Why do we even use singles in cave diving???

[andrebasso]

As I was reading the last thread about doubles in Ginnie - I realized that something has always been bothering me about the singles vs. doubles debate. This is not meant to insult anyone or any agency, just my personal thoughts.

I've often asked myself why divers are allowed to get into cave training with a single tank. Unfortunately, the more I think about it, the answer comes down to $$$$. From a business perspective, there are many more recreational OW divers out there who have dived with a single tank than those who are profficient with doubles. That being the case, if I was a cave instructor (or private property owner) it would be economically foolish of me to restrict my business to only those who have used doubles before. ---- I may be wrong here but I think this is the heart of the problem. ---- For example, if PADI required students to use double tanks for anything under 60' do you think the cave community would even talk about singles? The word would not even be in the cave community lexicon. IMHO, ANYONE going into a cave MUST be familiar with the use of doubles, manifold procedures and the long hose. The only reason single tank setups are even tolerated is because its an easy way (albeit unsafe way) to transition OW divers into the sport.

By having this as a prerequisite, students will come to class more prepared, they will feel safer and they will be less likely to get themselves killed by "sneaking a dive on doubles" right after getting their cavern cert - which you KNOW they are going to do anyway. Also, this will weed out the weekend thrill seekers from those who are genuinely interested in learning about proper cave diving procedures.

As far as limiting a student cavern diver to the maximum of their linear penetration - limit them to a set of smaller doubles. This way the student is being trained with the proper cave diving gear, the proper configuration and the understanding of how it all works but they won't be able to go very far. I think this should be mandatory for all training agencies. Max double 40's for cavern. Max double 80's for intro. The reason why this would work so well is that at that level most divers rent their tanks - the student would show the rental store their c-card and the store would rent them the tank size they are qualified for, and no bigger. Additionally, even if a student cave diver were to get his/her hands on a pair of steel 130's - the airfill station would only fill them to the equivalent volume of what their c-card allowed. This is a simple way to manage the linear penetration distance for student divers while giving them the security and redundancy of doubles. There is no convincing argument for ANY diver to be in a cave environment with only a single tank. At the end of the day the only convincing argument, it seems to me, is that it makes $$$. Of course this is all IMHO....
.
.

[Genesis]

Double 72s make excellent "light doubles" in terms of trim and hydrodynamics. Too bad they don't make LP72s any more - but there are a lot of them around. I own two sets at present. I wouldn't overfill them as they tend to be fairly old and I don't like the idea of a "boom" - but for cavern/light cave and open ocean down to 150 or so (w/penetration) they're awesome. Not too heavy or nasty to walk around with, but all the advantages of doubles.

HP100s are not bad either, and can't be overfilled - so they really ARE 100cf each (unlike 108s or 104s that can and often are "pumped".) HP80s are usually too short (unless you are too!) to trim out right.

I totally agree with this - the entire "single tank" thing is a purely economic argument that sacrifices safety for money. IMHO its entirely indefensible for any agency, landowner or instructor to permit it, say much less REQUIRE it.

In fact, "money over safety" has become so ingrained into certain dive sites (and other industry people's) heads that I was actually told at a commercial land-based site a few years ago (which I will not name to avoid the CDF police getting upset) that doubles were actually a violation of PADI OW standards and as such I couldn't dive them (that was all I had with me) there.

When challenged to produce evidence for such a clearly outrageous statement they were unable to - but they stuck by the ban; they DID loan me a BC and single (I had wrenches so I could convert my reg to a single setup) so I could dive. After I had made my dives they actually came back and apologized for claiming it was against standards (they said they called PADI in CA and were told it was not) - but of course at that point the issue was moot as I was done diving.

Diving without actual redundancy of your breathing supply beyond the point where you can make a SAFE CESA is, in my opinion, unsafe.

A pony is fine for open water and some (small) caverns but is in no way adequate for a cave - any cave. A buddy does not change this. In point of fact the most likely item of "equipment" you have with you on a dive to malfunction is your brain, which means that it is royally foolish to put your survival in the hands of something you KNOW has the highest probability of "breaking" (your dive partner.) Accident statistics bear this out - the majority of all fatalities which happen to be "solo" are in fact unintentionally solo (preceded by buddy separation.) Being intentionally solo forces one to think about these things and deal with them.... or at least it should!

Teaching or requiring a singles configuration as an element of any "certification" in an environment where a CESA cannot be made is, in my opinion, "reckless endangerment" - just one small step short of "criminal negligence."

IMHO the only way we'll see this fixed (due to the money issues) is if divers become educated before they take these classes and thus start refusing to take such a class or diving in such a fashion. Since both taking a class or diving from a boat or site require signing a waiver absolving the agency, instructor and/or dive operator from such "reckless endangerment", the only solution is for divers to refuse - economic pressure got us where we are now, and it is, in reality, the only thing that will fix it.

[andrebasso]

Of course there is yet another way to solve both the MONEY problem and the PROPER TRAINING problem. Create a new class that is done entirely in the OW basin that teaches students how to properly dive in doubles. Call it something like INTRO TO DOUBLES. That way, students enter Cavern Level with the right equipment mindset and people still make money (or even more) teaching them.

OMG!!!, you know what I just realized? --- That's what DIR-Fundamentals is. ---- LOLLLLLL..... Oh boy, that was a big paradigm shift!!! I guess I can't knock the GOOBER'S training program anymore.

LOL...

[Gary]

the more I think about it, the answer comes down to $$$$.
You might as well expand the question to open water divers since they also could be safer with doubles on most dives deeper then 60'.

Sure money is involved, so is convience, ease of use, easeir to maintain, lighter, less training needed to employ them,easier to get on and off a boat with, etc...

Not all caves are as easy as Ginnie to get into. Some you need to lower yourself in by rope or ladder or carry your gear through miles of dry cave passageway.

There is a cave I dove back in 94/95 as a NSS/CDS guided dive in the cow fields of Branford it was shallow and short but had a 20' extension ladder to get in. It probably could have been dove just fine on a single 95 but we all dove doubles and there was a lot of maoning and groaning from the divers that brought their double 104's especially coming back up the ladder. ;)

There are dives where a single tank is adequite and far more convienient then doubles. Cavern divers actually have very minimal need for the little extra redundancy doubles offer (traded for a lot of extra money, complexity and maintqainance) and sump divers certainly wouldn't justify the extra weight and equipment of doubles to pass a short shallow sump to the next section of dry cave.

[andrebasso]

Sure money is involved, so is convience, ease of use, easeir to maintain, lighter, less training needed to employ them,easier to get on and off a boat with, etc...


Hey Gary,

I agree that all of those things you listed are reasons why divers can use singles in the OW, but in a cave I feel SAFETY should come before all of the things you mentioned above. Ease of use and less work should have NO PLACE in cave diving if it means giving up on safety. Therefore I have to stick by my guns, DOUBLES FOR ALL.... LOL.

Also, I agree that with highly specialized forms of sump diving there may be situations where a single bottle is "preferable." Once again, this comes to ease of use over safety. Is it tiring and cumbersome to lug doubles around, yes it is. In a sump or wormhole somewhere 2500' back in the middle of the earth's mantle (lol) I would gladly give up ease over SAFETY. However, there can be a compromise similiar to the one I mentioned before regarding cavern divers - simply use small doubles. That way the old back bone feels fine but you still have some redundancy. Furthermore they don't have to be back mount, they can be small independant singles as opposed to one larger single cylinder. Anyhow, just my cents.

[Genesis]

In most caverns a single rig with a 19cf slung pony is enough for a safe ascent. The same rig is perfectly acceptable for deep (over 60') ocean dives within the NDLs as well.

(Don't consider the little 6cf bottles as ok though for either - a friend of mine did and nearly killed himself on a 100' dive a couple of years ago when he ran out of gas - twice - first on his main bottle due to an equipment problem he couldn't isolate (freeflow) and then AGAIN on the ascent off the 6cf pony!)

[OneBrightGator]

Andre, how long have you been around the cave diving community? This is by no means a dig at you, but if I recall correctly you recently got your cavern and certified and you also live pretty far away from the "heart" of the community.

I had the opportunity to sit and chat with someone who's been cave diving for longer then I have been alive and he told me how some time ago 1/6ths of doubles was appropriate at the Intro level and they were finding Intro divers exceeding that rule and then other Intro rules (jumps, gaps, etc.). These divers were not pursuing further training and dying, in fact, another instructor friend of mine has only had one student die while cave diving, he was Intro and divng outside those limits habitually but refused to continue training. Some old timers believe the old adage of "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." will ring all too true soon.

Also, keep in mind that doubles bring double the failure points, two neck o-rings instead of one, two burst disks instead of one and two manifold connections instead of one (or none with a Y-valve). Also, the only redundancy missing from a single tank setup is the valve o-ring and burst disk, keep in mind that the greatest potential for either of those to fail is as pressure increases, filling or being heated in a vehicle and after you've passed those to actions the pressure decreases from there on out. I have never seen a tank o-ring blow when properly installed and I would challenge anyone to find an incident where one failed outside of filling or heating.

If you feel that cave diving with a single is dangerous then don't do it.

[Serota]

Amazing what I learn on here....

I thought that single tanks were recommended for cavern and intro. simply because they would likely be easier for the "newbie" to deal with in terms of bouyancy etc. and would therefore make it easier for the heavily task-loaded student to do things like learn how to run lines, do drills etc.. Since an "H" or "Y" valve with long hose is required, air share drills or real gas emergencies should be the same procedure as with doubles.

I do agree that some experience with doubles should be recommended before using them in an overhead, as I have observed several almost unbelievable incidents with out of control students in doubles; including on 2 occassions having them crash into me while I was trying to mind my own business.

BTW, I am of the opinion that AOW divers diving > than 100' in the ocean is REALLY hazardous, not so much because of gear failure, but because they often have no clue how fast that 80 cu ft is going to disappear at that kind of depth or how easily they can get bent or otherwise messed up. As far as buddy assistance - for the crowd I am thinking of - forget it.

OK, fire away.

[Kelly Jessop]

Andre you bring up a good question,and Ben backs up one of our failings. There is a long history to this sport,and some things from our history stand out loud and clear such as 1/3 rule,continuous guideline etc,but there are some secondary rules that have come about that have been forgotten in history. We don't challange the basic rules to cave diving I eluded to since they are firmly ingrained,but these secondary rules are constantly challanged when a new generation of cave divers come along. We are forunate to have many of the innovators of the sport still around and very active,why not direct your questions to them,although they do not follow these forums.

I feel the single tank configuration to be very safe,and if used according to its limits provide me adequate exit opportunities. This configuration is used by no mounters very successfully,and nobody doing a no mount dive would do this unless they felt the system was safe.

[andrebasso]

Andre, how long have you been around the cave diving community? This is by no means a dig at you, but if I recall correctly you recently got your cavern and certified and you also live pretty far away from the "heart" of the community.

I had the opportunity to sit and chat with someone who's been cave diving for longer then I have been alive and he told me how some time ago 1/6ths of doubles was appropriate at the Intro level and they were finding Intro divers exceeding that rule and then other Intro rules (jumps, gaps, etc.). These divers were not pursuing further training and dying, in fact, another instructor friend of mine has only had one student die while cave diving, he was Intro and divng outside those limits habitually but refused to continue training. Some old timers believe the old adage of "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." will ring all too true soon.

Also, keep in mind that doubles bring double the failure points, two neck o-rings instead of one, two burst disks instead of one and two manifold connections instead of one (or none with a Y-valve). Also, the only redundancy missing from a single tank setup is the valve o-ring and burst disk, keep in mind that the greatest potential for either of those to fail is as pressure increases, filling or being heated in a vehicle and after you've passed those to actions the pressure decreases from there on out. I have never seen a tank o-ring blow when properly installed and I would challenge anyone to find an incident where one failed outside of filling or heating.

If you feel that cave diving with a single is dangerous then don't do it.

In my experience, one's proximity to an activity and/or a community has had very little corellation to one's overall skill level and/or ability to think critically. I've met divers from Canada who were some of the most thoughtful in their approach to cave diving, divers from Nebraska who were meticulous in their approach and FOR COMPARISON SAKE I have met local cave divers in Florida who I would NEVER enter the water with again. That said, I have also buddied with plenty of divers who lived in Florida that were very competent. It's about how you think and how you put those thoughts into action, not where you live. I have yet to meet someone who has learned a skill via osmosis.

Irrespective of one's rank and file and where we reside, I think your logic about redundancy is completely flawed. -- Double tanks ARE more redundant. -- I would wager 99% of those on this board would agree with me. The redundancy we are talking about is not about the total number of o-rings and the total number of failure points, it's about the number of CRITICAL failure points that can or cannot be isolated from other failure points within the same system. On a single tank you have a total of TWO critical failure points that would lead to TOTAL loss of gas. A ruptured burst disk and a tank o-ring. Either of those "going" would lead to total air loss. On a set of doubles you have ONE critical failure point, namely the isolator valve itself. That however can itself be isolated if you choose to purchase a manifold that has two isolators instead of just one. With one of those systems, the total number of critical failure points would effectively be ZERO.

Anyhow, my post was not about failure points on doubles as I was confident most people understood the benefits. What I was trying to state was that the current method of preventing student divers from going too "far into the system" was flawed. The current method requires that you give the diver LESS redundancy and then hope that they will not go in too far and get into trouble. The truth is that new divers will ALWAYS break the limits and ALWAYS push the boundaries further than they should be doing. Anticipating that student divers will do this - my solution was to outfit them properly for maximum safety and then limit their penetration distance by restricting the size of the tanks they are able to use. In fact the solution I mentioned is reinforced by your own coments. Student will always break the rules - if you tell them to wear a single - they will rent doubles. If you tell them to dives 1/6's they will dive to 1/3's. By starting them in doubles from the beginning and then only allowing them to dive in smaller sets of doubles you effectively are solving both problems. The reason for this is because as a "community" its easier to enforce cavern/intro divers to wear a small set of doubles then it is for us to enforce their adherence to 1/6's. A dive shop's rental section can tell an intro or discrentionary apprentice diver to shove it if they try to rent double 130's however you can't tell that student anything when they are in a cave and breaking their 1/6's on a set of PST 130's and about to kill themselves. Restricting student divers to smaller sets of doubles would solve alot of problems. But what do I know - I don't live in Florida, so my lifelong experience with diving doubles goes out the window.

[Limestone Cowboy]

Ben, Very well stated.

Drew

[Cindy]

Gees, I must be stupid because if my instructor found out we were breaking the rules we would not get our card. Period! He had a lot of friends who would rat ya out too! Seriously I get accused of being a wild card but I was a good girl while I trained. I wanted to be the best cave diver I could be and wanted to stay alive. Both of which I did by obeying the rules and listening to my instructor. I know a lot of divers who obey rules and I find people who say that others ALWAYS do something, like breaking rules, is either very young or trying to feel better about their own wrong doings.

Can we all just sit back a minute and give it a rest? Things are getting a little heated here. Cindy :wink:

[Genesis]

IF an Intro-trained diver is incompetent then by definition the certification itself is worthless and so is the class.

The example that Ben brings up highlights that point - the solution to that is to either expand the intro class to the point that it covers the necessary material to keep those people from killing themselves or drop it entirely, leaving only "Cave".

Again - its back to money over safety.

And - for me, at least - I ain't going in any overhead with more than one critical failure point.

With an "H" or "Y" valve I am required to have two. That's one more than is necesasry. And oh, by the way, burst discs do can and DO fail underwater. If it happens to you on an "H" valve tank you're in deep kimchee.

[andrebasso]

Gees, I must be stupid because if my instructor found out we were breaking the rules we would not get our card. Period! He had a lot of friends who would rat ya out too! Seriously I get accused of being a wild card but I was a good girl while I trained. I wanted to be the best cave diver I could be and wanted to stay alive. Both of which I did by obeying the rules and listening to my instructor. I know a lot of divers who obey rules and I find people who say that others ALWAYS do something, like breaking rules, is either very young or trying to feel better about their own wrong doings.

Can we all just sit back a minute and give it a rest? Things are getting a little heated here. Cindy :wink:

In case anyone is wondering -- I passed cavern a long time ago and am qualified to dive in doubles in a cave.

[Limestone Cowboy]

In case anyone is wondering -- I passed cavern a long time ago and am qualified to dive in doubles in a cave.

http://cavediver.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=3087&highlight=

7 months is not a long time dude. I know guys that have been cave diving 35 years. I always try to listen more than talk around them...

Drew

[Cindy]

Boy that's a relief! Cindy :D :D

[andrebasso]

In case anyone is wondering -- I passed cavern a long time ago and am qualified to dive in doubles in a cave.

http://cavediver.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=3087&highlight=

7 months is not a long time dude. I know guys that have been cave diving 35 years. I always try to listen more than talk around them...

Drew


I thought I was directing a concern to you guys that was very specific and clear and very seperate from my own level of training. If you think I was talking "around" anyone here tell me who it was and I will apologize. However, if your idea of talking "around" is that one should not speak what's on their mind unless they have 35 years of experience then you must live an existence with no challenging of rules, authority or conventions. I don't personally feel life is long enough to wait that long, so excuse me for being unconventional and stepping out of line. :twisted:

[Limestone Cowboy]

Not my forum, so it's not up to me what you do or say. I was just pointing out that 7 months, even if you lived here and dove everyday, is not enough experience to argue any of this from any place of authority.

You want to joust at windmills with the other Don Juans on this forum, have at it. Just be safe, and remember swagger can get you killed in this sport.



I'm not being dogmatic, I'm just always right...


Drew

[MK7]

Go ahead and speak your mind, Andre. Old salts can learn from newbies, too. But as long as this is Pick On The Yankee Day:


most divers rent their tanks

No, most divers don't. The only people I've ever seen renting tanks are those that live so far away that they had to fly to cave country. I can't imagine why anyone would even become cave certified if they didn't live close enough that they could dive every couple of months or so.


get themselves killed by "sneaking a dive on doubles" right after getting their cavern cert - which you KNOW they are going to do anyway

I never did that, nor did anyone I dive with. Rules are put there for a reason, and diving beyond your level of training breaks Rule #1 of Accident Analysis.


and the long hose

A long hose is unnecessary in the cavern zone. A long hose serves two purposes: to allow for swimming long distances single file while sharing air, and for making technical divers feel superior to open water divers (which I guess is why they even use them on easy open water dives).


familiar with the use of doubles

Many spring sites have open water zones that are excellent for this.

Again, always feel free to speak your mind. I just couldn't help jumping on the bandwagon.

MK7

[andrebasso]

Cowboy,

Man you got it all wrong brother... If you read through all of my posts I have ever wrote on this forum, you will see that I have always spoke candidly about what I knew and candidly about what I did not know. On subjects I did not know - I NEVER pretended to be a point of authority.

I would say the issue is here is that a newbie who has just asked a perfectly VALID question that --- is somehow challenging YOUR authority and swagger.

[Limestone Cowboy]

You asked a question and then argued about it....pretty obvious to me. asking the question is fine, but listen to the answer.

(Actually, upon rereading it, you didn't really even ask a question, just explained how the present way of doing things was so messed up)

As to my authority? I have little. And very little swagger. And still alive, and still diving. But like others said, many of us have been over this same ground before. I almost got booted from ginnie for diving double 80s on an intro card over 10 years ago. I was wrong, and learned from it.

BTW, saying you were cavern certified a long time ago, when in reality I have tank fills older than your c-card, is not being "candid". You are still so green you don't know what you know yet, and that's pretty normal. We've all been there.

No more posts from me on this, wasted too much time here as it is.

Drew

[Genesis]

Just one quick point of order...

A long hose is desireable (IMHO) on an OW (or cavern) rig for a number of reasons:

1. Its FAR EASIER to share air with one than a regular OW configuration. I don't know how many REAL airshares (not simulations) you've done, but you only need to do ONE in a real "situation" to understand why having someone who is freaked out (and OOA) thrashing your face is a bad thing. The further away from my mask and other reg I can get them, the better. Those who argue for the "other" way for OW and Cavern are IMHO those who have an "anti-Hog" bent for philosophical reasons or who have never actually been a donor of gas "in earnest." I had to do it exactly once before I recognized how stupid (and dangerous) it was on a standard OW rig.

2. If you think someone's going to "look for the pretty octo" when they're OOA see #1 - they won't and don't. Been there, done that, been mugged and am still here. Oh, on an OW rig that means they get the SHORT hose; see #1 (again) for why that's bad - or you can figure it out on your own when your mask is knocked off and sinks to the bottom on an ascent from a nice "easy" OW dive. Blind ascents with a panic'd OOA diver 6" from your bare face are FUN - ONCE.

3. I can't drag a backup in the mud if its an inch under my chin. Well, ok, I can't do so without knowing that I did it.

IMHO the only legitimate reason NOT to use a longhose in OW is that you're diving a jacket and don't have a routing point for it. THAT problem is solved by using a 5' hose which doesn't require a routing point; it runs nicely under your armpit for most people.

Just because something is often-repeated does not make it right. Violating gas management rules will eventually kill you dead regardless of your certification level - witness the somewhat-recent fatality of a guy who (full cave cert'd) had decided that "half + 200" was perfectly ok in a flowing system......

As I pointed out in the other thread with a detailed example the math on this is clear - you are never left with less safety margin (even though you penetrate further) by carrying more gas.

Demanding that people carry both less gas and less redundancy is IMHO "reckless endangerment."

[andrebasso]

Go ahead and speak your mind, Andre. Old salts can learn from newbies, too. But as long as this is Pick On The Yankee Day:


most divers rent their tanks

No, most divers don't. The only people I've ever seen renting tanks are those that live so far away that they had to fly to cave country. I can't imagine why anyone would even become cave certified if they didn't live close enough that they could dive every couple of months or so.


get themselves killed by "sneaking a dive on doubles" right after getting their cavern cert - which you KNOW they are going to do anyway

I never did that, nor did anyone I dive with. Rules are put there for a reason, and diving beyond your level of training breaks Rule #1 of Accident Analysis.


and the long hose

A long hose is unnecessary in the cavern zone. A long hose serves two purposes: to allow for swimming long distances single file while sharing air, and for making technical divers feel superior to open water divers (which I guess is why they even use them on easy open water dives).


familiar with the use of doubles

Many spring sites have open water zones that are excellent for this.

Again, always feel free to speak your mind. I just couldn't help jumping on the bandwagon.

MK7


Thanks for the constructive response. LOL. Us Yankees are not all that bad!!! :D

Just to clarify, in my post I mentioned that most people at that "LEVEL" of certification are likely to rent tanks. Namely cavern and some intro. Just from my own personal observation I have seen many new cavern students renting tanks so that was just from my observation at Ginnie and at Cave Excursions. My last trip to CE I saw numerous student renting tanks, two of them I can say for sure were locals as I was talkng to the parents of student divers. However, in that same post I mentioned that even if a cavern diver who owned tanks - were to show up with doubles that he/she owned, the shop would only fill the tanks to a certain amount so as to limit the air usage. So basically, the system would work if the student owned or rented tanks. If rented - the limitations on air would be imposed by the size of the cylinders given to the student. If owned - the limitations would be imposed by the amount of air filled into the set ot tanks.

As for the other things you mentioned, I have to agree maybe I was not very fair and you are actually correct. Some people won't break ANY of the rules. However, those who do at the early levels of training will typically get themselves into a BIG heap of trouble. The solution I was proposing would basically assume that all divers would break the rule so as to prevent accidents with those who actually do go ahead and break the rules. I still stick to my guns, I think that by giving students doubles from the beginning they are safer. Most of the deaths I've read about involving news students had them either borrowing doubles or using singles to great depths or some crazy combination of the two. I still think cavern divers properly trianed in doubles with air fill limitations makes for safer divers all around.

[Genesis]

I disagree with fill limitations.

A person who just wants to go "a bit further" and who is not concerned with the "don't dive beyond 1/6ths" (or whatever) will simply start bending the gas management rules - and that is far more likely to get you killed than diving "big tanks."

Artificial limitations which reduce safety margins are idiotic.

Arguing for "less gas" (whether in singles or doubles) is like arguing that we shouldn't have airbags in our cars, because if we don't have them we'll drive more safely. Oh, and let's set up seat belts so they BREAK if you exceed 70mph too, so if you are speeding on the interstate, then the belt will break in a crash and you won't get its benefit.

Or, for that matter, let's govern all vehicles so they cannot drive faster than 75mph. They simply won't go any faster. Its trivially easy to do with the computer-controlled engines in today's vehicles.

Ever wonder WHY that's not done?

Here's the reason:

The first time someone pulled out to pass a slow car and got in a head-on due to the governer, the manufacturer would be out millions.

Yet - people couldn't speed (a known contributor to accidents) with the governors.......

This is the same sort of thing.

Again, let's postulate that you have an "aw @#$!" moment in a cave. You may choose (at the limit of thirds) between having 4 minutes to fix whatever happened and start out, or eight minutes to fix whatever happend and start out. In either case you have enough gas (if you start out by that time) to make it before your gas supply is exhausted.

In which case are you more likely to live?

[Cindy]

I would like to add one more point to why they don't require double tanks for cavern class. There are a LOT of open water divers and tech divers who take cavern and then don't go on to full cave. They want to learn techniques, check out if they are interested in cave diving etc. I don't have stats, maybe some of the instructors can chime in but I bet up to half of the students don't go on to become cave divers for what ever reason. Now if you require full cave diving equipment for this class you will be placing a financial burdon on people. That may prevent a lot of people from trying the class out. No everyone is convinced before cavern they want to be cave divers. Some people like it and do go on to be cave divers. I don't think it's right to force them to spend that kind of money to check it out.

Not everyone solo dives. It's not a rule but common sense when training. When you have an "oh ####" moment in the cave you go to your buddy or instructor for help. That's why you pay them and why you dive with your buddies, it's a mutual need.


Getting back to the original subject which is what Ginnie Springs allows or not. It's their place. They are giving us the ability to go there and use the cave. For once just pay the money and obey the rules. Some of us like it there and would like to see it stay open. Cindy

[skip]

Who cares about the financial "burden" of buying doubles? Whenever you get into any leisure activity it's going to cost you. I don't snow ski, or go to NFL games, but friends who do seem to spend as much or more than I do on their preferred activities.

Who cares if the financial burden means some can't cavern dive? It's not a bad thing to have fewer cavern/cave divers in the world, especially if the investment is too much for them. Why make it cheap?

Why are agencies using single tanks to limit penetration? Is that really the objective? If properly trained, penetration is not an issue. How far in you go is not important, training and equipment are.

There is no money in teaching scuba, in all it's forms, so the idea that an instructor gets more bucks for less work when singles with H or Y valves are required makes no sense to me.

After reading the posts in this thread for the past week or more, things I took for granted make no sense anymore (like singles with H or Y valves). Require Doubles, develop a new "first" course in buoyancy control with doubles, then go cavern. Separate cavern from intro, no more fast-track long weekend, with a combined cavern and intro; require 6 months at cavern level and 15 logged cavern dives after certification, then intro ok. A slower more expensive training set (doubles, cavern, intro to cave) makes for better trained divers. When it becomes known that training agencies no longer consider any single tank configuration safe even for cavern dives, we may see a big decrease in those OW divers in caverns with OW gear.

Not that I see any agency changing just because I or we think there might be a better way. One thing I have learned, is that a lot of what makes sense to me before training makes no sense to me after training! So I tend to trust my agency, my instructor, and my mother! A lot of smart experienced minds are behind the current training requirements and I think they all have the best interests of the dive community in mind. But times do change and agencies are slow, as they should be, to change too, so maybe this thread will get people rethinking how best to train future cavern/cave divers.

just my two cents (and I may not even agree with myself after reading more posts!).

-skip

[Jay]

A lot of cave exploration was done on single tanks. :-D

That doesn't make it right just because it was done before.

I don't see any problem with cavern divers using a single with an H valve and a long hose. Quite safe.

I do not know of any deaths resulting from tank o-ring failures in a cave. If someone knows of one, please post it.

I do know of several incidents of intro divers exceeding their limits and dying however.

It is not all about the money. Unfortunately you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and I would have to say that based on past accidents that limiting penetration by diving a single tank properly set up is not a bad place to draw a line. History has shown that some intro divers just exceed the limits and they do not have the training/experience to survive their screw-ups...
It comes down to mental/emotional immaturity. Whether it is bravado, daring, or a death wish, these divers do not realize the dangers they put themselves in.
The 'discretionary' doubles cert is kind of a band-aid. How it really should be used is when you have an experienced tech diver with many dives on doubles who wants to do the cavern/intro training on doubles. Most of the instructors I know can tell if these people are experienced and mature enough to be trusted after spending an intense cavern/intro training session with them.
The cavern/intro course is not designed to train people in doubles.
I do not know how to control this but it seems to me that an intro diver should not be diving doubles without the express written consent of an instructor, or even an agency training director.
If someone with out experience diving doubles wants to learn to dive doubles, they should become proficient in OW first and only be allowed to dive doubles in a cave with a cave instructor until such time they have progressed beyond the intro point as determined by being certified to a higher level.

So where did we start off? An intro diver wants to dive doubles in a cave from privately controlled land and is not certified to do so. The private concern has established their rules based on training agency guidelines, decades of experience with cave divers, and literally tens of thousands of cave dives. And the intro diver complains that the 'system' is screwed up.

Reality check: It is not the 'System' that is screwed up.

BTW, when was the last time an intro diver diving a single tank within their limts died in a cave with commercially controlled access?

[Genesis]

"How many people have to die before we will admit that this is an unsafe practice?"

"Who's kids are you willing to orphan in order to push the continuation of an unsafe practice?"

Try arguing the math. Funny how nobody wants to.

Is that because its unassailable? I believe it is.

Reality check: People screw up.

Those who were "intro" and got killed diving doubles - were they competent in doubles? It sure appears not (rented gear, no evidence of extensive experience with doubles prior, etc.) Then you just made my (and Andre's) point - not yours.

If you think back to when you started diving doubles, you probably remember some really scary dives in terms of your buoyancy control and trim. I know I do. It didn't take that long to get sorted, but it sure wasn't a "one dive and I'm dome" thing either.

Let's take a similar example - a dry suit. When I first started diving dry I had a couple of "interesting" dives. It took a while to get sorted with it...

The guy (not that long ago) who bought it in Robideaux (I think that's spelled right) was full-cave certified but a new dry-suit diver. Like perhaps his first or second use of a dry suit! And.... it ended badly.

The two "intro" guys in LR were using two pieces of gear they didn't have significant OW experience with (doubles and motors.) It ended badly.

The key here is not the level of certifcation. It is unfamiliarity with too many new pieces of hardware in an unforgiving environment!

I can see an argument for cavern taught by a recreational agency to be done in a single provided that redundancy (e.g. a pony bottle of material size) is also carried. That I can support.

But - that "Cavern" should not be valid as a pre-req for Intro. And Intro should have to be taught in doubles. Either re-take/take Cavern (in doubles) or do two check-out cavern dives (as a "doubles cert test") IN doubles with an :blackbar2 before you can take the Intro class. In either case the class isn't to teach you to dive in doubles - you are expected to come to class fully "sorted" in their use.

When I was basically forced to take overhead training to get into places I wanted to dive, I already had about 50 dives in doubles.

Instead of playing "band aid", fix the problem.

All you need to do to break the chain of an accident is to remove any of the causal factors. In the case of the guys in LR, if they had been required to show up for Intro with doubles proficiency they would almost certainly still be alive.

I argue that for "Intro" you need proficiency in doubles as a prerequisite. For "Full" you also need proficiency in a dry suit as a prerequisite. "Full" makes the claim to be sufficient training for decompression diving and we know that getting cold materially increases your DCS risk. 72F gets cold, even in a thick wetsuit, after an hour.

We've got several fatalities in which lack of proficiency in equipment that should have been required at the diver's level of certification was a material factor in their demise, and we're sticking our head in the sand by ignoring this fact, instead arguing for and supporting enforcement of less safety!

If you support the policies of the agencies, instructors and sites that claim "No doubles" and argue that a buddy is good enough, why not argue that we should remove our backup regs at Intro, and "require" that Intro divers have a full cave buddy? After all, you have a buddy that's full cave, and he has redundancy with him, right? So what do you need it for? Get rid of the long hose, breathe the short, less entanglement risk, less gear, now you can dive a RECREATIONAL single tank! And while we're at it - let's all use Yoke valves too. Cheaper, easier to trim, less "new stuff" to worry about.

That's the argument you folks are making.......[/i]

[Rich]

I think that the CDF needs to come up with a new emoticon that represents someone yawning with boredom....

Safe diving,

Rich

[Jay]

I think that the CDF needs to come up with a new emoticon that represents someone yawning with boredom....

Safe diving,

Rich

How's this?

:smt015

[Rich]

I think that the CDF needs to come up with a new emoticon that represents someone yawning with boredom....

Safe diving,

Rich

How's this?

:smt015

Cool Jay !! Just what I was looking for :-D

I do like this one though....

:smt068 ....for people who insist on rehashing stupid arguments over and over again....

Safe diving,

Rich

[loquat149]

I think that the CDF needs to come up with a new emoticon that represents someone yawning with boredom....

Safe diving,

Rich

How's this?

:smt015

Is there one for biting your tongue...I needed it today, but for a different thread.

Dave

[Gary]

I have never seen a tank o-ring blow when properly installed and I would challenge anyone to find an incident where one failed outside of filling or heating.
My buddy's tank neck O-ring brew on the picnic table at peacock while we were gearing up. Not a small leak, store serviced and not an overfill either.

The other I saw was while stored. We weren't home at the time but next time we went to fill it it became obvious why there was no pressure.

[Puttzer]

FWIW: my sweetheart uses a single 95. Intro certified and does mostly cavern and some short penetrations.

That's all she needs. Practicality (not $) is her reason for using a single tank.

[Gary]

A person who just wants to go "a bit further" and who is not concerned with the "don't dive beyond 1/6ths" (or whatever) will simply start bending the gas management rules - and that is far more likely to get you killed than diving "big tanks."
That reminds me about some new divers I knew when they were intro. They were renting LP121s (overpumped of course) and swiming for the FL room. After the dive they were dicussing the need for more gas and how they were thinking about banding some AL80's together to do so. (anyone not see the humor in that?)

Anyway I expained how they would probably have less air in doubled 80's then the tank they were already diving.


On the rental issue: I seldom see serious cave divers renting gear in FL. I recomended renting only at the intro level so as not to waste money on a useless POS Y-valve and move on up to doubles fairly quickly. Almost every cave diver I know owns all thier own equipment and some of the most serious also service their own gear.

[nic160]

I think that the CDF needs to come up with a new emoticon that represents someone yawning with boredom....

Safe diving,

Rich

How's this?

:smt015
Every post I keep questioning why I'm still reading...... So Jay seen any good movies lately ? Rich how did your class go this weekend ?

[jeandiver]

OK , the old lady finished her Adv Nitrox/Deco this weekend...

Sorry , wrong person BUT at least it's a class :-D :-D :-D
(Had an awesome time too ... 1st time in 40 Fathom...)

Jean

P.S. Rich , I do like your ICON btw ...
It's a Tank Monkey thang... :lol:

[ggoodman]

oh good lord, this is getting long. but i cant resist the oportunity to add my 2cents.
if no one ever challenged current practices and norms then we would all become complacent and forget why we do the things we do, or why we should or should not change the way we do somthing. questioning leads to inovation. i for one will continue to dive my doubles at the intro level of cert because i choose to. ulitmatly it's your own arse, and your responsible for it. so what you choose is your business. i've learned in my clibing endeavours through others deaths, and accidents, that there accidents are lessons for all who choose to se them. and to those who choose not to, best of luck and may luck be on your side.

on a happy note im almost done with summer semester
watch out key's here i come! :-D

[Mike]

Hey Skip,

Let's get out of this place & go cave diving!
Me, I'm using my doubles!

Mike M.

[Kelly Jessop]

. ulitmatly it's your own arse, and your responsible for it. so what you choose is your business.

This is true,but there is a ripple effect that occurs when there is an accident. There is been a couple systems that were closed from fear of liability due to an accident having occured in another system,plus difficulty in opening another system due to landowner fear of an accident that had occured most recently at the time. We see our sport from one perspective,but the lay public has an uneducated perspective that sees our value diminishing each time there is accident,and ultimately we lose rights.

[Genesis]

. ulitmatly it's your own arse, and your responsible for it. so what you choose is your business.

This is true,but there is a ripple effect that occurs when there is an accident. There is been a couple systems that were closed from fear of liability due to an accident having occured in another system,plus difficulty in opening another system due to landowner fear of an accident that had occured most recently at the time. We see our sport from one perspective,but the lay public has an uneducated perspective that sees our value diminishing each time there is accident,and ultimately we lose rights.
And how many hunting accidents are there? Have Hunters lost rights? No.

What Hunters did is get the Sportsman act passed - which just happens to cover cave diving too, if you are not making money from the access.

Liability fear? What liability? Unless you're running a business, there is none!

Yet we don't learn. We're a "waiver" group even though there is no money involved in a lot of the access discussions, and the Sportsman Act provides a far stronger liability shield than a release, since it is statutory and there is no issue of whether "next of kin" did, didn't, could or could not waive THEIR right to recovery.

Your injury (or worse) while exercising access under that act has no liability consequence for the landowner. Those who argue that there's a "liability" reason for barring access (or those who try to argue with peopel on that basis - that we're "safe enough" that it won't happen anyway) are proceeding from a foolhardy perspective.

[skip]

Hey Skip,

Let's get out of this place & go cave diving!
Me, I'm using my doubles!

Mike M.

You got it! How about this weekend at Ginnie? I kinda think we owe it to them after seeing them trashed so bad in this thread! Honestly though, I don't mind their policy at all, never had a run-in with eric (being the laid back guy I am), and it's worth every penny to have the deli and the toilet handy! Then again an easy run to Olsen and back would be nice and I know you want to get whooped at LR again! Aw, what the heck, let's make it three days and call in sick monday!

-skip

[oldguy]

This has been a long thread but the comments are interesting and educational. Before everyone goes into a coma, I would like to speak on the subject. I am old. I began diving at the age of 14 and was diving doubles on ocean dives by the time I was 20. Back then, the double yokes had only one orifice to connect a regulator and no isolator. We used doubles to extend our bottom time and to allow for deco. Yes, Navy table deco with only a basic dive card. There were no AOW and deco classes or computers. I did later take theses classes when they were "invented". The cylinders we had back then were steel '72's and there were no large volume cylinders available. Several years ago, I took cavern training in Florida. I had graduated from commercial diving school over 20 years before and had worked in commercial diving for 18 years (not new to being underwater). I had my sport scuba singles and doubles (with isolators and redundant regualators and the long hose) with me when I went through cavern. I had long since been using doubles (isolator)with a 30 pony on deep ocean dives. It was somewhat of a surprise to be told that I was not qualified to dive doubles on my last day of training but "when in Rome..." The cavern training was very good and it opened my eyes to a lot of things. I do not live in cave country and see the problem with owning doubles more from a maintenance perspective (tearing down, inspections, hydros, etc). Now, for the part that will probably get me shot - IMHO, I feel very safe making cavern dives and, when I am intro certified, short cave penetrations on a single H cylinder (108) with long hose with a 30 pony with separate regulator. I know, I know, the pony is a joke with most in cave country. It will not get you back from a long penetration. But, I would feel better on a short penetration of 200 feet or less with no restrictions, to have the pony. The line in the sand for me is turn at 1/3 on my main and always have the pony as a backup. I recently sold all my doubles to avoid the hassle of yearly breakdown for inspection. My partner and I dove doubles in Ginnie with only a cavern card on several occassions and were never asked about it. I will use my 108's as singles with my pony. BUT, whatever the local rules, I will comply. I can always double them up when I start cave training. Safe diving.

[Kelly Jessop]

. ulitmatly it's your own arse, and your responsible for it. so what you choose is your business.

This is true,but there is a ripple effect that occurs when there is an accident. There is been a couple systems that were closed from fear of liability due to an accident having occured in another system,plus difficulty in opening another system due to landowner fear of an accident that had occured most recently at the time. We see our sport from one perspective,but the lay public has an uneducated perspective that sees our value diminishing each time there is accident,and ultimately we lose rights.
And how many hunting accidents are there? Have Hunters lost rights? No.

What Hunters did is get the Sportsman act passed - which just happens to cover cave diving too, if you are not making money from the access.

Liability fear? What liability? Unless you're running a business, there is none!

Yet we don't learn. We're a "waiver" group even though there is no money involved in a lot of the access discussions, and the Sportsman Act provides a far stronger liability shield than a release, since it is statutory and there is no issue of whether "next of kin" did, didn't, could or could not waive THEIR right to recovery.

Your injury (or worse) while exercising access under that act has no liability consequence for the landowner. Those who argue that there's a "liability" reason for barring access (or those who try to argue with peopel on that basis - that we're "safe enough" that it won't happen anyway) are proceeding from a foolhardy perspective.

I'd think you'd agree that the public interpretation is much different from hunting and cave diving,even though there are probably less accidents with cave diving. Just be thankfull that VP Cheney doesn't cave dive,because hunting with him sure can be dangerous :wink:

[BradfordNC]

On the rental issue: I seldom see serious cave divers renting gear in FL. Almost every cave diver I know owns all thier own equipment and some of the most serious also service their own gear.

my dive buddy rents tanks when we are in florida.

yeah, he does own his own, but he lives in CA.

but have you ever tried taking a set of doubles on a plane?

[Cave Ranger]

WHAT!!!!! I went cave diving in Eagles Nest with VP Cheny just 3 weeks ago. His Pacemaker kept beeping and I thought it was my computer's accent alert. It took us 7 hours to make our way up from the debris cone.
He insisted on diving "Deep Air", wearing a Yellow snorkel with matching Split Fins and carried a triple band Riffe speargun. I guess that would explain the hole in my rig and the impaled Blind Catfish. ;-)
Unfortunately all of the Secret Service support divers were too Narced out of their gourds to be of much help.
I just wanted to set the record straight.

[Cindy]

Who cares about the financial "burden" of buying doubles? Whenever you get into any leisure activity it's going to cost you. I don't snow ski, or go to NFL games, but friends who do seem to spend as much or more than I do on their preferred activities.

Who cares if the financial burden means some can't cavern dive? It's not a bad thing to have fewer cavern/cave divers in the world, especially if the investment is too much for them. Why make it cheap?

Why are agencies using single tanks to limit penetration? Is that really the objective? If properly trained, penetration is not an issue. How far in you go is not important, training and equipment are.

There is no money in teaching scuba, in all it's forms, so the idea that an instructor gets more bucks for less work when singles with H or Y valves are required makes no sense to me.

After reading the posts in this thread for the past week or more, things I took for granted make no sense anymore (like singles with H or Y valves). Require Doubles, develop a new "first" course in buoyancy control with doubles, then go cavern. Separate cavern from intro, no more fast-track long weekend, with a combined cavern and intro; require 6 months at cavern level and 15 logged cavern dives after certification, then intro ok. A slower more expensive training set (doubles, cavern, intro to cave) makes for better trained divers. When it becomes known that training agencies no longer consider any single tank configuration safe even for cavern dives, we may see a big decrease in those OW divers in caverns with OW gear.

Not that I see any agency changing just because I or we think there might be a better way. One thing I have learned, is that a lot of what makes sense to me before training makes no sense to me after training! So I tend to trust my agency, my instructor, and my mother! A lot of smart experienced minds are behind the current training requirements and I think they all have the best interests of the dive community in mind. But times do change and agencies are slow, as they should be, to change too, so maybe this thread will get people rethinking how best to train future cavern/cave divers.

just my two cents (and I may not even agree with myself after reading more posts!).

-skip

Gee skip, sorry I got busy and missed your comments about not carring about others. I have several friends including my boss who took cavern class in single tanks and didn't go on to cave. Why? Because they used what they learned to improve their bouyancy skills and to prep for wreck diving. We live by springs and don't have a lot of wrecks here. :)

More than one cavern diver decided not to take any further classes. Who cares? Well obviously someone with some common sense. Now if you are talking about Intro I could agree. People have pretty well made a decision by then. Besides all those eager cave divers who change their mind leave a lot of nice gear on the forum for me to replace my old battered gear with. Of course after hearing Gene Melton talk about all the failure points in the maniford doubles system I feel much safer in my side mount system. I will have to tell you though that only one of my side mount tanks ever failed and I had a very old needle valve on it and still had to beat the ++++ out of it in a cave to make it fail. I have seen three manifold failures in person and have heard of more. So, the reality is in my universe is that singles are far safer for several reasons. I suppose a a strong point can be made for almost any system. Someplace someone had to make a decison and whatever we go on about on this forum won't really change that. You need to go to a BOD meeting and participate to really get anything done and...well... you would actually have to care.
I think you double divers are cracked. LOL Cindy :D

[MikeH]

but have you ever tried taking a set of doubles on a plane?

Yep....I put 'em in the co-pilots seat and put a hat on 'em...nobody ever knows the difference, except that they complain less... :-D

Mike

[skip]

cindy wrote:
"More than one cavern diver decided not to take any further classes. Who cares? Well obviously someone with some common sense. Now if you are talking about Intro I could agree. People have pretty well made a decision by then. Besides all those eager cave divers who change their mind leave a lot of nice gear on the forum for me to replace my old battered gear with. Of course after hearing Gene Melton talk about all the failure points in the maniford doubles system I feel much safer in my side mount system. I will have to tell you though that only one of my side mount tanks ever failed..."

My response:

I am not a caring person? And have no common sense? hmmmm.

I don't think the expense of taking a class is something that should make a difference. Your post sounded like the cost (to buy or rent doubles and take a pre-cavern class in using doubles) was an important factor and it would be a shame if the cost meant some could not learn. If my lack of concern for the cost of training means I don't care, then I guess i don't care. not sure that makes me a noncaring person though. or that it means I lack common sense.


I do find it odd that any training agency would restrict training to a single tank with H or Y valve with the express notion to keep divers from penetrating too far (and are thus safer). When an open water diver watches all these other divers enter caves (i.e., caverns - ow may not know the difference) with single tanks, then they say why not me? When you are trained to believe that an H-valve is just as safe as doubles, you may not stop to consider all the things about doubles (whether with or without manifold, back or side mounted) that make them safer, or what it takes to use them in a safer fashion (e.g., valve drills), so you rent them without knowing much about them, or you just go on in as if the single h-valve tank is just as good (after all it was good enough for cavern and intro).

Perhaps two kinds of cavern classes would be a good idea? One for those who are curious and would like to try diving in overheads (a terminal cavern class with an expiration date on the c-card?). Another cavern class would then be similar to the current practice of having a combined cavern/intro to cave class, for those pretty sure they want to go full cave eventually, but with a doubles (back or side mount) required. By the way I have several buddies who stopped after intro. They found out full cave was not for them. And they bought doubles, dove them a year in open water before the cavern/intro combined class, and have no interest in selling the doubles or would even think of a cavern dive without doubles. I am not so sure the added expense of doubles would reduce the number of students. And honestly, what's wrong with fewer students?

I don't understand why training and equipment must be cheap or why anyone should be concerned with numbers of students. Indeed these are two things that should not even be considered in the creation of, or changing of, training requirements.

You also made some mention about how to affect change one must get involved and it's easy to make suggestions online then walk off. I guess this is being a noncaring person comes in too...I don't care enough to get involved. I know you work hard in the cave community and I admire you for it. I know I do nothing in the cave community and probably won't (well, i'll help tote trash, nail boards, or what-not, if it jibes with my visits to cave country). So maybe my ideas are useless and won't go anywhere. That's ok. I am just tossing them out there - I have no agenda, am not convinced my ideas are good ones, will not attend meetings or make presentations, or push for adoption of new training guidelines, but do believe that communication is always better than saying nothing. More ideas provide for a better selection (for those who are involved). If the only ones who get to voice an opinion are those who will act upon their opinion, then we'd all be the worse off for it.

I think this thread has produced a lot of good stuff for all of us to think about. And that really is the whole point.

-skip

[OneBrightGator]

What Hunters did is get the Sportsman act passed - which just happens to cover cave diving too, if you are not making money from the access.

Liability fear? What liability? Unless you're running a business, there is none!

Yet we don't learn. We're a "waiver" group even though there is no money involved in a lot of the access discussions, and the Sportsman Act provides a far stronger liability shield than a release, since it is statutory and there is no issue of whether "next of kin" did, didn't, could or could not waive THEIR right to recovery.
But is there established case law backing this or is it still just in writing? Nobody wants to be the test case.

[Cindy]

I am not a caring person? And have no common sense? hmmmm.

I don't think the expense of taking a class is something that should make a difference. Your post sounded like the cost (to buy or rent doubles and take a pre-cavern class in using doubles) was an important factor and it would be a shame if the cost meant some could not learn. If my lack of concern for the cost of training means I don't care, then I guess i don't care. not sure that makes me a noncaring person though. or that it means I lack common sense.
-skip

You're right, skip. It doesn't mean that at all and I was being a smart ass. I am sorry.
I should say that the idea that doubles should be required for all classes in overhead is something I don't agree with. My debating class goes out the window at times. I can have a problem with an idea and not the person. You didn't deserve me coming down on you.

I learned to ski using borrowed ski gear and clothing from a goodwill store. I did quite well doing that. I do know people who spend a lot on the sport as I know people who spend a lot on diving. I can't. I don't. It's as simple as that.

I think that restricting cavern to a doubles only class and to people who are experienced in doubles is restricting our sport to participation by people who have money. Not every talented diver has that. Some people are still trying to decide if they can enjoy cave diving in cavern class and to force them to have to shell out a lot of cash for a class is limiting things too much. They won't try it. If our sport is going to continue we do need to interest a group of people who are talented, who can participate in things like environmental causes, getting caves open, training, exploring, etc. It has to start someplace and I can tell you right now that most of the people who do that type of thing are poor. We need young talented people who can become interested in the sport and can be guided to learn it well from instructors who care about the history of our sport, the condition of caves, who are active in exploration and in their organizations. Once a good instructor gets a student he can usually tell which ones are good and guide them. At the same time I think that the role of an instructor is to tell the ones who don't have talent to leave cave diving for all our good. I would rather see a wider variety of divers start trianing with a good instructor and have them decide who has the talent to go on, not to have the limiting factor in cave diving be the amount of cash in a pocket. When someone has more contacts and experience they can usually pick up gear used and or borrow it. I even know some instructors who have given classes to people who needed them and showed talent. What I am trying to sum this up to say is that cavern should be allowed to stay singles. Intro can be either way as far as I know and frankly I think that the instructors who teach these class have far more wisdom to make those decisions than I do. Cindy Butler

[Genesis]

What Hunters did is get the Sportsman act passed - which just happens to cover cave diving too, if you are not making money from the access.

Liability fear? What liability? Unless you're running a business, there is none!

Yet we don't learn. We're a "waiver" group even though there is no money involved in a lot of the access discussions, and the Sportsman Act provides a far stronger liability shield than a release, since it is statutory and there is no issue of whether "next of kin" did, didn't, could or could not waive THEIR right to recovery.
But is there established case law backing this or is it still just in writing? Nobody wants to be the test case.

There's no test case to be had. Its a statutory protection Ben. Sure, you can try to sue, but it'll get dismissed on a motion and that's that.

That's the advantage of statutory protection. Its VASTLY stronger than and even preempts existing (before the statute) case law!

[jammer]

Take out the manifold and dive independent doubles.

[wingman]

Now, for the part that will probably get me shot - IMHO, I feel very safe making cavern dives and, when I am intro certified, short cave penetrations on a single H cylinder (108) with long hose with a 30 pony with separate regulator. I know, I know, the pony is a joke with most in cave country. It will not get you back from a long penetration. But, I would feel better on a short penetration of 200 feet or less with no restrictions, to have the pony. The line in the sand for me is turn at 1/3 on my main and always have the pony as a backup.

why not turn your "pony" into an al80 and get comfortable with it in the cavern.

[Line Squirrel]

Perhaps two kinds of cavern classes would be a good idea?

-skip


LOL ~ Intro to cavern...now this is starting to sound like a Put Another Dollar In thang :lol:

[skip]

I think that restricting cavern to a doubles only class and to people who are experienced in doubles is restricting our sport to participation by people who have money.....
If our sport is going to continue we do need to interest a group of people who are talented, who can participate in things like environmental causes, getting caves open, training, exploring, etc. It has to start someplace and I can tell you right now that most of the people who do that type of thing are poor. We need young talented people who can become interested in the sport and can be guided to learn it well from instructors who care about the history of our sport, the condition of caves, who are active in exploration and in their organizations.....

What I am trying to sum this up to say is that cavern should be allowed to stay singles. Intro can be either way as far as I know and frankly I think that the instructors who teach these class have far more wisdom to make those decisions than I do. Cindy Butler

Every time a new concern is added, things change. Cindy is interested in "the sport continuing," by getting people involved and that's a money issue. That was part of the initial post in this thread: singles are used in cavern because of $$$. Now Cindy says it's not to make $, but to make it attractive to those with few $ (kind of like a drug pusher, the first few are free, but once we get you hooked...! just kidding!)

This is all just too confusing for me. I do believe doubles (back or side) are safer and saner than single with H-valve (see the math in previous thread on this). Then again, any sport or activity that fails to attract new followers is doomed to extinction and where would our cool equipment go without a solid base of $$ to support R and D?

In the end, I like Cindy's faith in individual instructors and their flexibility. They are in the best position to review the training and decide if changes are for the best.

-skip

[Genesis]

In the end, I like Cindy's faith in individual instructors and their flexibility. They are in the best position to review the training and decide if changes are for the best.

-skip
I don't.

They're like a mortgage broker telling you whether you should refi the house to buy a boat. Gee, what do you think his answer is going to be?

I have no quarrel with caven being done in singles, provided that a true independant air source is carried (e.g. a fairly large pony) sufficient for egress and safety stop from any potential cavern exposure. A 19 should do it (since we're talking about no-stop, line-of-sight dives here.) Cavern dives can be (mostly) recreational and further the skill set is one that translates well to lots of open water areas.

But for Intro, there is no argument for this. If you go to take Intro you should be required to show up with doubles experience and "sorted" in their use. Period. You are already required to have a light appropriate for cave diving and a pair of backups - something you would not need for open water. What's the big deal about requiring twin tanks? And make that any form of twins - not just backmount doubles, but independants or sidemounts are also perfectly acceptable - provided that you know how to use them.

You want people to dive "Intro" on singles with an "H" then the class should require you to also bring (and use) a slung 80cf stage as a safety bottle, and demonstrate competence in both carrying and using it as an "aw %$$#" mitigation tool. Oh wait - that's "doubles" (effectively anyway) again....

Intro should not be a class about teaching you how to use doubles. Right now there is a 100% BS contingent in the training regime in that many (if not most) instructors will allow you to take the class in doubles, but then the certification says "singles"! This is a direct violation of one of the first rules of accident analysis - you're trained and capable to dive in equipment and conditions similar to your training!

But of course that's a lie if you take the class in doubles and the instructor never sees you dive with an H valve!

The problem here is fundamentally one of hypocrisy. All the agencies say their training is based around the rules of accident analysis - then they go break the one rule cited most often in real fatalities right up front.

You say "oh but that's not a big difference".

I say "the principle holds regardless."

If I was told that I could not take the class in doubles, I would not have taken the class at all. Why? Because I believe that's an unsafe configuration. I did take the class in doubles, and thus for me as an "Intro" diver to dive doubles is to dive in conditions and with equipment similar to that of my class. I can, in fact, count the number of single "real" dives (not counting boat cleanings and such) that I've done in singles in the last couple of years on my fingers - those have all been done on rental tanks where bringing my own twinsets with me was simply not practical.

And by the way, not ALL "Into" cards are "singles only", and this creates a major problem for those sites that try to impose it. One major agency changed it recently (they changed the name too) and two others (TDI and GUE) never placed that restriction on the card in the first place. So if you have such a constraint imposed on you by some site, then you're being told to dive a configuration that you may have zero experience with!

That is exactly how accidents happen; it is how LR happened, it is how Hendley's Castle happened, its how Robideaux happened and on and on and on. Requiring people to dive an unfamiliar configuration is a fundamentally unsafe and unsound practice that forms the foundation of the accident analysis that all the agencies preach - for this reason it SHOULD expose those who require it to civil (and perhaps even criminal) liability.

Its not the choice that I have issue with - someone who chooses to dive an unfamiliar configuration takes their own risks and makes their own decisions. Its when that decision is a matter of force imposed by others that I throw up all over it.

To put this in a personal perspective, I have never dove a single with an "H" or "Y" valve - ever! I have exactly zero bottom time in that configuration; if a dive requires redundancy, I dive doubles. If not (e.g. a shallow reef dive where light weight and less bulk is more important to me) I dive a single. I'm quite certain that were I to dive a single LP108 overpressurized, I could get just as far as I could on a pair of HP100s (to thirds), given the VASTLY lower in-water drag profile - but IMHO it'd be radically unsafe of me to do so as I'd have zero redundancy if I lost a burst disc or neck O-ring.

I wonder what these site managers would think if I was to show up with a LP108 with an "H" valve and "my best buddy AL" slung? Would that be considered a "violation" - bringing a safety bottle? If so - WHY? And if not - what keeps me from breathing 1/3rd of both the stage AND a third-equivalent (e.g. 28cf) of the backgas before turning? NOTHING! Yet on that configuration I get almost exactly the same gas available - and thus penetration - as I do from diving a set of double HP100s!

This problem exists because of conflicts of interest, and those who have gone and taken more classes simply don't care - they've "paid their dues" and so they see this as much ado about nothing. Or is it much ado about protecting the "investment" they made, by effectively forcing others to make the same investment - or accept higher than necessary levels of risk?

Gee, that's charitable of them....

I have no quarrel with caven being done in singles, provided that a true independant air source is carried (e.g. a fairly large pony) sufficient for egress and safety stop from any potential cavern exposure.

We're not going to the moon, people, it's a cavern! You're never more than 130 linear feet from the surface. A buddy with a 39" hose on a safe second is all you need for redundancy. If you can't share air for 130 feet you don't have any business in the water.

[Jay]

I have no quarrel with caven being done in singles, provided that a true independant air source is carried (e.g. a fairly large pony) sufficient for egress and safety stop from any potential cavern exposure.

We're not going to the moon, people, it's a cavern! You're never more than 130 linear feet from the surface. A buddy with a 39" hose on a safe second is all you need for redundancy. If you can't share air for 130 feet you don't have any business in the water.

Yep.

[Genesis]

I have no quarrel with caven being done in singles, provided that a true independant air source is carried (e.g. a fairly large pony) sufficient for egress and safety stop from any potential cavern exposure.

We're not going to the moon, people, it's a cavern! You're never more than 130 linear feet from the surface. A buddy with a 39" hose on a safe second is all you need for redundancy. If you can't share air for 130 feet you don't have any business in the water.
Nobody ever has a buddy separation / silt problem, and nobody ever gets killed by being "unintended solo" and OOA either.....

The same argument is made all the time for not needing redundancy below 60' or so in the ocean. DAN's statistics say that's bull - a huge percentage of all people who expire diving do so while unintentionally solo, out of air.

[Kelly Jessop]

That is exactly how accidents happen; it is how LR happened, it is how Hendley's Castle happened, its how Robideaux happened and on and on and on. Requiring people to dive an unfamiliar configuration is a fundamentally unsafe and unsound practice that forms the foundation of the accident analysis that all the agencies preach - for this reason it SHOULD expose those who require it to civil (and perhaps even criminal) liability.

....

Carl

Your references here are discussing the symptoms without naming the disease...dig a little deeper.

[Cindy]

I think that restricting cavern to a doubles only class and to people who are experienced in doubles is restricting our sport to participation by people who have money.....
If our sport is going to continue we do need to interest a group of people who are talented, who can participate in things like environmental causes, getting caves open, training, exploring, etc. It has to start someplace and I can tell you right now that most of the people who do that type of thing are poor. We need young talented people who can become interested in the sport and can be guided to learn it well from instructors who care about the history of our sport, the condition of caves, who are active in exploration and in their organizations.....

What I am trying to sum this up to say is that cavern should be allowed to stay singles. Intro can be either way as far as I know and frankly I think that the instructors who teach these class have far more wisdom to make those decisions than I do. Cindy Butler

Every time a new concern is added, things change. Cindy is interested in "the sport continuing," by getting people involved and that's a money issue. That was part of the initial post in this thread: singles are used in cavern because of $$$. Now Cindy says it's not to make $, but to make it attractive to those with few $ (kind of like a drug pusher, the first few are free, but once we get you hooked...! just kidding!)

This is all just too confusing for me. I do believe doubles (back or side) are safer and saner than single with H-valve (see the math in previous thread on this). Then again, any sport or activity that fails to attract new followers is doomed to extinction and where would our cool equipment go without a solid base of $$ to support R and D?

In the end, I like Cindy's faith in individual instructors and their flexibility. They are in the best position to review the training and decide if changes are for the best.

-skip

Hey Skip, After I left for work I thought of another reason for cavern to be in single tanks. Who better to help a student configure gear and teach bouyancy than an instuctor. Open water divers can't really be expected to come up with this stuff on their own. Most of my cavern class was spent on gear and how to make it work for a overhead environment. I wouldn't want people to get their info off posts on the web. They would really need help then! Cindy :D

[Genesis]

Carl

Your references here are discussing the symptoms with naming the disease...dig a little deeper.

Not in the least.

Until you can put guns to people's heads you cannot force them to abide your (or anyone else's) rules. There are (effectively if not literally) guns to the heads at commercial dive parks (just try refusing and see how fast people with authority to use guns show up and threaten to use them), but this is not possible anywhere else.

Therefore, if you're going to teach a thing, you must take responsibility for what you know lies ahead. The clear conflict of interest ("I'll teach you how not to die if you give me ANOTHER $600") is a poor model to follow when there are better and safer options available to you.

And - there are. How is it "wrong-headed" or "too limiting" to insist on a pony or other redundancy for cavern? All these poeple are presumably AOW or better, right? And is not AOW diving below 60'? Is not it a damn good idea to take redundancy on those dives? So - what's the problem?

When it comes to "Intro" (anything past the daylight zone really) then again, how's it different? I admit that I penetrated wrecks fairly early in my diving ("overheads") in a single - once while being led by a (gasp!) instructor in a (gasp again) class!! If something had gone wrong - I would be dead right now. It didn't take many of those dives for the light to come on, and when it did I bought myself some doubles and learned how to dive them.

Let's be serious here. Most divers with a decent amount of experience CAN get into deco on a single tank. Not on thirds, but what if there is a problem back there and you go "to the wall" on your remaining time before you MUST exit? Do we just expect them to "get bent" because we didn't bother to explain this stuff? How's that a responsible teaching position? I argue that it is not in any way, shape or form when we reserve 2/3rds for exit PRECISELY because there might BE a problem at some point.

This all ties together, really. You've got a class that makes no sense as it is currently taught. Intro includes a "lost line" drill (good) but fails to talk about decompression (BAD, if you have to actually PERFORM a lost-line drill "in earnest" and find yourself with a nice obligation as a consequence!) Intro ALSO (in theory) bans you from taking enough gas to get OUT of that box without serious injury if you get yourself into it!

A thinking diver is almost compelled to ignore those strictures, because they simply don't make sense. If you teach me how to recover from an "aw $$!@#!" back there only to find myself with 100psi in the can and 15 minutes of mandatory decompression remaining, you've done me a huge disservice - you bent the bejeezus out of me and perhaps killed me outright if I am in a remote location because you told me I couldn't dive with enough gas to deco out!

[Rich]

Not in the least.

Until you can put guns to people's heads you cannot force them to abide your (or anyone else's) rules. There are (effectively if not literally) guns to the heads at commercial dive parks (just try refusing and see how fast people with authority to use guns show up and threaten to use them), but this is not possible anywhere else.

Therefore, if you're going to teach a thing, you must take responsibility for what you know lies ahead. The clear conflict of interest ("I'll teach you how not to die if you give me ANOTHER $600") is a poor model to follow when there are better and safer options available to you.

And - there are. How is it "wrong-headed" or "too limiting" to insist on a pony or other redundancy for cavern? All these poeple are presumably AOW or better, right? And is not AOW diving below 60'? Is not it a damn good idea to take redundancy on those dives? So - what's the problem?

When it comes to "Intro" (anything past the daylight zone really) then again, how's it different? I admit that I penetrated wrecks fairly early in my diving ("overheads") in a single - once while being led by a (gasp!) instructor in a (gasp again) class!! If something had gone wrong - I would be dead right now. It didn't take many of those dives for the light to come on, and when it did I bought myself some doubles and learned how to dive them.

Let's be serious here. Most divers with a decent amount of experience CAN get into deco on a single tank. Not on thirds, but what if there is a problem back there and you go "to the wall" on your remaining time before you MUST exit? Do we just expect them to "get bent" because we didn't bother to explain this stuff? How's that a responsible teaching position? I argue that it is not in any way, shape or form when we reserve 2/3rds for exit PRECISELY because there might BE a problem at some point.

This all ties together, really. You've got a class that makes no sense as it is currently taught. Intro includes a "lost line" drill (good) but fails to talk about decompression (BAD, if you have to actually PERFORM a lost-line drill "in earnest" and find yourself with a nice obligation as a consequence!) Intro ALSO (in theory) bans you from taking enough gas to get OUT of that box without serious injury if you get yourself into it!

A thinking diver is almost compelled to ignore those strictures, because they simply don't make sense. If you teach me how to recover from an "aw $$!@#!" back there only to find myself with 100psi in the can and 15 minutes of mandatory decompression remaining, you've done me a huge disservice - you bent the bejeezus out of me and perhaps killed me outright if I am in a remote location because you told me I couldn't dive with enough gas to deco out!

Never mind...

[allen]

As an intro cave diver, I have learned a lot from this thread. :)
Sometimes, however, it seems to me that we are looking for a technological fix for a behavioral problem. If there was anything my OW instructor (John Brown) hammered, it was buddy awareness. Safe solo cave diving would require much more redundancy than just twin tanks. This is why most of the fatal accidents to trained cave divers have occurred on solo dives.
For an OW diver, single is the familiar rig.
Loose tanks are probably the most common serious problem. I've remounted buddie's tanks a few times, and had mine remounted a couple of times. I've been entangled in a wreck once: my buddy untangled me, saving me the trouble of cutting my nice new penetration line.
Out-of-air situations are not that common. I have been involved in an out-of-air situation only once in 400 dives. My buddy's 1st stage froze at 48 degrees in Dutch Springs. I handed him my octopus, and we ascended to 15 ft and waited for his 1st stage to thaw out. We then continued our dive, being careful not to inflate our bc's while inhaling.
On any real cavern dive, a Spare Air would get one out, even if one's buddy didn't. Most of us can swim 75 feet on a single breath. Thus a cavern can be exited on 2 breaths.
I have twice gotten into deco on a single at Ginnie. Since I was obeying the rule of thirds, I had more than enough gas for deco. In fact, thanks to the outgoing current, I had enough gas to have shared, if my buddy hadn't had plenty of his own.

[Moonfuzzy]

This is why most of the fatal accidents to trained cave divers have occurred on solo dives.
Welcome aboard, hope you don't mind some nit-picking ; )

Fact check - I don't think that this is true. I believe that diving too deep for your mix is the most common element that kills trained cave divers.

http://www.iucrr.org/aa.htm
Here is a link to the IUCRR website - take a look at the Accident Analysis link - see page 22 where 'solo' is listed as the cause of death for 6 divers, it looks like there are 60+ deaths tracked on the graph. Depth is listed for 13 divers.


I have twice gotten into deco on a single at Ginnie. Since I was obeying the rule of thirds, I had more than enough gas for deco. In fact, thanks to the outgoing current, I had enough gas to have shared, if my buddy hadn't had plenty of his own.

Watch out - if you are not bringing a deco bottle then you should be reserving your deco gas from your total volume THEN calculate thirds on what is left.

[Dave]

I think that the CDF needs to come up with a new emoticon that represents someone yawning with boredom....

Safe diving,

Rich
Fair go mate, this is pretty ground breaking, revolutionary stuff right here!
Dave

[Kelly Jessop]

Carl

Your references here are discussing the symptoms with naming the disease...dig a little deeper.

Not in the least.

Until you can put guns to people's heads you cannot force them to abide your (or anyone else's) rules. There are (effectively if not literally) guns to the heads at commercial dive parks (just try refusing and see how fast people with authority to use guns show up and threaten to use them), but this is not possible anywhere else.

Therefore, if you're going to teach a thing, you must take responsibility for what you know lies ahead. The clear conflict of interest ("I'll teach you how not to die if you give me ANOTHER $600") is a poor model to follow when there are better and safer options available to you.

And - there are. How is it "wrong-headed" or "too limiting" to insist on a pony or other redundancy for cavern? All these poeple are presumably AOW or better, right? And is not AOW diving below 60'? Is not it a damn good idea to take redundancy on those dives? So - what's the problem?

When it comes to "Intro" (anything past the daylight zone really) then again, how's it different? I admit that I penetrated wrecks fairly early in my diving ("overheads") in a single - once while being led by a (gasp!) instructor in a (gasp again) class!! If something had gone wrong - I would be dead right now. It didn't take many of those dives for the light to come on, and when it did I bought myself some doubles and learned how to dive them.

Let's be serious here. Most divers with a decent amount of experience CAN get into deco on a single tank. Not on thirds, but what if there is a problem back there and you go "to the wall" on your remaining time before you MUST exit? Do we just expect them to "get bent" because we didn't bother to explain this stuff? How's that a responsible teaching position? I argue that it is not in any way, shape or form when we reserve 2/3rds for exit PRECISELY because there might BE a problem at some point.

This all ties together, really. You've got a class that makes no sense as it is currently taught. Intro includes a "lost line" drill (good) but fails to talk about decompression (BAD, if you have to actually PERFORM a lost-line drill "in earnest" and find yourself with a nice obligation as a consequence!) Intro ALSO (in theory) bans you from taking enough gas to get OUT of that box without serious injury if you get yourself into it!

A thinking diver is almost compelled to ignore those strictures, because they simply don't make sense. If you teach me how to recover from an "aw $$!@#!" back there only to find myself with 100psi in the can and 15 minutes of mandatory decompression remaining, you've done me a huge disservice - you bent the bejeezus out of me and perhaps killed me outright if I am in a remote location because you told me I couldn't dive with enough gas to deco out!

Good sermon,but missed the point that was being referenced.

[Cindy]

This is why most of the fatal accidents to trained cave divers have occurred on solo dives.
Welcome aboard, hope you don't mind some nit-picking ; )

Fact check - I don't think that this is true. I believe that diving too deep for your mix is the most common element that kills trained cave divers.

http://www.iucrr.org/aa.htm
Here is a link to the IUCRR website - take a look at the Accident Analysis link - see page 22 where 'solo' is listed as the cause of death for 6 divers, it looks like there are 60+ deaths tracked on the graph. Depth is listed for 13 divers.


I have twice gotten into deco on a single at Ginnie. Since I was obeying the rule of thirds, I had more than enough gas for deco. In fact, thanks to the outgoing current, I had enough gas to have shared, if my buddy hadn't had plenty of his own.

Watch out - if you are not bringing a deco bottle then you should be reserving your deco gas from your total volume THEN calculate thirds on what is left.

Hey Girl, How are you! It's been a while.

Just my 2 cents but looking at stats is not always a good way to draw conclusions. Yes there are move deep deaths than solo. But, what you can't track on a accident analysis web site is how many accidents were averted (didn't happen) because of a good dive buddy. I can think of three times I would have died and twice I have saved mine in the last ten years. If Steve B had a buddy when he had chest pains with more air, would he still be alive? Would he have pushed things so much with a dive buddy there to say "hey, that's enough for today"? Just an example but I think you see where I am going with this. There has been so much talk on forums on how safe solo diving is that I see a lot of people trying it before they have been tested as divers. What I mean by that is they have never faced that "of ####" moment in a cave and been tested to see if they have the panic personality or not. I am sure you read Sheck's book on accident analysis. Even he admits that you can't train how someone will react to that situation until it happens to them. Most of his saves were on people who had problems and needed help just the one time. I hope that the "oh ####" moment happens to most with an instructor or a dive buddy who can help them. I hate to go to Ginnie or other places and hear about how INTRO divers are now solo diving because they read it's OK on the web and can't find a buddy. It sends chill down my spine for them. I know people die cave diving. I just hate to see something advocated that can cause needless deaths. Solo diving as an experienced diver, yes, as a new diver I think that more time and more patience will prevent a lot of problems. If people just stick to what they are taught for a while they will be a lot better off. Divers get taught all this stuff in their classes. If they don't know it then they either didn't listen or didn't take the class yet.

I'm not trying to pick on you Moon. You know I love you guys. I just want you look at what you are saying here and the implications. I really wish we had a chat room where we didn't have to think about those things when we talk.

Take care, Cindy :D

[Genesis]

I don't think there's anything wrong with diving solo. If you're not prepared to get your own butt out of trouble, you shouldn't be in the water.

Its a different philosophy, that's for sure. But again - there are plenty of double fatalities where one person's screwup ends up being both buddy's demise. This much is certain - if I'm solo I can't kill you!

[DeWayne]

Nothing at all wrong with diving solo, except perhaps the attitude that prompts most new divers to try it. Far too many are asking others, "do you think I have the skills to start diving solo?" If you have to ask someone else to analyze your skills for you then you are no where near competent enough to be going in solo. Many go on the assumption that as long as they don't hear a resounding hell no, then they should be safe. What Sheck wrote about responding to an oh #### moment is absolutely true, you never know how you will react until the moment is upon you; training can go a long ways to prepare you, but that magic moment will happen in such a way that you either perform as needed and survive or you don't. It should not matter what configuration you are diving, what should matter is how far beyond a reasonable safe zone you push the limits of your configuration; if you cannot exit safely to open water without incident then you have exceded the safe limits of your configuration.

[skip]

I think that restricting cavern to a doubles only class and to people who are experienced in doubles is restricting our sport to participation by people who have money.....
If our sport is going to continue we do need to interest a group of people who are talented, who can participate in things like environmental causes, getting caves open, training, exploring, etc. It has to start someplace and I can tell you right now that most of the people who do that type of thing are poor. We need young talented people who can become interested in the sport and can be guided to learn it well from instructors who care about the history of our sport, the condition of caves, who are active in exploration and in their organizations.....

What I am trying to sum this up to say is that cavern should be allowed to stay singles. Intro can be either way as far as I know and frankly I think that the instructors who teach these class have far more wisdom to make those decisions than I do. Cindy Butler

Every time a new concern is added, things change. Cindy is interested in "the sport continuing," by getting people involved and that's a money issue. That was part of the initial post in this thread: singles are used in cavern because of $$$. Now Cindy says it's not to make $, but to make it attractive to those with few $ (kind of like a drug pusher, the first few are free, but once we get you hooked...! just kidding!)

This is all just too confusing for me. I do believe doubles (back or side) are safer and saner than single with H-valve (see the math in previous thread on this). Then again, any sport or activity that fails to attract new followers is doomed to extinction and where would our cool equipment go without a solid base of $$ to support R and D?

In the end, I like Cindy's faith in individual instructors and their flexibility. They are in the best position to review the training and decide if changes are for the best.

-skip

Hey Skip, After I left for work I thought of another reason for cavern to be in single tanks. Who better to help a student configure gear and teach bouyancy than an instuctor. Open water divers can't really be expected to come up with this stuff on their own. Most of my cavern class was spent on gear and how to make it work for a overhead environment. I wouldn't want people to get their info off posts on the web. They would really need help then! Cindy :D


Someone suggested a "doubles class" as a prereq. I liked your idea that maybe intro to cave could be in doubles. maybe cavern, doubles, intro to cave, as three classes, with those experienced and comfortable in doubles able to use them in cavern and skip doubles class at instructor discretion? Those who want a cavern-only class get it in single H-valve and those who want doubles get their way too....?

-skip

[Gary]

Accident Analysis link - see page 22 where 'solo' is listed as the cause of death for 6 divers, it looks like there are 60+ deaths tracked on the graph. Depth is listed for 13 divers.
Not even a "cause" just an element of a dive on which an accident occured - just like wearing a wetsuit or drysuit. Practically every dive the diver is wearing a wetsuit or a drysuit and thus outstrips all "causes" of death other then "breathing compressed gas" while cave diving. ;)

I've still never seen an autopsy report saying that a diver died of loneliness and I expect I never will.

[Cindy]

No ones dies of loneliness. Just multipal failures that may or may not have occured or not occured with or without buddies. The bottom line is staying to long in a cave without air will kill you. Something we all need to be aware of. Some things, gear etc. can make you safer but the bottom line is that it's a lot like religion. What you believe may make you safer. For what ever reason I can respect your view. However, saying that solo diving PREVENTS dying in a cave makes about as much sense as saying that going naked in a cave will save your life since so many divers died with dry suits. The connection from the data just is not there. On one hand people on this subject have said that people die being unintentionally solo divers, then it's good to be a solo diver. One person says that two tanks will make you safe but and a better more conservative diver but wants you to know everything before your class. All this is just giving me a headache. I'm going diving. With a buddy and please, if I stay in a cave too long just asume it's because of my inner loneliness and just leave it at that. Cindy, retiring from the ring.

[jeandiver]

I am going diving too...(tomorrow morning)
With buddy or buddies ... And within our limits of course...
Let there be water !!!!

Jeano Beano

Much more peaceful down there than it is here .... FER SURE !!!!

[Simon Richards]

... makes about as much sense as saying that going naked in a cave will save your life since so many divers died with dry suits...

Hey Cindy. I tried diving naked once. With cold water, the effect is to limit you to short penetrations ...

Cheers,

S

[Cindy]

... makes about as much sense as saying that going naked in a cave will save your life since so many divers died with dry suits...

Hey Cindy. I tried diving naked once. With cold water, the effect is to limit you to short penetrations ...

Cheers,

S

Simon, you may have hit on the answer! Who cares about tanks, make everyone dive naked until full cave! I bet everyone will be a lot more carefull about going through restricitons, banging into rock, sliding through mud or spending to much time in any cave. Take care, LOL Cindy

[REastman]

... makes about as much sense as saying that going naked in a cave will save your life since so many divers died with dry suits...

Hey Cindy. I tried diving naked once. With cold water, the effect is to limit you to short penetrations ...

Cheers,

S

Simon, you may have hit on the answer! Who cares about tanks, make everyone dive naked until full cave! I bet everyone will be a lot more carefull about going through restricitons, banging into rock, sliding through mud or spending to much time in any cave. Take care, LOL Cindy

HEHEHEH...Why do I feel another few threads about cave wood coming on.

[allen]

The simplest answer to the singles vs. doubles question would be to make the doubles privilege of the apprentice card permanent. The jumps and circuits privilege could still expire after one year unless the diver took the full cave course.

[Puttzer]

Greetings:

OK, I am finally fed up....this is rediculous.

I dove in the 60's. I was not not even open water certified when I dove in the caves. But I and my buddies were careful. We carefully learned by trial and error.

A single tank is FINE for cavern and intro diving. Please get over this macho attitude! My sweetheart is only intro certified and prefers to dive with a single LP 95!!!!

So blast away. I have 40 years of experience!!!

Truly the skill of the diver to me seems the primary consideration. Not double versus single tanks.

Regards to all

Richard
Tallahassee

[Cindy]

Thank you for the sanity Richard. I was kind of waiting for someone to get sick of it. I was really sort of happy when it turned to the naked diving thing, I thought it was at least a fun idea. Cindy :D

[jeandiver]

Richard:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
You said just the right thing...

Thanks for the bottom line...!!!!
I'll take mentoring from experienced cavers anyday btw :-D :-D :-D

Jean

[Genesis]

Where have you seen mentioned that anyone wants to BAN you from using a single?

The argument is over the exact opposite - a BAN on using doubles!

How about this one:

You don't tell me how or what to dive, and I won't tell you how or what to dive?

[Cindy]

Actually Skip wanted to ban singles. I love it when these subjects get so drawn out everybody loses track of what the subject was. Then we all lose track of what has been said and it breaks down to insuling and being mean to each other. Where are the cool monitors who close threads for lack of any new or interesting input? Cindy :D

[Kelly Jessop]

A single tank is FINE for cavern and intro diving. Please get over this macho attitude!

Interesting

Recently somebody gave the supposition that one of the reasons nobody wants to dive a single tank is because it singles them out among others as being an intro cert in the parking lot and in the cave.

Not my observation,from somebody well respected in the cave diving community that doesn't participate in forums.

[skip]

Greetings:

OK, I am finally fed up....this is rediculous.

I dove in the 60's. I was not not even open water certified when I dove in the caves. But I and my buddies were careful. We carefully learned by trial and error.

A single tank is FINE for cavern and intro diving. Please get over this macho attitude! My sweetheart is only intro certified and prefers to dive with a single LP 95!!!!

So blast away. I have 40 years of experience!!!

Truly the skill of the diver to me seems the primary consideration. Not double versus single tanks.

Regards to all

Richard
Tallahassee

I did suggest that singles be banned in cavern and intro class and a doubles class added to the list. I also agree that skill of the diver is the primary consideration, not gear. But the discussion was about how training is being done and if there are ways to make it better with a focus on the role of singles versus doubles. The math showing doubles as far better than singles was presented and promptly ignored by everyone. I suggested that maybe getting into doubles early on, even in cavern would be a good idea. Cindy shot me down, not with math, but with the need to get new divers involved as cheaply as possible, with a nice streamlined method of transitioning from open water to cavern to cave.

I'm not seeing anything macho in this, except maybe the bantering (are doubles macho by definition? surely not, if anything is macho it's those sidemounters doing sumps!).

Several have indicated boredom and why monitors are not shutting down the thread, but i think the back and forth in this thread points out concerns with current training that are real and valid. and the comments reflect the differing viewpoints of the community.

It's up to each diver to decide for themselves, as it should be, and it's up to training agencies to decide the best practices for training and gear configurations for classes. But individuals and agencies can all do with a little rethinking of things from time and time and a good thread provides just that: things to think about.

I said I was leaving this thread, and now I really am...I think....

-skip

[Cave Ranger]

I know this stripper who if she was a Cave diver and dove Jug Hole naked......She would never get through the Bedding Plains restriction not even in Sidemount. :-D

[Genesis]

There is a huge difference between banning something in a class as a matter of policy and banning it for people diving on their own as a matter of force at gunpoint.

One is a matter of standards and is open to debate. The other is a matter of people deciding to control what others do on their own time, how they calibrate their own level of risk and reward, and what sort of redundancy (or lack thereof) they are comfortable with.

And yes, I noted that everyone arguing the other side of the debate ("singles are fine") has totally ignored the math, even though it proves quite conclusively that doubles are superior in all cases, even if you make a further penetration with them!

I find it amusing (and somewhat disturbing) that as soon as someone comes up with an "inconvenient mathematical fact" all of those on the other side of the debate turn either to personal attack or simply refuse to debate at all.

[Puttzer]

And yes, I noted that everyone arguing the other side of the debate ("singles are fine") has totally ignored the math, even though it proves quite conclusively that doubles are superior in all cases, even if you make a further penetration with them!


I did go to the http://www.iucrr.org/aa.htm IUCRR (International Underwater Cave Rescue and Recovery and right away read how risky manifolds are (guess I should only sidemount?), and saw all the reported causes of deaths in caves but didn't see anything about single tanks.

Would appreciate info regarding the location of the comparison studies.

Thanks

[skip]

There is a huge difference between banning something in a class as a matter of policy and banning it for people diving on their own as a matter of force at gunpoint.


I find it amusing (and somewhat disturbing) that as soon as someone comes up with an "inconvenient mathematical fact" all of those on the other side of the debate turn either to personal attack or simply refuse to debate at all.

I side with individual freedom and responsibility; dive anything you want anytime you want anywhere you want. but please get some training and put some thought into it.

math has never stood in the way of a strong opinion.... as mark twain said, "there are liars, damn liars, and then there are statisticians!"

-skip

[Genesis]

Look at the math (its been posted) then debate the point.

I welcome such a debate and find it disturbing that nobody who opines that "singles are perfectly ok" - including those instructors and representatives of agencies who I KNOW have read these threads - will take this on.

A practice you are unwilling (or unable?) to defend is one that needs to go away. On that point I think most of us can agree.

Accident statistics are not a good point of comparison because (1) the risk of an actual bad outcome - that is, the probability of you becoming one, is extremely low, even if you have ZERO training and (2) as a consequence of (1) and the low number "N" (number of incidents in total) the data does not make for a representative sample with true statistical characteristics.

The problem with "trusting" statistical analysis when you are dealing with extremely improbable events is well-understood among those who study statistics. There is a further significant problem with diving "incidents" because the data is (intentionally?) polluted with unrelated events with medical incidents underwater being the big one. Official reports are rarely ever released, unlike in the aviation world where official investigations are both done and made public as a matter of routine.

IUCRR further intentionally bans any study and reporting of their data, which makes the problem worse. It is a direct violation of their copyright for me (or anyone else) to release any analysis that I may (or may not have) performed on the data they provided. One has to call into question the motives of any organization that makes a policy out of banning any sort of public analysis and debate on what they claim to report! There are likely some quite-interesting debates that could come out of such a review in public (such as on a board like this) BUT IUCRR explicitly bars such a thing from happening - here or anywhere else. The proper question to ask is: What's so dangerous about analyzing data that an organization feels that they should bar people from doing so under threat of legal action?

I have done this sort of analysis (and published it) several times on DAN's accident stats, and believe that I can make a solid case for DAN underreporting medical incidents - while their "face claim" is that 17% of the fatalities, for example, are actually underlying medical incidents the narrative for each suggests, if you read it, that the true number is FAR higher - in a couple of years it looked to be possibly as high as 40%!

That's more than double the official claimed number.

Many "chestnuts" come from such reports, and many are false. One of the more famous ones is that diving solo is "dangerous" with the "support" for this being deaths in which the diver was solo at the time (DAN's reports again.) But a study of DAN's reports shows that it is in fact being unintentionally solo that is implicated, and that in fact there's an argument to be made (although due to the small "N" you can't easily qualify the solidity of it) that training people to dive solo and making this a core piece of the curriculum could actually enhance diver safety!

[Puttzer]

Look at the math (its been posted) then debate the point.


Would someone please post this math study or its location?

I can't find it and perhaps some of you can't either .

Thanks

[Rich]

Look at the math (its been posted) then debate the point.

I welcome such a debate and find it disturbing that nobody who opines that "singles are perfectly ok" - including those instructors and representatives of agencies who I KNOW have read these threads - will take this on.

A practice you are unwilling (or unable?) to defend is one that needs to go away. On that point I think most of us can agree.


Hiya Karl!!

It's slow at work so what's the debate about?

Here's my two cents.....

Doubles are safer than a single tank with an H-valve in the overhead for the simple reason that with doubles you can protect against neck o-ring failure or a blown burst disc. This is a huge advantage for the solo diver but Intro divers shouldn't be diving solo....

I can certify through both NACD and CDS, so I can issue either an Intro card (diving a single tank to thirds) or a Basic card (diving doubles with the sixths limitation)

Is there a place for the single tank in Intro to Cave diving? I think so....

I've had students who don't want to invest the money in doubles, aren't interested in proceeding beyond the "Intro" phase and are perfectly happy playing around in the first 1000ft of cave in a single tank with an H valve.

I've also had students who are in doubles from cavern on. Are they better divers? Not neccessarily!

Those that wish to continue on will have to get into doubles eventually, if they're not already. Why should those that are happy doing limited penetrations in a single tank w/H-valve be forced into doubles?

Most importantly, what's the big deal about all of this?

Safe diving,

Rich

P.S. The reason I haven't hopped in before is frankly this debate just gets old after a while.....

[Genesis]

http://cavediver.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=3984&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=41

Short version: Your "dwell time" (the time to sort out whatever happened before you MUST start exiting or you will die), assuming the same gas rules (e.g. thirds) are followed is directly proportional to the amount of gas you are carrying.

The larger the tank(s) you carry, the more time you have to sort out whatever is causing you trouble before you're dead. When the brown stuff hits the airmover, everything suddenly becomes about time.

This is true even though with the doubles you may be twice as far into the system at the time the event occurs!

With sufficient time virtually all problems (other than medical ones, in which case where you are is not terribly material) can be sorted and you will survive.

The point, Rich, is about barring the use of doubles. Not even (self-censored name of recreational agencies) attempts to do that for open water divers!

[wingman]

With sufficient time virtually all problems (other than medical ones, in which case where you are is not terribly material) can be sorted and you will survive.


Using this single criterion doubles should be eschewed in favor of rebreathers...

[curtschu]

Duck!!!! :lol: that not a duck it's a pelican

[Genesis]

With sufficient time virtually all problems (other than medical ones, in which case where you are is not terribly material) can be sorted and you will survive.

Using this single criterion doubles should be eschewed in favor of rebreathers...That's a valid point to take under debate too.

There are WELL respected technical divers/instructors out there - one in particular who arguably is one of the most-respected around in the diving arena - who will make exactly this point - that a RB is in fact safer than a conventional twinset - and for exactly this reason!

[Rich]

The point, Rich, is about barring the use of doubles. Not even (self-censored name of recreational agencies) attempts to do that for open water divers!

Ummm, maybe I'm missing the point here but you're not barred from using doubles....

As I said, if you come and take an Intro course from me in doubles and you're competent in them and meet all other criteria then I will issue you a Basic Cave certification that enables you to dive them to sixths.....

Safe diving,

Rich

[Genesis]

Why would I pay a second time for something I already have and already demonstrated competence in?

I took those overhead classes in doubles. Obviously I demonstrated competence (in those doubles) or I would not possess the cards.

I have, in fact, never actually used a tank with an "H" valve.

Is this really about money over safety? Looks that way to me! :roll:

[Rich]

Why would I pay a second time for something I already have and already demonstrated competence in?

I took those overhead classes in doubles. Obviously I demonstrated competence (in those doubles) or I would not possess the cards.

I have, in fact, never actually used a tank with an "H" valve.

Is this really about money over safety? Looks that way to me! :roll:

Sorry Karl, I didn't know we were talking about YOU!

Why don't you just call your old instructor and request a Basic Cave card?

If an old student of mine asked me for the Basic Cave card, depending on who it was, if they were wearing doubles, singles etc, I might require a check out dive, but I certainly wouldn't ask for any money.....

Safe diving,

Rich

[curtschu]

But that just came about recently probably because of discussion like this.
Then what needs to happen is folks that got their cards before the inception of the basic card should get a free check out dive with an instuctor to retro them to a basic card. Edit: Damn your second post beat mine to the punch

[Genesis]

Exactly.

There are people who believe that the change in that class had nothing to do with the games being played and the outrage expressed over it.

There are also people who believe in the Easter Bunny.

I understand the general problem - if someone TOOK THE CLASS in a single then you need to show competence in doubles - but for those of us who took the class in doubles, the card we GOT should be valid for them, since the class has been changed to recognize reality - and the math.

BTW, here's an interesting image. Notice anything missing from the restrictions on the card?

Let's see if I can count them:

1. No constraint requiring single tanks.
2. No constraint requiring 6ths for gas management in said doubles (indeed, thirds are EXPLICITLY called out.)
3. No constraint against jumps or gaps (continuous guideline, not "main line only.")

BTW, this is a real card from a real recognized international agency, it did not come out of my printer, it is not hypothetical, and if presented at a dive site I fully expect to be left alone within the PRINTED boundaries on it. Indeed, the dives done during that class included 1, 2 and 3.

http://www.denninger.net/diving/cavecard-edited.jpg

[Rich]

But that just came about recently probably because of discussion like this.
Then what needs to happen is folks that got their cards before the inception of the basic card should get a free check out dive with an instuctor to retro them to a basic card. Edit: Damn your second post beat mine to the punch

For the record, I should state that is only my viewpoint on things, and I do not speak for any agency or any other instructor....

Also, I try to refrain from telling people what they should or shouldn't do, unless they're paying me to do so :-D

Safe diving,

Rich

It's time.