David Strike wrote:

> Eh!  I favour what works and what allows me to better control a situation.
> A long hose gives me the flexibility to do that - and has proven its
worth.

Yep.  No question about it.  Nothing I said, or at least intended to say
should suggest otherwise.   Fortunately, neither of us has seen the other's
style of rescue.  Regardless, I believe your methods are effective.  The
point I was trying to make is that I too use what works and what allows ME
to better control a situation and that in my case, in a panic situation, the
long hose is more of a risk for me than a boon.

> It's not a question of being either, 'up close and personal' or, 'rescuing
at a
> distance'.  Each OOA situation will differ with regard to the way that the
> victim behaves - and the degree of stress that they're under.  That's
why -
> not doing cave diving - I have a long hose!  Otherwise it'd be a bit
> redundant in open water diving.  Wouldn't it!  :-)

It may not be a question of up close and personal when you're the rescuer.
It is for me when I am.  That's exactly why I mentioned it.  I concur with
everything you say about the stress of the victim.  A rescuer is much more
likely to succeed if he/she is flexible and versatile enough to deal with a
rapidly changing situation.  How a rescuer does that, however, is most
certainly colored by his/her training and experience. There's more than one
way to skin this cat and for my way, partly learned as a Water Safety
Instructor and Life Guard and partly learned through SCUBA training and
experience, the ability of the victim to get out of my reach, while still
attached to my life support, is a risk that is increased by the long hose.
A diver in panic who is out of my reach and attached to my life support
reduces the effectiveness of my rescue skills and increases the danger to
the victim and to me.

As far as the long hose being redundant otherwise, clearly I don't agree.  I
listed several reasons I like one which have nothing to do with an emergency
situation.  This sort of brings me back to where I started.  Isn't it
interesting that we both chose the long hose, but that we did so for very
different, almost opposing reasons.

> (Note, BTW, that I'm not talking about a 7 ft hose, but a 5 or 6 ft.  Both
> of which allow arms length contact between victim and rescuer - unless one
> of them has reallly short arms!)  :-)

That does make a difference.  Since we started this discussion in relation
to DIR, I assumed we were talking about the DIR standard which these days,
is 7 feet or more.  Even with my 6 foot hose, however, it may be possible
for a diver of similar or smaller stature than my own, to get out of reach.
A person does not have to have really short arms.  Just a little short is
enough.   Guess who has arms a little short for his stature and is noticably
less than 6 feet tall.  8^(

My first plan is to not let a paniced diver get out of reach.  My backup, if
one does, is to move very quickly to get closer.

Lee