Learned Wrong...

[gcarter]

My wife and I, early this year, adopted the GUE gear configuration. One of the things we really like is the uniformity. If there is any problem at all, I know exactly all of her gear will be and exactly how it works, right down to the bolt clips. I don't have to "think" about the gear in an emergency. When I pick up an insta-buddy on a dive boat, I have to, within a few minutes, become familiar with their alternate air, their weights, their BC controls. Octopus regulators (MY life support in an emergency) are often hidden in pockets or attached with clips that don't instantly detach. Will I cope with finding and releasing them in an emergency? If my buddy donates his primary, will he be able to retrieve his alternate?


Also, BC inflate/deflate controls might be elsewhere than the oral inflation hose. Weight dumps have a wide variety of designs. An "alternate air" at the end of the hose can have many different and confusing locations for the reguator purge, and manual inflate and deflate buttons. I shudder to think about the complexities I would have to figure out to assist or rescue such a diver and controlling his or her bouyancy on the way up. I am sure, also, that he or she feels the same about my BP/W and long hose rig, but at least they know that (1) they get my functioning primary and plenty of hose if they need it, and (2) my bcd controls are at the end of the inflator hose and not elsewhere, with only 2 buttons to deal with.

Weight system?
There are not that many different weight release system that they cannot be quickly and easily learned. A belt is obvious. The vast majority of rec BCD divers with integrated weights will have pretty large and obvious handles on the weight release pockets, generally in the same place. How hard can this be?

Secondary air?
Grab a hose, there will be a regulator on the end. Better yet, watch your air. As to saying “at least they know…”, you are likely more of an anomaly than most of the BCD crowd, so don’t assume they know. Many may not have ever seen your set up before. It is hubris to suggest that it is oh so complicated for you to manage knowing everyone else’s configuration but easy for them to know yours.


Buoyancy control?
I have yet to see an inflator hose that did not dump if pulled (correct me if I am wrong) regardless of what other dumps may or may not exist. Inflation doesn’t have a lot of variety either, and even the I3 system has a manual inflate. It is once again hubris to state that everyone else will just “know” the quantity, function, and placement of your controls while theirs are a collective impenetrable maze.

“Coping” with these differences, I would suggest, is more an issue of how calm you remain and how well you have practiced your skills. BCDs do not have quite that many variations on the basic theme that they are rendered unknowable or difficult to sort out.

I like the GUE configuration. I think it works and solves a lot of problems. If I dive with my wife or any of my friends who use the same set-up, the comfort level is very much larger and the dive more enjoyable. I am not a fanatic, any identical gear configuration would eliminate a lot of problems, no matter what the actual gear involved. But, in the category of "learned wrong", for me must include instruction that did not stress standard gear between myself and my primary "buddy".

I get why you (and others) like the standardized configuration. I have no issue with that.

I am left wondering, though, with the 10+ times greater dive experience and I am sure significantly more extensive training and higher skill level you have, why you have so much of an issue sorting out other peoples gear. Granted, I have only had 4 total different dive buddies, but I have had zero difficulty familiarizing myself with their gear, and have never found it different enough in the fundamentals to be a cause for concern.

And if you don't have an issue with sorting out other peoples gear, I am left wondering why you chose the words that you did.

 

[Thalassamania]

This sounds a lot like GUE or UTD philosophy? Their focus on standard equipment configuration, repeated drills, the dropping or replacing of non-conforming equipment, and common training for all divers on the team would resolve all of the concerns of the article.

My wife and I, early this year, adopted the GUE gear configuration. One of the things we really like is the uniformity. If there is any problem at all, I know exactly all of her gear will be and exactly how it works, right down to the bolt clips. I don't have to "think" about the gear in an emergency. When I pick up an insta-buddy on a dive boat, I have to, within a few minutes, become familiar with their alternate air, their weights, their BC controls. Octopus regulators (MY life support in an emergency) are often hidden in pockets or attached with clips that don't instantly detach. Will I cope with finding and releasing them in an emergency? If my buddy donates his primary, will he be able to retrieve his alternate?

You need to know the people involve and have direct experience with the actual situation that Glen is addressing, to wit: dozens of scientific diving programs, highly trained but somewhat disparate that each have their own highly structured training and equipment requirements (often specified down to make and model) you might reach that conclusion. The actual solution to the issue lies, I feel, not in the community wide standardization of all equipment and procedures but rather in the identification of what I call "interface" skills. My bone of contention with DIR is what I feel is the wrongheaded conclusion that there is a single ideal equipment solution that is suitable to all circumstances and the sometimes rather extreme lengths that are gone to attempt to justify that imaginary Platonic Ideal.

Let's look at air sharing, for a moment, where I come down in a different place than either DIR or Art and Glen. I part company with them on the question of surrendering the primary. Art and Glen were looking for an "air-sharing procedure that would be compatible with a number of alternate air sources, i.e., octopus regulator, pony bottle, SPARE-AIR, buddy breathing, and integrated power-inflator breathing devices." But I fear they missed the boat with their conclusion that: "The reliability and effectiveness of the procedure was dependent upon locating the alternate air source mouthpiece within a triangle on the diver's chest so that the mouthpiece would always be moved easily from the same visible general location en route to the recipient's mouth. While the procedure utilizes similar movement patterns and responses for the various devices, there are differences in the actual utilization of some of the devices." Had they gone for surrendering the primary, then they would have been assured of perfect recognition of the exact location of the alternate air source mouthpiece and an unwavering set of movements required for the successful transfer of the alternate air source mouthpiece from the donor to the receiver.

While I share their concern over, "breaking the primary life support link of the donor ...", I submit that this approach frees the donor to choose a backup system of his choice, a system that makes sense to him or her, that can be practiced and drilled and thus overtrained, without significant effect on any would-be receiver. It then becomes irrelevant to the receiver what sort of backup system is used, ranging from an integrated inflator/regulator, to a tank mounted pony bottle, to a slung stage, to a spare second stage stuffed and secure in an "octo-pocket" somewhere. While I sympathize with DIR's desire for a single best solution, I feel that is is more important to focus on the training and practice required for effective transfer of the alternate air source mouthpiece. The exact way in which the donor proceeds after the transfer is effected is a second order, and oda separate, issue, and frankly, nobody else's business. To my way of thinking Glen's approach does nor answer the issue that he raises of "differences ... built in as a result of design variations." But this approach rather all but prohibits any of the integrated inflator/regulator solutions and all but screams for a required, single, best design, that I agree would: "not have any position dependency for use by a recipient. Up, down or sideways positioning of the mouthpiece would result in easy, dry breathing. Also to my way of thinking the DIR solution is a totalitarian, "equipment solution to a skills problem," that is being inflicted on DIR practitioners without regard to their own best judgements concerning the additional issues that are created.

So, bottom line, for me, is to look at the places where interaction is critical, and make those procedures as standard as possible, yet allow for personal, best judgement decisions in other areas, with recognition of the overtraining requirements that will be necessary for both standardized and personal choice equipment.

Also, BC inflate/deflate controls might be elsewhere than the oral inflation hose. Weight dumps have a wide variety of designs. An "alternate air" at the end of the hose can have many different and confusing locations for the reguator purge, and manual inflate and deflate buttons. I shudder to think about the complexities I would have to figure out to assist or rescue such a diver and controlling his or her bouyancy on the way up. I am sure, also, that he or she feels the same about my BP/W and long hose rig, but at least they know that (1) they get my functioning primary and plenty of hose if they need it, and (2) my bcd controls are at the end of the inflator hose and not elsewhere, with only 2 buttons to deal with.

As Glen points out, if there are: "... 10 variations involving alternate air sources, 10 variations involving locations, controls and dump valves on a bcd, 5 variations on weight ditching procedures. This conservative number of variations results in the potential for 500 different configurations that can affect training for basic diving as well as emergency procedures. Any given diving: program can resolve a number of the issues by severely limiting the type of equipment permitted in the program. This approach has a significant potential effect on reciprocity and diving safety." I sympathize with this issue, but again, I do not feel that the optimum solution is to dress all divers the same, in what may be a non-optimum configuration for them, for their immediate environment, or for the task at hand, all in the name of the Great Hobgoblin named "consistency."

I like the GUE configuration. I think it works and solves a lot of problems. If I dive with my wife or any of my friends who use the same set-up, the comfort level is very much larger and the dive more enjoyable. I am not a fanatic, any identical gear configuration would eliminate a lot of problems, no matter what the actual gear involved. But, in the category of "learned wrong", for me must include instruction that did not stress standard gear between myself and my primary "buddy".

I suggest that you are advocating a classic example of the very thing that DIR was promulgated to solve, equipment based solutions to training and skill problem.

Also, when my wife got certified in 2010 (I got mine in 1976), I believe the "learned wrong" was not drilling repeatedly on in-pool or in-ocean exercises such as a "surprise" shutting off the air and having her re-oen her valve, not enough buddy breathing practice, no drills such as doffing and donning your gear with your mask off, diving with your mask off, etc. We even had to turn off our valves so we would know what running OOG felt like and then turn them back on.

This is the fault of the new e-learning procedures and limited pool and open water sessions. I know that "old school" can seem macho, but I really believe those elements of my training were invaluable.

I sympathize with you completely, and that is why I heartily recommend DIR style training over conventional recreational programs. But that is not because the DIR style training gets everything right, but rather because in my view, the conventional recreational programs get so much wrong.

Weight system?
Secondary air?
Grab a hose, there will be a regulator on the end. Better yet, watch your air. As to saying “at least they know…”, you are likely more of an anomaly than most of the BCD crowd, so don’t assume they know. Many may not have ever seen your set up before. It is hubris to suggest that it is oh so complicated for you to manage knowing everyone else’s configuration but easy for them to know yours.

The problem lies not a problem with any single configuration, but rather, as Glen points out, in: "... 10 variations involving alternate air sources, 10 variations involving locations, controls and dump valves on a bcd, 5 variations on weight ditching procedures. This conservative number of variations results in the potential for 500 different configurations that can affect training for basic diving as well as emergency procedures."

Buoyancy control?
I have yet to see an inflator hose that did not dump if pulled (correct me if I am wrong) regardless of what other dumps may or may not exist.

Many of my BCs doe not dump if you pull on the hose.

Inflation doesn’t have a lot of variety either, and even the I3 system has a manual inflate. It is once again hubris to state that everyone else will just “know” the quantity, function, and placement of your controls while theirs are a collective impenetrable maze.

Again, the problem is not hard when reduced to a single issue, but it has proven deadly when: "This conservative number of variations results in the potential for 500 different configurations that can affect training for basic diving as well as emergency procedures."

“Coping” with these differences, I would suggest, is more an issue of how calm you remain and how well you have practiced your skills. BCDs do not have quite that many variations on the basic theme that they are rendered unknowable or difficult to sort out.

I agree, but it has been shown that people are best equipped to remain calm and not panic when they have been overtrained in specific responses to specific problems. While it is possible for a highly experienced Expert, or even a well trained Competent diver to "think their way through" having to choose the correct response from 500 different variations is exceeding difficult. Just look at how many people, in the heat of an instant, screw up in their car and jam their brakes into a skid (thus anti-lock brakes now) or even stomp down on the gas pedal when they mean to brake ... and that's not all that complex.

I get why you (and others) like the standardized configuration. I have no issue with that.

I am left wondering, though, with the 10+ times greater dive experience and I am sure significantly more extensive training and higher skill level you have, why you have so much of an issue sorting out other peoples gear. Granted, I have only had 4 total different dive buddies, but I have had zero difficulty familiarizing myself with their gear, and have never found it different enough in the fundamentals to be a cause for concern.

And if you don't have an issue with sorting out other peoples gear, I am left wondering why you chose the words that you did.

I agree, at least in general, but I still stress the import of identifying and working through those "interface skills."

 

[boulderjohn]

This "overlearning" thing is Glen harkening back to his seminal work that I often quote and have lost the reference for about 17 successful repetitions to assure 95% confidence that a complex skills will be performed properly.

I don't think the number 17, in and of itself, is that meaningful, it is just indicative of the problem. There are skills that will be less and some that will be more, Glen's point is "overlearning" not rote obedience to some particular value.

Glen was in pursuit, in those days, of ways to assure that divers would not panic and would be able to perform rather complex skills. As I recall, he was particularly focused on why there were so many recreational diver buddy breathing failures and yet no scientific or military diver buddy breathing failures (one of Glen's hats was UCLA DSO).

I wanted to make sure people caught Thal's entirety in one place. As I recall, Egstrom was talking specifically about buddy breathing. It does not mean that it takes 17 times to learn to learn a much more basic skill. The point is, as Thal says, that if you want to be confident that you can do a skill when you really need to, you need to overlearn it.

So what skills really need to be overlearned?

Dive fatality reports indicate that the primary (by far) preventable cause of dive fatality is embolism caused by rapid ascent following an OOA situation.

These divers are not monitoring their gas supplies properly. They are not staying with their buddies so that they have an alternate air source nearby. Once in that situation, they are forgetting how to do a CESA (or a buoyant ascent).

So, I ask instructors--how much time are you spending on overlearning those skills?

 

[Thalassamania]

John, thanks for tying that all together. I'd like to ask, "what is the cause of the ascents?" I doubt if it is just a question of OOA, my memory is that while people want to blame every such ascent on OOA, when looked at more carefully, it seems that people bolt for the surface for many reasons, OOA, flooded mask, etc.

 

[DaleC]

It used to bother me that, regarding donation of the alternate, because the donor themselves don't have to breath it they sometimes pay less than optimal attention to it's deployment readiness and function.

When I am put in a buddy situation it irks me when the other diver forgets to check the alternate or just pushes the purge valve absentmindedly. Restowing also seems to be an excuse/barrier to a predive deployment because many retainers are awkward to manipulate with thick gloves, so the diver won't detect hose traps either. I have had to reroute alternates several times because basically, once suited up, the diver cannot even manipulate the hoses by themselves and would have to basically unrig to do so.

My personal benchmark is to verify and be able to manipulate my own rig independently, reaching and tracing all hoses, valves and releases. If I can't do that for a recreational dive, something is wrong with the rig I am using. My octo retainer (when I use one) is also a simple loop of tubing that I can connect and disconnect with ease.

 

[boulderjohn]

John, thanks for tying that all together. I'd like to ask, "what is the cause of the ascents?" I doubt if it is just a question of OOA, my memory is that while people want to blame every such ascent on OOA, when looked at more carefully, it seems that people bolt for the surface for many reasons, OOA, flooded mask, etc.

Although it is possible for people to bolt for various reasons, I believe that the most recent analysis by DAN and PADI working together pretty much singled out OOA as the initiating cause for those linked to fatalities.

 

[Peter Guy]

John, not to be too nitpicky but:

I believe that the most recent analysis by DAN and PADI working together pretty much singled out OOA as the initiating cause for those linked to fatalities.

I would rephrase that statement to be: "No, or poor, gas management planning and execution was the initiating cause for the OOA incident which then triggered the ascent linked to the fatalities." While it is true that one can almost always step back the "cause" of an incident, it seems to me that these type of incidents need to be examined from the POV as to the "final" trigger and what "loaded the gun" (perhaps to mix metaphors).

 

[boulderjohn]

John, not to be too nitpicky but:

I would rephrase that statement to be: "No, or poor, gas management planning and execution was the initiating cause for the OOA incident which then triggered the ascent linked to the fatalities." While it is true that one can almost always step back the "cause" of an incident, it seems to me that these type of incidents need to be examined from the POV as to the "final" trigger and what "loaded the gun" (perhaps to mix metaphors).

As I know you would expect, I fully agree.

 

[Thalassamania]

Although it is possible for people to bolt for various reasons, I believe that the most recent analysis by DAN and PADI working together pretty much singled out OOA as the initiating cause for those linked to fatalities.

While I've not seen this analysis I will point out a generality that I learned while carefully investigating in excess of 2,000 fatality cases for the NUADC: all cases have proximate and ultimate causes and what seems like a common sense linkage between a proximate cause and and ultimate cause if often incorrect and must be supported with physical evidence (e.g., claiming OOA without proof that the regulator was not delivering air at the instant the incident began doesn't cut it, and even then, one must account for the lack of proper buddy action and the failure to effect a proper emergency ascent before placing all the blame for the fatality on going OOA.).

 

[boulderjohn]

While I've not seen this analysis I will point out a generality that I learned while carefully investigating in excess of 2,000 fatality cases for the NUADC: all cases have proximate and ultimate causes and what seems like a common sense linkage between a proximate cause and and ultimate cause if often incorrect and must be supported with physical evidence (e.g., claiming OOA without proof that the regulator was not delivering air at the instant the incident began doesn't cut it, and even then, one must account for the lack of proper buddy action and the failure to effect a proper emergency ascent before placing all the blame for the fatality on going OOA.).

I have read every individual fatality description in the annual DAN report for the last 3-4 years. The OOA proof offered is usually an empty tank. As you suggest and as DAN says every year, there are always multiple issues involved. In an OOA situation, you have lack of proper gas planning, lack of gauge monitoring, improper buddy skills, etc. That leads to the panicked ascent in which the diver forgets training. That leads to the embolism that actually causes the death.