Carl Not only is this included in the new text we are publishing(IANTD) it is also in our new IANTD equipment configuration video. This video includes a lecture overview of configuration and then examples of configuration by Billy Deans, Tom Mount, Jarrod Jablonski,Larry Green and Lamar Hires. The video sells for $35.00 and can be purchased at IANTD facilities Tom Mount You wrote: > >Michael, > >Here's an article written by Jarrod Jablonski (jjcave@ao*.co*), typed in >by me (please excuse any typos), posted here with his permission. He >also said "there's more to come" and to email him in case people have >questions... Enjoy.. > >I realize that your question was posted to techdiver but I'm also cc'ing >cavers since this is of direct relevance to them as well... > >-Carl- > >*********************************************************************** > >The Hogarthian Gear Configuration > >by Jarrod Jablonski > >Cave diving has undergone some significant changes during the last >roughly 50 years of its evolution, yet few aspects of the sport remain >more hotly contested than gear configuration. Dozens of styles have >been marched out to center stage and purported to be the most >effective, the safest, the easiest, the cheapest, or lately, even the >most "technical". Some people have casually recommended one style >over another, other have adamantly insisted upon their configuration, >while still others advocate that one just do what feels good. How can >one sport support such a variety of opinions and, perhaps more >importantly, how is a diver to dim the clamor of opinions in order to >make a sound and reasonable decision? > >The most sensible way to make any educated decision is to gather >information and evaluate which of the available options best satisfies >your particular needs. Nearly all styles of gear configuration allow >the average diver to access a cave. Even many an open water diver has >returned unscathed from a poorly chosen venture into the depths of our >cave systems, yet despite their safe return, consensus opinion holds >that a certain minimum of equipment is necessary to safely penetrate >into the overhead environment. It is how one should configure that >equipment and what equipment to use that garnishes the lion's share of >the sometimes bitter debate over equipment configuration. > >*Different Styles* > >The vast majority of equipment styles are most easily discussed in >relation to one's placement of the long hose. Many different styles >of equipment configuration exist and the proponents of each variation >differ in their specific solution to the many details of equipment >placement. The following two styles are the most popular divisions of >hose placement. While many differences may exist within each group, >the separation of the two primary groups largely pertains to one's >belief as to whether the regulator donated to an out of air diver >should come from one's mouth or from one's retaining device. > >*The Bungie Sylte - donating from one's retaining device* > >The most common style places the long hose in some type of surgical >tubing or restrictive band. This band may be placed on the side of >the tanks, near the manifold, on the back plate or nearly anywhere >that suits one's fancy. Proponents of this style vary in their >dedication to the refinement of their equipment placement, with many >divers generally lacking a focus on reduction and cleanliness. >However, a few divers practicing this style do begin to appropach the >Minimalism concept so obvious in the Hogarthian style. > >*The Hogarthian Style - donating your own regulator* > >The Hogarthian Style has many minor variations, yet its focus asserts >a policy of minimalism. In other words, if it is not needed, it is a >potential liability. The Hogarthian style strives to eliminate the >unnecessary while configuring the necessary in the most streamlined >manner possible. Named for it's founding father, William Hogarth >Main, the Hogarthian style is constantly being improved and refined. >Bill Main himself, despite nearly 25 years of cave diving, is >invariably showing up at local dive sites with modifications and much >can be learned from his dedication. > >Despite the minor variation that exist within the Hogarthian diving >community, one will find the strictest of its practitioners to be >remarkably similar in their configuration. Perhaps the most extreme >group of Hogarthian divers remains the Woodville Karst Plain Divers >(WKPP), a group that has received considerable press (good and bad) >for their dedication to the Hogarthian style. While the trademark of >a Hogarthian diver is that they breathe the long hose and donate this >hose to an out of air diver the style is really about much more. >Regardless of anindividual's preference for which hose to donate, much >can be learned from the adherence to minimalism so central to the >Hogarthian configuration. > >Many divers appreciate that certain extraordinary dives may require a >degree of refinement simply unnecessary for the average diver. Yet in >much the save way space travel is merely a distant dream for the >majority, the advances gained from this pursuit are abundant. How >much of this refinement is reasonable or more importantly helpful? >One's attention to detail should at least be proportional to the type >of dives done, but that strict attention to detail couldn't hurt. If >all your dives focus on the main line and your penetrations are >modest, perhaps your idea of strict attention would be different. If >your dives begin to incorporate stage diving and longer penetration >then undoubtedly you should exercise a complimentary form of >attention. In general, always be aware that you should look at the >entire package as it functions together. Your equipment should be a >cohesive unit that facilitates your dives and not a haphazard >collection of available items. > >*Breathing The Long Hose* > >Despite its growing popularity, many divers remain opposed to donating >the regulator from their mouth. The following discussion reviews the >most common resistance to donating the long hose from the mouth. > >1) The last thing I want to do in an out of air situation is give up >my primary regulator. > >- This does not really seem to be a rational fear. It is likely that >a diver incapable of removing the regulator from his or her mouth for >five to ten seconds is not skilled or practiced enough to be in an >overhead environment. One may question this divers ability to handle >an out of air situaion in which the out of air diver chooses the >regulator in their mouth. A diver with this degree of concern over >the regulator in their mouth may find it quite a challenge to even >deal with the very real possibility of an accidentally dislodged >regulator. > >By donating the long hose regulator from the mouth in an out of air >situation one guarantees that the person most in need of a clean fully >functioning regulator is going to get it. If you pass any other >regulator to an out of air diver it is quite possible that the >regulator received may contain contaminants that will be impossible >for the stressed diver to manage. In essence, what you will have done >is to place the last straw on the camel's back, creating the last >problem your dive buddy can manage. The advantage of donating your >long hose primary is that you are always ready for this very real >possibility. You are, in essence, alway sprepared for any eventuality >rather than maintaining a fixed picture of how things should operate. >Emergencies have an annoying habit of not going as planned and the >Hogarthian diver is more prepared to manage a variety of out of air >scenarios. > >2) I don't want to breath my long hose, I want to have the best performance >regulator in my mouth and the long hose decreases performance. > >- With literally thousands of deep exploration dives accomplished by >divers breathing the long hose, the performance argument seems rather >a moot point. Yet, if one were to insist that the reduction of >performance is unmanageable, it seems like a poor solution to leave >the stressed, out of air diver gasping for air on this lower >performance regulator so you can have a more relaxed dive. Your best >performance regulator must be on your long hose and if its performance >is unacceptable in a relaxed situation then it is certainly >inappropriate to suggest that your stressed dive buddy is better >prepared for this increased resistance. The one thing to be clear on >is that if the regulator you try to provide to an out of air diver is >in *any* way substandard, you will be giving up the regulator in you >mouth and your ability to handle that situation may make all the >difference. > >3) I just don't want to deal with that hose around my neck. > >- Any skill worth learning usually takes refinement. The long hose >may at times seem uncomfortable to some people, but regardless of your >storage location, you have to deal with that hose. When you tuck a >long hose into some surgical tubing you feel that it is forgotten and >indeed for some it is, but what happens when it pulls free or is not >set just right? If you rely on your buddy to arrange this hose for >you, what guarantee do you have that it is to your liking? In a sport >that preaches self-sufficiency, does it not seem illogical to >configure you equipment in a way that forces your dependance on a dive >buddy? > >4) You can't stage dive and breathe the longhose. > >- I would never have imagined that people thought this to be true, yet >exposure to cave instructors whose abilities I otherwise respect has >proven me wrong. Stage diving Hogarthian style is in no way more >difficult than for any other style. In fact, the majority of cave >exploration currently being conducted is by divers breathing the long >hose, despite the fact that they are a minority in the cave community. > >*The System Approach* > >No review of the Hogarthian style is complete without a discussion of >the system itself. It is not merely the streamlined nature of their >equipment nor the use of the long hose that sets the Hogarthian diver >apart, it is the way new pieces are carefully arranged to create a >harmonious system. Your equipment must function cohesively and be >configured so as to provide you with the greatest support - it is >after all life support equipment. For example, let's assume that you >have made the commitment to breathing the long hose. That decision, >in and of itself must not be the end to your deliberation. In fact, >it is really only the beginning. Where and how you store the balance >of this length of hose and indeed how long it is are at least as >crucial as your decision to use it as a primary. Most divers >following this style have opted for the 7' length (nine is ridiculous >and dangerous in most situations and 5' is precariously short in >restrictive passages) and then run it under a hip mounted light >canister across the chest and one half a loop around the neck into the >mouth. This system is ideal in that it allows nearly five feet of >hose to instantly be available and the remaining two to be deployed >with a quick flick of the hand. > >Do not try and wrap this hose around your neck multiple times (this >may be quite dangerous) as its deployment will be time consuming and >awkward. But why a hip mounted canister? This hip mounted canister >allows for easy removal in the event of entanglement, visual >verification (I prefer clear housings) to assure it is not a water >cooled version, a shorter cord to deal with, and assurance of general >stability. IN addition, the lack of a light swinging from the bottom >of your tanks provides ample room to store reels and extra scooters >and even provides an ideal place to tow a stranded diver during an >aborted scooter dive. The hip mounted version is much easier to remove >and replace and it reduces the number of times you set your 100+ pound >tanks on top of it. Regardless of your chosen system, here are some >general issues you need to consider. > >*Reduce, Reduce, and Reduce* > >Too many divers today seem under the impression that more is always >better. In cave diving what isneeded is better; what is not needed is >a detriment. Equipment choice like most things is a cost vs. benefit >analysis in which one must weigh the potential risk against the >perceived benefit. The dificult part and in fact the thing that >really defines a safe and effective diver is their ability to >accurately evaluate the benefit while candidly weighing the acceptable >risk. > >- Lights are an essnetial portion of your equipment yet more is again >not always better. One primary and two backup lights should be fine >for most situations. Unless you intentionally dive faulty equipment >or ignore common maintenance the likelihood of a triple light failure >is statistically insignificant. Yet if you carry six lights you are >likely to encounter many other unnecessary problems. Not only are you >less likely to care for thoselights but they will cause you numberous >entanglement hazards that will far outweigh the perceived benefit. >Three good lights - one strong dependable primary with two small >back-up lights is more than sufficient for most dives. If light >failures are common on your dives you should reevaluate your equipment >and/or your technique. > >I have disucssed the placement of the primary light canister and the >advantages ofhip mounted operation but how about one's reserve lights. >These lights could be stored in several places and many people find on >the tank to be favorable. This system can appear fairly clean >depending on the users dedication, but the lights may pull free in >smaller caves and tangle in the line. When placed on one's harness >below the arms they tuck neatly out of the way and are essentially >snag free. > >The primary light is an integral part of any divers equipment. Your >light must provide ample illumination, be reliable, and allow flexible >use. The test tube style light satisfies all these requirements and >more. The light beam has excellent illumination properties, is simple >to operate, has tremendous flexibility and when connected to a >canister style light will provide stalwart reliability. The Goodman >style that rests atop your hand allows for further flexibility as it >provides the unencumbered use of both hands. A Goodman style handle >allows just as much flexibility as the helmet mounted light yet does >not blind your dive buddies and allows the diver to be more aware of >their surroundings as the light is easily directed around the cave. > >- Cages tend to be somewhat controversial topics. First, let me say >that I dislike cages. I am not against the thing they purport to >accomplish but I am against their apparent success. First let us look >at your propensity for contacting the ceiling. If you hit the ceiling >on a regular basis and conclude that a cage is the correct solution I >would argue your logic is flawed or at least questionable. If you hit >the ceiling a lot don't look for substitutions to becoming a better >cave diver, just work on your technique. Ok, so everyone hits the >ceiling on occasion but how hard? If you are swimming I think you are >being a bit reactionary and should really reconsider you risk. > >If you are scootering then you have a somewhat legitimate concern. >You may choose one of the large dome style cages that appear to be >solid protection but also have an annoying habit of wedging their >owner in small places. Give the likelihood of a manifold failure I >would much rather go cageless and remain flexible in smaller areas. >If you use the smaller more streamlined version of the cage which >substitutes curved metal guards above your regulators then I think you >are fooling yourself. I have witnessed two people break their din >regulators off at the manifold despite the presence of these >protective devices. If, in fact, these devices are limited in their >ability to accomplish what they were designed for than their large >line catching profile is far more a risk than a benefit. > >- Manifolds are, in general, the best method to manage your air >supply. The only exceptions are in my opinion solo diving and side >mount. If you are not pursuing either of these options then you >should not configure as if you are. I caution you to be wary both >about using independent valves and about diving with those that dive >independent. It requires great care and superior gas management >capabilities to effectively monitor independent cylinders and >experience has shown that most people are not capable of proper >management. Given the likelihood of a manifold failure I will remain >an ardent supporter of manifolds for nearly all diving environments. > >- Isolators are nifty little inventions that responded to our desire >for the cake after it was eaten. They are in theory excellent ideas >and in practice probably fairly decent. As long as one maintains an >awareness of their strengths and weaknesses they may remain effective >pieces of equiiment. They are, however, not necessarily the saving >grace everyone has you believe. First, while they may provide a >redundant option to isolate your cylinders, they are also another >valve and just as likely to fail as the one you are circumventing. Be >aware that due to the nature of their construction failure of your >isolator will only allow one cylinder to be isolated thes protecting >only a finite amount of your available gas. Furthermore, one must >always guard against the common occurances of valves that are >inadvertently turned off during filling or safety drills. > >- Knobs on your valves should consume at least some of your thought >process. Rubber knobs are my personal favorite. They are durable, >shock absorbent, shatter proof, and easy to turn. Their only downfall >is that if you have a manifold that has one post shut down upon >contact with the ceiling then you must be concerned with the ease with >which these valves turn. Personally, were I diving a manifold where >this was a problem I would probably still use rubber knobs and just be >more cautions. Plastic knobs are dangerous because they can shatter, >leaving you with nothing to turn on or off. The metal knobs attempt >to solve this and the auto shut off problem yet fall a little short >because they can bend upon impact and be rendered useless. > >- Tanks come in a variety of flavors and I will spend very little time >on them. My preference is for the larger volume lower pressure steel >cylinders. Tank size should depend on your size, your needs and your >available funds. Do the cave and yourself a favor and really evaluate >your needs. Don't buy the most expensive tanks your wallet can >handle. 95's seem to be the best overall buy but you should evaluate >your needs. > >- Gauges are necessary pieces of equipment but people often succumb to >the more is better philosophy. Two timing devices should be more than >sufficient for any body'sneeds. The gauges should be wrist mounted so >as to avoid bulky consoles and the resulting dredging effect they >create. One's pressure gauge should be free from a bulky console and >mounted in a clean area. A pressure gauge that is clipped to one's >belt keeps the chest free from clutter and limits the items you will >potentially drag in the mud. The advent of hoseless gauges promises >to solve all these problems yet like most cure-alls I remain patiently >optimistic but as yet remain unwilling to bestow all my air management >faith in their reliability. > >- The body is the central component to any effective diving locker and >no discussion of equipment would be complete without giving it a >mention. Many debates have revolved around the necessity of fitness >in diving and no doubt these debates will continue for years to come. >It seems that the most reasonable course would gbe to evaluate the >type of diving to be done and adjust your level of fitness >accordingly. The average diving should be seeking good cardiovascular >fitness with aerobic activity - at least three days a week for a >minimum of 20 minutes. However, good fitness can serve you in life as >well as diving and a thorough fitness routine will leave you more >prepared for the rigors diving can produce. > >A person winded by a flight of stairs can certainly dive but their >ability to manage stressful, air critical situations is limited by >their physical response to elevated exertion. This may seem >inconsequential in a leisurely dive but in an emergency it can make >all the difference. Certainly excessive exercise could be a potential >liability as scar tissue accumulation at the joints could reduce >circulation. However, too much exercise is indeed a rare commodity. > >*Conclusion* > >The next decade of diving will undoubtedly be full of excitement and >prodigious change. Undoubtedly equipment advancements will continue >and many exciting advancements are bound to grace the diving world. >Yet, regardless of the level of changed beyond the year 2000, two >things will undoubtedly remain constant. There will always be new >equipment for people to obsess over and there will always be people >arguing over how that equipment should be configured. > >The preceding discussion attempted to shed light upon some of the >basic tenants within the Hogarthian equipment configuration. As >pertains to equipment more is rarely better and the Hogarthian diver >grudgingly makes additions to this minimalist attire. One should not >take from this discussion the impression that safety equipment is >dispensable and that the Hogarthian diver intentionally accepts >additional risk. Quite the contrary, the Hogarthian diver attempts to >remove all possible risks by designing a holistic life support system >that facilitates every dive. The risk should after all be a function >of the environment and not the divers state of preparedness. > > > > >
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]