Sharing air & continuing dive???

[Kevrumbo]

My Divemaster/Guide on a Raja Ampat divesite had his yoke tank valve O-ring fail at 12m early in the dive. I donated my 7' long hose, shut down his tank-valve, presented my SPG (like you're always supposed to do during a S-Drill ) with 180bar showing --and both of us deciding to continue the dive sharing air at 12m on what was a gorgeous reef. 20min later, we were back in the vicinity of the liveaboard and surfaced together with no buoyancy issues, after doing the requisite safety stop at 6m.

If it was a novice diver instead though . . .I would've aborted the dive and began the ascent to the safety stop as soon as s/he was calm and in control of buoyancy. . .

 

[Dive-aholic]

You all may beat this around all you like. If you want more air, carry more. Don't plan to use your buddy's air. This is not good as your dive plan.

Dance around it all you like, but you try to defend this in court, when it goes south and the family blames you for teaching this option or endorsing it as a divemaster. I wish you luck.

I haven't seen anything that claims anyone is teaching this in any classes. And stating it's okay on an Internet forum doesn't make it legally submissible. Good luck even finding out who some of these people that are saying it's okay are!

I have not done an underwater tank equalization procedure only because I haven't had too. I wish I had thought about it when my SAC sucked. I've actually gotten to the point where my SAC is better than my wife's (that will soon change, I'm sure, when she starts diving more again). With proper planning and execution, I don't see anything wrong with this. Start sharing at the beginning of the dive. Plan a time to stop sharing. Continue the dive terminating it when one of the divers reaches turn pressure. If the dive is planned well, both divers should reach turn pressure at the same time. Also, this should only be done for non-overhead dives with no mandatory decompression obligations.

Keep in mind, courts use the standard of reasonable prudence. In other words, what would a reasonably prudent person do under similar circumstances? The people I know and respect in this thread have all answered that this is not an issue if properly planned and executed. There are only a couple of dissenters. I think the court would side with us.

 

[Thalassamania]

You all may beat this around all you like. If you want more air, carry more. Don't plan to use your buddy's air. This is not good as your dive plan.

You keep saying that but you never explain why you think that.

Dance around it all you like, but you try to defend this in court, when it goes south and the family blames you for teaching this option or endorsing it as a divemaster. I wish you luck.

I do not know how much experience you have in lawsuits, but from that "warning" I'd have to guess that you've never been involved in this sort of litigation. I'd have no problem defending this in court and kicking the plaintiff's expert(s) up one side of the courthouse and down the other.

 

[Blackwood]

You all may beat this around all you like. If you want more air, carry more. Don't plan to use your buddy's air. This is not good as your dive plan.

Care to suggest why?

 

[Gombessa]

When I first started diving, I was dead set against this. Why do something that increases risk and task loading, with a diver who may already be low on gas? Not worth it.

As I learned more about the importance of having air shares and subsequent swims and ascents become second nature/routine, I don't see this as a big deal, if it's between two divers who dive together and know what they're doing.

It's probably not something I'd like to see a DM do with a warm water tourist who blew through his air because he wasn't comfortable in the water though.

 

[gypsyjim]

This is not good as your dive plan.QUOTE]

Actually, it sort of sounds like it is diving their plan to me in this case.

 

[GrandpaScuba]

The "mid-flight refueling" technique described by several of the responders is a good way to practice sharing air. It helps you to feel comfortable about trading equipment so if a real OOA situation comes up, the tendancy to panic is less.

 

[JMcD]

I have no concerns with practicing air sharing - I support it a great deal, but I'm not sure I'd endorse this as a regular plan.

For some people, in some environments, (I think Peter and his wife articulate an intelligent response to this) I can see this being planned; however I don't see it as appropriate for readers to read "sure this is no problem". I think it requires a fair bit of detailed planning and rock-bottom understanding before being considered.

If I read the OP right, I believe, as has been stated, that the air-share solution sweeps the real problem under the rug... I think I'd be working through the source problem of what is causing this high consumption rate would be a much better help long term...

Assuming that the OP is working on the source problem...

I now need to wave the cold water diver flag and perhaps remind many that new divers reading this may not realize that this is a worldwide community. This type of air sharing in cold water will increase the potential for a regulator free flow and I would not do this on most local dives and would suggest it would comprise a "bad plan" for this reason alone.

As always, I think we all need to be very cautious of reading information on ScubaBoard and applying it to our diving environment... there are a great number of differences and stressors between warm 100ft vis and cold 20ft, as there are Ocean vs quarry vs freshwater lakes... you all get the idea...

 

[Thalassamania]

I have no concerns with practicing air sharing - I support it a great deal, but I'm not sure I'd endorse this as a regular plan.

For some people, in some environments, (I think Peter and his wife articulate an intelligent response to this) I can see this being planned; however I don't see it as appropriate for readers to read "sure this is no problem". I think it requires a fair bit of detailed planning and rock-bottom understanding before being considered.

As I see it, nothing more than what SHOULD be provided in an entry-level course is required.

I\
If I read the OP right, I believe, as has been stated, that the air-share solution sweeps the real problem under the rug... I think I'd be working through the source problem of what is causing this high consumption rate would be a much better help long term...

Nothing is being swept anywhere, there are other solutions, some practical at given times and places others merely flights of fancy.

I
Assuming that the OP is working on the source problem...

The source problem may be not be a "problem" that needs working on. I can nurse a tank and get to a SAC below .30, what do I get? A longer dive with a bad headache and a slew of problems that increase the risk of the dive, I make a conscious effort to stay above .50 and I like to keep it as high as 0.7. So usually I carry more gas, because these are personal decisions that I should try to not let effect my teammates in any way, but if on occasion we do a mid dive refuel, that's part of our plan and something we're all comfortable with ... because we share air for a least a short time at the start of EVERY DIVE!

I
I now need to wave the cold water diver flag and perhaps remind many that new divers reading this may not realize that this is a worldwide community. This type of air sharing in cold water will increase the potential for a regulator free flow and I would not do this on most local dives and would suggest it would comprise a "bad plan" for this reason alone.

As always, I think we all need to be very cautious of reading information on ScubaBoard and applying it to our diving environment... there are a great number of differences and stressors between warm 100ft vis and cold 20ft, as there are Ocean vs quarry vs freshwater lakes... you all get the idea...

While this may, in fact, be more of a problem in cold fresh water (an environment that I do not tend to dive in), for salt water diving, even at -2 C, if you've been careful with your equipment selection and predive procedures, it should not be an issue. If you dive fully redundent regulators, it is reduced to a complete non-issue.

 

[JMcD]

As I see it, nothing more than what SHOULD be provided in an entry-level course is required.

Perhaps - This debate, or components of it, are already spread extensively elswhere on SB

The source problem may be not be a "problem" that needs working on. I can nurse a tank and get to a SAC below .30, what do I get? A longer dive with a bad headache and a slew of problems that increase the risk of the dive, I make a conscious effort to stay above .50 and I like to keep it as high as 0.7. So usually I carry more gas, because these are personal decisions that I should try to not let effect my teammates in any way, but if on occasion we do a mid dive refuel, that's part of our plan and something we're all comfortable with ... because we share air for a least a short time at the start of EVERY DIVE!

I wasn't indicating that YOU were doing something wrong... I believe I said that in some circumsnatces I can see this being acceptable; however the original Post:

I was diving an HP100 and she was diving an HP80. We were at 85' when I hit 800psi and signalled time to surface. We did a stops at 45' and 20'. I was back on the boat with a bit under 500psi. My buddy still had 2300.

I'm not asking the OP to skip breath and increase risk... I'm hoping that they realize that this variance in breathing rate may require looking into... a reasonable statement I think - that BTW is coming from someone who is fairly heavy on air myself...

If you dive fully redundent regulators, it is reduced to a complete non-issue.

Sure... and you can "if" a lot of other items away too..., I don't believe this is in line with the original post, or is helpful, and really, is simply inflamatory IMHO.

YMMV