Compiled and
edited by Jeffrey Bozanic
This month's
Members' Forum is devoted to cleaning my files of all responses which
were received too late to be included in the appropriate issues. The
lead time necessary for preparation of this column is several months
in advance of the actual publication date. Often material is furnished
long after this deadline has passed. However, the late responses are
maintained, and published as space permits.
Four questions
are addressed in this issue. The oldest is from a question posed in
1988, dealing with the presentation of rescue skills to various levels
of students. In it, the author proposes to shift the emphasis of rescue
training to a time after the entry level certification course, when
the students are more capable of integrating and retaining such knowledge
and skills. This was one of two common themes in 1988 as well. The other
major opinion at that time was since the majority of entry level students
are unlikely to take further training, and are responsible in part not
only for their own safety but that of their dive partner as well, that
full rescue skills should be taught in the entry level course. This
continues to be true for NAUI entry level certification programs.
The second question
considers the possibility of NAUI sanctioning a specialty course in
nitrox diving. Both of the respondents favor the availability of such
training. Both of the members addressing this topic have obtained training
in nitrox diving, which has modified their beliefs regarding its use
significantly. In fact, one of the respondents has reversed his prior
opinion, which was printed at the time the original column on this question
was published. The NAUI Board of Directors has formed a Technical Diving
Committee to address this question, as well as others dealing with advanced
forms of recreational diving.
The next set
of responses deal with requiring mandatory drug screening for the employment
of diving instructors. The opinions expressed in this issue were evenly
divided, three for and three against such a mandatory program, with
one respondent promoting a compromise approach. This is not significantly
different for the original column on this question, where those opposed
to testing slightly outnumbered those favoring it.
The final question
considers last month's issue of which regulator to pass. In that column
the majority favored passing the second stage from the mouth to an out
of air diver. In these responses, thought is again equally divided.
Times change.
As knowledge and technology become more available, many issues which
were once considered resolved must be readdressed. Despite the fact
that the topics covered in this column were considered before, evolution
of diving thoughts and processes make the reexamination of such questions
pertinent and beneficial, if not mandatory. I challenge you to continually
cogitate on such controversial issues, continue to learn more about
both sides of contentious ideas, and keep an open mind while formulating
your own opinions.
QUESTION: "HOW
MUCH IN THE WAY OF RESCUE SKILLS SHOULD WE PRESENT TO OPENWATER I, OPENWATER
II, AND ADVANCED STUDENTS? WHY?"
I disagree very
strongly with the assertion that entry level diving students should
be taught half-assed rescue skills that go beyond self rescue and buddy
pushes and tows given the current state of diving business. Standards
should be written to be realistic and followed not merely to show off
before other training agencies. Under the current state of non observance
of standards and corner cutting courses, the more basic skills suffer.
Let us not forget that rescue training deals with "after the fact"
situations (accidents which have happened). The major emphasis should
be placed on prevention. Prevention can only be sustained by adequate
training and stricter compliance with training standards than is currently
practiced. I cannot see at this point how people would argue about doing
fancy rescue training in an entry level course when we have dive shops
that are trying very hard (and very successfully unfortunately) to crank
out the greatest number of students in the shortest time possible (the
$99 courses in New York City and the six hour courses in Florida are
good examples).
Accidents happen
because divers are grossly ill trained and do not have the basic watermanship
skills they desperately need and should have. They are equipment rather
than skill dependent. Rescue training that involves more than self rescue
and buddy tows should be taught at the Openwater II course level or
equivalent. Let us devote more time to essential skin diving training
and creating more competent divers that would avoid potential accidents,
and who would not have to perform a rescue at all. The time used to
teach quasi-CPR and First Aid courses during Openwater I class should
be given to more training in water and more decompression problem solving.
Rescue skills
that are taught in NAUI Diving Rescue Techniques Course should be required
skills in order for the diver to take any courses beyond Openwater I.
The rescue course should not be a specialty (it implies that it is only
for the specialist or the out of the ordinary diver), but a regular
course that is required for all divers who are interested in furthering
their diving education.
After all is
said, I still believe that prevention should receive more attention
through proper training and emphasis on skin diving skills as well as
swimming skills. I would rather avoid an accident altogether rather
than being rescued by a Master Rescuer (you can add all the adjectives
you want) and end up with the loss of a limb or suffer brain damage.
SKILL DEPENDENT DIVERS are what we should be advocating and teaching.
Until there is a significant change in the way we teach our courses
(dive shops especially), I cannot see any improvement in the quality
of divers. For us to solve a problem, we must identify what the problem
is first. The rescue debate deals only with symptoms, the problem is
inadequate training and non compliance with standards.
--Burhaneddin Z.
Muntasser, NAUI 9650; Peekskill, NY (Taught
all levels, OW I through ITCs. Teaches primarily at colleges. Recipient
of the NAUI Outstanding Service Award.)
QUESTION: "SHOULD
NAUI OFFER TRAINING THROUGH A SPECIALTY PROGRAM IN NITROX DIVING? WHY/WHY
NOT?"
A. In early 1990
I responded to this question. At that time, my position was a rather
definite "no" for a number of reasons. I believed then that
nitrox diving would involve a very small portion of the diving industry,
e.g. cave divers, deep wreck divers, parts of the scientific community,
and the now and then diver looking for the exotic. Since then many hundreds
of individuals have been participating in nitrox diving programs. I
do not believe that all of them will take it any further than training,
but nonetheless, the interest is far greater than I originally perceived.
In early 1990
I was perhaps what we would call a poorly educated consumer and extremely
disillusioned by the typical two or three hour nitrox training program.
Since that time I have had the opportunity to participate in a full
eight hour program offered by the International Association of Nitrox
Divers, which covered the following avenues: (1) History, (2) Physics
and physiology, (3) Proper techniques for mixing the gas, (4) Proper
protocol for diving the gas, (5) Proper tables for nitrox diving, and
(6) When all of the above are used improperly, the dangers of this gas.
I still do not
necessarily believe that nitrox diving is for everyone, even though
in many avenues it may, in fact, represent safer diving if used correctly
and is combined with standard air diving procedures. However, the nitrox
question is coming up more frequently, and one agency has already sanctioned
an instructor specified specialty on the subject. At this point in time
we really need to better educate the dive instructors so they will be
more capable of discussing the topic when questioned.
Scuba instructors
of the 1990s want more knowledge. They must be able to speak from an
educated factual foundation, to knowledgeably explain to a student why
or why not use nitrox, and if we are going to use it, what is the acceptable
fashion?
I still have
the same concerns about mixing up of cylinders, improper color coding,
what mixture was last in the cylinder, logbooks, staying within proper
depths and limits, and of course, most of all, applying the proper mixing
techniques to make both the gas and the filling station legitimate.
I understand that a proper mixing station will cost somewhere in the
neighborhood of $20,000, so it strikes me that not everyone will spend
that kind of money to insure proper mixing procedures. This is the same
type of negligence that lends itself to diver error on air and needs
to be addressed.
In conclusion:
--Nitrox is not for everyone.
--Nitrox is not new and exotic. It has been around for a long time.
--Nitrox needs to be used in a correct fashion to be safe.
--The scuba instructor of the 1990s really needs to understand the physics
and physiology of nitrox diving in order to better deal with the growing
nitrox diver population and to be better able to answer his inquisitive,
well-read student audience.
--A mixing station must be certified, whatever that includes.
--We need color coded cylinders and special logbooks.
--Nitrox diving for the general public will not lose its momentum. Nitrox
diving is here to stay.
Let us better
educate our instructor base since an educated consumer lends itself
to a controlled destiny. The time has come to be an educated consumer.
--Walt "Butch"
Hendrick, NAUI ????; Hurley, NY (President
of Lifeguard Systems, Inc. Actively teaches all levels of diving to
ITCs. Past North Atlantic Branch Manager and Member of the NAUI Board
of Directors. Recipient of the NAUI Outstanding Service Award and Leonard
Greenstone Diving Safety Award.)
A. One of the
best things about NAUI is that the organization encourages open debate
about a variety of topics. In the May/June 1990 issue of Sources, I
noticed the discussion about nitrox diving. The first article by Ian
Workman addressed the fact that nitrox would be a standard breathing
mixture for sport divers in the future. The second letter seemed opposed
to nitrox classes, and asked several questions directed at what can
go wrong. In response to the questions brought forth in this letter,
I offer the following responses:
What happens
when the divers or stores do not quite empty nitrox filled cylinders?
When cylinders are brought in for a nitrox fill, the cylinders are analyzed
for oxygen content. Our normal mixture is 32% oxygen. Cylinders are
not mixed by using partial pressure formulas alone. Once the cylinder
is filled, it must be analyzed a second time and logged out by a certified
nitrox diver.
What happens
when a diver who uses a specialty mixed gas has a diving accident and
needs hyperbaric treatment? Nitrox cylinders are yellow, identified
by a 4-inch green band and the words "NITROX ONLY" painted
on them. After the facility filling the cylinder and the diver verify
the oxygen content with an analyzer, that information is then logged.
When any diving accident occurs, the equipment should be brought with
the diver. Chances are that if a NAUI Instructor is nearby, the victim
will be given pure oxygen all the way to the chamber. How many medical
facilities that work with hyperbaric medicine are not associated with
a gas lab or do not have multiple oxygen analyzers nearby? After speaking
with the people at the Divers Alert Network (DAN), it is my understanding
that the oxygen content in the cylinders is not the problem. They are
more interested in carbon monoxide and other contaminate levels which
occur in standard air fills as well. (Ed. Note: This response begs the
question of increased chances of a diver experiencing pulmonary oxygen
toxicity symptoms as a result of breathing a gas mix with an increased
partial pressure of oxygen should hyperbaric treatment be necessary.)
What are the
assurances that the doctor will know exactly what percent oxygen the
mixture contained? See the response above.
How do we insure
that the nitrox produced by all stores meets exact specifications (whatever
those are), and that their students are able to retain what they have
learned in a two or three day course? Is it worth the liability? Standards
and guidelines have been set by the International Association of Nitrox
Divers (IAND), just as the National Association for Cave Diving (NACD)
or the National Speleological Society Cave Diving Section (NSS-CDS)
have done for cave diving. The rest of this question I have separated
into two parts:
Part 1: Analysis
of the oxygen content by both the diver and the store ensure exact specifications.
To know what the specifications are, I suggest all NAUI Instructors
take a nitrox course! Most will learn what they should already know
about partial pressures of gasses and oxygen limits.
Think about this:
Nothing ensures a dive store will replace the air filters in their compressor
when required. Air samples taken every three months do not ensure that
a shop filling several cylinders a day replace his filters often enough.
What ensures the level of contamination in air fills did not go up a
week later?
Part 2: Since
no one can ensure students will remember anything they learn in any
level of diving instruction, we use log books, refresher courses, etc.
Why not ask our insurance companies if underwater instruction is worth
the liability? Every other lawyer will probably say no. Why is cave
diving listed as a NAUI specialty course? Most serious cave divers I
know use much more complicated mixtures than nitrox. Is cave diving
with air worth the liability?
If our goal is
to make diving safer, and our motto is "Safety Through Education,"
how can we as instructors condemn what we do not understand? We must
stay on the leading edge if we are to remain the leaders in "quality"
education. Fortunately dive computers, alternate air sources, and buoyancy
compensators survived those instructors who resisted change making diving
a safer sport. If not for knowledge and change, we would still be living
in caves. There is nothing wrong with the need to resist change, but
it is wrong to deprive ourselves and our students of knowledge.
--John Stauffer,
NAUI 8259; Fort Walton Beach, FL (Teaches
at The Scuba Shop, NAUI Pro Facility 001, which provides nitrox fills
for recreational divers. Has completed training in nitrox diving from
the International Association of Nitrox Divers.)
QUESTION: "SHOULD
DIVING INSTRUCTORS AND DIVEMASTERS BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO A PROGRAM
OF PRE-EMPLOYMENT AND ROUTINE DRUG TESTING? WHY/WHY NOT?"
A. This is a
tough question because we deal with the public in a potentially hazardous
environment. Instructors and Dive Masters must be at 100% at all times
to keep situations from becoming dangerous. Fortunately, we seem to
have a high standard of people in our industry.
Personally, the
idea of monitoring any part of a citizens personal life goes against
my most basic beliefs. Too many people today seem overly willing--almost
eager--to give up their rights as Americans in the so called "GOOD
OF MANKIND" movement of the nineties. There is also the question
of the accuracy of some testing.
I do feel if
any instructor or dive master is proven of drug use while working with
students, he/she should be suspended and have to submit to testing for
a period of time to show that he/she is drug free.
--Jeff Lynam, NAUI
12195; Acworth, GA (Independent
Instructor and Manufacturer's Representative. Has worked in resorts,
attended I.T. Workshops, and staffed IQ '91.)
A. I am a firm
believer that the public has a right to be protected from untoward harm
that may be caused by someone using illicit drugs. The DOT tests truck
drivers, the FAA tests pilots and the military tests all of its members.
Anyone who is in a position of public trust and by this position could
inflict harm on the public, especially lethal harm, by either an act
of commission or omission, could fairly be asked to submit to such testing.
As a NAUI Instructor Trainer I would not certify an Instructor to whom
I would not entrust my son, and I certainly would not entrust my son
to a person impaired by drugs. The testing, of course is voluntary.
If you do not wish to be tested, do not apply for the job. The individual's
right to privacy stops where the public's right to safety begins.
Jack Cheasty, NAUI
6171; Edmond, OK (Teaches
as a private professional, and for the U.S. Army. Has taught all levels
from Openwater I to ITcs, including having served as a ITC Course Director.)
A. I do not believe
that the drug problem is such a prevalent one in the diving circles
that it necessitates drastic measures such as preemployment and routine
drug testing. There are other more pressing problems among diving leaders
as I see it today. Non-compliance with standards, deteriorating diving
skills especially swimming skills, diving experience, etc. are problems
that require a more rigorous check and testing than drug testing. Let
us not create a problem where it does not exist, but rather, concentrate
on solving the ones that exist.
--Burhaneddin Z.
Muntasser, NAUI 9650; Peekskill, NY (Taught
all levels, OW I through ITCs. Teaches primarily at colleges. Recipient
of the NAUI Outstanding Service Award.)
A. "The
quest for perfection must leave no stone unturned."
"A true
democracy will hear every voice, consider any proposal, regardless of
their worth." These statements underscore why NAUI Instructors
have the high status we deserve and enjoy. We do search relentlessly
for better ways to ensure safe diving. We are a democracy--an association
of individuals with equal rights to voice our opinions, to teach as
we feel is best within guidelines we vote on, administered by directors
we elect.
Others will mock
us, as they did when we considered making the sport safer by putting
expiration dates on our certification cards. As they have in the past,
they will continue to deride us for public policy discussions, regardless
of what we adopt into policy. They will say it because we publicly debate
it, and because it is easier to criticize initiative than it is to initiate.
I can hear them now, "To join NAUI, you need to swim five miles,
pass a physics test, and send in twenty dollars and two ounces of urine."
Let then say
what they will. The issue of drug testing is before us. Proposals and
rebuttals are being prepared and presented. The strength of our system
is being tested and exercised as is fitting for one based on the decisions
of individuals in it, rather than on those of a controlling elite.
I do not believe
we should adopt drug testing. The reasons are as follows: (1) There
is no need. There is no evidence to indicate that substance abuse is
a problem in our industry. (2) It would be very expensive to implement,
both in lost membership and in higher insurance rates. (3) It would
subvert our democratic organization. Our rights and decision making
powers will be eroded by the inevitable encroachment of law enforcement
agencies. (4) It is un-American, the term based on the Constitution
of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. Laws or regulations
which go against those documents are by definition un-American. (5)
I have too much respect for my fellow NAUI members to demand them to
submit their bodily fluids or tissues in order to evaluate their skills
and abilities.
--R.J. Rollins,
NAUI 11125; ??,??
A. The current
bureaucratic chaos created by the USCG's adoption of similar requirements
has caused the random testing originally required to be sent back for
further evaluation. It simply proved unworkable and was greeted with
almost universal disdain. Licensed masters, mates etc. must be tested
as part of their five year renewal or new license applicants. When hiring
a new crew member, testing is required. In a way the confusion and regional
interpretation of these new "drug testing" rules remind me
of the total failure of the attempts to widen MSD standards in the late
seventies and early eighties. Finally, the USCG's own inspectors simply
had enough and refused to cite anything but the most blatant non compliance.
We then witnessed
the incomparable fiasco of 1988's "zero tolerance" policy
which resulted in massive damage to commercial and private vessels from
overzealous and poorly trained USCG boarding parties who in many cases
destroyed boats in their hot blooded fervor to find any trace of marijuana,
paraphernalia or other drugs. The policy was a public relations disaster
especially when the USCG 7th District turned out to have more cases
of drug involvement and subsequent conviction from within their own
Coast Guard members than from the sum total of yachtsmen netted in the
"zero tolerance" boardings.
Now do we really
want to even have a discussion of testing dive instructors for drugs?
Many are already covered if they are USCG licensed or act as crew members.
But why stop at drugs? These very same people might be reading books
that we don't like or maybe having sex in a position that offends some
caped crusader. Burn them all, they're witches! Save them from themselves,
it's for their own good and we're just the guys to protect the public
from their insidious menace ....
There are basic
human rights conflicts here that I hope a few of our members just might
see. From my observations as a USCG Merchant Marine Master and from
20 years involvement in the diving industry, more problems are associated
with alcohol abuse than anything else.
If we want to
wake up and recognize the far greater problems with alcohol, then fine...
test dive instructors for drugs. But treat both substances with equal
zeal.
I urge NAUI and
the entire dive industry to distance themselves from this non issue.
Regulations have a way of coming around eventually and biting you in
the ass. And this type of witch hunt mentality somehow always works
out to mean "zero tolerance" for our constitutional rights.
--Bret Gilliam,
NAUI 3234L; Brunswick, ME (President
of Ocean Tech, Captain of a liveaboard dive vessel. Ex-Director of Diving
Operations for Ocean Quest International. 20 years experience as a resort
dive operator. Has taught all levels including ITC staff experience.)
A. I have been
a naval aviator for five years. I have seen the successful drug testing
program in the U.S. Navy produce a sober, quality force. Its performance
is being demonstrated as you read this. The parallel is that diving
requires technical skill, a "clean" body, and instructors
who are competent and leaders. Drug testing will ensure this. NAUI instructors
must be accountable to train civilians to dive. The student who signs
up for a course deserves that.
--Lt. Jeff Rees,
NAUI 8649; Orange Park, FL (Taught
diving at the Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island.
Currently teaching as a private professional while serving in the U.S.
Navy.)
A. Wait! I sensed
that gut-level, knee-jerk reflex reaction to the possibility that our
rights might be violated. But we NAUI instructors are professionals.
We are familiar with performing unpleasant tasks to perfect our skills
and we are familiar with detailed evaluation of our skills. We expect
the absolute best from our leaders and offer the absolute best to our
students.
One might ask
these questions about peak performance: What good is a less than sharp
knife? a car out of tune? salt with no savor? or some mostly accurate
dive tables? All of the proceeding work pretty well but have lost their
critical edge. Such it is with addiction. An addicted or drug dependent
person has lost his sharpness, his critical edge, and his fine tuning.
Addiction is a cunning disease. It grows in our subconscious and emerges
in the form of denial and self deception. You are perhaps aware of or
know of the heart attack victim who denies the early symptoms until
the situation is too critical for total recovery or the decompression
sickness victim who might display the same denial and wait to respond.
This same denial accompanies addiction and treatment is often delayed.
When another person's life is at stake we must ask, "How much less
than one's best can be tolerated?"
How can an agency
or operator guard against those whose ability is just slightly impaired?
Urine tests are one answer, and considering the situation this is an
acceptable solution to me. After all, we are talking about the lives
of others.
--Mike Pilkington,
NAUI 11275; Carmichael, CA (Certified
alcohol and drug addiction counselor. Teaches Openwater I through Advanced
classes.)
QUESTION: "WHEN
USING AN ALTERNATE SECOND STAGE, SHOULD THE ALTERNATE REGULATOR OR THE
PRIMARY (FROM THE MOUTH) BE PASSED? WHY?"
A. The use of
the octopus as the primary second stage is suggested. The other second
stage would be clipped in an accessible area in the center of the chest.
In case of emergency, a diver should pass the octopus to his/her buddy.
The diver would then pick up the other second stage for use. The reasoning
for this is that in an actual emergency an out-of-air diver would probably
grab for the most obvious regulator, the one in the donor's mouth. In
other words, an orderly passing of the regulator would probably not
occur in many instances.
--Tim Flora, NAUI
8656; Saint Clairsville, OH (Teaches
for Deep Six Specialty in Akron, OH. Has taught Openwater I and II,
as well as a variety of specialties.)
A. The alternate
second stage should always be given priority when using an alternate
regulator. There are two simple reasons for this:
(1) The key to
successfully handling an out of air situation is remaining in control.
By the donor providing an alternate regulator, he/she remains in control
of the situation. By encouraging handing over of the primary air source,
the donor may either lose control of the situation by having their regulator
"ripped" from their mouth by a panicked diver reacting in
the way they believe correct, or place themselves in difficulty by handing
over the primary regulator and being unable to locate their own alternate
source (a good argument for location of alternate second stages.) Neither
of these would be acceptable.
(2) Many cases
have been noted of divers buddy-breathing themselves to safety in an
out of air situation when an alternate regulator was available. Encouraging
the use of the primary regulator to the "victim" may trigger
a response to continue the less-safe system of buddy breathing due to
the diminished thinking which can occur in life threatening circumstances.
Promoting the alternate second stage as a priority in all out of air
situations reinforces its safety aspect.
--Clay Adams, NAUI
8362; Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (Taught
primarily specialty classes for Fathom Diving in Sydney, Australia for
six years. Now teaching in Canada.)
A. I have not
come to a very clear stand on this issue yet. I believe that whatever
procedure that would be taken during an emergency should be agreed upon
before the dive during the dive planning stage.
I teach my students
to pass the alternate regulator to the Pin Head who did not monitor
their submersible pressure gauge and ran out of air. This procedure
is not taken because of dogmatic reasons, but to establish a common
routine for the students in class. The multitudes of options in handling
out of air situations make the choice even harder for divers. I cannot
imagine a parachuting instructor teaching more than one way to use the
extra parachute to their students, why should we?
Whatever procedure
or doctrine is taken, it should be taken based on facts and experience,
not on emotions and profit goals set by the diving equipment manufacturers
or less than honest training agencies.
--Burhaneddin Z.
Muntasser, NAUI 9650; Peekskill, NY (Taught
all levels, OW I through ITCs. Teaches primarily at colleges. Recipient
of the NAUI Outstanding Service Award.)
A. First of all,
it must be recognized that you may not have a choice in the matter.
No matter what was discussed in the buddy check, all prior agreements
may be rendered null and void where out-of-air divers and impending
panic are involved. You should therefore be able to gain your auxiliary,
or re-gain your primary, and breathe from it under adverse conditions
(such as a missing face mask, or hood covering your face as a result
of your buddy's desperate lunge).
In an orderly
out-of-air situation (if such exists), then passing the auxiliary would
be my choice for two reasons: (1) Keeping a regulator in your mouth
at all times promotes good gas exchange and reduced risk of lung over-pressure
accidents. (2) The auxiliary hose is longer and facilitates the air
sharing process.
This may be a
problem for the diver who was taught buddy breathing during his basic
course without the benefit of the octopus, and whose natural tendency
would be to pass the primary. Then of course, there is the diver who
does not use a safe second. The question becomes a moot point for him/her.
Most divers certified in the past ten years would have received octopus
training and would be using a safe second for their dives deeper than
15-20 feet.
But for some
of the old salts who finally use a safe second, it is necessary that
they practice the air sharing procedure a few times with different buddies,
under calm conditions. And if the real thing hits--be ready to breathe
from either regulator.
--Chris Moleski,
NAUI 4749; Sept Iles, Quebec, Canada (Taught
private courses and for the YMCA for seven years, including Basic to
Assistant Instructor courses. Has staffed ITCs. Supervises underwater
contractors as part of his job duties as a civil construction engineer.)
A. It is my considered
opinion that the primary regulator should be the one donated in an out-of-air
emergency situation. If a diver is panicking because of being out of
air the one thing that will be an all embracing focus if an emergency
swimming ascent is not elected will be a functioning regulator that
is hanging out of an instructor's mouth, or anyone else's for that matter.
By being prepared to donate the primary air source a struggle can be
avoided as the victim zeroes in on the most easily accessible air supply.
Too often you see an alternate regulator tucked into a BCD pocket that
is hard to get to at the best of times. At least by donating the primary
air source the donor has a better chance of locating the alternate regulator.
By the time an out of air diver realizes what has happened it can often
be too late as it is generally the inhalation that signals out of air
so something has to be done quickly. Manners and social airs and graces
go out the window in life threatening situations.
If everyone consistently
had an alternate regulator in the "triangle" or attached to
their low pressure inflator hose it might be different but there are
too many options. In the wash-up it all gets back to knowing your buddy
inside out and planning your dive properly, including emergency procedures.
--John Baird, NAUI
10149; Northcote, Auckland, New Zealand (Regional
Manager, NAUI New Zealand, and Member of the NAUI Australia Board of
Directors. Teaches entry level diving, and some specialties.)
A. Do you believe
I have heard instructors tell their students to give up the mouthpiece
that they have in their mouth, fully functional, to their buddy in order
to go searching for the alternate second stage?! This task is difficult
at best even when the alternate second stage is attached neatly in the
golden triangle area. The majority of the people we see have it dangling
behind them or in a pocket affixed with velcro, far stronger when wet
than dry; either way extremely difficult to retrieve. Once a full hands
on rescue has begun the concepts are for divers to grab one another,
hence creating an incredible closed space area to find such a unit.
I believe an alternate second stage should be just that: an extra breathing
unit we have to carry with us to assist a buddy in need without causing
reckless endangerment to the would be rescuer.
The following
guidelines should be followed: (1) Mouthpiece should be attached in
golden triangle capable of easy removal. (2) The hose should be coded
in highly visible colored wrapping. (3) The alternate second stage housing
should be a bright color. (4) The large exhalation port should be removed
and replaced with Dacor or Sherwood mini-cap. This will help prevent
the accidental placement of the wrong orpheus in the mouth of the rescuee
in black water. (5) Training should be kept in a consistent format throughout
the diving industry. This, combined with continuous practice, would
really help.
Today there are
a multitude of different alternate air units and a couple of different
techniques available. Perhaps the greater issue here is how do we become
more consistent as an industry, hence, providing an educational format
that would allow divers from all over the world to be able to consistently
assist one another in case of an emergency?
We train for
one dive accident or potential accident in our life. Maybe it would
be a good idea if we were really ready, if we knew how the other guy
was going to react.
--Walt "Butch"
Hendrick, NAUI ????; Hurley, NY (President
of Lifeguard Systems, Inc. Actively teaches all levels of diving to
ITCs. Past North Atlantic Branch Manager and Member of the NAUI Board
of Directors. Recipient of the NAUI Outstanding Service Award and Leonard
Greenstone Diving Safety Award.)
A. There are,
a number of conditions/actions which must be met for an out of air assist
to even be attempted. A ledger of actions might look like this:
Minus: (1) Buddy
runs out of air/equipment malfunction. Plus: (1) He does not panic.
(2) Locates you his buddy. (3) You are nearby (a plus for both of you).
(4) He chooses to seek your help, rather than perform an emergency ascent.
(5) He swims over and gives you the out of air and buddy breathe signals.
(6) He waits for your response.
The ledger is
definitely on the plus side at this point. Except for allowing the out
of air situation to have happened in the first place, your buddy has
done everything right. By doing so, he has chosen to place his confidence
not only on his own abilities to perform but on yours as well. Now as
he watches you momentarily fumble to retrieve your alternate, he instantly
regrets his actions and bolts to the surface. All of the good decisions
made by your buddy to this point have been wasted.
No matter how
accessible your alternate or practiced you are in its retrieval, the
passing of a primary first stage will always be more sure and efficient.
Practice and accessibility can be used to retrieve the alternate after
the primary has been passed, after all you have had a breath in the
last few seconds and can afford to fumble a bit while retrieving it.
Buddy breathing with a now relieved diver is also possible if there
are extended complications in retrieving your alternate.
If your buddy
helps himself to your alternate even better. Your buddy should be familiar
with the location and operation of your backup. Remember that this diver
is on the verge of panic, jeopardizing his own safety and possibly yours.
He is investing the mounting stress he feels towards a safer resolution
by seeking your help rather than performing an unsafe ascent. If he
is relying on your actions, pass the primary. Your buddy has done everything
right to help himself to this point, the rest is up to you!
--David Saulnier,
NAUI 11029; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Teaches
Openwater I, has dove for 12 years in Canadian inland waters.)
A. Due to the
diversity of "Safe Second Breathing Apparatus" it is difficult
to say whether donating the primary or the secondary is preferable.
Personally, I have my primary attached to a longer hose to facilitate
quick delivery in an out of air emergency. I then use my Alternate Inflator
Regulator. My students however have frequently been equipped differently,
necessitating teaching methods that are most suitable.
I do not see any
uniformity in "Safe Second" devices in the near future so
I doubt there can be any such uniformity in teaching methods. Instead,
I stress positioning the device high on the chest to allow for instant
delivery. Too many times I have watched students fumble with "Octopuses"
too secure in their BC pockets. It is not so important whether the primary
or secondary is donated. The importance lies in the speed of delivery.
--Lawrence Coyne,
NAUI 11185; Fort Lauderdale, FL (Teaches
Openwater I thru Divemaster courses with the Florida Ocean Science Institute.
Has also taught in the resort environment. CPR and First Air Instructor.)
A. This seems
to be a perpetual question that never fails to create controversy. It
always seems to me that the answer to such questions centers around
the training the diver receives. Personally I believe in passing the
primary. Their are several reasons for this not the least of which is
that the person needing the air knows the second stage you are using
works. This of course opens up the can of worms about text book versus
real out of air situations and the true state of mind of the out of
air diver and how they got that way in the first place. Many divers
do not receive adequate training in this area only doing it once or
twice in a pool and once (maybe) on a check out dive. This is evident
when they are later asked to perform the skill for advanced skill training
or basic skills review for entrance into a special diving program i.e.
scientific diving, etc.
I think the technique
of sharing air should be kept as simple as possible. By passing the
primary you are not doing anything radically different from what you
do when you buddy breath (also essential training) or begin to stabilize
a situation by buddy breathing first. Additionally three of the top
manufacturers (Sherwood, Scubapro, and Tekna) market alternate second
stage models that all but dictate giving up the primary and utilizing
them for the donor. These of course are all integrated in some way with
the auto inflator system. These have the benefit of always being in
the same place and not generally dragged through the sand, etc. They
also allows the divers to ascend face to face in a do se do position
allowing more control, safety and comfort on ascent. This method works
for the majority of diving situations where a direct ascent is going
to be made. Specialized diving such as cave diving has special considerations
which require modification of other standard diving procedures as well.
We must remember we need to adopt safe and effective standard procedures
with the average diver in mind not the average instructor or "high
tech diver".
--Frank J. Toal
Jr., NAUI 10185, St. Georges, Bermuda
A. It makes sense
for the use of alternate air sources to be standardized as much as possible.
Taking the primary regulator in a sharing air situation would allow
training of consistent response regardless of whether the divers uses
an octopus regulator or and alternate air source/power inflator hybrid.
Because the primary second stage is in the "donor's" mouth
the diver who is out of air will waste no time locating an air source.
The "donor", who should be very familiar with their own equipment,
will be able to locate an alternate air source in a minimum of amount
of time.
Forming a standard
response to this emergency situation that will work regardless of the
type of alternate air source employed can only improve diving safety.
--Doug Jeffery, NAUI
???? (Currently being processed); Port Coquitlam, British Columbia,
Canada
(Owner of West Coast Scuba Centre. Has taught all levels of diving courses
for another major training agency for four years.)
A. Pass the alternate
to an out of air diver... give me a break! The uninformed need to understand
that in the real world (unlike training) there is no such thing as an
out of air "diver." What you have is an accident victim looking
to raise the tally in the multiple drowning statistics.
The victim sees
one thing--your primary; their source of life... you now have an out
of air animal, instinct takes over, their adrenal strength can only
be matched by the whites of your eyes filling your mask rim to rim.
It is an out of air signal you will never forget.
Shame on any instructor
who teaches "the diver swims up, taps you on the shoulder, signals
out of air, and calmly assumes the position for sharing air." In
true life an out of air victim seldom emulates the textbook example.
We need to think and feel as the lay diver does. Few of us with a NAUI
instructor number enter the water with reservations, fear, or anxiety.
However, the typical out of air diver will usually have started their
dive in a mental state far below the readiness of a just certified diver.
Being out of air, they do not consider "do I go for the primary
or the alternate?" Believe me, the primary is the instinctive target
hit most of the time by the general diving public.
While this debate
will go on forever, I would like to see the question changed to what
is best: go for the closest air (buddy or surface); or go for the surface
thus reducing the possibility of multiple drownings? Remember we are
talking about the folks that have to be shown how to assemble their
gear because they are members of the average diving public. "Look,
dear... a solar eclipse--let's go diving!" At best the alternate
is a good way for one instructor to steal air from another during a
long pool session.
--Ed McCaskill, NAUI
8869; Orlando, FL (Founder
and past owner of NAUI Pro Facility "Triangle Divers." Has
taught several hundred students at all levels.)
A. This is a
vitally important question. Out of air emergencies and fatalities are
an ever increasing problem. In too many cases the rescuer was the fatality
victim because the rescue went bad. We think passing off the primary
is one of the problems. We teach "Pass the secondary mouthpiece"
100% of the time for the following reasons, using the described techniques:
1. Having to share
air means there is some type of problem situation already. The moment
the rescuer takes the primary from his/her mouth, a second, potentially
serious problem is introduced.
2. We believe
over 70% of divers do not properly hook up their octopuses. They are
left dangling or stuck in a BC pocket with velcro closures, which presents
a serious problem in real out of air situations. In our rescue training
of over 2,000 divers annually we find that an alarming number of divers
can not retrieve the octopus when staff act as out of air divers. Once
the rescuers give away their primary, they are in serious trouble, because
now, finding a dangling octopus or trying to open a wet velcro pocket
is ten times more difficult with a "leach" diver acting against
them. The staff must often give the primary back immediately before
the "rescuer" loses control and panics. Real victims might
not give it back.
3. The octopus
hose should be worn under the arm to give the rescuer control over a
potentially bolting out of air victim. If left over the arm, the victim
might rise above the rescuer, knocking off the mask. The primary is
never worn under the arm, so now a victim may be a hose length higher
than the rescuer, making it almost impossible for the rescuer to control
the ascent rate and find his/her own octopus.
4. The octopus
is on a longer hose than the primary to allow ease of sharing air and
to give the rescuer better control over the victim's buoyancy. The octopus
mouthpiece should face the victim, not the rescuer, otherwise the victim
is usually presented with it upside down. The octopus should be worn
over the left shoulder, or a special second stage designed to be passed
may be worn on the right side. If not, the primary obviously must be
twisted back to face the victim leaving both divers on top of each other,
again making it almost impossible for the rescuer to retrieve the octopus.
Thus, if the primary is passed, the victim usually ends up with an upside
down mouthpiece, swallows water, and bolts.
5. The octopus
should not have large (conventional) exhaust portwings. Out of air divers
stick the exhaust port stem into our mouths, especially if the octopus
faces the rescuer as the primary would. An exhaust port in the mouth
means a big "breath" of water and a potential bolt .
6. In our rescue
challenge programs for instructors every student performs out of air
emergencies as both rescuer and "leach" in the night rescue
maneuver. Some instructors who always have their octopus properly secured
in the golden triangle area and always give the octopus away now suddenly
at night give their primary away. When asked why they admit they were
not sure if they could find the octopus in time, especially as the victim
was more "on top of them" than in daytime. Again this leaves
the rescuer without air in an especially dangerous situation because
proper ascent rates are exceedingly difficult to maintain in the dark.
7. One school
of thought is to give up the primary because the victim will probably
"go for it anyway." This would not be as true if the octopus
was sitting in the golden triangle chest area facing the victim and
we gave a minimum of five realistic out of air scenarios in our Openwater
I,II, Rescue, Advanced, Divemaster, and ITC programs.
The octopus should
sit in the golden triangle area of the chest, with the mouthpiece facing
your buddy. We recommend a snorkel keeper over the mouthpiece, attaching
the regulator to the BC. It will rip right off the mouthpiece when needed.
You should be able to get the octopus into their mouth as fast as you
can your primary.
Ask yourself why
would you even think of offering up the primary? The reason is that
the victim needs air now and cannot wait for you to get the octopus
in their mouth. Well, we ask you this Can you wait for you to get the
octopus in your mouth? We have one problem, why create two?
If more rescuers
gave themselves first priority in emergency situations there would be
fewer double drownings and less accidents in general. But the bottom
line question is why are divers still running out of air in the age
of pressure gauges??
--Walt "Butch"
Hendrick, NAUI 1724L; Hurley, NY (President
of Lifeguard Systems, Inc. Actively teaches all levels of diving to
ITCs. Past North Atlantic Branch Manager and Member of the NAUI Board
of Directors. Recipient of the NAUI Outstanding Service Award and Leonard
Greenstone Diving Safety Award.)
QUESTION: "WET
OR DRY --WHICH SUITS YOU?"
A recent review
of a new design of drysuit caused me to think about the type of apparel
we wear while diving. Anyone entering the sport is faced with a bewildering
array of strange gear to choose from, from brightly colored Lycra body
suits in warmer waters to 8mm thick Neoprene drysuits for English diving.
In between, there are various thicknesses of wetsuit, in one or two
piece designs, Semi Dry Wetsuits, Membrane drysuits and the neoprene
variety. Some have hoods and/or boots fitted, some do not, some have
various types of wet or dry gloves and of course there are all the myriads
of drysuit valves, with their appropriate hoses.
Such a choice
could confuse the most experienced diver, let alone someone just beginning,
so let's try to identify some of the pros and cons for each. But first,
let's determine why we need to wear anything at all- decency excepted!
The first thing
to consider is ambient water temperature. All potential and current
divers will have a rough understanding of hypothermia, hyperthermia,
core temperatures and rapid heat conduction/convection by water, particularly
away from an immersed, unprotected diver, so we shall not dwell on these
subjects. Suffice it to say that heat will be conducted away from the
body of an unsuited diver 25 times quicker in water than in air, so
some form of thermal protection will be required in all but the warmest
waters.
And even those
warm Red Sea or similar divers will have their own problems to consider.
Even if the sea temperature is in the mid 20's oC (high 70's oF), heat
will still be lost from your body--particularly during those deeper
dives with their very noticeable thermoclines, to a point where you
will feel chilled. You would need water temperatures of 25 30oC (77-86
oF) before an unprotected diver feels comfortable (imagine the attendant
air temperatures in those sites--phew!) so anything below that really
requires some form of suit.
Some divers in
the Sultanate of Oman used to feel quite comfortable during the summer
months, diving in just their swimsuits, or an old pair of overalls if
they intended getting near to anything sharp or stinging. Then a strain
of Sea Wasp jellyfish moved into the area (some say from the ballast
water that had been flushed out of Australian oil tankers) and began
thriving in the Mangrove swamp near Muscat. Whatever type of jellyfish
they are, the business end of their tentacles carry very painful nematocysts
and a sting from one of these can seriously ruin your diving day. An
unnerving aspect of this new hazard is the way indigenous marine life--certain
fish and turtles--bite off portions of tentacle and leave the remainder
to drift around in those waters. Not a problem, you might think, but
you would be wrong. Those drifting tendrils carry live stinging cells
and are almost invisible in the water, so your cost-conscious Gulf diver
could get a painful surprise when a piece of stinging tentacle drifts
up inside the leg of his overalls! Even this poor writer has been zapped
by one such fragment--just below the sleeve of my 3mm shorty wetsuit--and
that felt as if someone had hit my upper arm with a red hot iron bar.
Not a nice way to end the day.
The moral there
is that even if the water is warm enough to waive the need for thermal
protection, you still need something suitable between your skin and
stinging or sharp objects. In Red Sea or Gulf waters, the most sensible
thing to wear is a Lycra bodysuit for safety against stingers and a
thin Wetsuit top over the torso for thermal protection (during winter
months) and buoyancy.
But the waters
around England's coast are not that warm! Let's return to the novice
diver, joining an English club and paying his or her first visit to
the local dive store. The first consideration, realistically, will be
cost, followed by comfort, then cold. An ordinary wetsuit that fits
correctly will perhaps be the cheapest option, if not the most comfortable
in terms of flexibility, but should prevent too much water "flushing"
through the suit and so keeping the occupant reasonably warm. Any wetsuit
is exactly what it says--wet--and that is how it works. By allowing
a small amount of water to enter the space between suit and skin, then
trapping that water and allowing the body to partially warm it up, the
wearer has some protection against cold. Problems arise if the suit
is ill fitting. Too tight and the diver will not be able to move freely,
too loose and water will flush through the suit space allowing the water
to conduct vital heat away from the body.
Core temperatures
with a wetsuit system are usually maintained by using two pieces in
the suit construction--a "Long John," covering legs and chest,
with matching jacket to protect arms and chest again. This combination,
with hood attached to the jacket or separate (essential to keep the
head warm) means the double thickness of neoprene over the torso (plus
the hood), will keep the core temperature up at the expense of freedom
to move, not to mention the large amount of weight one has to carry
on the weight belt to overcome the buoyancy inherent in that extra thickness.
With this "standard"
wetsuit arrangement, boots and gloves (also made of neoprene) are separate
items. These need to fit as well as the suit, so adding to the effort
required to dress. As a general rule it is safe to say any suit that
slips on simply will not keep you warm--but most wetsuits will give
a high degree of protection against sharp or stinging objects. Fitting
zippers at ankles or wrists (or both) can ease the donning but you will
then need a backing flap of neoprene behind the zip to prevent too much
water ingress. This also applies to the chest zip on the jacket.
Another way of
easing these suits over your skin is by applying a liberal dusting of
unscented Talcum powder to the inside of cuffs and lower leg areas of
your wetsuit. Unscented because the oils used in scent manufacture can
attack the neoprene and anyway, the average hirsutely adorned diver
does not really want to waft Canal No. 5 over others in the boat.
Moving on in price
and "Flush Resistance," we come to the "Semi Dry"
wetsuit, which is of a similar construction and material to the standard
wetsuit but has tightly fitting cuff, ankle and possibly neckseals,
or an attached hood with sealing edges. These seals are of a softer
grade of neoprene and usually used on drysuits, so prevent much water
actually entering the space between you and the suit, hence the "semi
dry" title. Once again though, a semi dry dive will be dependent
on the suit fitting well, having backing flaps on standard front zipper
and being of a good quality. This last is true of any item of diving
equipment--you get what you pay for--but many divers I know dive in
Semi dry suits all year round, often emerging from the water with no
more than damp arms and shins. So the semi dry is slightly dearer to
buy than a standard wetsuit, but is drier, warmer, and, if a one piece
design in good quality neoprene, does allow more freedom of movement.
But if you do
not want to get wet at all, your only option is either staying out of
the water or investing in a drysuit. As the name suggests, these are
intended to keep the occupant dry over their whole body, with the exception
of head and hands--though you can purchase suits which include dry hoods
and gloves, for diving in polluted or otherwise hazardous fluids. These
more specialized suits are considerably more expensive than the average
sport diver's wallet will allow, so we will not linger on them much.
They would normally be used in conjunction with surface supplied dry
helmets by commercial, military or police divers, in a working environment
anyway.
Drysuits for sports
divers usually fall into either Neoprene or Membrane groups, but both
types have similar basic characteristics. Designs are mostly of one
piece, with boots attached to the suit, a waterproof entry zipper across
the shoulders (some manufacturers do opt for different zip positions
for ease of self-dressing), and similar cuff/neck seals to the semi
dry suit. Shoulder mounted zips are favored because such waterproof
items are expensive to replace and the upper back area usually induces
the least stress on this zip assembly, reducing running costs. The drawback
here is the requirement for your buddy to close the zipper before each
dive, leading to a possibility of one's partner, if inexperienced, trapping
underclothing in the zip teeth as it is being closed. If this happens,
the waterproof integrity of that zipper will be reduced or lost completely
and that will lead to cold, damp patches on that diver's back, expensive
repairs and harsh words with the buddy concerned--so take care when
closing, as trapping things in zippers often leads to tears!
Some drysuits
mount their zips diagonally across the front of the torso area, from
shoulder to hip. Others go from mid-back, under the crotch to mid chest,
and another design takes the zip up from one side of the abdomen, around
the neck and down to the other side of the stomach region. These latter
options may make life more convenient (in every sense of the word) whilst
dressing but are weaker in terms of zip longevity--it is your choice.
Neck and cuff
seals on drysuits usually depend on the main suit fabric, with smooth
neoprene seals being fitted to neoprene suits and thin latex ones to
a membrane suit. However, there are exceptions to this, and there is
no reason why you should not have a neoprene neckseal retrofitted to
a membrane suit, or specified during initial build if you are splashing
out on a made to measure unit. Just be sure you listen to advice from
the manufacturer or your local dive shop before deciding, as some suits
work best with certain types of seals.
Now we come to
the main difference--apart from cost--between dry and wet. The wetsuit
keeps you reasonably warm by allowing that layer of water to seep in
and be trapped betwixt skin and suit. This process also allows the pressure
outside the suit to equalize with that inside, during the dive, so no
squeezing will occur as you descend.
This is not the
case with a drysuit. The idea here being to keep the occupant removed
from the dampness outside, as much as possible. Unfortunately, a byproduct
of this isolation is a phenomena known as suit "Squeeze,"
caused by dissimilar pressures outside and inside the suit. We need
to overcome this by introducing an air supply between suit and diver,
which will also provide a layer of air between the two for warmth--or
should it be that we need the air layer for warmth first and a spin
off from that is the equalization process? Which came first, the chicken
or the egg?...
Anyway, air is
introduced into a drysuit from the regulator first stage intermediate
pressure supply, via a flexible hose, quick release coupling and inflator
valve. This last can be of the "Push button" type or one that
can be removed from the suit connection during the dive, used to inflate
an air bag or similar item, then reconnected to the suit. Simple enough
so far, but we also then require a means of dumping that air during
ascent, for adjusting buoyancy during the dive or for dumping air in
the event of a free flowing/faulty inflator.
Basically, you
can have either an automatic or adjustable dump valve fitted to your
suit, usually on the wrist, upper arm or shoulder. Consideration here
must be on when and how you intend to use the valve, and how both inflation
and exhaust valves mate up with the rest of your equipment. It is no
good fitting an automatic dump valve on the top of one shoulder if you
dive with a stab jacket or ADV--the jacket straps will rip the valve
off. Likewise, positioning the inflation valve in the central upper
chest position is fine for ADV/Stab but will be difficult to operate
while wearing your ABLJ. Changing the valve site can be carried out
by your dive shop, including putting a watertight patch over the old
hole, or you may wish to leave your future options open by fitting a
blanking plug in the hole, which you can transfer to the alternative
position if required in the future. This method allows you to keep on
diving with your frayed old Fenzy while the new(er) ADV is being repaired.
Whichever dump
you decide on, remember that you can always dump air from the suit via
one cuff (another reason for wet gloves) or the neck seal, if the usual
dump fails to operate correctly. But it is simpler to keep the wrist
fitted with an auto dump out of the silt and sand as much as possible,
thus avoiding clogging up the spring/diaphragm mechanism in the first
place!
Actually diving
with a drysuit is the subject of specialized training courses by all
the major diver training authorities, covering a lecture or series of
lectures and in water training exercises under supervision. As such,
this is not the place to cover that aspect of their operation. I will
say that before you jump in the sea with your shiny new drysuit on,
you must have a suitable training course with a recognized training
body, for your own good.
Feet first "Polaris"
ascents can be at least extremely unnerving--even if they do not blow
your fins off--and can at worse lead to all the nastiness you are warned
about when beginning your basic training. Burst lungs and the bends
can occur during an uncontrolled rapid ascent whether you are rocketing
toward the surface head first or feet-first and the paperwork your poor
dive Marshal will have to fill in afterwards is horrendous, so Train
before you Try and you should Dive Dry.
What have not
we mentioned? Apart from the differences between Membrane and Neoprene
Drysuits, not a lot. Things to consider here include the fact that neoprene
is inherently buoyant (though less so at depth) so requires more weight
on the belt to descend than a membrane suit. Neoprene suits are also
more restrictive in movement but they are safer in that a sudden large
rip in the suit will not affect your buoyancy very much and (after the
sudden shock has worn off!) such water as does enter after tearing the
suit will warm up in the same way as a wetsuit before long, allowing
you to continue the dive.
Tearing big holes
in a membrane suit can affect your buoyancy more severely, particularly
if the hole is near the top end of your torso. Water entering here will
saturate your undersuit (essential wearing with a membrane system, to
maintain a warm air layer between skin and suit), to such an extent
that you will continue to feel the cold severely and have to abort the
dive. Problems can be compounded at this point, as you try to ascend
with a suit full of seawater and any air you pump in to initiate your
ascent venting straight out of the gaping hole. But of course you follow
all the guidelines and do not rely on your suit for buoyancy, wearing
a BC of some description for that function.
Coming back to
underclothes, the neoprene drysuits usually do not require much in the
way of specialized thermal underwear and a sweatshirt in winter or tee
shirt in summer is usually enough for comfort. Legs can be adequately
covered by track suit trousers in cooler weather and thin cotton "Long
Johns" when warmer, and do not concern yourself too much with appearance
here--staying warm is far more important!
Membrane suit
underwear is slightly more complex, in that the outer suit has no inherent
warmth. To compensate for this by trapping air inside a raised "Pile"
undergarment has led to a wide variety of suits to match most wallets.
At the lower end of the price scale we have the traditional "Bunnysuit,"
which will keep you warm during all but the coldest dives. At the other
end of that scale there are numerous designs of "Thinsulate"
or similar suits which are extremely effective in cold water and give
good protection against the wind and spray when travelling to the dive
site. Once again, you gets what you pays for....
Which brings us
to the bottom few lines. Cost is going to be one of the main factors
in your decision to buy wet or dry. Having said that, it is worth saving
that little while longer and buying a drysuit of reasonable quality,
so you can stay dry before, during and after the dive--cost may be high
on your list of priorities but comfort should have the casting vote.
Which would you
prefer, straining into a skintight wetsuit amidst complaints about your
cloud of talc, shortening your dive with the universal signal of arms
crossed over your chest to indicate "I'm cold," then either
shivering in your damp suit on the trip home as the wind chill factor
increases or peeling the whole lot off in the teeth of a gale, drenching
your dry clothes when you slip over on the wet deck in the process.
Alternatively,
you could admit your wimpishness to the world, drag your drysuit out
of the closet and unite in saying to the world, "Why be wet when
you can dive dry?!"
I know how I will
be diving this, and subsequent seasons ...
--Nick Herbert, NAUI
N38911; Christchurch, Dorset, England
