Give up my primary regulator???

[Edward3c]

In BSAC we teach the OOA diver take the octopus regulator as the other dive would otherwise have to notice what is happening, comprehend it and act. We do not tell divers never to actively donate if they notice early enough.

Spot on.

The logic behind the secondary take rather than donate is to reduce the time lost for the donor to comprehend what's happening and then act. The time for a diver trained to primary donate to comprehend the situation is the same. Therefore, secondary take is quicker and doesn't have the potential of placing the donor diver without an air supply.

My biggest bugbear is the way a lot of AS regs are secured: by hose retainers that don't allow quick release, or stuffed into pockets, and even just left hanging. I use a magnetic clip and demonstrate the ease of deployment before every dive. It allows me to confirm I haven't been knitting when kitting up.

 

[chrisch]

...
My biggest bugbear is the way a lot of AS regs are secured: by hose retainers that don't allow quick release, or stuffed into pockets, and even just left hanging. I use a magnetic clip and demonstrate the ease of deployment before every dive. It allows me to confirm I haven't been knitting when kitting up.

This is why the logic of secondary take is flawed. Despite the merit of teaching people to take a regulator if they need one (rather than drown) it requires the AAS to be rigged as yours is and functional. I share your dismay that the real world does not match the idealistic view we have of perfectly well disciplined divers with good equipment committed to one another's safety.

In reality the diver taught to take will do that. Take. The obvious choice is the working reg. I am drowning why will I take a sand filled old piece of junk from a pocket?

Secondary take can only work as it is intended to if the AAS is correctly stowed and functioning properly. As the BSAC does not mandate equipment requirements (unlike say GUE) you cannot ever be sure that the OOG diver will have available the AAS they need. In my experience there is a high penetration rate of pony tanks amongst BSAC divers. As our US friends say - go figure.

Primary donate solves these issues. The onus is back on the donor to look after the second regulator because it is for them to use. It is an effective solution for those of us that choose to use it. It should not be something I am unable to teach.

 

[doctormike]

So it is ok to ignore how you were trained and take the advice of a stranger who owes you no duty, may be completely unqualified to teach and may be advocating a system not actually taught by any official agency.

All while not knowing enough to tell if you are being fed rubbish or not.

Sometime some of the piss take threads on here are just as convincing as the real ones.

So then what's the point of this board? Are you saying that all of these people spending all of this time explaining why they do this or that is just potential rubbish and should be ignored?

 

[Edward3c]

This is why the logic of secondary take is flawed. Despite the merit of teaching people to take a regulator if they need one (rather than drown) it requires the AAS to be rigged as yours is and functional. I share your dismay that the real world does not match the idealistic view we have of perfectly well disciplined divers with good equipment committed to one another's safety.

In reality the diver taught to take will do that. Take. The obvious choice is the working reg. I am drowning why will I take a sand filled old piece of junk from a pocket?

Secondary take can only work as it is intended to if the AAS is correctly stowed and functioning properly. As the BSAC does not mandate equipment requirements (unlike say GUE) you cannot ever be sure that the OOG diver will have available the AAS they need. In my experience there is a high penetration rate of pony tanks amongst BSAC divers. As our US friends say - go figure.

Primary donate solves these issues. The onus is back on the donor to look after the second regulator because it is for them to use. It is an effective solution for those of us that choose to use it. It should not be something I am unable to teach.

The majority of poorly rigged AS regs are on people trained by other agencies. They are also fitted to come from the right which requires an S shape in the hose to be useful to an OOG diver.

When teaching, or just diving, with people trained by PADI et al I find they generally stay behind me - used to diving in a group and following a guide/DM. If I had a gas failure I wouldy lose valuable time locating them, hence, I carry my own redundant gas supply. And yes, I do eventually get them to move up beside me, but old habits die hard. They often slip back when diving with others who also dive that way.

There isn't the evidence in the BSAC incident reports to support your assumption that the primary will be taken by an OOG diver.

 

[Neilwood]

This is why the logic of secondary take is flawed. Despite the merit of teaching people to take a regulator if they need one (rather than drown) it requires the AAS to be rigged as yours is and functional. I share your dismay that the real world does not match the idealistic view we have of perfectly well disciplined divers with good equipment committed to one another's safety.

In reality the diver taught to take will do that. Take. The obvious choice is the working reg. I am drowning why will I take a sand filled old piece of junk from a pocket?

Secondary take can only work as it is intended to if the AAS is correctly stowed and functioning properly. As the BSAC does not mandate equipment requirements (unlike say GUE) you cannot ever be sure that the OOG diver will have available the AAS they need. In my experience there is a high penetration rate of pony tanks amongst BSAC divers. As our US friends say - go figure.

Primary donate solves these issues. The onus is back on the donor to look after the second regulator because it is for them to use. It is an effective solution for those of us that choose to use it. It should not be something I am unable to teach.

Why is this rubbish trotted out every time long hose vs trad octo is discussed? I have now dived with about 100 different divers and not once noticed an octo dragging in the sand.

If the AAS is not stowed correctly or safely deployable, should you be diving with that diver in the first place? IMHO if they haven't thought about that they are probably not a safe enough diver in the first place. If I dive with someone new, I want to go over the procedure (with a dry run preferably) to ensure theirs will deploy safely and that they know how mine deploys. 30 secs on the surface if that.

One thing not covered by the long hose advocates is the issue of a newly minted OW diver who has gone out and bought the entire shop (compass on a retractable or coiled spring type retractor, torches hanging down, slate hanging loose). Pair him up with a long hose and watch the carnage as the hose snags every bit of gear.

Primary donate only works if the gear is stowed correctly. Pass a new diver 7ft of hose and don't explain it or practise and watch what happens. Same on octo donate. The main difference is that long hose divers generally go through an S drill every dive whereas most OW vacation divers don't - they quite probably don't see a reg set from one year to the next.

Doing it right (in whatever set up you want to advocate) takes practise. Give someone either system and tell them to use it without ever practising and it will end up badly. Do some drills (on the surface predive or at safety stops) and things get a whole lot better.

 

[tbone1004]

There isn't the evidence in the BSAC incident reports to support your assumption that the primary will be taken by an OOG diver.

and you truly believe that those incident reports are unbiased? I've read them, there is no way they would pass scientific peer review. The rest of the worlds incident reports contradict BSAC's.

the thing with BSAC and secondary take that makes me roll over laughing is that it is an equipment solution to a skills problem and it is trying to shove a paradigm that is ideal for 2 rig configurations, neither of which are the majority down the throat of everyone. Secondary anything is less than ideal for everything except CCR and double hose diving, primary donate is better for all open circuit diving and is scalable for technical open circuit diving. This is no different than UTD putting the manifold into sidemount diving to force that paradigm into all gear configurations. It isn't best practice and doesn't stem from any real world applied logic

 

[Edward3c]

and you truly believe that those incident reports are unbiased? I've read them, there is no way they would pass scientific peer review. The rest of the worlds incident reports contradict BSAC's.

Please provide the evidence?

From your location I doubt you've had much, if any, real experience of BSAC divers. However, feel free to continue your campaign against the organisation. I won't be responding again.

 

[doctormike]

There isn't the evidence in the BSAC incident reports to support your assumption that the primary will be taken by an OOG diver.

Hey, here are some unscientific but interesting stories. I started this thread a few months ago to try to figure out what actually happens with OOG divers from real world first person reports. Answer? It varies!

 

[Colliam7]

Why is this rubbish trotted out every time long hose vs trad octo is discussed? I have now dived with about 100 different divers and not once noticed an octo dragging in the sand.

Well, you are 'lucky'. I will say from personal observation that it is most definitely not rubbish. I see it more often than I care to, looking at other dive groups.

Doing it right (in whatever set up you want to advocate) takes practise. Give someone either system and tell them to use it without ever practising and it will end up badly. Do some drills (on the surface predive or at safety stops) and things get a whole lot better.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE! I think the gear configuration is secondary in importance to skills.

I have said, in this thread and elsewhere, that I am a 'primary donate' diver. And, I have said that I am a long(er) primary hose / necklace-bungeed alternate diver. That is MY preference, and I have specific reasons for that preference. And, it is a configuration that I encourage others to consider (and I am .

BUT, if I fail to develop skill in using that configuration, if I fail to practice gearing up with it, using it, deploying it, etc. - with regularity - that configuration will be as much of a 'cluster' as the octo dragging through the sand or bouncing along the coral reef.

 

[stuartv]

Yeah, I see. But I guess the bottom line is that if divers - new or old, experienced or inexperienced - are only going to do what they were trained to do, then why are we bothering to discuss this stuff here? One of the points of having this forum is for people to share ideas and improve their diving.

Right on.

I bought my own reg set right after I finished OW training. In significant part due to reading here on SB, I got identical 2nd stages and chose to use them as 40" hose primary/bungee necklace secondary.

As a new diver, it's not like I had muscle memory to unlearn/relearn.

So it is ok to ignore how you were trained and take the advice of a stranger who owes you no duty, may be completely unqualified to teach and may be advocating a system not actually taught by any official agency.

All while not knowing enough to tell if you are being fed rubbish or not.

Sometime some of the piss take threads on here are just as convincing as the real ones.

From before I even took OW, it was clear in my mind that I am the only person responsible for myself when diving. Thus, it doesn't matter whether I'm told something by an instructor, in person, or a random stranger on the Internet, it is up to me to evaluate the input and decide what to do with it. Doing something just because an instructor said so is a "trust me" dive no different than any other. The information is available for a person to read/watch/learn before the first confined water session ever happens, so that a person can have a reasonable framework of knowledge to evaluate what an instructor or an Internet stranger tells them. Likewise for anything after OW training is over.

Your backhanded way of suggesting that people should simply trust a certified instructor and discount anyone on the Internet who says something different is just as rubbish as taking someone on a dive they are not qualified for and telling them to just trust you.