IMAX and the Great Barrier Reef

On a recent trip to Sydney, my wife went to the IMAX theatre and
while there got for me the DVD "The Great Barrier Reef", a beautifullly
put together doco. What was very noticeable was the divers weren't wearing
BCD's and how graceful they looked without them. Most of the filming was
in shallow water and this may partly explain the lack of equipment.
When I started diving back in the 50's, BCD's hadn't been invented and
buoyancy was controlled by weights on your belt. The maximum working
dive depths (Navy) that I can recall was approx 30 metres. This involved
a hard hat (standard suit) accompanied by a safety buddy in a Cousteau
Aqualung. We were retrieving dumped WWII munitions from around the
Hen & Chicken Islands and transferring them to another tender for
disposal in deep water. Off Whitianga I was diving with the team in 20metres
with a sandy bottom (scallop relocation) and buoyancy was no problem
there either.
So my question is, what do you readers think about BCD's? Do any of you
dive without one?


cheers
Brian

"BrianM" <bmorris@nilads.co.nx> wrote in message
newsan.2004.06.17.09.46.11.379201.2687@nilads.co .nx...
> On a recent trip to Sydney, my wife went to the IMAX theatre and
> while there got for me the DVD "The Great Barrier Reef", a beautifullly
> put together doco. What was very noticeable was the divers weren't
wearing
> BCD's and how graceful they looked without them. Most of the filming was
> in shallow water and this may partly explain the lack of equipment.
> When I started diving back in the 50's, BCD's hadn't been invented and
> buoyancy was controlled by weights on your belt. The maximum working
> dive depths (Navy) that I can recall was approx 30 metres. This involved
> a hard hat (standard suit) accompanied by a safety buddy in a Cousteau
> Aqualung. We were retrieving dumped WWII munitions from around the
> Hen & Chicken Islands and transferring them to another tender for
> disposal in deep water. Off Whitianga I was diving with the team in
20metres
> with a sandy bottom (scallop relocation) and buoyancy was no problem
> there either.
> So my question is, what do you readers think about BCD's? Do any of you
> dive without one?
>
>
> cheers
> Brian

For me the BCD is a valuable safety aid apart from the bouancy angle. Should
an emergency arise, to be able to be positively boyant at the surface
without ditching gear is very desirable. Similarly to be able to provide
that for someone in distress without a 'vest'. Also on the odd occassion
that something heavy has to be lifted back up to the surface when there is
no tender around they come in very useful.

--
Regards ........... Rheilly Phoull

"BrianM" <bmorris@nilads.co.nx> wrote in message
newsan.2004.06.18.22.13.58.352708.2214@nilads.co .nx...
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:40:05 +1200, Rheilly Phoull wrote:
>
>
> > "BrianM" <bmorris@nilads.co.nx> wrote in message
> > newsan.2004.06.17.09.46.11.379201.2687@nilads.co .nx...
> >> On a recent trip to Sydney, my wife went to the IMAX theatre and while
> >> there got for me the DVD "The Great Barrier Reef", a beautifullly put
> >> together doco. What was very noticeable was the divers weren't
> > wearing
> >> BCD's and how graceful they looked without them. Most of the filming
> >> was in shallow water and this may partly explain the lack of equipment.
> >> When I started diving back in the 50's, BCD's hadn't been invented and
> >> buoyancy was controlled by weights on your belt. The maximum working
> >> dive depths (Navy) that I can recall was approx 30 metres. This
> >> involved a hard hat (standard suit) accompanied by a safety buddy in a
> >> Cousteau Aqualung. We were retrieving dumped WWII munitions from around
> >> the Hen & Chicken Islands and transferring them to another tender for
> >> disposal in deep water. Off Whitianga I was diving with the team in
> > 20metres
> >> with a sandy bottom (scallop relocation) and buoyancy was no problem
> >> there either.
> >> So my question is, what do you readers think about BCD's? Do any of
> >> you dive without one?
> >>
> >>
> >> cheers
> >> Brian
> >
> > For me the BCD is a valuable safety aid apart from the bouancy angle.
> > Should an emergency arise, to be able to be positively boyant at the
> > surface without ditching gear is very desirable. Similarly to be able to
> > provide that for someone in distress without a 'vest'. Also on the odd
> > occassion that something heavy has to be lifted back up to the surface
> > when there is no tender around they come in very useful.
> >
> > --
> > Regards ........... Rheilly Phoull
>
> Yes some good points there. I've always been a bit concerned about
> an involuntary ascent from decompression depth - I don't know what
> the stats are on this. No flotation help at the surface can be a right
> bastard if you're some distance from the boat/shore in a choppy seaway.
> Instead of a BCD I'm looking at the idea of a collar type buoyancy aid
> inflated manually similar in looks to the ones carried on airlines. They
> sit flat around the neck and upper chest and wouldn't be obstructive like
> some of the yachting lifejackets. I may get a chance to test a couple out
> in the lagoon at Rarotonga later this year. They may only be practical for
> snorkeling.

Fenzy I think they were called. Never got to use them - started diving when
BCDs were just being introduced. Personally I think a good BCD will beat a
Fenzy (horse collar) any day. In fact I would prefer not to have the BCD at
all (this is from an UW photogpraphy point of view).

I would like to be able to dive without one and have a BCD - free backpak
sitting at home waiting to be modified. I would use it for shallow diving
only, with a thin suit in warm water. Suit compression is the main reason a
BCD is used IMHO - the BCD used to adjust buoyancy once the suit starts
compressing - and that is way worse at depth. Without a BCD at depth you
put yourself and your buddy at risk...

/viz

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:29:41 +1200, viz wrote:


> "BrianM" <bmorris@nilads.co.nx> wrote in message
> newsan.2004.06.18.22.13.58.352708.2214@nilads.co .nx...
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:40:05 +1200, Rheilly Phoull wrote:
>>
>>
>> > "BrianM" <bmorris@nilads.co.nx> wrote in message
>> > newsan.2004.06.17.09.46.11.379201.2687@nilads.co .nx...
>> >> On a recent trip to Sydney, my wife went to the IMAX theatre and
>> >> while there got for me the DVD "The Great Barrier Reef", a
>> >> beautifullly put together doco. What was very noticeable was the
>> >> divers weren't
>> > wearing
>> >> BCD's and how graceful they looked without them. Most of the
>> >> filming was in shallow water and this may partly explain the lack of
>> >> equipment. When I started diving back in the 50's, BCD's hadn't
>> >> been invented and buoyancy was controlled by weights on your belt.
>> >> The maximum working dive depths (Navy) that I can recall was approx
>> >> 30 metres. This involved a hard hat (standard suit) accompanied by a
>> >> safety buddy in a Cousteau Aqualung. We were retrieving dumped WWII
>> >> munitions from around the Hen & Chicken Islands and transferring
>> >> them to another tender for disposal in deep water. Off Whitianga I
>> >> was diving with the team in
>> > 20metres
>> >> with a sandy bottom (scallop relocation) and buoyancy was no problem
>> >> there either.
>> >> So my question is, what do you readers think about BCD's? Do any of
>> >> you dive without one?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> cheers
>> >> Brian
>> >
>> > For me the BCD is a valuable safety aid apart from the bouancy angle.
>> > Should an emergency arise, to be able to be positively boyant at the
>> > surface without ditching gear is very desirable. Similarly to be able
>> > to provide that for someone in distress without a 'vest'. Also on the
>> > odd occassion that something heavy has to be lifted back up to the
>> > surface when there is no tender around they come in very useful.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards ........... Rheilly Phoull
>>
>> Yes some good points there. I've always been a bit concerned about an
>> involuntary ascent from decompression depth - I don't know what the
>> stats are on this. No flotation help at the surface can be a right
>> bastard if you're some distance from the boat/shore in a choppy seaway.
>> Instead of a BCD I'm looking at the idea of a collar type buoyancy aid
>> inflated manually similar in looks to the ones carried on airlines.
>> They sit flat around the neck and upper chest and wouldn't be
>> obstructive like some of the yachting lifejackets. I may get a chance
>> to test a couple out in the lagoon at Rarotonga later this year. They
>> may only be practical for snorkeling.
>
> Fenzy I think they were called. Never got to use them - started diving
> when BCDs were just being introduced. Personally I think a good BCD will
> beat a Fenzy (horse collar) any day. In fact I would prefer not to have
> the BCD at all (this is from an UW photogpraphy point of view).
>
> I would like to be able to dive without one and have a BCD - free
> backpak sitting at home waiting to be modified. I would use it for
> shallow diving only, with a thin suit in warm water. Suit compression is
> the main reason a BCD is used IMHO - the BCD used to adjust buoyancy
> once the suit starts compressing - and that is way worse at depth.
> Without a BCD at depth you put yourself and your buddy at risk...
>
> /viz

You're probably right about the horse collar - I was thinking only of
surface buoyancy and I'll keep working on it.
A little bit off the main subject but have you seen the kids using the
SASY system? (Supplied Air Snorkelling for Youth) made by Aqualung and
Scubapro. From what I've seen, these are an amazing idea for
youngsters to get used to the scuba system. Main item is a BCD-type
jacket which is full of permanent floatation so they can't submerge. Has
simple stages and pressure gauge and runs off a 13cu tank.

cheers
Brian