... - feel free to comment them or whatever, I'd appreciate your input:
Equipment config. - octopus. - - ScubaBoard Gallery
Left hand delivery with a standard regulator has the advantage on not having to twist the hose. If you are going to agree with the idea of surrendering the secondary rather than the primary (a concept that I find unsupportable within the confines of rational argument) then left hand delivery is the way to go.
heh, well i went through PADI BOW in 2003 and it was actively discouraged in the course, and my experience was common at the time. i don't remember ever reading a 'contemporary' account back then of someone being taught buddy breathing by PADI (i'm sure someone somewhere managed to take a course from thal's long-lost-cousin who still taught it and will correct me, but it would have been very uncommon).
There is no one of my blood (long-lost or otherwise) who has ever subscribed to the PADI way of doing things, so that is quite impossible, we all donate the primary immediately and then move to our secondary or switch to BB if we are "diving vintage" as we often are.
... danvolker - the removal of it didn't seem to be based on it being a rubbish skill to know, rather a change in what was considered the 'best thing to instinctively try' based on real life statistics and data at the time. It was decided that keeping the trained response to a simple: "AAS? -> No? -> CESA" was actually a safer response in an OOS (bear in mind we're talking about basic training for divers who'll very likely dive with strangers from other agencies who may/may not know what they're doing in a BB situation).
Dan, you are right. The issue was: given what could be reasonably accomplished in 20 hrs. (well, it was actually an 18 hr. course that we tested for DEMA). A major question was, with the scrapping of rescue topics, what should be taught for OOA emergencies? I tested the course for NAUI, and while I rejected the idea that such a course was in the best interest of the student or the industry (you see, that question was not really being asked ... the "testing program" was a sham covering a foregone conclusion). I agreed that if there were to be an 18 hour course, then CESA as the primary response was the only reasonable approach. I added the caveat that if this were to come to pass, divers would have to be limited to depth. I advised that new divers could not be reasonably expected to conduct a successful CESA unless the depth were no deeper than the distance that they could make a horizontal underwater swim immediately after swimming 100 yards as fast as they could. The line of reasoning resulted in little more than cautionary words and eventually a 60 foot new diver limit rather than the 30 foot limit I had been lobbying for.
As someone who is involved in teaching OW classes, I've seen SO many people fumble for their AAS and present it upside-down. I've seen them come loose constantly (and I've seen them hanging and dragging on divers at all our dive sites). It doesn't surprise me that BSAC would decide that just bolting for the surface was safer than staying underwater and trying to make the AAS system work. It is sad that they simply jettisoned the "donate the primary" idea, because the bungied backup reg (or, although I don't like them, the octo-inflator) solves the problem of an AAS that is hard to find or that has been jammed with sediment. Our students, who are rigged up in the "traditional" fashion, watch us donate the primary, and a lot of them try to adopt that approach, because it makes intuitive sense. We have to point out to them that, the way they are set up, it's not the ideal option. BTW, roydude, I just wanted to comment on how much I'm enjoying your writing and your sense of humor. Hope you get involved in a lot more discussions here!
My memory is that BSAC rejected donation of the primary well before the necklaced secondary was around and the the rejection was based on the idea that giving up a perfectly good working demand valve for one that might not be was not a good idea and would lead to an increase in double accidents.
I do not understand all the wailing and whining about not teach buddy breathing. Really, is it that important? For me, at least, there are so many other more important in-water skills someone needs to be a competent, comfortable diver. All instruction (and this means ALL) requires a decision by the instructor as to what is important and what isn't -- what needs to be taught and what doesn't need to be taught -- AT THIS TIME (whatever "THIS TIME" might be). So, what in fact, is so important about knowing buddy breathing? As far as I'm concerned, nothing, zero, nada. Why? Providing a working regulator (i.e., air sharing) is a far superior response over sharing a single 2nd stage. Rather than spend the time to teach an additional (and unneeded) response, the instructor should spend the time to teach the student what is needed to make sure she can always provide that working regulator. Wouldn't that be a better use of time and energy? One can always posit a "Well, if...." scenario but the reality is that IF one is going to "if" life, better stay at home. In my technical training, the theory was that we need to plan for one major failure and have ways of surviving such but if there are two (or more) major failures, that is God's way of telling you hello. Teaching Buddy Breathing seems to me to be planning on THREE major failures: a. Running out of gas (failure number one); b. Having your buddy fail to have a working donatable 2nd stage (failure number two); and c. Not being able to do a CESA (failure number three). [Note -- why is doing a CESA higher in priority than buddy breathing? Well, it might be because half the time during buddy breathing one is doing a CESA are you not (controlled swimming ascent with no regulator providing gas)?] IF the big problem is that "Traditional Octos are too often unfindable or not working" then the solution is to teach students how to make sure they ALWAYS have a working regulator capable of being donated -- which is why I encourage my students to see the superior method of primary donate over secondary donate. [It doesn't matter whether one uses a bungied backup or an in-line inflator/regulator -- the important part is that the primary be donated.] BUT, "some people" will always find fault with what PADI is doing because Instructors licensed by PADI to teach diving can't be "doing it right." (Couldn't resist)
"It doesn't matter whether one uses a bungied backup or an in-line inflator/regulator -- the important part is that the primary be donated." - that is key. Back in the late 1970s I spent a weekend with my staff (ten instructors and about 15 assistants) to address this question and to decide where we wanted to go. We took most every configuration you can imagine into the pool and ocean and evaluated them on the basis of ease of initiation, ease of controlling the joint ascent and ease of joint horizontal travel.
We reached several conclusions:
Donation of the primary is essential, a corollary to that was that side-breather second stages and longer hoses made initiation (and subsequent use) much easier and that reliance by the OOA diver on a secondary that was attached, clipped, stowed in an "octo pocket," etc. was not a good idea.
Surrender of the primary meant that the initiation of the procedure was identical to BB which was still in widespread practice at the time. The flow chart diverged at the point where the OOA diver had taken two breaths: if the donating diver released the primary (and started to deploy the secondary) then AAS was the procedure to be followed, but, if the donating diver maintained a grip on the primary (and the receiver lightly griped the donator's wrist) then BB was the order of the day.
Location of the secondary is the sole province of the diver carrying it, since it is for that diver's use only. Each and every diver must be responsible for considering the implications of this choice and practicing deploying and using it. There were several thoughts on this subject:
A necklaced secondary was rejected because of a prime tenant that nothing be attached in a secondary fashion (this includes clipping off SPGs and consoles) since firm connections create entanglement and other problems (an early accident, back when many regulator came equipped with neck straps, involved an OOA diver grabbing for the regulator, stretching the strap, losing his grip on it and having the metal second stage slingshot back and break the diver's jaw, with his subsequent drowning);
while less secure connections create reliance upon the secondary connection that is, by definition, unreliable.
Side-breather or left-handed second stages on a 40" hose were preferred, with the optimum storage being under the left arm with a loop of hose tucked into the tank waist strap.
Longer hoses made horizontal travel a lot easier, but had little effect on face to face ascents. Using a 40" hose (available at the time for octos) on a primary was unwieldy (and at the time the current long hose routing and use had not been thought up), so for horizontal significant horizontal travel the donor and receiver would exchange regulators.
Most integrated infiltrators were considered too difficult to use with heavy mitts as well as due to the short correlated hose. The additional problems of the donor breathing off an integrated inflator whilst venting the BC required a great deal of skill and poise. xxxxx
)
