Taking BA off in a stopper?
 

I think Ive read about this somewhere but cannot remember where.

If you are thrashed about in a stopper and cannot swim out, in theory your
buoyancy can contribute to keeping you IN the stopper I believe.

Are there ACTUAL recorded cases of someone taking their PFD off, cool as
anything and diving out of the recirculating water?

Ta FM

I think I'd keep mine on, just so that they can find the body more
easily....
Mike in Lunenburg


"F. Mason" wrote in message
...
I think Ive read about this somewhere but cannot remember where.

If you are thrashed about in a stopper and cannot swim out, in theory your
buoyancy can contribute to keeping you IN the stopper I believe.

Are there ACTUAL recorded cases of someone taking their PFD off, cool as
anything and diving out of the recirculating water?

Ta FM

F. Mason wrote


If you are thrashed about in a stopper and cannot swim out, in theory your
buoyancy can contribute to keeping you IN the stopper I believe.

Its fairly sound theory - the recirculating water is at the surface, the
flow through is in the deeper water ..... And that's what you need to dive
into to get out of the stopper. I'd try diving with my BA on first
'though cos if the flow is as strong as a stopper you (almost) can't get out
of implies you'll need you BA once you do get out of it. But I guess if you
were going to drown if you didn't.....

Nidge

"Nidge" wrote in message
...

Its fairly sound theory - the recirculating water is at the surface, the
flow through is in the deeper water ..... And that's what you need to
dive
into to get out of the stopper. I'd try diving with my BA on first
'though cos if the flow is as strong as a stopper you (almost) can't get
out
of implies you'll need you BA once you do get out of it. But I guess if
you
were going to drown if you didn't.....

The last "official" recommendation that the BCU safety people put out I seem
to recall was NOT to do this, but as you say, if it is really your last
resort then what have you got to loose.

On the other hand, if you are still strong enough to take off your BA (no
easy matter), would it be better to wait for help to arrive - presumably
help can't be too far away unless you have been pretty daft.

This argument really goes back 30+ years to when we wore lifejackets for
paddling (old Ottersports were de rigour at one stage) and the buoyancy
of them was so much greater that the floatation was such that being held
was a problem. The normal pfd that we now wear for kayaking are so much
lower in floatation that any dangerous stopper will sink the paddler and
keeping the pfd on is strongly recommended.


In message , Nidge
writes

F. Mason wrote


If you are thrashed about in a stopper and cannot swim out, in theory your
buoyancy can contribute to keeping you IN the stopper I believe.

Its fairly sound theory - the recirculating water is at the surface, the
flow through is in the deeper water ..... And that's what you need to dive
into to get out of the stopper. I'd try diving with my BA on first
'though cos if the flow is as strong as a stopper you (almost) can't get out
of implies you'll need you BA once you do get out of it. But I guess if you
were going to drown if you didn't.....

Nidge





--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

Dave Manby wrote in message
...
This argument really goes back 30+ years to when we wore lifejackets for
paddling (old Ottersports were de rigour at one stage) and the buoyancy
of them was so much greater that the floatation was such that being held
was a problem.

Well, yes and no. I think I still have one of those old ribbed things stuck
in the garage. (I've probably and old BA somewhere in there as well). The
old BAs (and even more so the things with the sodding great collars, which
TBH were really lifejackets, do have a *lot* of floatation. But then again
my not-so-ultra-white-water 'white water' BA is rated as having 70 newts of
lift [1] which is a fair bit too and I think there's specialised stuff with
quite a lot more.

[1] Though how they ever trained 70 of the things to do synchronised
swimming ..... and then measure how hard they pulled still baffles me.

Nidge

Allegedly...

A Scottish rafting company recently made a big splash by accidentally
running two rafts, complete with punters, over the right hand side of
Eas a' Chathaidh on The Orchy in fairly high water. This was probably
not their finest hour. Carnage ensued though, thankfully, no one was
seriously hurt.

Anyway, anecdotal evidence suggests that all the punters subbed through
the towback and popped up some way downstream while the two raft guides
both took a bit of a working in the hole. It has been suggested that
this was down to the punters wearing wet wetsuits and the guides
wearing drysuits, a drysuit having a reasonable degree of bouyancy even
if well 'bled'.

On the original subject: no, i don't think I'd ever take my BA off if
stuck in a hole.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Allegedly...


On the original subject: no, i don't think I'd ever take my BA off if
stuck in a hole.


Nor me... I would rather be on top of the water than underneath. You never
know if you are going to go down and flush through, or down and stuck
somewhere (undercut, double stopper).

Additionally - if I do get out of the stopper, I now want my buoyancy aid
to help me as I tackle the next stages of the river.

Cheers

Peter


I doubt that if a stopper was that meaty then taking your BA off would make
a massive difference anyway. Someone else may know better but i believe the
bouyancy figures quoted are for static pressure. The bouyancy figure for a
foaming stoper would i imagine be somewhat lower. Perhaps thats why i can
never roll as well in the damn things ;-).

Dear All,

I side with Dave Manby,

this is really an old wife's tale. Keep it on and get below the tow, you
should pop up down stream somewhere and then you'll need it cause you will
be knackered.

Cheers,
Chris. Hawkesworth. One wat made these things for many years.

"John Woodhall" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Allegedly...


On the original subject: no, i don't think I'd ever take my BA off if
stuck in a hole.


Nor me... I would rather be on top of the water than underneath. You
never
know if you are going to go down and flush through, or down and stuck
somewhere (undercut, double stopper).

Additionally - if I do get out of the stopper, I now want my buoyancy
aid
to help me as I tackle the next stages of the river.

Cheers

Peter


I doubt that if a stopper was that meaty then taking your BA off would
make
a massive difference anyway. Someone else may know better but i believe
the
bouyancy figures quoted are for static pressure. The bouyancy figure for a
foaming stoper would i imagine be somewhat lower. Perhaps thats why i can
never roll as well in the damn things ;-).

In article , Chris. Hawkesworth
wrote:
Dear All,

I side with Dave Manby,

this is really an old wife's tale. Keep it on and get below the tow, you
should pop up down stream somewhere and then you'll need it cause you will
be knackered.

Cheers,
Chris. Hawkesworth. One wat made these things for many years.

OK, Chris: I don't know any Old Wives with tales to tell or otherwise, so
let's deal with realities, shall we?

What is the official BCU line for those poor unfortunates about to be swept
over, for example, Romney weir on the Thames?

You know - the ones with anti-scour sills and the like that tend to kill
canoeists and others

Please tell paddlers how they would 'get below the tow' in these weirs and
indicate the sort of state a body might be in should it 'pop up' downstream.
'Knackered'? - is that how they would be described?

Are individuals more likely to die with or without a buoyancy aid? Please
quote actual figures of drownings / deaths by severe battering in these
structures etc - and, if you can find any, survivors.

Please will you also give the official BCU line on the dangers posed to its
members who now have Thames licenses provided with their membership - which,
considering there is no specific warning provided by the BCU, might imply
that the BCU considers Thames weirs are 'safe' according to the normal
caveats enshrined in water safety mantras.

Please also make it clear that should a member now be swept to his death over
one of these weirs that the BCU is as culpable as the Environment Agency and
others for failing to ensure that such lethal structures are adequately
guarded.

(This communication and others will be archived for such an eventuality)


Allan Bennett
Not a fan of old wives


--