need for a spare air. I, on the other hand, have unexpectedly fallen on my face a few times.

I do respect you right to wear one. This isn't a question of rights. It is a question of 'best practice' scuba skills. When I've run dive centres, I have no issue with customers who turn up with SA for open water recreational dives. Where I lead dives that require an alternative air source (deep and/or penetration/overhead) then I would advise them that I don't accept the SA as fit for that purpose. I am always happy to explain why, or even demonstrate why, those micro-capacity cylinders are not fit for the purpose.

 

[DCBC]

I understand the logic behind this. However, it isn't enough for me to advocate SA as a suitable emergency resource. Given the wide range of more suitable alternatives, that would entirely deal with an OOA situation and enable a normal ascent... I just don't think there is a need for SA.

I "advocate" the right tool for the job. This will vary as a result of the dive and the experience / capability of the diver using the equipment. I have used a SA primarily for travel. I don't own a pony; nor would I find it convienient to travel with one if I did.

I'm relatively comfortable doing a free ascent on air to the surface (or to a decompression bottle) from any depth that I would use this gas (assuming that I had a full-breath of air to start). A SA would give me that breath. To say that there is not a need for SA just isn't accurate. To presume to choose what equipment a diver should use is a bit arrogant.

True. But then...properly trained divers tend to opt for proper equipment. From my experience, in real life as well as on this forum, the majority of people enquiring about or advocating SA tend to be novice divers, who do not understand the limitations of the air capacity in relation to their SAC/RMV.

Do you presume you know what is "proper" for ALL divers in ALL conditions? I don't think that I fall into the category of a "novice diver." I simply disagree with your accross the board assessment.

Besides which, what % of global OW and AOW divers would you consider to be 'properly trained'?

Considering many of today's diver standards, you have a good point. All I can say for certain is that 100% of the divers that I give a certification card to are properly trained.

I've yet to find an OW student that couldn't complete a CESA from 12m, regardless of circumstances. I strongly suspect that any divers could complete one from 18m if their lives relied upon it. The key is to react fast and appropriately. Adding options and choices introduces the element of problem solving / decision making into that scenario, which substantially deteriorates the speed and efficiency of the necessary emergency reaction.

My basic course includes a CESA in OW from 50'. Advanced divers do a CESA from 100' as part of the training program. Proper training includes how to deal with an emergency situation.

OOA divers shouldn't have an issue with getting to the surface from within the 0-18m range. What kills them is a failure to achieve positive buoyancy once they reach the surface. The statistics (DAN and BSAC) point towards a strong trend that divers surface then sink and drown.

Overweighted. Poor training that's facilitated by poor instructors.

That, in turn, points towards bad training and/or a failure to keep drills and procedures fresh and up-dated. Reliance on gadgets like SA, causes a false sense of security - which increases the likelihood that a diver would neglect to develop/maintain their core emergency skills.

Again I disagree. The same argument was made for an additional second stage (octopus). A diver using one wouldn't stay close to their buddy because of this back-up. An inaccurate assessment.

As I've said before - my counter-argument to that statement is the effect that 'some air' can have on the psychology of the diver and also the speed of appropriate reaction in an emergency.

Divers must understand the operational envelope of themselves and their equipment. This effectively manages the psychology of the diver and addresses an appropriate reaction time.

If a diver is at 16m and their air supply abrubtly ceases...they look for their buddy. No buddy near-by, so their natural instincts is to immediately ascend. Kick, kick, kick, "aaahhhh"...at the surface...'phew!'. Action-Reaction. Add a SA to that equation.... how many other options have to be considered and decisions need to be made? How many more chances for the wrong choice or critical delay start to present themselves?

SA offers no more stress to a diver than reaching for an octopus.

For sure...I agree. I don't "look down" on divers for their choices. I believe it is a matter of education.

Whereas I believe the matter is a matter of individual choice for the conditions present.

Except for debating on this board, the only issue I've had with SA in real life is that I don't consider it as a sufficient redundant air source for wreck penetration. This has meant a few delicate and informative conversations with divers at my centre. However, we aren't debating overhead environment diving now.

SA was not designed for an overhead environment. I totally agree.