Just a side note/reminder of my (increasingly unpopular) idea that my wife doesn't just lose the tank and its weight, but she also loses the 1st stage, the octopus, the BC (although keeps a snorkel vest for surface flotation), and the tank gauge and essentially becomes a Snuba/hookah diver where her air is buddy-supplied rather than surface-supplied. This setup was meant for shore diving only, as I agree with others that boat operators would frown and wave goodbye as they pulled away from the dock.
Scuba-hookah combo
- Thread starter echodiver
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
At that point, why not just have her snorkel? If she's so uncomfortable with SCUBA, snorkeling works. The issues of diving on a "buddy hookah" are a bit daunting and the safety is questionable at best. Only you can decide, but I think you'll find the general consensus is that it's not going to work well or be a good idea.
spoolin01
Contributor
No, I don't see anything wrong with the picture! Many lobster divers carry hookah hoses strapped to the back of their doubles so they can doff the rig and swim the hookah mouthpiece into holes chasing lobster. I've done a shallow water version of this, as was suggested, just having the snorkeler breathe off my octopus. Of course this differs from standard config so you'll get lots of commentary about the new risks and conceivable failure modes. You plan on carrying some backup air, and if you're staying fairly shallow, one or both can just bail and swim to the surface if needed. If you plan to dive such that immediate ascents are difficult or unsafe, you better carry sufficient backup obviously. Don't let the hand wringers discourage your ingenuity, provided you can do it safely.
The pressure differential problem seems likely to be minor, ~14 psi change max (for 30 ft above/below you) against ~140 psi intermediate pressure at the first stage. I'm not knowledgeable to say what combination of balanced or unbalanced first, and which seconds, might be least affected but I'm thinking it's not likely to be difficult to find workable regs - snuba and hookahs are examples where it works, as pointed out.
The pressure differential problem seems likely to be minor, ~14 psi change max (for 30 ft above/below you) against ~140 psi intermediate pressure at the first stage. I'm not knowledgeable to say what combination of balanced or unbalanced first, and which seconds, might be least affected but I'm thinking it's not likely to be difficult to find workable regs - snuba and hookahs are examples where it works, as pointed out.
Crush
Contributor
I can't really comment on your proposed setup as I have no experience even remotely close to what you propose. It is creative, though!
Others have touched upon using a smaller tank and using a steel tank - both of these are good ideas.
Assuming that even with a steel tank she will need to carry weight, you can minimize the weight she carries by carrying her weights into the water and transferring them to her at the surface. There are at least two ways to do this:
1. After she is geared up and in the water stuff the weights into her pockets. Easily done on a shore dive so long as the surf isn't bad; or
2. Now this is inelegant and poses a minor entanglement hazard, but you can fasten a snap bolt to a solid weight using a cable tie. Clip off two or four such weights on her D-rings in the water and you are off to the races.
Have fun!
Others have touched upon using a smaller tank and using a steel tank - both of these are good ideas.
Assuming that even with a steel tank she will need to carry weight, you can minimize the weight she carries by carrying her weights into the water and transferring them to her at the surface. There are at least two ways to do this:
1. After she is geared up and in the water stuff the weights into her pockets. Easily done on a shore dive so long as the surf isn't bad; or
2. Now this is inelegant and poses a minor entanglement hazard, but you can fasten a snap bolt to a solid weight using a cable tie. Clip off two or four such weights on her D-rings in the water and you are off to the races.
Have fun!
Blackwood
Contributor
Blackwood - Thanks for your feedback and good points! However, regarding the reg pulling out of her mouth, the config prevents that as the long hose would actually run in typical hookah fashion from my waist harness connector to her waist harness connector - not directly to her reg. But the overall unpopularity of this idea may make it all a moot point
I see. Didn't understand that.
Either way it's a weird fix. If she's comfortable with a bailout bottle, make it bigger and use it as the primary.
Blackwood
Contributor
I suspect that if she doesn't like all the claptrap on her back she won't even like a small steel.
A single aluminum sidemount rig (aka "monkey diving") may be right up her alley. The cylinder floats along side her, barely feels like it's there, is easily donned and doffed in the water, etc..
Just ignore the scooter:
image by Ken Copp
Claudette makes even a monkey dive look good and fun!
The steel 65 is very small, only 17" long and I've threatened more than once to paint it to look like a can of Spare Air.
Kryssa, fjpatrum, ptyx, Guba, GrumpyOldGuy, spoolin01, mpetryk, Blackwood, Teamcasa . . . I can’t believe all the great suggestions and feedback offered by all!
Spollin01 and I are clearly in the minority regarding the upside potential of the idea. I thought carefully about it before asking for feedback, but obviously I need to think extra carefully and then think some more. The use-a-smaller-tank suggestions are certainly valid. After reading all the comments, my wife and I talked about it at length. The main downside is although the smaller tank does lighten up her rig, she is still fully “geared-up”, whereas the long hose concept unloads a good deal more than just the tank.
Guba; great analogy – two-headed diver indeed! Yes, my idea does reduce the full redundancy of two separate, independent scuba rigs. I also thought about the possibility of my BC inflator going free-flow, followed by me not handling the emergency properly and getting launched on an uncontrolled ascent. Suddenly my problem is hers too. Unfortunately, our dive frequency has declined as her enthusiasm has slipped due to the gear hassle. Don’t get me wrong – she still loves the experience as I do – I’m just exploring ways to possibly de-hassle things for her and get us back in the water. Risk vs benefit. Hmmm.
Fjpatrum: “have-her-snorkel”. We spent a great deal of time snorkeling before moving to scuba. Definitely would apply to some, and we still do snorkel occasionally. She’s actually brought that up and I agree it’s an alternative in the right locale. But for both of us (yes, especially me), giving up scuba completely is hard to do!
Spollin01 and I are clearly in the minority regarding the upside potential of the idea. I thought carefully about it before asking for feedback, but obviously I need to think extra carefully and then think some more. The use-a-smaller-tank suggestions are certainly valid. After reading all the comments, my wife and I talked about it at length. The main downside is although the smaller tank does lighten up her rig, she is still fully “geared-up”, whereas the long hose concept unloads a good deal more than just the tank.
Guba; great analogy – two-headed diver indeed! Yes, my idea does reduce the full redundancy of two separate, independent scuba rigs. I also thought about the possibility of my BC inflator going free-flow, followed by me not handling the emergency properly and getting launched on an uncontrolled ascent. Suddenly my problem is hers too. Unfortunately, our dive frequency has declined as her enthusiasm has slipped due to the gear hassle. Don’t get me wrong – she still loves the experience as I do – I’m just exploring ways to possibly de-hassle things for her and get us back in the water. Risk vs benefit. Hmmm.
Fjpatrum: “have-her-snorkel”. We spent a great deal of time snorkeling before moving to scuba. Definitely would apply to some, and we still do snorkel occasionally. She’s actually brought that up and I agree it’s an alternative in the right locale. But for both of us (yes, especially me), giving up scuba completely is hard to do!
Yes I can understand that completely. I just would hate to see you two end up as a statistic based on a scheme that you hadn't fully considered all the potential dangers of before using it. Unfortunately, you often can't perceive of them all. Good side is, you rarely actually encounter most of the unforeseen dangers and at least you're trying to get other insights here into dangers you may not have foreseen.
Honestly, I suspect your concept would be reasonably successful for you on shallow dives in mild conditions, but I still think you're better off with a sidemount 65 or something similar. If for no other reason than the redundancy you mentioned... o ring failures happen, free flows happen. If you're both without air at 60 or 70 feet, it becomes a much more threatening situation without a full second rig or other option.
Similar threads
