annie once bubbled...
Also as in "Get your kit off" . . . I believe that's a UK thing?
Indeed but that term when applied to Scuba is far less dodgy than saying it to someone in a bar
Weight belt follow-up
- Thread starter craigz
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Indeed but that term when applied to Scuba is far less dodgy than saying it to someone in a bar
Tried it and cant quite see what you're getting at. Whe have to train mouth>mouth and mouth>nose AV with a diver in the water and this is always trained with the belt still on.
String said:
Doing in-water mouth-to-mouth requires as much buoyance as possible, to keep the victims mouth above the surface. This is especially true in any wave situation. I am trying to imagine a situation where I would want to keep my weights and recover a victim, but short of coming through very large breakers with a non-viable body, I cannot. Having the weights off would help in getting the victim onto a boat, into a helicopter rescue basket, or even over the side of an inflatable boat/raft.
Take a read of this quote, from The Last Dive by Bernie Chowdhury:
Now, think again about whether you would really want to keep the weights, and perhaps the "kit" too, in a rescue situation.
SeaRat
Doing in-water mouth-to-mouth requires as much buoyance as possible, to keep the victims mouth above the surface. This is especially true in any wave situation. I am trying to imagine a situation where I would want to keep my weights and recover a victim, but short of coming through very large breakers with a non-viable body, I cannot. Having the weights off would help in getting the victim onto a boat, into a helicopter rescue basket, or even over the side of an inflatable boat/raft.
Take a read of this quote, from The Last Dive by Bernie Chowdhury:
Now, think again about whether you would really want to keep the weights, and perhaps the "kit" too, in a rescue situation.
SeaRat
between keeping it until you get to the boat, and once you get there and have to board the victim.
In the latter case you almost always will have to remove the diver's kit, simply to get them on board! This is PARTICULARLY true with a diver in doubles - I don't know about you, but I can't lift 300+ lbs - entirely plausible for a diver in a set of LP104s, and that's if he's not grossly overweight!
That is NOT the same thing as ditching kit before you tow him back. Resistance in the water is an issue, but the weight ITSELF is not - inertia is indeed an issue, but inertia works against you to get something moving, but works FOR you in keeping it moving.
In the latter case you almost always will have to remove the diver's kit, simply to get them on board! This is PARTICULARLY true with a diver in doubles - I don't know about you, but I can't lift 300+ lbs - entirely plausible for a diver in a set of LP104s, and that's if he's not grossly overweight!
That is NOT the same thing as ditching kit before you tow him back. Resistance in the water is an issue, but the weight ITSELF is not - inertia is indeed an issue, but inertia works against you to get something moving, but works FOR you in keeping it moving.
My thought is that inertia is not the big help you may think it is. The bulk of the cylinders will cause drag, and it is the drag, and not the inertia, which is the problem. The way to determine this is to get into a known situation, in open water or the pool, and tow an inert diver both with and without the kit. See which one is actually more efficient. If you're diving off the boat, perhaps you could get someone to do it and time a known distance in each configuration. If you do that, and it bears you out, I will have learned something. Vice versa for the opposite
SeaRat
SeaRat
As ive said before, its horses for courses - ie you pick the best solution to the situation.
We all do both forms of AV on a casulaty with a weight belt on with no problem at all and in fairly rough waters. Granted here they have a BC, usually drysuit but if not a 14"" wetsuit so have plenty of buoyancy but again, thats local conditions.
As for getting people onto a boat, you do it on reaching the boat, you have to fully dekit them in water and pass them up on small RIBs, again, its trained, its practiced and its not a problem
So ive thought again about it but having practiced it, seen countless others perform it and comfortable in the fact its not difficult i still havent changed my mind.
String, in that case, it sounds like my assumptions are somewhat out-of-date with the modern equipment. Perhaps the new BCs make it easier than I remember; I'll need to update myself. Thanks for the input.
SeaRat
SeaRat
I'd be on the boat right now finishing my Rescue class, but there seems to be a tornado watch up here, the winds are blowing 30-35kts, and there is plenty of fire from the sky at the moment.... class was postponed for today
But yesterday, I did indeed try these scenarios in the pool.
Stripping gear in the water before reaching the exit is something I won't be doing in a real rescue... and here's why.
I "drowned" my buddy/victim TWICE - well, ok, I WOULD HAVE had he been a real non-breathing victim.
Both times as a consequence of removing his kit, as instructed. Despite the various "means and ways" to do a carry and inwater rescue breathing, without the kit this guy, in a FULL WETSUIT, sank like a stone. I could keep his head/neck out of the water, but only through great effort, which, of course, won't work in the real world as it only takes a bit of submersion to hose his airway and then "down she goes".
So in a REAL rescue situation, I ain't gonna be removing anyone's kit until we're at the exit if he is non-responsive and I can't ascertain what he KNOWS about his own body's buoyancy. After two attempts "by the book" I've learned that "the book" isn't always right - and it can be dangerous to listen to it!
Of course what isn't quite said in the books, but we did talk about a bit in class after I raised the issue, is that if he is TRULY not breathing down there you've got roughly 4 minutes until it doesn't matter. Since unless someone collapses in front of you some time will have elapsed before he has been found, and a safe ascent rate will require a minute or two, and it will also take a minute or so to get things established on the surface (buoyancy, removal of mask/reg, etc, check for breathing, begin rescue breathing) you've got an AWFUL thin margin before the guy is dead anyway, and the odds are real good that you're doing a body recovery - not a real rescue.
BTW, this guy was ALSO grossly overweighted - if THAT was the case I would ditch his weights (in his case his BC, even fully inflated, was marginal to keep him stable out of the water) but in MY case leaving the entire kit on was the best choice until at the exit (when I played the victim.)
So, YMMV, but in general, I think dropping the kit is a VERY BAD idea until you are near or at the exit, as while you might get extra drag from the kit, you might lose necessary buoyancy from ditching it, and there is no reliable way to KNOW until after its gone (at which point its too late with an unconscious victim!)
In my case. and that of one of the other students, ditching the weight belt WITHOUT ditching the kit is also a stability problem. In the other student's case ditching his belt caused his particular gear configuration to become dangerously unstable in the water and tended to roll him over on his back! In my case it tended to destabilize my body as well, although not dangerously so in calm (pool-like calm) water - in rough water though, I bet it would be a different matter.
Again, impossible to KNOW until AFTER the belt goes to the bottom, at which point is TOO LATE to reverse your decision.
My suspicions proved to be (mostly) accurate... at least in the pool. OW testing of my hypothesis will have to wait until next weekend due to weather, unfortunately...
But yesterday, I did indeed try these scenarios in the pool.
Stripping gear in the water before reaching the exit is something I won't be doing in a real rescue... and here's why.
I "drowned" my buddy/victim TWICE - well, ok, I WOULD HAVE had he been a real non-breathing victim.
Both times as a consequence of removing his kit, as instructed. Despite the various "means and ways" to do a carry and inwater rescue breathing, without the kit this guy, in a FULL WETSUIT, sank like a stone. I could keep his head/neck out of the water, but only through great effort, which, of course, won't work in the real world as it only takes a bit of submersion to hose his airway and then "down she goes".
So in a REAL rescue situation, I ain't gonna be removing anyone's kit until we're at the exit if he is non-responsive and I can't ascertain what he KNOWS about his own body's buoyancy. After two attempts "by the book" I've learned that "the book" isn't always right - and it can be dangerous to listen to it!
Of course what isn't quite said in the books, but we did talk about a bit in class after I raised the issue, is that if he is TRULY not breathing down there you've got roughly 4 minutes until it doesn't matter. Since unless someone collapses in front of you some time will have elapsed before he has been found, and a safe ascent rate will require a minute or two, and it will also take a minute or so to get things established on the surface (buoyancy, removal of mask/reg, etc, check for breathing, begin rescue breathing) you've got an AWFUL thin margin before the guy is dead anyway, and the odds are real good that you're doing a body recovery - not a real rescue.
BTW, this guy was ALSO grossly overweighted - if THAT was the case I would ditch his weights (in his case his BC, even fully inflated, was marginal to keep him stable out of the water) but in MY case leaving the entire kit on was the best choice until at the exit (when I played the victim.)
So, YMMV, but in general, I think dropping the kit is a VERY BAD idea until you are near or at the exit, as while you might get extra drag from the kit, you might lose necessary buoyancy from ditching it, and there is no reliable way to KNOW until after its gone (at which point its too late with an unconscious victim!)
In my case. and that of one of the other students, ditching the weight belt WITHOUT ditching the kit is also a stability problem. In the other student's case ditching his belt caused his particular gear configuration to become dangerously unstable in the water and tended to roll him over on his back! In my case it tended to destabilize my body as well, although not dangerously so in calm (pool-like calm) water - in rough water though, I bet it would be a different matter.
Again, impossible to KNOW until AFTER the belt goes to the bottom, at which point is TOO LATE to reverse your decision.
My suspicions proved to be (mostly) accurate... at least in the pool. OW testing of my hypothesis will have to wait until next weekend due to weather, unfortunately...
Genesis,
I appreciate your working through the scenarios. Your area is somewhat different than the Pacific Northwest, as we typically have a minimum of 12 pounds, and usually well over 20 pounds, of positive buoyancy from our wet or dry suits. But, you raise some very good points. My experience is before today's intergrated BCDs, which provide more buoyancy than in years past. I will take your advise, unless and until I do other trials here with current gear from the Pacific Northwest that shows otherwise (which it may not). I hope your "drowned" buddy knows how we appreciate him or her being the subject of this study
I think that this is one of the big values of the SCUBA Forum, in that we can bounce ideas off each other, and either validate them or have them disproven.
I went diving today too, and had a bit of a problem in that I hadn't hooped my equipment completely. I took my weight belt off U/W, did the hitching, and put it back on (my gear is somewhat experimental, and is not replicated by anyone else's). It was a solo dive in the Clackamas River, which had about 15 feet of visibility today (which is good for here in rivers), and I used a full wet suit with hood, boots and gloves too. I watched salmon smolt under the rapids waiting for food, and a rainbow trout looking for same.
Thanks for the info,
SeaRat
I appreciate your working through the scenarios. Your area is somewhat different than the Pacific Northwest, as we typically have a minimum of 12 pounds, and usually well over 20 pounds, of positive buoyancy from our wet or dry suits. But, you raise some very good points. My experience is before today's intergrated BCDs, which provide more buoyancy than in years past. I will take your advise, unless and until I do other trials here with current gear from the Pacific Northwest that shows otherwise (which it may not). I hope your "drowned" buddy knows how we appreciate him or her being the subject of this study
I think that this is one of the big values of the SCUBA Forum, in that we can bounce ideas off each other, and either validate them or have them disproven.
I went diving today too, and had a bit of a problem in that I hadn't hooped my equipment completely. I took my weight belt off U/W, did the hitching, and put it back on (my gear is somewhat experimental, and is not replicated by anyone else's). It was a solo dive in the Clackamas River, which had about 15 feet of visibility today (which is good for here in rivers), and I used a full wet suit with hood, boots and gloves too. I watched salmon smolt under the rapids waiting for food, and a rainbow trout looking for same.
Thanks for the info,
SeaRat
Similar threads
