The liveliest letters from the Diver mailbag...

---

AIR PIG HITS BACK
I am generally considered by my diving associates as something of an "air pig". Of course, all things are relative, or so I thought until I read Brendan O'Brien's article Are You a Heavy Breather? (July). I expected some insights into human physiology, lung capacity, the mammalian diving reflex, but no.
I and all those who don't match the norm are, it would appear, suppressing a deep-seated fear of the ocean, grossly overweight, unfit, poor practitioners of our sport or 60-a-day smokers.
I am a PADI Divemaster and IANTD Advanced Nitrox Diver. I have logged 130 dives over three years, and since my initial training my air consumption has dropped, though not significantly. Your article made some interesting points, and undoubtedly being fit to dive is important, but its tone suggested that above-average air consumption equates to being defective in some way.
I do smoke but I have never been scared of water. I was by no means last out of the pool on the Divemaster timed swim, don't belong to Weightwatchers and think I am a competent diver. So why is my air consumption higher than that of most people with whom I dive? Perhaps it's because I am over 6ft tall and weigh 14 stone, and my regular buddies are thinner, shorter, of a different sex or all of the above. Do I consume the same amount of oxygen as my two-year-old daughter when we play in the garden?
The only person with whom I have dived who had a similar rate of air consumption was an Olympic athlete, which I most certainly am not. The issue shouldn't be "the rate of air use" but "do you have enough air for the dive and for your buddy should he or she need it?". The answer is simple: "Take what you need."
If you use more than your buddy, don't worry - you're not a freak. Just use a larger tank. Why is it so hard to hire 15 litre cylinders abroad, particularly in the Red Sea resorts?
Some divers feel compelled to push themselves beyond safe margins so as not to be party-poopers. Next time one of the "Kung Fu shallow breathers" moans about having to be first back on the boat, they should reflect on what would happen if they had a problem with their air supply and their heavy-breathing buddy was down to 20 bar because he or she didn't want to disappoint anyone.
I have seen an instructor take two students on their Advanced Open Water deep dive with a 10 litre tank. His air consumption was not an issue, but when one of his students panicked and drained her tank without warning, and the other was guzzling his own air, the 10 litre tank didn't seem such a good idea.
I dive with a 12 litre twin-set and my bottom time can extend well into deco even on nitrox, with plenty of air to spare for a buddy in an emergency. We don't expect drysuits to come in one size that fits all, so why do we expect it of tanks?
Marc Thompson, Hendon, London

I was quite upset to read that Louise, one of the heavy breathers mentioned in your article, was ready to give up scuba diving. My message to her is: "Don't!" This is your sport, and just because some people are cruel and don't wish to buddy with you, that is their loss.
I have been diving for almost a year, always with the same buddy. He breathes a lot more heavily than me and dives with a 15 litre tank and pony cylinder. I dive with a 12 litre tank and still surface with at least 30 bar more than is left in his tank, but it is not how much you can squeeze out of your tank that counts but what you do with your time.
All these people who make Louise feel uneasy by cringing when she arrives at a dive site are just making her more anxious, which in turn will make her breathe more heavily. They should help her enjoy her sport, and if she needs a buddy I would gladly join her for a few dives.
Phillip Laban, Oldham

Editor's reply: That wasn't the only offer we received from divers willing to buddy up with Louise, so take heart, heavy breathers - you have plenty of allies out there.

Tempting Tapti
I read Mike Clark's article on diving beyond the Sound of Mull (Dare To Be Different, July) with interest. I agree wholeheartedly with him about the Tapti - we liked it so much last year we insisted on diving it again the next day! One feature of this dive is the chance for an encounter with the seals that frequent the area.
However, if anyone is encouraged to dive it, please note that the bow no longer points towards the surface, but has collapsed onto its starboard side away from the shore. Despite this collapse, the bow is still in one piece, with anchor and chains in place, and makes a very impressive sight. Beware that this means that the bow may not be stable, so swimming between the starboard side and the seabed might not be a good idea!
Andy Brigham, Crawley, Sussex

Penetrating response
In response to James Aston's letter (Off-gassing, July), I agree that wreck penetration is a potentially dangerous experience, but the risk can be managed with appropriate equipment and techniques. Many UK wreck divers like to have a bit of a look about inside and wreck penetration is much more prevalent than James might realise.
For the Wreck Tour series the questions I have to think about for each article are: "What would the average diver on that wreck like to see?" and "What would they be capable of doing?". In some cases this involves a description of routes inside the wreck, and in others I have made a point of avoiding routes inside the wreck, even though I know and enjoy diving such routes. This month's tour of the Hood is a prime example of the latter.
Even basic courses such as PADI Wreck Speciality include limited wreck penetration, under the general guideline that divers should never be more than 40m from the surface, horizontal and vertical distances added. The cross-corridor I mention in the Lucy tour falls within this distance, as do all the other rooms described.
Having said that, there are some wreck tours in the pipeline that go well beyond a cumulative 40m from a clear surface. My advice to anyone contemplating wreck penetration for the first time is: get training and advice from an expert, study the techniques, use appropriate equipment, practise everything repeatedly in safe conditions, and build your dives progressively. There's nothing wrong with being adventurous, but don't bite off more than you can chew.
John Liddiard, Clifton, Bristol

Sailing menace
I read with interest How to Hit Back at A-Flag Flouters (News, July). I had cause for concern on 26 June when, on the site of the James Eagan Layne off Plymouth, we encountered the crews of many yachts who were actually racing around the permanent buoy marking the wreck site.
We had no prior knowledge of the race and our divers, along with those from two other dive boats, were already in the water when the yachts arrived. All three dive boats displayed the A-flag and we had a large buoy on the shotline. Three delayed surface marker buoys were also on view, so divers were likely to surface at any moment. Despite this, some of the yachts did not slow down or change direction. They just barged right through the middle of our boats/divers.
We tried to position our boats to protect the divers and to inform the yachtsmen of the situation. However, only some heeded our warnings, the others ploughed straight through regardless. The divers could have been unaware that yachts were bearing down on them until it was too late, as yachts make little sound under water.
The organisers of this race should have known that this was one of the most popular sites for divers on the South Coast, and should not have chosen it. The crews should have taken notice of the A-flags. So on two counts things went wrong.
I have no complaint against yacht racing or its adherents. There is room for everyone to enjoy the sea if they behave responsibly. In this case a simple solution would have been to put a temporary buoy elsewhere for the yachts to race around, but deliberately choosing a site where divers are likely to be is beyond belief. Are the organisers incompetent or do they not care about safety? I have written to the Coastguard with my complaint.
Mike Bailey, Dive Marshal

In support of DIY reg servicing
Congratulations on printing the Deep Breath by John Liddiard on servicing our own regulators (Going Spare on Parts, July). I have taken a new regulator back to the dealer after requiring gills to filter out the water which kept entering, and watched in amazement as he proceeded to strip the reg apart in front of me, chasing the circlip which holds the diaphragm inside around, using lots of expletives and a sharp screwdriver, which I hoped would, if it slipped, go into his palm and not my expensive reg!
I take great care of my equipment, so if there is a malfunction I'm the one in the hot seat and not some heavy-handed animal back at the service centre. Divers should have the right to obtain spares and the necessary training manuals if they so desire.
Arriving at the site of the Carnatic, which took five hours to reach from Hurghada, my octopus went into freeflow while I was kitting up. A quick strip-down and a rinse in fresh water and it worked. Had I fallen for the notion that service technicians are a gift from the gods, I would have had to sit this one out.
Please keep up the thought-provoking articles, although you'll be inundated with letters from the indoctrinated divers who think that all DIY and solo divers are suicidal and bad for our sport.
M J Evans, MAD Club, Thamesmead, London

In 1996 I attended a ten-day Dive Industry Technicians course with Scuba Technical and Training Services. I gained an NVQ Level 2 engineering and marine maintenance qualification, then purchased the tools and an ultrasound cleaning bath. I had no intention of setting up a business; I wished only to service the eight regulators in our club, which are used only in a 2m pool, and my own two regulators, all Spiros.
I spoke to a representative of the Health & Safety Executive who could see no reason why I should not undertake repairs of this equipment. I contacted the manufacturer offering to provide the serial numbers of the regs, but was told that it would not be possible to let me have parts as I was not an approved technician. The HSE also contacted the company on my behalf to say that it considered me qualified for what I proposed to do, but to no avail.
Peter Lemon, Royston, Hertfordshire

John Liddiard's Deep Breath in July hit one diving nail dead centre. I can remember in the distant past studying for the five speciality courses that made up a PADI Master Scuba Diver certification, while maintaining our local BSAC special branches boats and compressors as equipment officer.
That was in Oman and we dived almost every day, so such dual loyalty was accepted.
One of the PADI courses was Equipment Specialist, and we were shown how to dis-mantle, inspect and rebuild various regulators, then encouraged to do it for ourselves. Checking, adjusting and diving with a demand valve which you have serviced yourself is an excellent way to see if you have absorbed all the course information!
Perhaps the BSAC should consider similar courses when finances permit, and use its considerable influence to allow Fully Equipment Trained Technical Liaison Officers (Fettlers) access to parts and manuals from these rather reluctant regulator makers.
After all, choosing between two otherwise identically qualified divers for that last place on a special expedition is simple if one won't even consider carrying spare O-rings and the other is never without a comprehensive toolkit, bits to fit all manner of kit and a calibrated medium-pressure test gauge with adapters...
Nick Herbert, Christchurch, Dorset

"Lost world" not the work of man
I read Kenny Ehman's article Lost World of Okinawa (July) with interest and amusement.
I have seen similar structures in the Similan Islands in Thailand. While these lands are of granitic origin, the fracturing of sheets of rock and the subsequent peeling of layers has produced a very man-made appearance. Anyone who has dived on Shark Fin Reef in the south-east section of this archipelago will have seen similar structures.
The holes that Jacques Mayol is peering into could have been made by eddies and currents - the surface can be seen just above.
The theory that a land-bridge formed across the eastern Pacific from Japan to the Ryukyu archipelago prior to continental drift, thus allowing the movement of people, is preposterous. The continents have been drifting for millions of years and no human - especially a Cro-Magnon - would have existed at the time when Okinawa was, if it ever was, joined to Japan.
At the same time, a glance at a map shows that thousands of feet of water lie between the Ryukyu Islands and Japan. Had there been any migration it would have been by sea, and the chances are it would have been from China, across to Taiwan and from there to the Ryukyu Islands, Yonaguni being the nearest, only 80 miles east of Taiwan.
Man often tries to see his own work in nature. After all, when he first saw the Giant's Causeway did he not think the structure was, if not man-made, at least "giant-made"? The myth of Atlantis will bring out the best in any imagination.
Jim Breakall, Scuba Safaris, Tenterden, Kent

Canada finds itself wrongly charted
I read every issue of your magazine and enjoy it thoroughly - the last few have been outstanding. I do have one problem, however, and that is with the Travel Planner which came with the June issue. It seems that Peter Ellegard, who compiled it, did his research by reading accounts of the cruel Canadian wilderness penned by European explorers several centuries ago!
Contrary to the chart on pages 40-41 of the guide, Canada does offer coral reefs (freshwater and soft corals), training, caves in British Columbia and the central part of Canada, snorkelling and, yes, there are lots of places to go shore-diving.
In eastern Canada the summer is the best time to go, but divers do go ice-diving in winter. Here on the west coast we dive year-round. From October to March the visibility is as much as 30m in places and from April to September it ranges from a metre or so to 40m. Our waters are very safe to dive in and though there are places with currents, most have none.
Catherine Adler, Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada

Primary attraction
I read in a US magazine that statistics show that in an out-of-air situation most divers grab for their buddy's primary regulator and ignore the octopus. Is there any evidence for this among British divers?
It was partly this information that led me to choose the Buddy Auto Air as my second air source. That and the fact that dangling equipment is my pet hatred. The Auto-Air, together with an Aladin Air-X computer with radio transmitter on the first stage, means no "danglies" at all!
Denis W Sanderson, Grange-over-Sands, Cumbria

---

Appeared in DIVER - September 1999

---

We want to hear from you Write now to diving's brightest, most controversial letters section. There is £10 for the author of the lead letter each month. Address it to Diver, 55 High Street, Teddington, Middlesex TW11 8HA, fax 0181 943 4312 or e-mail editorial@divermag.co.uk. Please include your full name and home address.

Go to Beachcomber
Previous Letters

---

DIVERNET NAVIGATOR