Re: Proper OOA/comments

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by MHK on September 05, 2001 at 09:51:42:

In Reply to: Proper OOA/comments posted by Ken Kurtis on September 04, 2001 at 23:12:33:


You're making progress, now let's see if we can't get you over the last few hurdles ;-)

First off, I disagree with the following statement that you made:

it really doesn't matter which one you give or how long a hose it's on as long as air/gas flows through it into the OOA's mouth.

The notion of DIR being a holostic approach is so that when the sh*t is hitting the fan you have less decisions to make and you do more reaction then thinking. In other words, you train and train for the scenario time and again so when it happens you'll react. By training and donating the primary attached to a long hose you keep open all your remaining options. At first glance you make a valid point, get the OOA diver gas ASAP. I don't know anyone that will dispute that. However, by donating the primary [ which it is very possible the paniced OOA diver will go for anyway] you ensure that he gets a regulator that is known to be working. You know that because you just took a breathe from it. Moreover, by standardizing the configuration you won't have diver A having teh retaining device on his hip and diver B having it attached to the BC, and to the extent either of these options produces contamanents or free flows, you don't have that same problem when you have your back up reg right under your chin.

Furthermore, I strongly disagree with respect to the notion that it is irrelevant what the size of the hose is.. By using the standard length *octo* you have limited room to manuver and you therefore limit your options. I also disagree that an immediate ascent is the best course of action. Because as this fatality has proven again, unpracticed and unskilled buddy teams will often seperate during an ascent. The result usually being that the donor has too much air in his BC and the recipient has no bouyancy and sinks. This has happened on many occasions. Accordingly the use of the upline should be encouraged..

For example, we continue to suggest that standardization is the key in emergency situations, so let's assume that this situation happened in the Yukon, you now have a situation that will require during the *command* decision that you BOTH know the way out. That is why you give the signal as the donor [ ie; you make the command decision] and you get the signal back because the OOA diver will be the lead, if he doesn't signal back how can you insure he knows where the hell he is going???

The idea being that you don't have one protocol for one emergency and another one for a different emergency.. Get the decisions and clutter out of the way and train so that you have one response to the emergency.

In this case over the weekend, my understanding, is that it was a regulator malfunction, and as such it's a pretty simple assumption that the donor had sufficient gas to get them both back to the upline. By using the upline the chances of a seperation are substantially reduced, vis a vis the use of the line as an ascent aide.. This is why the donor checks his SPG, shows it to the OOA diver and then makes the command decision to surface or to get to the line..

Your recomendation limits the options and chooses the least safest manner to ascend.. Ken we try to think problems through to their conclusion before they occur and by using the method that I highlighted you have a resolution that provides the most options and that is applicable in any environment..

However, I still maintain that to the extent there isn't sufficent gas to get back to the line, an open water ascent should still be practiced and should be done absent any other options...


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]