Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
On Sat, 11 Jan 97 10:23:26 -0000, Joel Markwell wrote: >Sean, > >> You are arguing about an event that can not conceivably occur >>if your dive is properly planned. > >How long have you been wreck diving? Joel, what I was referring to was the scenario in which the boat left the site, leaving the diver stranded until they realized that their headcount wasn't correct. This sort of thing should never happen, and can easily be prevented by taking a little care in planning. >>I have been on the surface for >2 hours in heavy >>seas during a search operation, and that time was spent on my back > >Was what you were searching for in the water or in the sky? In the water, approx. 30 msw. I suppose I should clarify this statement. I was not actively searching while I was on the surface. It's a bit difficult to see an object on the bottom 30 meters below you in <2m vis. Actual searching was conducted as either part of the dive team or part of the surface team. Circumstances just dictated that I be in the water for this amount of time, which was no problem as I had my gear configured correctly for me, and was perfectly comfortable. >>First off, keeping your head out of water should not require >>any effort at all. > >How much swimming have you done? I'm not quite sure I understand this point. If your dive gear is properly configured and optimized to the individual, the BC should provide sufficient buoyancy to let the diver float comfortably on his back, head out of the water. If there is a tendency for the diver to roll forward, this does not call for an additional convolution to allow him to breathe, but merely a readjustment or repositioning of buoyancy and weights to allow this to occur. This is all elementary physics, you just need to take the time to make sure that your gear is configured correctly. > >>there is no way that you should >>encounter hypothermia at the surface. > >Ever heard of a torn suit or a blown seal? How much wreck diving DO you >do? Point taken. Of course, the inevitable problems will arise. I was assuming that the suit was still intact; otherwise, why would anyone choose to loiter about on the surface for any significant length of time with a flooded suit? I only have about 200 wreck dives under my belt (unless you count Canada as a wreck itself, in which case almost all of my dives), so I cannot claim to be a know-it-all expert. What I do claim, however, is to have experience with various types of gear configurations (independents, manifolds - with and without isolator, wings, jacket BC's etc. - you name it, I've tried it), and have determined, based upon both my experience and the experiences of others, that a snorkel represents a significant hazard, especially in wreck diving, and that if I have everything configured optimally, that there is no need for it anyway. Granted, in choosing not to use a snorkel I am making an assumption about the type of diving I wish to do. Personally, if I want to swim about looking at fish or the bottom without actually diving, I lose the dive gear and take a wetsuit, fins, mask and snorkel. >>Death - as I mentioned in a previous message, Charles Darwin was right. > >". . . every man must judge for himself between conflicting, vague >probabilities." CD Good one. Note, though, that the probabilities we are discussing may be assigned arbitrary (not vague) values, and that if everything is well thought out, they should not conflict. >Yes he was. >>I would much rather it blow across my face than into a >>snorkel that I happen to be breathing through. > >If, as you say, you never use a snorkel, I guess I can excuse this bit of >absurdity. Ask a friend how they work--especially something newer than a >1975 model. Can you say, "clear"? You're right, this was a stupid point. I think that my intent was to illustrate that if you find yourself in a situation where you are surfaced and in heavy seas, chances are that you are not there to enjoy the ride, and in this case would it not make sense to have your head out of the water where you can look around? My first priority in this situation (assuming no medical or lost diver emergencies) would be to get myself to a safe haven (the boat). In full gear I can swim faster out of the water, in the aforementioned position, than I can with my entire body, gear and all, submerged, and my face in the water. >>I can only speak for Canadian operations, but we do not use snorkels in >>water rescue here. > >I could be crude here and say, "somehow this doesn't surprise me," but >I'll buck the trend. ><g> I have nothing but the greatest respect for those who risk their >lives in the sea rescuing others. If the Canadian Navy and rescue folks >in their wisdom choose not to use helicopters or snorkels, then I respect >that. My experience is only with the Coast Guard, so I really shouldn't speak for the Canadian Navy or other branches of the Department of National Defense. When did I say we don't use helicopters? (granted, most of them are broken down) >On the other hand, the USCG and Navy Seals assigned to American >craft still primarily use a mask, snorkel, vest and wetsuit for their >in-water rescue operations as far as I know--any input by US pros would >be appreciated. > >An AGA would not be my first choice when jumping out of a helicopter to a >rescue in high seas--but I'm not a pro, just an observer. And the hoses >would be a bitch! Talk about entanglement. Just how _would_ you swim to a >swamped craft with debris in the water wearing an AGA? I don't think you read through my response. I said that the only dive teams maintained by the Coast Guard were the hovercraft crews. Most of their work involves body searches and vehicle extrication in rivers and soforth, in which case the advantages of surface supplied gas and hardwire communications become evident. They do use SCUBA for some applications, but I do not know exactly what and will not comment further. The guys who parachute from fixed-wing aircraft and do water drops from helicopters are DND rescue swimmers (SARTEC), and work in collaberation with the Coast Guard, Canadian Navy, Rescue Coordination centre etc. These are the ones who perform rescues in surf zones and among rocks, and it is my understanding that helmets are worn for protection in these cases. I am assuming that the helmets would preclude the use of snorkels in these cases. I may be mistaken, nor do I know if snorkels are used in open-water rescues (they probably are), but we seem to be getting away from the original discussion, that being whether snorkels should be carried as part of your diving equipment. >I don't use a snorkel when cave diving, never have, never will, but I can >see how a wreck diver _might_ find one useful when blown off a wreck. And >that seems, from what I have seen over the years, always a real >possibility, regardless of planning, You are right on about possibilities regardless of planning. This does not change my position on the matter, though. As I have mentioned, it seems to me that a snorkel is unnecessary on the surface, and a hazard during the dive, much more so in wrecks than in caves. It is for these reason that I choose not to dive with one. >which is why they also carry lift >bags for deco in the open ocean, or is this unnecessary too if you "plan >more efficiently?" Joel, this is getting silly. A lift bag is a piece of safety equipment, (i.e. life support equipment), the lack of which can quite easily kill you. Not having a snorkel on the surface does not put me at risk. A lift bag, if carried correctly on the person, does not represent a safety hazard - snorkels do. >Plan rationally for the worst case scenario and you won't be left with >your ass hanging out. Now this is good advice. >All the best, >JoeL -Sean
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]