Diving Safely Without A BC

[Storker]

It sounds to me like you were wearing too much weight.

It might sound like that to you, but I can tell you that you're assuming wrong.

It's funny, though. When DS n00bs are being advised here, putting more than just a minimum of air in the suit is one of the seven deadly sins, and if I advocate just a little more to properly loft the undergarments, that's very, very bad. Now if I state that I prefer to have the air that compensates for the weight of my gas in my wing instead of in my suit, that's wrong too.

 

[JamesBon92007]

All this double tube snorkel talk reminded me of these.

Doubles snorkel

Rebreather snorkel

What kind of CO2 scrubber are you using in the Rebreather snorkel?

 

[gypsyjim]

It might sound like that to you, but I can tell you that you're assuming wrong.

It's funny, though. When DS n00bs are being advised here, putting more than just a minimum of air in the suit is one of the seven deadly sins, and if I advocate just a little more to properly loft the undergarments, that's very, very bad. Now if I state that I prefer to have the air that compensates for the weight of my gas in my wing instead of in my suit, that's wrong too.

You miss the point....no matter what your choice, someone is lurking, ready to tell you why you are wrong.....

I'm NOT a big fan of dry suits myself, prefering to go to warmer waters, but I did training 2 different times, with 2 different programs, for dry suit diving.
One Instructor taught that the suit was NOT for buoyancy, that you add, or vent air, to maintain thermo protection only, and that all buoyancy control should be done with the wing or bcd's. (I see the wisdom in this)
The other instructor put more emphasis on the suit providing buoyancy, with some use of both the bladder and the suit for this.

Both techniques put a great deal of emphasis on the safety margin that having redundant buoyancy can provide.

The one thing I dId bring away from those 2 different classes was the concept of diving a "balanced rig", defined as one you could easily swim to the surface, and stay on the surface for some time with, should you experience a complete failure of a buoyancy system. Either the rig itself (warm water recreational if weighted correctly) must be light enough to do this with, or if not possible (steel tanks, doubles, heavy/thick thermo protection that loses buoyancy at depth, etc) adding a redundant system (either adding dry suit, or bladder).

Much of my warm water recreational diving is either in a 2mm, or a skin, so my goal is to weight so that I need add no air to the wing , even down to 100'. If I am weighted correctly I use my wing only on the surface, and do all buoyancy control by lung volume.
Having that, I still wear a wing because it provides an extra margin of safety should something unexpectedly go south

 

[halocline]

Current teaching from PADI is that it is unsafe to dive without a BC. I assume other agencies teachings are similar.

Some divers nonetheless dive without a BC, at least some of the time, either because they are vintage equipment enthusiasts or for reasons of simplicity and streamlining.

Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe it is safe without a BC? What skills or knowledge do divers need before undertaking this style of diving?

I read through this whole thread and I didn't see what I think is the primary answer for PADI's insistence on a BC with power inflator. It's the same reason they insist on ditchable weights; surface management. PADI really emphasizes the ability to stay positive at the surface, and for good reasons considering most of what they do is teach certification classes to people with little or no dive experience. I realize BC manufacturers don't certify their products as life jackets, most likely for liability reasons, but that's what they're most often used as for new divers and OW students. PADI cites some statistic like half of diver accidents happen at the surface in their OW classes....I'm not sure of the number, but that's the gist of it.

I personally think that all divers could benefit from doing some diving without a BC in terms of developing good swimming skills, weighting strategies, and breath control. In warm water, with a minimal wetsuit, double hose, and small neutral tank, I've gone on several no BC dives, it's really fun.

To answer your question about what circumstances it's safe to dive without a BC, my opinion is that it's safe as long as you don't need the surface support of a BC, and can swim your rig to the surface without a problem. So this might include shore diving where you can easily swim to shallow water, or boat diving with a float you can hang onto.

 

[Bob DBF]

To answer your question about what circumstances it's safe to dive without a BC, my opinion is that it's safe as long as you don't need the surface support of a BC, and can swim your rig to the surface without a problem. So this might include shore diving where you can easily swim to shallow water, or boat diving with a float you can hang onto.

My advice is to start with some lightweight free-diving to work on weighting without all the gear, and work on water skills. First, you won't get dependent on gas and wind up deeper than you can handle safely, and second, this is your survival mode in the water. As I was taught, the last emergency procedure in SCUBA was to ditch all your gear and swim home.

Although there were not BCs when I started diving, there was a large selection of Mae West emergency floatation devices ( the forerunner of the Horsecollar BC, similar to a snorkel vest). These were worn so you did not have to ditch your rig if dropping the belt did not give enough buoyancy on the surface.

I dive in cold water and dropping weight gives me a lot of positive buoyancy. If I were diving with minimal or no thermal protection, I would be looking for some emergency flotation because otherwise I might have to ditch my rig in an emergency. Since divers regularly do not ditch their weightbelt in an emergency with training, what would be the chances of ditching a rig when it is not taught as a way to increase buoyancy?

Diving without a BC is fun, however a lot of the training is no longer taught and has to be found in the old "learn SCUBA" books, or find divers that still dive that way.



Bob

 

[Storker]

my opinion is that it's safe as long as you don't need the surface support of a BC, and can swim your rig to the surface without a problem. So this might include shore diving where you can easily swim to shallow water, or boat diving with a float you can hang onto.

On one of my fairly recent club dives, one of the members had their neck seal rip thoroughly when they was donning the suit. We managed to patch the seal the same night, so the suit was functional the next day. We opted for a dive close to the shore, so they'd be able to walk up to the shore if the repair wasn't good enough and the seal should rip underwater.

I'd do the same thing myself, but definitely not without a functioning BCD (wing).

 

[MaxBottomtime]

What does a seal ripping underwater have to do with how close to shore you are? I've made more than my share of dives with a flooded drysuit. It's cold and uncomfortable but it doesn't affect buoyancy. Did your club member dive without a BC?

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

The whole mindset and modern thinking behind scuba is way over thought and over complicated these days. It doesn't have to be that way, but like so many things, the passage of time and technology have a way of doing that to things.
The whole point many are trying to make is that before BC's came along divers were perfectly safe in their world and had plenty of knowledge and skills for bail out if something went wrong. They were enjoying dives just as much as any modern OCD gear freak that believes one must have all that stuff to be safe.
Diving with no BC is perfectly safe but you have to understand the limitations and the rules.

Safety is in the training, experience, and mindset, not the gear. I've seen plenty of divers with all the modern gear that were disasters waiting to happen. In fact I've dived with a few. It's one reason I either solo dive or only dive with people I know that can handle themselves.
And as a matter of fact, several of those people are capable of diving with no BC.

 

[Storker]

What does a seal ripping underwater have to do with how close to shore you are? I've made more than my share of dives with a flooded drysuit. It's cold and uncomfortable but it doesn't affect buoyancy. Did your club member dive without a BC?

No, but we were concerned about a total flooding from a completely ripped seal.
Just an extra safety precaution.

 

[EFX]

The whole point many are trying to make is that before BC's came along divers were perfectly safe in their world and had plenty of knowledge and skills for bail out if something went wrong.

One thing that was different back then than now is most divers were more athletic and somewhat geared toward higher risk taking. They were more capable of physically dealing with any emergency as long as they remembered their training. In the case of OOA emergencies they were less safe. My guess is there were more AGE related injuries because divers bolted to the surface when their buddies hogged the reg. Today, modern equipment has allowed 60 year old grandmothers to dive safely. So I suppose that BC's compensate for some lack of athleticism.

They were enjoying dives just as much as any modern OCD gear freak that believes one must have all that stuff to be safe.

This is a non-sequitur.

Diving with no BC is perfectly safe but you have to understand the limitations and the rules.

And so is diving with a BC.