Having built several 'freediving safety systems' myself (and currently working on yet another), I can say from first hand experience that the device rarely (if ever) works properly on the first 'deployment' in the ocean.
Given that fact (from my own experience), if I were involved with the volunteer organization of a competition, and the safety system had not been tested, then I would make the difficult choice of cancelling the depth-diving part of the competition.
All of us want to promote the sport as much as possible, as fast as possible. However, we should never allow our 'over-eagerness' to cloud our judgement. I would praise the organizers for at least deciding to abort the CW event given that the system didn't seem to be working properly; though in my case I probably would have chosen not to hold the deep event at all, with an untested system.
Further, one must not always take example from others. If one organization holds a competition with an un-tested system, and the competition either succeeds or fails, this in no way suggests that any other organization should 'follow the leader.' We each must use our own judgement.
In my case I have been unable to attempt a personal best depth for more than 3 years, due to the fact that I haven't had access to a safety system up to my standards (hence the reason I constantly seem to be trying to build something new).
On a more controversial subject, I also believe that if the maximum depth of the competition is less than 60m, then a lanyard/scuba-diver/FHOF system is quite adequate. Ironically, I believe that for shallow (<=60m) competitions, introducing complicated counter-balance systems may actually be counter-productive (no pun intended). The counter balance system was (in my view) primarily designed to reduce the need for extremely deep scuba divers (>60m), due to the risks & logistics of those scuba divers. In that sense, I believe it would be pointless to hold a 30-40m competition with a counterbalance system. Scuba divers (w/FHOF) would be much simpler in that case.
Eric Fattah
BC, Canada
Given that fact (from my own experience), if I were involved with the volunteer organization of a competition, and the safety system had not been tested, then I would make the difficult choice of cancelling the depth-diving part of the competition.
All of us want to promote the sport as much as possible, as fast as possible. However, we should never allow our 'over-eagerness' to cloud our judgement. I would praise the organizers for at least deciding to abort the CW event given that the system didn't seem to be working properly; though in my case I probably would have chosen not to hold the deep event at all, with an untested system.
Further, one must not always take example from others. If one organization holds a competition with an un-tested system, and the competition either succeeds or fails, this in no way suggests that any other organization should 'follow the leader.' We each must use our own judgement.
In my case I have been unable to attempt a personal best depth for more than 3 years, due to the fact that I haven't had access to a safety system up to my standards (hence the reason I constantly seem to be trying to build something new).
On a more controversial subject, I also believe that if the maximum depth of the competition is less than 60m, then a lanyard/scuba-diver/FHOF system is quite adequate. Ironically, I believe that for shallow (<=60m) competitions, introducing complicated counter-balance systems may actually be counter-productive (no pun intended). The counter balance system was (in my view) primarily designed to reduce the need for extremely deep scuba divers (>60m), due to the risks & logistics of those scuba divers. In that sense, I believe it would be pointless to hold a 30-40m competition with a counterbalance system. Scuba divers (w/FHOF) would be much simpler in that case.
Eric Fattah
BC, Canada