Sheck started diving after the BC was invented. It was John Harper that started diving with Clorox bottles. Milk came in glass bottles back then :-DQuote:
Originally Posted by divindoubles
Printable View
Sheck started diving after the BC was invented. It was John Harper that started diving with Clorox bottles. Milk came in glass bottles back then :-DQuote:
Originally Posted by divindoubles
Seems to me there's a lot of semantic mumbo-jumbo about 'rules' vs 'guidelines' in this thread. What's the big deal about calling them rules? Don't you have to learn the 'rules' to pass your 'tests' in order to get your cave-diving certification? Whether Sheck thought they were guidelines or not then, they're rules now.
Andrew's post suggesting that some of the rules need to be made more conservative, and some added, is a great idea. That's, to me, akin to saying, "Let's use seatbelts so people don't go flying through the windshield of their cars."
I went to a trauma training at the hospital. When two cars bash into each other we no longer call it a car 'accident', it is now a car 'collision'. We were told this is because ALL car crashes are preventable, and therefore not accidents. I don't know if I categorically agree with that, but I do agree with the sentiment.
No one really knows what happened to Bruce and whether or not his death could have been prevented by following the rules. That sucks. If we ever do find out for certain, then maybe we need to change, or add to, the rules to make it so that it can't happen again. Unless people enjoy dying in caves.
I agree. I think there is a core set of guidelines/rules,and if the list is kept short and simplisitic then it is adopted easier. But,I agree there are things that deserve consideration that could be postulates- ie no 1/3rd in low flow/weak syphon etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by BearCub
oohhh, postulates! I like that!
-skip
I could say axiom,but that would be too much for someone who road the cave diving short bus. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by skip
ROAD the short bus?? Well, how was the ride, Kelly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Jessop
Postulates? Man, I hate it when my doctor checks my postulate. He has long crooked fingers.
ISCQuote:
Originally Posted by FW
Thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure your doc keeps his fingers away from my axiom.Quote:
Originally Posted by OFG-1
postulate:
- - assume something: to assume or suggest that something is true or exists, especially as the basis of an argument or th…
- - claim something: to demand or claim something
In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.
- - something assumed true: something that is assumed or believed to be true and that is used as the basis of an argument…
In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Unlike theorems, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow (otherwise they would be classified as theorems).
corollary:
natural consequence: something that is a natural consequence of or accompaniment to something else
- - statement easily proved from another: a proposition that follows, with little or no further reasoning, from the proof…
-skip
- - obvious deduction: something that is very obviously or easily deduced from something already proven
Sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded.Quote:
Originally Posted by skip
- Fyodor Dostoyevsky
not to mention that HUGE diver's watch!Quote:
Originally Posted by OFG-1
This is what I use in meetings for people who 'jump to conclusions'. You ought to see the looks I get.Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
"Isn't that what causes pre-mature extrapolation?"
rules, guidelines, recommendations...the thing is what the words produce in terms of future behavior. I was the bus driver for Kelly's ride on the short bus (funny analogy, but really Kelly has never been on the short bus in anything, certainly not cave diving). Rules, more than other terms, are too often taken as gospel and thus provide cognitive narrowing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BearCub
Recommendations on the other hand (Sheck's original terminology) are not typically taken as gospel, rather that term requires a person to consider and think about what they mean and if indeed they apply exactly as stated in all circumstances.
I realize neat little sound bites for "rules" allow for good memory, quick response (although not always correct response), and make for an easier time teaching (follow the rules or you will die). But this kind of rule-following is not what most cave instructors desire (I hope) from their students and it further suggests that there is a cause-effect between following/not following rules and survival/not surviving, which is simply not true.
The accident which caused this thread may or may not have been caused by lack of a continuous guideline, incorrect gas management, poor situational awareness, etc. Even with such things occurring, there is no way to know if they were contributory factors or not. Many divers have survived even when violating the "rules."
Now if you ask me if I plan a dive ignoring the Recommendations, well, hell no! That would be asking for trouble!
-skip
I agree. Kind of like CPR. There are other things that can be done that will enhance survival,but if you task load the general population,then the key steps get missed,and survival rate goes the wrong way.Quote:
Originally Posted by skip
I don't usually post on forums, but having read this thread and the related thread on Bruce's accident, as well as having had an interchange with Skip, I thought I would just add some comments and my own views to the mix.
These discussions on violating the 5 golden rules/guidelines of cave diving, particularly in light of the recent accident, seem to me to be a little dangerous. This is particularly so since a number of posters (including Andrew who should know better, no offense intended) seem to me to be in denial over what happened largely because they are constantly violating some rather minimal, common sense rules/guidelines, especially the one relating to having a continuous line to open water.
The 5 rules/guidelines, represent a minimum. They also represent common sense. Change in terms of increased conservatism is fine, but the reverse is not fine and is simply asking for trouble as accident analysis has clearly shown empirically, time and time again (even if the analysis lacks statistical rigor). Indeed, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of deaths of trained cave divers (with the exception of Parker Turner's) have involved violations of one of the 5 rules/guidelines of cave diving, and they have invariably been due to either complacency or going beyond one's training and abilities (i.e. too far too soon).
In the case of Ginnie, there is no doubt that many people get away with not placing jumps. As Andrew pointed out you don't need to lay a line to drive to your local neighborhood store to pick up milk. But let's see how good he is at finding his local store or getting back home from it if the visibility was suddenly reduced to 1 ft (not incidentally impossible for anybody who has experienced a London fog/smog before they banned coal and wood fires). Let's see how good he would be if he had a mild heart attack or stroke, or a case of vertigo. In a high flow system such as Ginnie, a total silt out in many places can usually just be waited out for a few minutes, but not always, and certainly not everywhere (including Harry's crack, the Double lines, Sherwood splits, etc...). You never know what's going to happen, and it is those freak incidents that the golden cave rules/guidelines are meant to protect against, no matter how experienced a cave diver one may be.
Lets take a couple of really simple examples. I've noticed that many people don't feel the need to place a jump from the Gold line to the Hill 400, and I have had many discussions where such people have said that they can easily get from the Hill 400 to the Gold line in a total silt out/lights out situation. However, why would one want to subject oneself to additional stress to find the gold line effectively blind, when it would be trivial to just follow the jump line and not have to worry about it. The same is true for laying a primary line in the Ear or Eye. Again I've heard many people say that even in a total lights out situation they could find their way out from the start of the Gold Line to open water. But I'm not so sure in a real situation that they would fare that well, particularly if there were other factors coming into play as well (such as a limited gas supply, some medical problem, etc...). Let's say it's at night and the Ginnie flood light is off. Your lights have failed (including backup lights) or there is a total freak siltout or something's happened to your ears and you've suddenly got vertigo. In a training setting sure one could find one's way out the Ear (with a little luck and some time, and providing one doesn't get turned around), but when the real deal hits totally unexpectedly the stress level is going to be quite a lot higher. But if one has a primary line in, its a piece of cake to just OK it and follow it to open water with no (or minimal) stress at all.
So this is what I think happened with Bruce (purely speculative of course), and why I believe that placing jumps is so critical with absolutely NO exceptions. The divers decide they are going to do Harry's crack and they scope the exit (on the Expressway side) and the entrance on the Gold Line side, without laying any jump reels. Bruce goes into Harry's crack without laying a jump line and creates a massive silt cloud (either by accident, or because it's impossible not to from that side, or because his skill levels are not up to the task, even though he probably had over a thousand dives in the Devil's system). His buddy, quite rightly doesn't feel comfortable following since there is no way he can even see the start of the line in Harry's crack from the main passage. Bruce doesn't stop when he goes in but continues swimming, oblivious that his buddy isn't behind him. Had Bruce laid a line, and then waited until his buddy came (following standard protocol) or not as the case may be, there wouldn't have been an issue. Moreover, with a line in place, his buddy could have put his head in and flashed Bruce down. At some stage Bruce realizes that his buddy is not behind him and has an "Oh ****" moment. This may have been while Bruce was still in Harry's crack or had exited on the Expressway side (we'll never know). But either way, since the plan was to go into Harry's crack, Bruce is under the assumption that his buddy did follow and that he's stuck somewhere. Obviously a bad situation. So Bruce goes back in to look for his buddy. At this point, the whole of Harry's crack is silted out and Bruce is going blind, anxiety is increasing, etc...., progress is slow. (i.e. this isn't a question of being in a silt out for a minute or so but for a prolonged period of time in tight, silty passage). He manages to exit on the Gold line side, but there is a complete silt out at the exit, and he cannot see (he may not even realize he's out of Harry's crack and has no line to follow), he goes under the gold line, manages to get hold of the Hill 400 line, and for whatever reason continues up the Hill 400 line. At this point he probably doesn't even know whether he's on the Hill 400 side, or the Expressway side, his vision and thinking have tunneled, and he probably doesn't even look at his pressure gauge until it's too late. He's found 400 ft up the Hill 400. Assuming a swim rate of 50 ft per minute, that's 8 minutes, which would have been more than sufficient to get to the log in the Ear and onto his O2 bottle, albeit somewhat tight. As for the hypothesis that he went looking for his buddy in the Wormhole, there too, had they followed the continuous guideline rule, his buddy would have laid a jump line; if this wasn't there, then Bruce would immediately have known that his buddy wasn't in the wormhole. So from whatever angle you look at this, everything boils down to not running lines at all jumps. The other factor, of course, is that ultimately Bruce clearly didn't leave himself enough gas reserves (ipso facto since his tanks were found empty). Of course, he might have also suffered some medical event that would have impaired him either mentally or physically for a period of time, or some partial equipment failure (such as a free flowing reg) that would have slowed him down; but then again, not having a continuous line sure didn't help.
So why is laying lines at jumps so important in my view. (a) It provides a continuous guideline to open water so that if the **** hits the fan (silt out, mild panic attack, mild heartache, vertigo, etc....) one can just go back to muscle memory and follow the line without thinking. (b) It provides time to make and think about transitions (something Larry Green wrote about some time ago in the NACD journal); i.e. you install a line across the jump, you wait until your buddy comes over, you signal each other OK and then go on; without placing a jump, the tendency is just to go. (c) It avoids complacency (and if one is complacent about putting in jumps, then it isn't a stretch that one might become complacent or take short cuts with regard to other issues). (d) Placing jumps with spools/reels with one's name on it, allows others to come looking for you should the worst happen. With no jumps in place, how is anybody going to find you in a system as large and complex as Devil's. (e) Placing reels, jumps, etc... maintains muscle memory so that when one actually needs to use a reel in an emergency situation one doesn't fumble. And believe me, if one doesn't practice, skills rapidly go. I recently dove with somebody, who shall be nameless, who rarely placed a jump reel/spool in Devil's. No big deal for me as I always place them and enjoy doing so (I will never do any visual jumps and I always run a line to open water, including in the Ear carrying several stages and towing a scooter). But on one dive I told him that he should place one and indicated which one; guess what, he fumbled, took a really long time (because with a scooter in hand he'd probably never placed a jump) and then misplaced the snap clip pointing into the cave rather than towards the exit (i.e. back on the jump line as it should have been). Clearly he was out of practice which suggests that in an emergency situation such as a real lost line situation in a complete silt out or lights out, he might have some difficulty.
So lets look at the 5 rules/guidelines (in no particular order):
1. Dive to 1/3rds at maximum penetration; now that's pretty liberal and represent the bare minimum of conservatism. Clearly one has to reserve at least twice as much gas as one needs to exit (with 2/3 of one's starting gas at the point of maximum penetration being the absolute minimum reserve even in a high flow cave). In a syphon, in tight/silty passage, the presence of tight restrictions, in low/no-flow cave one obviously has to reserve even more gas for the exit as the situation dictates.
2. Continuous guideline line to open water; we've discussed this.
3. Three lights; again obvious (but more up to a common sense limit is better, especially since backup lights are now so small, one can easily stuff a couple of extras in one's pockets).
4. Appropriate gas for depth; that's obvious. (And dare I say it, it seems to me than a maximum operating pO2 of 1.2 for the working portion of the dive, as suggested by the GUE standards, seems reasonable to me; and for the record I'm not GUE trained).
5. Don't go beyond one's training; again obvious. (And very importantly note that training is a continuous process that goes well beyond cave class; in other words progress slowly and don't be in a hurry; it's the voyage that counts, not the destination).
I would add one more rule/guideline: don't venture in places that are beyond one's technical abilities, even if they are within one's comfort zone. e.g. if one can't go through the Parallel lines, for example, without kicking up the silt, then practice somewhere less tight, low and silty until one can do so. (For sure it makes for a much more pleasant dive to have good visibility on the exit as well as on the swim in).
One last thing, in the light of Kelly's very pertinent last post. While I haven't practiced medicine for a long time (since I now do biomedical research), I can confirm that in emergency medical situations, particularly late at night after working non-stop for 30+ hours, as many residents do, one absolutely wants to be able to make decisions and carry out procedures on auto-pilot. Since these often involve life or death situations one sure can't afford to make mistakes. This applies of course not just to CPR but to any number of other medical emergencies. Exactly the same is true for unforseen events/emergencies in cave diving.
Just a few thoughts.
Marius
-------------
Marius Clore
NACD Equipment and Technology Chair
(Disclaimer the above views are my views and mine alone, and have nothing to do with the NACD).
marius, thank you. I am humbled and grateful for your post.
-skip
Thank you for your excellent and well thought out post. You should consider posting more often - it could save lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by quarrydiver
Given the following two options, I believe producing a cave diver who believes the "rules" are not to be broken for fear of certain death is better then producing a cave diver who believes "recommendations" are mere suggestions with little bearing on the outcome of a dive.Quote:
Originally Posted by skip
Not picking on you Skip, but your posts in this thread have really thrown me for a loop.
Thank youQuote:
Originally Posted by quarrydiver
I would add one more reason for always running a jump line. The jump line not only leads you to the previous line, it leads you to an arrow that tells you how you intended to get out. Absent the jump line, it may be some time before you find a line arrow.
Marius,
First, thanks for a very eloquent, well worded post.
i agree with the vast majority of your points. I just want to highlight a few small caveats:
1) Dive to thirds. I actually think that this is a good rule - with three riders.
First, I would like divers to be told categorically that this does not work in sumps. I think this is done already, so no biggie there.
Secondly, I would like to see a FORMAL reccommendation to divers on the ADDED margin needed in a no- or low-flow cave. Here's an easy one - drop your usable thirds by 100 psi. So let's say you have 3400. You round to 3300 - that gives you 1100 usable. Now, DROP THIS BY ANOTHER 100 in no flow to 1000. That means your turn is at 3400-1000 = 2400. Many have argued that the problem with some of my suggestions has been that they're too complex or too vague. This one is dead easy to write into the standards.
Third, see my causality caveat below.
2) Continuous guideline to the surface. This is actually a good rule (I contested it largely because it amused me how few others did, when I know that the vast majority of divers blow it off at the entrance to many popular caves and on jumps like the Hill 400). However the caveat here is - don't jump to laying blame on this as causal in an accident unless there is clear evidence that this is true. It causes us to ignore the real reasons for an accident. Skip described this very well earlier when talking about determining causality as being important in accident analysis. Right now everyone simply looks at which rules were broken and immediately assumes causality. This leads to complacency and poor learning. i'm afraid that your labyrinthine "scenario analysis" of Bruce's accident is an example of this - there is just no way that your complex series of guesses is lucky enough to be correct, and there is absolutely no way that any probability weighted analysis would lead a scientist to state categorically that the accident was undeniably caused by not having a line. maybe it would have helped... maybe it wouldn't... but it's intellecutally lazy to state that this accident was caused by not laying a line. We need either to look harder, or agree that the evidence is inconclusive. Anything else is the triumph of dogma over science.
3) 3 lights - Damn right! In fact I'd like to see 4 lights as a standard with the 4th available to signal cave exit in a lost buddy scenario, as currently informally taught by many instructors.
4) Appropriate gas - Damn right!
5) Diving beyond training - Well... once more be careful to create inappropriate causal links here. Inovation, by definition, is the act of going beyond one's training. Should an innovator like... oh hell, I don't want to tempt fate by giving examples but I've mentioned a few elsewhere - ever pass away, heaven forbid, please let's not attribute that innovation as causal in their death unless there is clear evidence that this is true.
A final point - none of this obviates the need for us all to discuss this stuff really carefully, and to continue to innovate and improve. I'd be ecstatic of all my discussions about gas management led to one thing, and one thing only - a formal, simple rule about how to increase reserves for no flow caves.
Quick! Someone call Andrew and tell him he must've left himself signed on where there are people with common sense, rationality, reasoning, sensibility, good manners & tact!
;-)
Marius and Andrew,
I very much appreciate both of your most recent posts on this thread. This type of accident analysis is the very core of developing future procedures for the technical and cave diving community. I applaud everyone's time and efforts to understand this enormous tragedy.
Regards,
Randy
Excellent first post, Marius. Welcome to the Cave Diver's Forum, and I hope you'll continue to post here, as you obviously have much to share.Quote:
Originally Posted by quarrydiver
One thing I must point out, though. If I'm exiting the Devil system, solo, at night, and the floodlight goes out, and my primary light and three backups all quit, and there's a freak siltout and I develop severe vertigo, I'm going to figure the Good Lord's telling me my time is up.
Uh, wait a minute. We didn't go over that one in class! ;o(o)Quote:
Originally Posted by Slüdge
Sumps? Do you mean Syphons? Sumps (pools of water in a "dry" cave) can be upstream, or downstream. Syphons are always downstream.Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
AHA!Quote:
Originally Posted by Slüdge
but I'LL be ready!
:D
I'd like to see this as well. However, it doesn't even have to be written into the standards. It just needs to be put out there that this should be done. I teach every on of my students this method of gas management. While 100 psi may not seem like a lot on the front end, it effectively adds at least 300 psi of extra reserve gas. Starting with 3600, turn at 2500 (1100 in). 2/3 is 2200 + 300 more. This could make the difference. Sure, the chance of having a catastrophic gas failure at furthest penetration are very small, but it exists. I even recommend to my students that in new systems to them they subtract 200psi. This gives them at least 600 more. That's 38 cf in a set of 85s. And how much more will they really see with 200psi more penetration?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
I agree it's a good rule, but it's one that people are going to break. It's probably the most commonly broken rule. Knowing that someday some of my students will probably break this rule, I at least give them a way to deal with an exit in which they now encounter that gap. I will refrain from posting it here, though.Quote:
2) Continuous guideline to the surface. This is actually a good rule...
I carry a primary and a mask light (both on) and 3 additional lights that are off. Fortunately, I've never had to go beyond deploying 1 backup light and I've yet to be in complete darkness because of my mask light.Quote:
3) 3 lights - Damn right! In fact I'd like to see 4 lights as a standard with the 4th available to signal cave exit in a lost buddy scenario, as currently informally taught by many instructors.
Good point, and I'd like to see the gas management rules modified as well. Too many people head into a cave on the simple rule of 1/3s and never give thought to whether that's really enough gas. Not only do I teach my students to modify the rule, but I also time them during the lost line drills and touch contact exits to bring home the point that it's not enough!Quote:
A final point - none of this obviates the need for us all to discuss this stuff really carefully, and to continue to innovate and improve. I'd be ecstatic of all my discussions about gas management led to one thing, and one thing only - a formal, simple rule about how to increase reserves for no flow caves.
Sorry - brain fart. Syphons is indeed what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by FW
Ditto... This is what we need more often and not people verbally attacking each other for whatever reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Thornton
speaking of breaking rules, what do you think of an intro diver diving Doubles on 1/3 and using his No Deco time on 1/3 as well.....friend of mine came up with the idea, and i said i am not sure thats the best idea (adding too what experence level of an intro diver)
Better yet, how about someone diving in caves without the training or certifications but trying to pass himself off as a cave diver...Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_Diver
I don't know what this means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_Diver
No Deco Time = The time you can be underwater without having to do formal decompression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slüdge
1/3 = a part of 1, leftover after you subtract 2/3.
OTOH, If you mean what does 1/3 No Deco Time mean, I have no clue either :-)
Must need to Google it or something? :smt102Quote:
Originally Posted by BobK
Where's OFG, he knows.
On a serious note, great thread! Several good points raised.
i mean diving on 1/3 with doubles, and using only 1/3 of your no deco time so as to not go into a deco dive i.e. no deco for 90' divide by 3 and only use either 1/3 air, or 1/3 of deco which ever occurs first than you turn the dive
Is there any time left to dive??Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_Diver
I would plan to use 1/2 your no deco time in and a little less than 1/2 out. And know some contingencies to get out of the water "clean enough" should you be delayed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic_Diver
Intro- 1/6th, no deco and no jumps. Anything more aggressive is breaking "Da Rulez"
There's plenty to see if you take your time and look around instead of following a line as far as you can on 1/6th. Another tip is to dive a shallower cave. This lengthens the time you will be able to penetrate. You'll find that when you're relaxed and comfy your gas will last longer and you will enjoy the dive so much more.
Well said. I can spend an entire dive in the first 4-600' of most systems and have plenty of bottom time, and have more fun. Looking back I wish I would have spent more time enjoying the dive as an intro. The cave will be there for a very long time and there is no need to rush anything. Enjoy the time you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meister481
Great thread. Lots of information to think about. Although there is some different thoughts on "the rules", comfort level plays a part. In the late 70's, when some of us were students at Valdosta State College, we made many dives at the nearby Madison Blue Springs. It was common practice to dive the main line with single tank. We would dive to "thirds". We had a motorcycle battery primary, along with two back-ups. We felt safe in our dives. Another common dive was Peacock to pothole with a single tank. Many people did it.
Now? No way. I don't have the testosterone fueled dive agenda I had back then. And now, being married and with an 8-year-old son, I'm ultra-conservative, but still have a helluva time enjoying the beauty of the caves.
A truer sentence cannot be spoken.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam
I see brand-new cave divers with scooters, apprentice divers with stages, things that would make my instructor pop a knot on my head. The above sentence should become the cave diver's mantra.
speaking of mantras, i heard of a good one for deep divers... Nitrogen Narcosis is for Christmas, Oxygen Toxicity is for Life.....
It is a method when diving Tables to determine your your max depth and time. Then use your no deco time which was pre-determined from your dive plan and on the way in use EITHER 1/3 of your air supply in OR 1/3 of your no-deco time WHICHEVER comes first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slüdge
IF you turn on pressure or if you turn on time either way you start your exit which now gives you 1/3 for your exit and leaves 1/3 for emergencies.
For example on an Open Water Dive you are diving to 60' for 50 minutes. You are wearing a single tank AL 80 with 3000 psi
You would use EITHER 1000 psi or 1/3 of your no-deco time say 16 minutes. You would swim into the current and at 2000 psi signal to your buddy and return to your point of entrance (ie shore, anchor line, etc)
This would allow you the same amount of time and air to reach your point of exit.
If an emergency occurred yould would have 1/3 of your no-deco time as well as 1/3 of your air to deal with this emergency.
I suggest this method to new dive students who are using dive tables and analog SPG's. It is a very conservative approach and a means for a new diver to use as`a method to be able to pre-plan the dive ahead of time and to reduce task loading. It is used in conjunction when I am teaching dive planning and tables therefore my explaination does not go into all of the details that would normally be presented.
Hope this helps
I have never heard of using this method in an overhead environment but some may find it helpful.
Andrew and I were going back and forth a little and thought we should post some of our exchanges. To answer his post in response to my initial post I would say the following:
1. I totally agree with Andrew that 1/3rds do not give one sufficient reserve in no-flow caves, and that subtracting a 100 psi off one's calculated 1/3rds is an excellent idea, effectively giving one a cushion of 300 psi.
Fortunately, for those diving in Florida and getting cave fills this is less of an issue. This is because N2 and O2 are not infinitely compressible, with the result that the relationship between cubic feet of gas and psi is no longer linear above 3000 psi (as is easily verified by going to the divegearexpress web site and checking the cubic feet that corresponds to 2640, 3000 and 3440 psi for the different tanks). Lets say you have a 3600 psi fill in double 104s. The total amount of gas for the 1st 1/3rd (from 3600 to 2400 psi) is 80 cuft but the amount of gas for the 2nd and 3rd 1/3rds (from 2400 to 1200 psi and from 1200 psi to 0 psi) is 94 cuft, giving one an additional cushion of 28 cuft (94*2 - 80*2; equivalent to about 350 psi in the linear range). Now lets say you start off with 3500 psi, and round 1/3rds down to 1100 psi, then one fares even better: the 1st 1/3rd (from 3500 to 2400 psi) has 75 cubic feet of gas, the 2nd 1/3rd (2400 to 1300 psi) has 87 cuft, and the remaining third and a bit (1300 psi to 0 psi) has 102 cuft, so the total additional cushion is now 39 cuft (87+102 - (75*2); equivalent to about 500 psi).
For those, however, diving in Mexico with regular Al80 fills to 3000 psi, they don't have
that cushion, and I would certainly agree that in that case on should absolutely take 100 psi at a minimum off one's 1/3rds. (Of course it doesn't hurt to take a 100 psi off 1/3rds for cave-filled steel tanks, and just adopt this as a standard rule/guideline for no-flow caves).
2. Obviously syphons require special gas management considerations (as for that matter does diving with a DPV) and 1/3rds no longer work. I believe this is covered explicitly in the NACD cave book (as well as the GUE one).
3. I'm well aware that the majority of divers don't put a primary in the Ear or even the Eye. Personally, I always do because I like the challenge, especially carrying a lot of stuff and towing a scooter. But the bottom line is that most people don't do it because either (a) they are lazy, (b) it consumes too much gas (because they don't have practice and it is difficult at the beginning), or (c) it takes too much time. But, one only needs to do it once for a series of dives. Clearly, however, too many primary lines, especially if they are not well laid, would be a potential hazard, and I think one could use that as a very good argument to bring the Gold line out into open water. (I'm really not sure why this hasn't been done since an untrained diver could follow a primary line into the cave just as easily as a Gold line running to open water).
4. With respect to Bruce's accident it is impossible to determine the exact causality, because the only person who knows what actually happened is no longer there to provide the answers. Further, the forensic evidence is usually not very helpful (e.g. an autopsy that reports death by drowning doesn't tell us anything we don't already know). That being said I don't think my "Labyrinthine" scenario is very far from the truth. For sure, we do know that Bruce went into Harry's crack with a blind jump, he created a silt cloud such that his buddy didn't feel comfortable following, leading to buddy separation, and finally Bruce must have emerged from the Crack since he was found 400 ft up the Hill 400 with no gas left.
While not putting in jump reels was in all likelihood not the only cause, because clearly a whole bunch of things cascaded and went wrong, it sure didn't help. There is no doubt in my mind that the failure to run a reel/spool from the Gold line to the line in Harry's Crack together with the failure to follow standard protocol associated with placing jumps lead directly to buddy separation, which in turn probably triggered a series of unforeseen events that lead to the accident.
It doesn't appear to me that this conclusion is intellectually lazy and intrinsically unscientific, particularly as one can't very well follow the rigors of the scientific process, when there is so little information available. In such instances, all one can do is make reasonable guesses.
What I was also saying in my post is that if something does go wrong, having one less thing to worry or think about is likely to be very helpful in a close and stressful situation. I remember a very well known cave diver telling me that on one dive he suddenly felt super-nauseous way back in the Berman room and thought he was going to pass out; according to his account he really had to concentrate with all his might to make it out. Fortunately, all he had to do was follow the Gold line. Just think if he'd have had to make several visual jumps on the way out when he wasn't altogether there and partially incapacitated (even though he knew the cave like the back of his hand). For sure it would have made things a lot more difficult.
Bottom line, scientific or not, I've got no doubt in my mind at least that not laying jump lines was contributory towards this accident on all sorts of levels (including situational awareness, following proper protocol and not getting separated, etc.. etc....).
5. Finally, I would disagree that innovation necessarily involves going beyond one's training, at least as far as extreme sports are concerned. Whether you're talking about Ed Vuisters and climbing all the Himalaya peaks without O2, the WKKP crowd or Steve Bogaerts, they don't simply jump right to their record breaking endeavors, but build up rather slowly. (And while Steve Bogaerts is no doubt an incredible diver with a large number of major accomplishments, I don't think that the development of the Razor would count, in my mind, as diving beyond one's expertise). Likewise, I don't think that Forrest's home built rebreather involves diving beyond his training, but I would hope that Forrest tested it out in the pool and then in some simple open water environment, before taking it into a cave.
Marius
...and my (edited) answers:
1) Marius, as I said to you, your point about real gas laws is a really cool point that I'd never thought of. But it's an accident (in the sense that most people have no idea that moving into the non-linear region of the gas laws is saving their butts... and would be unable to explain why even after you finish drawing a bunch of graphs for them), and having peoples' safety depend on that accident seems problematic to me. furthermore, as you point out, it doesn't work so well in Mexico with 3000 psi fills... which has a lot of no flow caves... since the compressibility of N2 and O2 is still pretty linear there.
2) and 3) I agree on.
4) There's a fair chance that this case may have been worsened by not laying spools. But we're all guessing. ANd my concern is that we become lazy, say "Broke rule 2... let's move on", and don't learn as a result. THAT is my problem. Very few non-scientists are able to understand the difference between correlation and causation (indeed a lot of scientists get it wrong!), and we run the risk of blaming the wrong cause.
5) OK... so do we amend the rule to "Don't go outside your training... unless you do so slowly and carefully"? Actually, I'm happy with that too. Phew Forrest... we're OK now with your going outside your training on the Home Depot special! Or we will be if you allow us to amend the Sacred 5 a little...
This was written about 15 years ago and has been around. Redundancy is good! It addresses the issues of this thread and I guess the question remains. "aainslie" is right about accident analysis correlation and causation being misunderstood and "quarrydivers" statement " because the only person who knows what actually happened is no longer there to provide the answers." So the question remains what do we tell the authorities, family, land owners and the cave divers where there is no line between correlation and causation.
Any public discussion of relaxing the rules from the most conservative recommendation does a disservice to cave diving. One thing I learned early came from an old navy instructor who said "I can swim for you, see for you, breathe for you but I can't think for you!" Link that with the basic rules and the sentence from the article "Only by allowing the unthinkable to enter into consideration can the serious cave diver expect to survive the unlikely." Plan your dives from this platform and go forward!
Read, think and plan safe dives then go enjoy the sport. /Ken
Exley's Razor
By R.D. Milhollin (c.a. 1995)
Sheck Exley was one of the most outstanding explorers of his time. Within the field of cave diving, he was virtually peerless. He was concerned from the early days of the practice with identifying factors involved in cave diver deaths. Exley was one of the first to use an analytical approach to assess the causes of cave diver failure. His actions helped define many of the commonly held limits in this field today. His business was limits. And he died diving in a cave.
Ockham's Razor: a principle formulated by William of Ockham, stating that terms, concepts, assumptions, etc. must not be multiplied beyond necessity. It is a limiting and simplifying guideline for inquiry and explanation,advocating parsimony over complexity. The admonishment to science has guided inquiry for over 600 years.
Exley's Razor: a proposal for discussion involving the nature of limits. One never truly knows one's limits until they are encountered. Once a limit is reached and exceeded, return is not always possible. This razor is dangerously sharp. It divides those seeking the knowable end from those who have found the ultimate destination.
The problem posed by this proposition holds great importance for the pursuit of cave diving. Some of the basic admonitions given to the student entering this pursuit deal with limits, specifically those of depth, horizontal penetration, gas supply, and reserve gas. The implications of breaking these limits are often assumed to be understood. They are probably better appreciated during the first few penetrations into an overhead environment than later, after a few dozen dives have been successfully completed. The idea of limits in cave diving can be approached in many ways and may assume the following forms: horizontal penetration, vertical depth achieved, hours submerged, distance traveled, speed of travel, gas supply and consumption, gas component depth/time considerations (i.e., PO2 depth), fatigue, physical and emotional stress, task complexity, and equipment considerations. Limits are imposed on students during training, and are impressed on novices by the cave diving community. There are limits imposed by landowners, by physics, and by the legal system. There are limits that are self-imposed, such as those related to practical, financial, or physical comfort. Some limits may be dictated by body size or health and fitness considerations. The limits to be addressed here are primarily those involving experience, mental and emotional states, family considerations, personal safety, and internal feelings of security. By analogy, limits may be envisioned as the ability for a particular material to recover its shape after being deformed by applied stress, a measure of tensile ability. Past some point the material will either break (fail) or will not be able to return to its original shape. Every cave dive involves stress in one or more of its forms, and the diver must strive to avoid reaching and exceeding the type of limit he might not be able to return from.
The least well known aspect of cave diving is the psychological. There are now and have been divers who will do things on a dare. For these people the ego may be fragile: once the ego is threatened, it can lead them into areas they know to be unsafe. The ego threat, if not controlled, can cause divers to exceed their own known limits of comfort. The fact that another diver completed a particular dive can be reason enough for the threatened ego of a weak individual to justify taking risks that might otherwise be avoided. A cave diver wishing to keep this potential threat under control might consider including "motivation" as part of the formal pre-dive planning process. This could help by providing an opportunity for the diver to assess the reason he or she wants to attempt a particular profile, and a chance to modify that profile if sufficient justification is lacking. By consciously considering the reason for choosing to attempt a particular dive, the diver is making the first step toward defining and enforcing the personal limits that will enable him or her to be comfortable while under taking this demanding pursuit.
It may be possible for properly trained (to standards) but ill-informed novices to get a false impression of how more experienced cave divers became that way. They see individuals going through training from beginning students to "full cave" certified in a surprisingly short amount of time, and assume this must be the best route to take. The instant gratification expected by the children of the instant culture of the 1950's onward comes into play. Mix a newly certified diver, lots of money (equipment), and the right amount of encouragement (from the instructor or through the social environment), and you have the potential for a cave diving statistic. Just add water! The fact that some lucky individuals actually survive while taking poorly calculated risks can boost confidence in underdeveloped skills and abilities, blinding them to the reality of their limited developed potential. There are novices who can see no difference between themselves and a diver who has been actively and patiently honing skills for 20 years or longer, building up a vast reservoir of reflexes and insights that will be there when needed.
The dividing line between the successful and the not-so-lucky will not be seen on the ideal dive, but instead, on the dive that had a problem. The experienced diver will know how to react when things begin going badly, and will be better prepared to recover presence of mind in time to make the crucial decisions that will save his life. This observation should be borne in mind by all cave divers, who must inevitably assess their own capabilities and set their own personal limits. These limits must be set based upon the worst possible circumstance imaginable, not upon what is likely to be expected. Only by allowing the unthinkable to enter into consideration can the serious cave diver expect to survive the unlikely.
There should be a division drawn between the recreational cave diver and the cave diving "explorer," for lack of a better term. It is recognized that exploration assumes a wide spectrum of activity, and the term is applied in this instance to denote the highly experienced diver who has been expanding his or her capabilities to significant levels over a considerable period of time and has made a conscious decision regarding the importance of cave diving in his or her life. The true explorer must carefully and continually assess the limits of his pursuit, allow them to change depending on any number of factors, and keep them always in mind.
To how many cave divers does this apply? How many are truly willing to take the chance and walk the razor's edge? Probably not a lot if it really gets down to serious thought about consequences. Perhaps that is what is needed: serious thought among cave divers. This process should probably begin at the earliest level of instruction, when the effects of inappropriate decisions or poor technique are explained. An appropriate observation is that when things begin to go bad in one area, there seem to be an escalating number of things that go wrong or appear to go wrong in other areas. If this process is not stemmed in time, the result will ultimately be diver failure. Of course in cave diving, this most always indicates death. There is little possibility of escaping with injury. It is no accident that the open water training sequence features rescue practice while cave diving has a course in body recovery.
The commercialization of cave and other forms of "technical diving" makes this discussion even more difficult than would otherwise be the case. The proliferation of "professional" instructors carries with it the implicit fact that they must earn a living and are hence prone to advertise their services to the general public, and may be less apt to deny a student with marginal skills or a poor attitude access to a course. The rent needs to be paid. Encouraging students to participate in cave diving courses not only defeats any serious attempt at screening for personality types not suited to the pursuit, but invites much greater damage to the cave environment than is absolutely necessary for training and learning. There is a cost associated with the commercialization of cave diving that may not be readily apparent except to those willing to look past personal objectives to see the greater whole. The traditional cave courses were not openly advertised and students were not sold this form of diving as a product. Both of the major training organizations have discouraged the "promotion of cave diving," but have shied away from defining what "promotion" is specifically. New cave divers were once expected to systematically work their way from simple dives to more complex dives, slowly, over time. The idea of "progressive penetration" was espoused by those who had learned that way, and had accumulated impressive numbers of successful dives following this dictum. Of course, in the early days of cave diving, the idea of a serious dive was something much different than what is commonly imagined today. Some of the early pioneers racked up thousands of cave dives over relatively short periods of time, for these were quite short penetrations by today's standards. There have always been those who tested the limits, as can be attested to by the exploits of Wally Jenkins and his Wakulla Springs team, among many others. Given the same circumstances, it is unlikely that many of today's experienced cave divers would be able to (or want to) accomplish the same feats that were undertaken in the 1950's and 1960's.
Given the nature of cave diving limits, recreational cave divers should stay well away from where they feel their own limits might be to avoid the possibility of exceeding them. But how is one to know where those limits lie?
As mentioned previously, students and novices have the benefit of ready-made limits handed down by more advanced and capable practitioners who have successfully gone through the learning process themselves. It should also be pointed out that the basic rules of accident analysis were derived from the observations of circumstances surrounding those who were not as successful. As the novice progresses, and experiences gained through time spent in the pursuit begin to add to his or her confidence and abilities, the task of redefining limits is encountered. How this is done is largely a personal matter, but it is likely that an honest appraisal of one's physical abilities and overall preparedness would allow most to define reasonable limits. Adherence to these standards, once drawn, is again a matter of personal integrity, and when to enlarge the scope of what one allows oneself to do is strictly subjective, for limits must be expanded as the diver grows. The immediate importance of achieving a goal can lead to extending beyond where one feels comfortable or safe; this is what needs to be avoided. Do limits need to be reviewed? Should the community address the subject of specifically recommended limits for novices versus "explorers"? One suggestion might be to have novices complete personal inventories during cave diving training detailing all they may have to lose if they were to die as a result of exceeding their limits. Spouse, children, other family, career, material possessions, the opportunity to make other dives, etc. would invariably crop up during this process and could help the introspective student realize the importance of adhering to known safe standards. Students and novices gaining experience should ask themselves honestly how they rate in terms of cave diving wisdom, and set their personal limits accordingly. The community might consider an attempt to further define limits for recreational versus exploration dives in terms of decompression times, number of cylinders, or any other arbitrary recommendations, but the ultimate responsibility for personal safety and comfort lies with the diver.
Explorers have to set limits just as novices do, but they have more knowledge, time and experience under their belts, are generally capable of more efficient swimming, and have mastered more advanced techniques. These are personal decisions with profound consequences. The nature of this type of decision is what should be provided to the student and novice through course content, the example of other divers, and possibly through signs similar to the type used to warn untrained individuals of the general dangers of cave diving" The recommendations of any outside group, whether governmental, training agency, diving community, or more experienced friends, will ultimately be just that: recommendations. We must realize that the best of recommendations are easily disregarded by the irresponsible, and that unfortunately the training of recovery divers will still be needed in the foreseeable future.
Sheck Exley exemplified the ideal cave diver to many people. His experiences are well documented through his years of service to the NSS-CDS and to Underwater Speleology. His discoveries and successful ventures earned him the admiration of a diverse set of communities, from adventure seekers to scientific investigators. It is not ironic that his death can be looked upon as a source of information to be used to inform other cave divers, for this process is exactly the contribution that he made to the understanding of cave diving deaths. Exley's findings are not written in stone. They are subject to update. There is a blank space remaining under the fifth rule of accident analysis.
That's a great article, Ken! Thanks for posting it, it's funny how a 15 year old article applies today more than ever.....
Safe diving,
Rich
I am so tired of saying this but let's try one more time. Maybe caps will help.
1) MODIFYING THE RULES DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN RELAXING THEM.
They are seriously outdated. Siphons... scooters... many situations are poorly handled.
2) THE AIM OF ACCIDENT ANALYSIS IS NOT TO FEEL WARM AND FUZZY, BUT TO SAVE LIVES. Frankly when it comes to accident analysis, I don't give a crap about the bereaved. There are better ways to handle their grief than to use poor science and dogma to provide a "reason" for their deaths.
Good grief.
Finally, I REALLY don't like that article. It starts with Occam and Exley's approach to an intellectual endeavour, then is against the use of intellect to further the sport for the rest of the article.
As the authr says, knowledge, time and experience are useful. Thought is even more useful. Any animal, given sufficient repetition, can learn a pattern of behavior. The human is unique in being able to step beyond this, using inference, logic and the rest of our arsenal of superior mental skills to move beyond learning through pattern recognition. In aprticular, mere pattern recognition is highly dangerous since it doesn't allow for prediction, i.e. at its simplest level, "what if" analysis. You just bumble along and if you accidentally survive a threatening situation, THEN you learn from it. Dangerous stuff.
In particular, peer reviewed thought (which seems to work in EVERY field.... except, according to a bunch of you, cave diving) can lead to better practices.
So... are we going to think a little about our "rules"? Or lazily decide that all the work was finished in the 80's and we now have a perfect set of rules?
Utter crap. And it will continue to kill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Hill
I wonder if Sheck was thinking of this as he tied himself off to his decent line at 800 plus feet on open circuit scuba?
I don't know. You haven't met my dog. Sweet, loyal, but never going to make it to the boardroom, if you know what I mean :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
aainslie ... the clock is now ca 2000 and your statement is not unlike GI III who addressed the same points and referred to the status quo and cave divers in general as "farm animal stupid." After many incredible dives at WKPP, setting endurance, penetration and equipment standards a lot of good ideas came forward. New training instruction, ideas and configurations resulted but the basic rules of accident analysis remained.
The internet seems to have supplied numerous thinkers from the very capable to some self taught egoists and let’s not leave out the narcissists who seem to come and go. Yet the old boys that dive their backyards seem to do some really incredible dives and have done so for generations with less incident than those that try to find that razor's edge a couple of times a year. We learned this from WKPP who did build up dive as a prelude to some of their exploration.
This is all good stuff for a workshop where a room full of trained cave divers will benefit from serious discussion. But back to beating the dead horse ... preaching conservatism on a public forum is the right thing to do. Anything less sends a wrong message. /Ken
Andrew, Ken. my name is Andrew. it's in every signature on evry post that I make.
I'm not sure where you were going with the GI3 stuff. I just don't see the comparison. He and I are very different people. I haven't been to the gym in years, and don't appear in public without a shirt if I can possibly avoid it, for starters.
Listen buddy, if you don't like to think, that's cool. You never answer my points directly. Just indirect attempts to justify your unwillingness to think. If you tackle my SUGGESTIONS, I'll go there. In the interim, your luddite intransigence is at best amusing, at worst deadly.
Try to answer this directly. How do YOU recommend handling gas management solo on a scooter? Seriously, give it a bash. because everyone right now is using ad-hoc rules, and one day someone will get hurt. No doubt we'll blame "diving solo" or some such crap - when the REAL answer is, we as a community failed to think hard enough about something that we all do. Technology has moved beyond Exley's days - but we (or at least people like you) haven't.
And once more you accuse me of REDUCING CONSERVATISM. I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I'm going to put it in a few times. it might sink in:
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
I want to INCREASE CONSERVATISM.
The rules don't handle a lot of situations that need further thought.
Scooters really crack me up. Most instructors teach, know how much gas you need to exit swimming. Few remind you to reserve DOUBLE the gas you need. Fewer still give you a way to compute it.
Andrew,Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
My argument with some of your posts boils down to this brief statement. Please don’t make remarks condoning or circumventing the accepted rules that have become the minimum training standards. Saying the “rule of thirds for an outflow cave (such as Devil's) is stupid” is plain wrong on a public forum. It is a standard for every agency. These standards allow access to state parks, let land owners KNOW there are rules, allow insurance companies to underwrite training and instruction.
A week or so ago instructors emailed amongst themselves a request from a minor to get full cave training. Not bad but this kid (not even cavern) has been nearly a 1000 foot back in Devils and says he's been past 200fsw on air! The audience on forums is anonymous; some come to learn and others come to find a shortcut.
I have had the unfortunate task to break bad news and to explain the recovery to two widows and one mother. They all wanted to know what happened? All of them knew their loved one was a bit different or adventurous. Today, normal logic asks who would want to go into an alien environment when there is a DVD. We know better, but we are the minority.
Dive safe and be safe and support the accepted practices when in public ... please. /Ken
Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
For the sake of argument, let's say we always follow 1/3s regardless and everyone is happy. Can we take a look at the other scenarios where it is not enough and there may not be enough emphasis put on those scenarios during everyone's training? I think that is where the real value is. With that in mind, how would you answer the above question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Hill
Cheers,
Jeff
Way back in the day, when I started this thread, it was with the intent of finding out why some people do go beyond what is taught in basic cave class. I think it is fair to say mission accomplished on that one. I have read some things that has made me stop, and rethink some of the things I do, has made me go back and reread some points in my cave books, and flat out just started thinking a little more. There are some things that I dont agree with, but thats okay too. I dont think we should be putting up false statements if its something that we dont believe in, however. At some point, there has to be self policing going on. From day 1 in OW class, we are taught there are no scuba police, it is up to us to make sure we dive within our training and comfort levels. That should never change. The Internet has allowed me to research some dives, and determine for myself if it is something I am comfortable doing. Last time at Ginnie, me and my team was able to make it to the White Room. That was a really cool dive, but without Internet information, I would never have even thought about that dive. I have also read about the Henkle. I know that is beyond me right now, so I keep looking. I really dont like the idea of people having to hide what they do, because of how other people might respond to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepdiverbob
You are absolutely correct! Those that go beyond training do so for any number of reasons. At one point in time the careless or the adventurous may find themselves to be at their own razor's edge. However, discussing personal experiences and giving dive planning advice based on those experiences may work for some and prove fatal to another. I support safe cave diving, adherence to the rules and conservastion of the systems we have left.
Thanks for a good question. Glad you enjoyed the White Room! /Ken
Jeff,Quote:
Originally Posted by icestac
How do you answer that in a public forum knowing there is a chance that someone will read it and take with them an absolute! The answer is plain and simple. Plan for the worst case scenario and understand that in any solo scenario you may need to rely on your redundant brain as a last resort.
The trouble publishing a plan is that it may be followed by someone else. About ten years ago I was in the Devils run and a guy surfaced with 100psi after using the long hose of his rescuer. He sold his gear on the spot ... the scooter was a "pickup item" just past stage bottle rock. It was his first (and last) attempt to solo with a new scooter to the Hinkel. A couple of years ago someone gave RB advice and gas management ideas, trouble was the guy was only Intro.
Maybe this forum needs a section where you need to sign in and prove you're a cave diver, using your real name and dates of training and by whom. That's where discussions could flourish and questions could be raised and answered. /Ken
/Ken
That is all the question was -- how would you plan for it. Right now someone may just buy a scooter (no training require to purchase one as far as I know) and then assume that 1/3s is still valid. I think Andrew's method is flexible enough to handle a number of scenarios, but his point is that there is no general concensus for scenarios where 1/3s is not conservative enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Hill
If I were to plan for the worst case scenario, I would take into consideration the specific cave and other factors to determine how much gas it would take me to exit the cave -- as opposed to strictly basing it on how much gas I started with when I entered the cave. This number ultimately is based on how far you go into the cave -- the farther in you go, the more gas required to get out and most likely the farther away you get from 1/3s (in a more conservative way).
That is a valid suggestion. If such a sub-forum were created, would the assumption be that we can dump all of the "this should not be on a public forum" arguments at the door and focus on intelligent (hopefully :)) and healthy discussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Hill
Cheers,
Jeff
Okay. I am a fairly new cave diver. Didn't get full cave until last summer. I've only had about a dozen or so caves since, then I had to go back home.
As I've read through this thread, along with the others related to the most recent death, I found myself re-addressing my motivations. While I am still motivated to dive, and dive caves specifically, I find my hunger for the knowledge that you guys have a driving force.
As a Mostly Full-time lurker, I want to know what is going on in the commuinity. What is accepted, and what is not. I am extremely conservative in nature. I have a wife and three kids. I do take that into consideration. I try not to attempt dives in caves that I would not attempt elsewhere (I know caves are like nothing else.) That being said, I am not ready to attempt a dive that puts me into an hour of deco. Niether in caves, nor OW.
I appreciate what ANDREW (hey, I got it right the first time) is trying to say. By fleshing out the arguments for 'standards' for different types of caves / dives, it does not necessarily change the 'golden five'.
I am a firm believer in rules. That being said, it does not violate ANY of those rules to add information/rules/suggestions that when diving in a siphon, heavy (or no) flow, new cave to be MORE CONSERVATIVE with your gas planning approach. I did find out the hard way in Peacock. Went up the Pothole. Saw the 'emergency' exit with line going straight up. Continued on, saw the dbl arrows @ 600' had plenty of gas (I had assumed at the time) and the dive was called.
Upon the return, I did not remember passing the vertical exit. When I came around the left bend, I noticed something strange. A solid wall. It appeared the line went straight up. I thought I was lost. I was on the exact same line, in reverse, but something didn't jive. The gold line was going verticle to the roof. After sucking down a few extra tons of gas, I realized that there was a fissure between the rocks and we had decended down that way. It was totally forgotten from the trip in. When I exited the cave, I had about 1/2 less than the thirds I had 'reserved'. The swim took a bit more effort out, the stress of thinking I was lost and digging into my thirds was ratcheting up, and I distinctly remember thinking: "Note to self: Plan for more than thirds in this damn hole." It stuck with me to this day.
I could have saved myself quite a bit of distress had I seen anything on this, or the other boards being discussed. Those threads were always peer moderated and shut down.
I'm all for conservatism, hell probably more than most, but to shut down viable discussion just to keep idiots from doing what idiots will do: idiotic stuff? I remember the old saying my father once told me. "If you make something idiot-proof, someone will come along and build a bigger idiot."
Cave diving is not idiot proof, not by a long shot. It does however, make it more diffiult for them to propegate.
I think having a 'certified Cave' section would be great, however, who would/could police that? Someone would have to be able to verify through multiple agencies. Wish I had that kind of time!
I would like to thank all who are contributing, as you may have already saved some fool's life, either by turning him away, or by some stroke of bad luck actually making him THINK!
Roger
Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
Wow - you did it again, following a specific request.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Hill
So... you DON'T have an answer to how to dive solo with a scooter?
As soon as you answer that one, we'll talk about what an irresponsible badass I am.
I truly believe that people like you - NOT people like me - are the problem. And I truly believe that it is you - not I - that is irresponsible.
OK. I'm new here and I am only a cavern certified diver but I am working on the rest. That being said.. I think this statement is a little much. Didn't we all learn that are risks associated with scuba? Not just cave but with all scuba. If everyone here is going to be afraid to tell their stories and experiences because of the possiblity that some jack ass is going to go try and do the same thing with no training why are we even on here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Hill
I am here to learn from those with more experience than I have but if you won't tell me about your gas management plans and go into details about the possibilities of rule changes then there is not much benefit.
I understand the desire to keep the cave diving community in good standing and I want no harm to come to the reputation of this community but we can not spend our time trying to police the actions of the uninformed and unintelligent. Stupid people will always do stupid things. We can't stop it no matter how hard we try. At least if they get some information here it will be based in solid training that has been brought to the table by the fellow members.
It is my personal belief that it is up to the landowner to police the actions of those diving there. Not the other divers. Please understand that I am not trying to say we hold no responsibility for our community but we do not have the responsibilty of every individual diver because we have chosen to be part of this communty. If we are going to let others dictate what we can or can not say because it is a public forum then we do ourselves an injustice. Not to mention those like me that will take the information and have further discussions with my instructor and cave mentor. Going over these threads I have learned a great deal and been shown some varying opinions which have allowed me to decide for myself which ones I agree with. If you take away further discussion about things like gas management and accidents then you are robbing me of that choice and the knowledge that is gained which allowed me to make it.
Like others have said here.... I want to say thank you to those that have posted in this thread. I appreciate the opinions and experiences you are sharing.
Ken
Jeeeez can you guys slow down a bit............I can't keep up with the posts. I have to work during the day you know.
Andrew, with all due respect, what value does this add ? I would suspect that both people in a real debate believe this same thing, yet one of them is wrong. You often berate others for non-factual input, but this seems to fit that same pattern... Better to stick with facts against facts, and let the rest of us popcorn eaters make the call....Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
It's very doubtful that kid has really been to where he says he's been. He's been caught in a bunch of lies on SB since then. I also know some people that know one of his family members and again, it's all lies. My concern is this kid is going to try to do one of these dives he claims he's done and get himself killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Hill
Andrew,Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
Why would anyone want to answer your hypothetical? You are making statements about things I've never said .... ever. I never said you were not responsible. I never called you a badass. One day if we ever dive together we'll plan our dive and compare plans and argue what’s the safest for the individual and the team. If you plan to solo who am I to tell you what you need to be at a comfort level with.
Until then see if you can make a plan for any hypothetical dive using ODIGTML for the specific dive.
O- being all the O2 factors, CNS OTU PO2
D- Deco obligation, depth, duration, distance
I - Inert gas narcosis
G- Gas mgmt 1/3rds or more restrictive, (or CCR bailout) with mix to comply with O&I
T- Thermal consideration
M- Mission specific/limit
L - logistics
You don't have to think of it as homework, just another tool for safety. Again, I urge you to book yourself some time at one of the workshops and kick up a storm among a bunch of cave divers.
Lastly, I am done with this thread. There is really nothing new to say that will convince anyone to change their opinion so dive safe and have fun. Those of you that are learning, please go slow and do so in the right way. Talk to people in person that have been around and learn that there is an abundance of good information out there that will help you do this sport safely.
/Ken
Ugh. This puts liability on the landowner. How can he/she determine what goes on after the diver enters the cave? This is why we can't cave dive at some places and pay an exorbitant amount to dive at others. Landowners should grant access, what we do once we're on their property is solely our responsibility. I would prefer that natural selection be the only policing of divers, my second choice is Jeff Hancock, landowners are pretty much at the bottom of the list just above government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Git-R-Dun Diver
I think that ALL the safety rules in cave diving should be followed, the only rule I do not agree with is the rule of thirds, to me it is not enough, I never hit thirds I always turn sooner. Not running a continuous line (visual jumps etc..) is completely idiotic, I don't care if you have 8000 dives in the same cave it will come back and bite you one day, and if for some reason some divers feel that it somehow takes up too much time to run jump reels then maybe those divers should practice they're reel work.Quote:
Originally Posted by deepdiverbob
This were I am coming from; I do almost 100% exploration dives, I know the caves I dive very very well I know were all the tie off are I made most of them, but I would not even think of doing a visual jump or go off the line to take a look at a leed, I always take the time to run a reel.
Now I have a fair bunch of dives under my belt and a good amount in really gnarly conditions but I really do not consider myself some badass fearless cave diver just someone who loves to cave dive and who wants to increase my safety as much as possible.
No matter what I think I might know about cave diving or how much experience I think I may have I will never loose respect for the caves and become complacent that is a good way to eventually kill yourself.
I think many of the people who think they can get away with doing visuals etc.. think that somehow the amount of dives and experience they may have makes them immune, they should really sit back and think about how incredibly idiotic such practices are.
In a tug of war the cave will most probably win.
Bob,
Ken is telling me that I'm dangerous. I'm simply replying htat I believe that he, not I, is the problem. If that's not allowed... well,. that seems a little one sided.
Ken,
Thanks for making my point. You, like most instructors (I think you're an instructor), have no idea how to do gas management solo on a scooter. And yet you blithely continue to certify them... even after someone points out that gas planning is poorly (if at all) done.
This is the complacency that will continue to kill, as equipment and techniques outstrip the outmoded rules.
And that's my last post on the topic. I'm done. It shocks me that you all are willing to continue to dive unsafely. I'll put together an article on gas management and sent it to NACD, CDS and NAUI, and see if any of them are willing to publish it. In the interim, I jsut hope that there's no death from solo scootering. And I wait with bated breath for the convoluted assignment of blame for the poor undertrained person's death on one of the 5 rules.
I'm sorry, we are not the police. Okay, maybe I am, but not the internet or information police.Quote:
Originally Posted by 0
There are recipes on the internet that are search-able to build bombs, to create plastique, to create all kinds of havoc on our fellow man. Is there a need for this? IMHO, NO. Of course there are morons out there who publish trash, just because they think they are the smartest, greatest, at whatever they think they are great at. Their information may be good, it may be a hack's attempt at relaying bad information. It may be third or fourth hand. How many credible sites are out there that have bogus information? Hell, even Wikipedia is wrought with bad, sometimes potentially dangerous information.
What this boils down to is PFR, or Personal F*&#-ing Responsibility. Yet another trait lost to the generations. People are on TV killling each other in new, novel ways. So we have copycat killers. I grew up watching the Three Stooges, but yet, I have never run a saw across anyone's head, nor struck someone on the head with a sledge hammer (even though they probably deserved it). It's that PFR that restrains most 'normal' people from doing that kind of crap.
Publishing ideas on this forum and the speaking thereof are not the problem. If that 'kid' referred to earlier, sees some of our (YOUR) discussions on CONSERVATIVE approaches that need to be taken, it may actually cause him to calculate his death-(hopefully)defying dive on the conservative side, even if by accident. For those too truly far gone to realize that 99% of what is out here is WAY beyond their skill, talent, and/or Karma level, well nothing is going to stop them from becoming a statistic.
Ken, I don't know you, nor Andrew, for that matter. I see both sides of your concerns (as best as a newbie can...). My work environment is subject to arm-chair review and possible lawsuits everyday. I work with a team of guys that dress in black and carry MP-5's on the job. I am most cautious by nature, yet at some point each of my Ninja Turtles have to take their own PFR for what we do. EVERYTHING we say, do, publish gets reviewed after every incident. Heaven forbid we get into a shooting? Our training records are reviewed back through time. An instructor I had 20 years ago can be brought forth and his training plan, lesson plan, and his reputation can all be called into judgment by people that weren't even born when he was teaching. It is truly a screwed up world in which we live.
It is possible that anything that is/was written on this forum can be called into question if that little knot-head does something stupid based on what he read. I fear SB and TDS may have a worse time of it.
It may be a good idea to at least move threads that veer off-topic, such as this to a new category of 'bouncing opinions/thoughts' or something that by its nature let's the reader (read: attorney's) know before they enter, that anything under that heading is not 'sanctioned' by the site or any agencies, even if author claims it. They can verify themselves with the agencies.
We all are going to feel that there are things that we can do more than our skills would/should allow. That is natural given the conservative nature of our training and 'rules'. We know, fundamentally that the rules are on the conservative side and we know, intellectually that they can be bent to a degree. Me? I'm not quite ready to test that dog just yet, I'm still to concerned he will bite me in the ass.
Sorry I seem to rant a little, even jump topics. I tend to wax to hear myself.
Roger
Front page-Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleric
Quote:
The purpose of the Cave Diver's Forum is to provide a place on the internet for civil discussions of anything cave diving related. This site is not a place to learn how to cavern or cave dive. This site contains plenty of comments, stories, reports, and opinions. Be careful, responsible, and mature, both in your posts and how you use anything you read here.
Moderators do not monitor the accuracy of the content of threads posted here, and the opinions posted herein are personal opinions, and as such can be misleading and/or inaccurate. Entry into any overhead environment without proper training and equipment can get you killed. Opinions expressed on this forum are not necessarily those of the sponsors.
Yeah, what he said!Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneBrightGator
I agree with your position here. I don't think the landowner is able to know what happens after the diver has entered the cave. So then I have to ask how are you or I supposed to know? What do we do about it? Is it our job to appoint the scuba police? I am simply trying to point out that unless you or I are the diver in the cave neither one of us has responsibility for the actions of the diver in the cave. Let nature take its course. I'm with you. I think you and I agree on this subject. Maybe my lack of ability to communicate is the issue. All I am after is for some others here on this forum to quit trying to shut the mouths of those willing to challenge the status quo. Whether they are right or wrong in their beliefs they should be able to state their opinions and experiences.
The land owner holds no more responsibility for my actions than you do except they get to decide who to allow on their property. So I think we should all quit worrying so much about the people that will not learn or get training and be reponsible for ourselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Hill
I have to agree with your comments,and no matter how much people want to refute the validity of your comment,there is a lot of truth. I recall someone telling me about their dive 3 dives post-training into the dark water tunnel...visual into LR Mudtunnel because they read about others doing it etc etc. I'm not antiforum posting,but I think a realization of what you do can be emulated.
How will they know? They will read this forum!!! Geeze!Quote:
Originally Posted by Git-R-Dun Diver
Landowners made to police? simple solution: they close access to all caves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Git-R-Dun Diver
The certification agencies and cave diving safety agencies train the divers. They go to the landowners and say: see it can be done safely. They won't die and you won't be sued because there are standards of accepted practice that protect the divers safety wise - and the landowners legally.
This is what keeps sites open.
However, it is pretty obvious that not everyone is trained. And some that are trained don't always follow the rules.
Landowners who charge admittance owe a certain duty of care to ensure that those they allow to dive there are actually certified. It probably is in their best interest to not ignore obvious violations of what they know is safe cave diving standards. If someone falls and hurts themselves they can still get sued - even if they are not at fault. They are going to get sued when someone dies. It is in their interest to make sure they are in no way contributing to obvious negligence on the part of the diver.
I figure it is kind of the duty of the certifying agencies to police their certified divers. If it isn't their legal duty it is at least in their self interest towards keeping dive site open.
When there is an issue with a certified diver who is an obvious danger to themselves (or worse to other divers) the certification agencies should not depend on the landowners to recognize the danger and forbid entry they should be yanking the person's certification --- but that would lead to them taking responsibility that might turn on them later. What are they supposed to do then? There is a guy out there with their stamp of approval on a C-card telling landowners it is OK for this guy to dive. Now that they have revoked that approval what do they do? Send notices to every cave site and dive store that this diver's card has been revoked? (even though the diver may have certifications from multiple other agencies as well?)
So once again it falls on the landowner. Or on the diver to follow the limits he/she has been taught.
And sites more/less toward shutting down depending on their fear of new legal precedent that may put them at risk. Or install new more stringent requirements like "trimix" at sites where a cave card should suffice - or guide systems - or Abe Davis awards.
Or (hopefully) to not accepting individual agencies certifications for admission based on the agency's teachings, cave preservation, safety, etc. - but that isn't very likely because it is a lot easier to close access then to track which agencies are doing a good job.
I understand. I just think that responding with the reasons you don't feel you are dangerous is a better choice. Otherwise this tends to devolve into name calling which is no fun to read. I've even done some of that and I strive not to repeat it.Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
FWIW, I don't think you are dangerous, and have even taken some of your info under advisement. I am always willing to be convinced with rational arguments.
What, setting the scooting to 7 and carrying an AL80 is not cutting it anymore?Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
Never Ever !!
Matt