How did quick release belts become a safety standard?

[Storker]

In many situations a belt is recoverable, however if your MAKO Spearguns belt and lead and/or Tinman weights are ditched (and lost) in a true emergency…. I will replace them at our cost.

Our national Diving Association has implemented the same policy: If you're a member of a club associated with the Norwegian Diving Association, and you decide to drop your weights in a perceived emergency while diving in one of the Nordic countries, the Norwegian Diving Association will refund the cost of your weights, no questions asked. You only have to provide a report about the incident and a receipt for the new weights/belt/pockets.

 

[Wookie]

On a liveaboard we just go buy more lead. Folks drop our weight all the time.

 

[TSandM]

I actually totally accept that you don't make a huge difference in buoyancy by dropping the weights on a diver who is not wearing any, or much exposure protection. I get that. But I think the estimates of how negative such a diver can get are overblown. An Al80 is only 2 pounds negative WHEN FULL, and is 4 lbs positive when empty. Most BCs have intrinsic buoyancy, sometimes as much as 3 lbs. Most divers are neutral -- and yes, I have seen a few who are negative, but even then, it isn't much. And someone who is panic stricken is generally holding tremendous air in their lungs, which is why frightened students can't descend. I just don't buy this panic-related suction thing, where a diver with an empty tank and no weights is somehow dragged underwater to the tune of 20 or more pounds.

I think it's nice to have lift at the surface. Inadequate lift to get the face out of the water could DEFINITELY add to a diver's anxiety or even provoke panic. The diver wearing no exposure protection at all, with a full tank, who has just pulled the inflator hose off his BC and has no weight to drop, is a setup for high anxiety at the surface. And if that diver is a rank novice, he may not be able to stay calm and tread water (even though he had to do that for ten minutes to pass his certification exam). But we are still talking very small amounts of negative buoyancy here, and anyone with a functioning BC (even my small one) should be able to assist that diver to float.

I just don't buy the need for 50 lbs of lift. If you are a diver who is going to require a lift jacket to survive your dive, you shouldn't be doing that dive.

And before you say it, beano, no, I don't guide rank novices on a regular basis, and luckily, I have dealt with very few panicked divers (and the ones I have seen have been more passive panic than active). But I really wonder about the kind of work you do, when you feel as though you have to optimize your AND your client's equipment for a high probability of active, frantic panic. If you're seeing that all the time, something is wrong with the way the divers and the dives are being matched up, and that is what ought to be addressed, not the lift of the BCs, at least in my opinion.

 

[Rich Keller]

Or you were dead before your hand got to the buckle, medical events cause a large percentage of scuba deaths and you may be in no condition to drop the belt when one hits.

I think medical events are presumed to cause a larger percentage of diver deaths then they actually do. Once an accident is determined not to be foul play by the authorities the investigation ends without an autopsy so all you are left with is speculation as to the cause. If the accident threads I have read on SB are representative of the average speculation in these cases then I think medical events are blamed way too much. Most of the threads all follow the same pattern, the actual report without an autopsy, speculation on what could have gone wrong followed at some point by someone who knew the victim saying they had the best gear and a fist full of certifications so it must have been a medical event. In the absence of any real facts most people agree and the thread ends shortly after. Even if the event was medical there are very few times when these events cause instant death so there is still some time to drop the weights in most of these cases. Also take into consideration that even if there were for example a heart attack or stroke involved it could easily have been a result of the diver panicking during an emergency that brought on the medical event rather then the medical event being the original cause of the emergency.

---------- Post added August 3rd, 2014 at 08:14 AM ----------

While all this is certainly true UNDERWATER, it does not get back to the only time people should be ditching weights (which is on the surface), which is what this thread about quick release weight belts is all about.

The thread was about how quick release buckles became standard equipment and why. It is not about releasing belts only when you are on the surface, that is just your take on the question. Dropping weights in an emergency is a simple, fail proof way to self rescue and telling people otherwise is irresponsible at best.

---------- Post added August 3rd, 2014 at 08:27 AM ----------

If we are not upright on the surface, then we are (or should be) in proper diving position, with the face or the back of the head in the water, and those times very little or no additional buoyancy is needed. And when we are not being stupid in the water, we keep our mask on and our reg in our mouth.

But we have equipment for the times when we need help, which is most likely on the surface, with empty lungs, upright in the water. And this is when we are being stupid in the water: mask off, reg out, other gear problems.

Stupid is a matter of opinion. Telling people to keep a reg in their mouth on the surface that will have a limited air supply at the end of a dive rather then using a snorkel is stupid in my opinion. The snorkel is another simple, fail proof piece of equipment that will work as long as it is needed. Being dependent on equipment that can stop working or fail at any time and ignoring simple fail proof alternatives is stupid, again just my opinion.

---------- Post added August 3rd, 2014 at 08:43 AM ----------

1. Low lung volume (from choking/coughing) so the diver is already sinking the head into the water. (4 to 10 pounds negative buoyancy, depending on lung size)

2. Diver in the upright position (which from just the pose itself sinks the mouth below the water line, (Roughly 10 pounds postive buoyancy needed to clear a divers mouth well clear of the water)

These figures are much higher then they should be. Neutral at the surface is when you are upright, with your head tilted back, holding a full breath of air and only your face is above the water. This is a survival swimming technique that will allow you to stay a float for days without ever having to move your arms or legs. The only thing you need to do is take 1/2 or 3/4 breaths to keep your face above the water. That is in about the 2lb area not the 14lb of lift needed to hold your entire head out of the water. If you use a snorkel instead then you can also eliminate the 2lbs as well.

---------- Post added August 3rd, 2014 at 08:50 AM ----------

3. Full Tanks, because problems often happen immediately upon a giant stride entry (mask comes off, air not on, fins pop off during the giant stride, Snorkel not the reg in the mouth) (take a pick, but lets say 6 pounds negative buoyancy for the full tank)

The average aluminum 80 cu/ft tank is 1 1/2 to 2 pounds negative when full so for the majority of divers lets say 2lbs not 6lbs.

---------- Post added August 3rd, 2014 at 09:01 AM ----------

4. Inefficient or worst case, counterproductive kicks providing no lift, or worst of all negative lift. (Roughly 10 pounds negative lift from the worst case kick)

5. If counterproductive kicks are not your bag (then one you do not believe in the possibility of back kicks apparently but anyway) then add that same factor (10 pounds additional buoyancy) to get the mouth clear of variable conditions at the surface in the ocean.

10lbs negative buoyancy from an ineffective kick is just a ridicules statement.

By my calculations that removes 28lbs from the 36lbs of minimum lift you think is needed. What are the other 8lbs of lift that you say are needed coming from?

 

[boulderjohn]

I think medical events are presumed to cause a larger percentage of diver deaths then they actually do. Once an accident is determined not to be foul play by the authorities the investigation ends without an autopsy so all you are left with is speculation as to the cause. If the accident threads I have read on SB are representative of the average speculation in these cases then I think medical events are blamed way too much. Most of the threads all follow the same pattern, the actual report without an autopsy, speculation on what could have gone wrong followed at some point by someone who knew the victim saying they had the best gear and a fist full of certifications so it must have been a medical event. In the absence of any real facts most people agree and the thread ends shortly after. Even if the event was medical there are very few times when these events cause instant death so there is still some time to drop the weights in most of these cases. Also take into consideration that even if there were for example a heart attack or stroke involved it could easily have been a result of the diver panicking during an emergency that brought on the medical event rather then the medical event being the original cause of the emergency.

If you go to the DAN site and download any of their annual fatality reports, you will see that confirmed cardiac events are by far the leading cause of scuba fatalities every year.

A couple of years ago PADI and DAN did a major study of dive accidents, and the results of that study were the impetus of most of the changes PADI made to its OW training standards this year. That study confirmed that the number one cause of death was health-related. It also showed that the number one training related cause of death was a chain of events: drowning preceded by an embolism caused by a rapid ascent to the surface following an OOA emergency. That is why the new PADI standards emphasize awareness of gas levels, maintaining good buddy contact, and dropping weights on the surface to achieve buoyancy.

The DAN reports include a description of all the fatal incidents for which they have that information. In response to a recent thread on this very topic, I went through two years of reports to see how many of the cases had circumstances in which failure to drop weights at depth MAY have been a factor. I say "MAY" because in many of the cases, what actually happened is unclear--the diver was just found drowned under water. In each of those years, there were only a relative handful of cases in which the failure to drop weights at depth MAY have been a factor in the fatality.

 

[drbill]

In 52 years of diving, I've never had a weight belt buckle release by getting snagged on something and I dive in thick kelp.

 

[Rich Keller]

DAN has not put out a new report in the last 5 years and as I said earlier a medical issue may have been the result of panic in an emergency and not the original cause of that emergency. In the absence of actual facts about these accidents it is easy to assume that it was a medical issue.

 

[boulderjohn]

DAN has not put out a new report in the last 5 years and as I said earlier a medical issue may have been the result of panic in an emergency and not the original cause of that emergency. In the absence of actual facts about these accidents it is easy to assume that it was a medical issue.

Reports do not lose their validity over time.

You might want to read the reports rather than just speculate on what they say or don't say.

 

[Akimbo]

… It also showed that the number one training related cause of death was a chain of events: drowning preceded by an embolism caused by a rapid ascent to the surface following an OOA emergency. That is why the new PADI standards emphasize awareness of gas levels, maintaining good buddy contact, and dropping weights on the surface to achieve buoyancy...

That’s an interesting response to these findings. What I see is that training agencies are doing a terrible job of teaching physiology and developing skills.

Lost in the din is the fact that newly trained divers are all too often scared as hell and primed for panic. That is the major reason for teaching and practicing “blow and go”. I have never had to do one for self-rescue, but knowing that I can eliminates any sense of equipment dependence. Highly criticized old-school training like harassment, blow and go, swimming tests without gear, and blunt language of consequences produce divers that far less likely to panic or embolize themselves.

 

[Rich Keller]

I did send for the reports but my point is the reports themselves are in large part just speculation based on only partial facts.