Question about “balanced rigs” and having all ballast unditchable

[Dave Bevan]

So, the answer is that 'many have mistaken . . '. I agree with your point, Dave, that the DIR wording is crystal clear. So, I do have to wonder, how could such a disconnect arise?

Maybe, it is a question to which no satisfactory, informed answer is possible. But, hopefully this thread has alerted many divers to the fact that 'balanced rig' is NOT synonymous with 'no ditchable weight'.

Because many people think you can copy something without understanding the reasoning behind it. They think you can put a formula for a good diver that you can follow that works in all situations and set ups but the horrible and scary fact is that there isn't. It just isn't simple like that. You have to go out and dive different places, try different techniques and equipment configurations until you can establish a paradigm that works for you.

Diving is about risk management and sometimes there isn't a clear answer. So you remove ditchable weight and now you increased your drowning risk at the surface. So you fit a weightbelt and now you increased your likelihood of accidental ascent. Unfortunately all you can do is use you experience and common sense to judge the safest option and ensure that you are are well informed of both the advantages and disadvantages of any decision you take.

 

[Lorenzoid]

The definition of balanced seems to be very unclear.
You seem to be defining it as balanced AFTER the ditching of ballast in an emergency.

Some other people define balanced as being able to swim the rig up with no bc use and no dropping of ballast.

The difference in definition is HUGE, particularly when you are talking cold water and thick suits. The divergence in the definition of the term makes discussions very confusing.

The older d-I-r definition included the ditching of ballast as inherent in the definition.
This is an integral part of their advice to avoid double heavy steels in the ocean and instead use over filled
Aluminum 80,s and a weight belt. These are not trivial distinctions.

I'm not so sure that "the older DIR definition included the ditching of ballast as inherent in the definition." My understanding is that a balanced rig may or may not have ditchable ballast. IF you have ditchable ballast, then with a wing failure you should be able to swim up the rig after ditching it. If you do not have ditchable ballast, then with a wing failure you should be able to swim up the rig. If you really need so much ballast that you can't swim it up, that inherently means you need at least some of your ballast to be ditchable, but that doesn't mean it isn't "balanced." Or so I interpret the definition.

You're right, though, that the description in the GUE gear configuration web page I quoted, which is the same as in the Jablonski book DIR: The Fundamentals of Better Diving that someone else quoted from, is not well worded. A lot of that book is not all that well worded.

 

[2airishuman]

For me, I believe (and tell recreational students and divers) that you need a) sufficient weight to initiate a descent

I find that there are dives in thick wetsuits where it is necessary to initiate the dive with a "duck dive" or similar move. To use enough lead to descend is unnecessary unless a substantial amount of time will be spent in the shallows. The difference in the amount of lead required can be substantial.

 

[johndiver999]

I'm not so sure that "the older DIR definition included the ditching of ballast as inherent in the definition." My understanding is that a balanced rig may or may not have ditchable ballast. IF you have ditchable ballast, then with a wing failure you should be able to swim up the rig after ditching it. If you do not have ditchable ballast, then with a wing failure you should be able to swim up the rig. If you really need so much ballast that you can't swim it up, that inherently means you need at least some of your ballast to be ditchable, but that doesn't mean it isn't "balanced." Or so I interpret the definition.

You're right, though, that the description in the GUE gear configuration web page I quoted, which is the same as in the Jablonski book DIR: The Fundamentals of Better Diving that someone else quoted from, is not well worded. A lot of that book is not all that well worded.

I think your correction of me is appropriate. For them balanced means you may or may not have to ditch ballast, but if you ditch ballast you can swim up.

 

[Colliam7]

I find that there are dives in thick wetsuits where it is necessary to initiate the dive with a "duck dive" or similar move. To use enough lead to descend is unnecessary unless a substantial amount of time will be spent in the shallows. The difference in the amount of lead required can be substantial.

Yep. It is getting down that first foot after which compression of my suit takes over. I have done that plenty of times, even pulled myself down a line a bit to get started, or did a full exhalation and held it (e.g. didn't breathe ) until I could descend a foot or so.

Now, if I am properly weighted for the end of the dive (e.g. @ 500 psi, @ 15 ft) the math suggests I should be negatively buoyant at the start, simply because I am carrying the weight of more gas.

What is interesting is that we do a supposedly 'proper' weight check at the surface, with ~500 psi, to be sure that we can hold that 15 foot safety stop. Well, if I am wearing any exposure protection (and I always am) I am more buoyant at 0 feet than at 15 feet, and a proper weight at the surface may well leave me carrying more weight than I actually need for that 15 foot stop.

 

[Ojai Diver]

As recreational divers, we stand on the shoulders of those divers who went before us. If it is taught that being able to dump weights, such as in my case a weight belt, is a good thing, chances are this is based upon somebody's very hard earned lessons.

Nobody mentioned surf entry and exits. In those scenarios, having a weight belt (in my case a Mako rubber with Marseille buckle) that I can dump one handed, is another means of safety if I slip off a rock into deeper water, or get maytagged in the surf.

I did a night dive a few months ago. One diver had tech aspirations, and wore doubles with no ditchable weights. While exiting the surf, he slipped in a ledge in the sand, and went down into the surf. Having a heavy rig with no ditchable weight (and the regulator not in his mouth) he was in a potentially dangerous situation. Lucky for him, somebody was able to help him get on his feet.

It is interesting how a tech rig is no doubt safer than a recreational rig in some scenarios, yet can still be more dangerous than a recreational one in others.

 

[MichaelMc]

I'm not so sure that "the older DIR definition included the ditching of ballast as inherent in the definition." My understanding is that a balanced rig may or may not have ditchable ballast. IF you have ditchable ballast, then with a wing failure you should be able to swim up the rig after ditching it. If you do not have ditchable ballast, then with a wing failure you should be able to swim up the rig. If you really need so much ballast that you can't swim it up, that inherently means you need at least some of your ballast to be ditchable, but that doesn't mean it isn't "balanced." Or so I interpret the definition.

You're right, though, that the description in the GUE gear configuration web page I quoted, which is the same as in the Jablonski book DIR: The Fundamentals of Better Diving that someone else quoted from, is not well worded. A lot of that book is not all that well worded.

So when talking about one's rig, 'its balanced so I have no ditchable' would not seem proper as balanced does not imply no ditchable.

Saying 'its balanced and I have 4 lb. ditchable' or 'its balanced but I have no ditchable' would be proper.

Some might argue for changing the 'but' to an 'and', yet ditchable is a non-cave non-deco safety feature. Discarding it should not be done too lightly.

 

[seeker242]

That’s just properly weighted.
.

I don't think that is the case necessarily. For example, what is "properly weighted" when diving big double steel tanks and a super thick wetsuit? A lot of lead will be needed to keep that big wetsuit neutral when your tanks are near empty at a shallow stop. However, if you have to swim up from depth, with full tanks, you are going to have to drop some lead to be able to swim it up. Are you still going to be able to keep a shallow stop after you drop all that lead? If not, then you could still be "properly weighted", because you are not overweighted and do have ditchable weight, but would not have a "balanced rig" because now you can't keep a stop.

 

[lowviz]

@seeker242, lovely description of the malevolent 'sweet spot'. Blow the stop. Just focus on a controlled ascent.

'Properly weighted' means that I have options that are reasonable. I'll do my stop on the surface on O2. Any diver who passed advanced nitrox has that very same ability. Few realize its worth.

 

[CT-Rich]

Balanced rig does not preclude ditchable weight. Being able to swim up your rig without a working BCD is not an unreasonable goal, but ditchable weight has nothing to do with it. When you get to the surface, you need to either swim to safety or await pick up.

A simple analogy would be the crumple zones on a car frame. They are there to save your bacon in an accident. You can build a car that is comfortable to drive and looks good. The value only becomes apparent when you have an accident.

A properly weighted diver should trim out perfectly. I can understand why DIR rescue drills don’t involve weight drops, they shouldn’t be needed if the divers are properly trained and kitted out. Also Dropping lead limits the control you have once a diver is positively buoyant. And chasing after lead in a quarry becomes a mess along with the possibility that dropping weights might hit another person on the way down.