Ok now back to the poll, one thing that can be said as more people vote, it can be seen more then half of everyone that voted is breaking the cont. guideline rule to OW.
Printable View
Ok now back to the poll, one thing that can be said as more people vote, it can be seen more then half of everyone that voted is breaking the cont. guideline rule to OW.
Since you're an American now, that'd be defense...... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
Safe diving,
Rich
Not to be too much of a stickler on word choice, but if the poll had been phrased with that last sentence, I wouldn't have selected sometimes/sometimes on reels. I also suspect the poll numbers would shift. "Often" is not a way I'd describe not placing jumps.Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
-Tom
Maybe it isn't the rule that needs addressing, but the placement of jumps that needs addressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
I still contend that very popular jumps should be properly marked "T"s, not gaps. This is especially true of popular circuits.
Little river has "T"s at the Merry-go-round, and there have not been any problems there. Jackson blue has dozens of "T"s, and I don't know of any problems there either. Mexico has had "T" for years, and the only problem I know of was a place where they had left gaps, instead of "T"s.
I am not suggesting "T" every place there is a gap, just at the popular ones. There are some tunnels that are not safe enough for new divers, so those gaps should remain.
The bottom line is that if you have a continuous guideline to the exit, your chances of becoming lost are greatly reduced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FW
Very true.
We talk about complacency as a contributor to many accidents.
The poll may be indicating a wider spread of complacency then anyone previously acknowledged.
I am as guilty as a lot of the responders.
Do I think the rule needs to be changed because so many people 'violate' it?
Absolutely not.
Maybe we should start another thread on how to deal with the 'complacency' that appears to be so prevalent.
there's an ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by Jay
the poll results are shocking
Quote:
Originally Posted by FW
I have wondered for a while about putting in a "T" like that back at the pit in Cannonball.
After reading that the lines in Peacock didnt count in the poll, I voted that I always run a line. I did at Peacock before it was extended up the wall, but not now. We did run it at Ginnie, and also at JB. My life is worth the extra minute it takes to run it. Besides, whats wrong with a little more practice?
Jay,Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
I'd really like to explore this. Sorry for picking on you. But how do you
a) Break a rule that
b) You absolutely believe in?
How do you handle this contradiction?
It seems to me that either one believes in a rule (and therefore never breaks it) or one doesn't (and therefore is willing to break it).
I would suggest that there are times when you just don't see the point. Ginnie on a Sunday with 6 lines going in (half of which are flapping in the breeze). The Hill 400 on your 20th swim down it.
In which case, the rule isn't absolute.
_____________________________________
Now onto my problem. the REAL complacency is when you begin to think that you can get away with this everywhere. You find yourself not running a reel on white-to-white. In new caves. At a multi-directional fork. Stuff like that. And suddenly youv'e crossed a line and are testing fate.
And one day find yourself lost.
So... is the secret to say ALWAYS run a reel, and then find yourself backsliding, or is it so say "OK, the following places don't seem too hurtful. But DO NOT GET COMPLACENT and make sure that you run a reel in situations a, b, c, etc"
I've formed such a set of rules for myself after a bad incident. White to white (and in particular, drop an arrow!). Low flow (again mainly for the arrow). High silt out probability. New (to me) cave. All these get a line.
I'm unapologetic about not running one on pretty much any jump off the gold line in Ginnie. Even after Bruce's death.
But THAT'S ME! And that's the problem. This is a PERSONAL rule, where a universal set of guidelines would be useful.
50% of us are cheating. And each of us has a different set of rules. That's scary.
There is one almost exception to my "always" - if there is an existing man-made structure that isn't a line but is adequate for tactile following (like a hose or a pipe) then I will consider it a "line" for the purposes of navigating that piece of cave and skip the additional line.
Rick
There are a lot of similarities between cave diving and flying. The federal aviation administration over the last decade has done a lot of work in the area that is being discussed here, in fact your poll is a question that would appear in their hazardous attitude inventory process. As a current flight instructor i have looked at a lot of that material in the aeronautical decision making and risk management areas. Much of what they have done is directly transferable into cave diving...just change pilot to cave diver, aircraft to equipment and gasses, and environement from atmosphere and meteorology to aquatic cave. In the FAA this is a part of the training process. Cave agencies that manage the instruction process and standards could learn a lot from what the faa has done in flight training. The FAA stuff was developed to reduce fatalities associated with pilot error those strategies and methods could be applied to reducing diver error as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
I agree, and one of the very first posts I wrote addressed one bonehead gas management plan that advocated turn around similar to doing a "bingo fuel" calculation relying on a tail wind. I had a long discussion with the FAA rep at Sun & Fun and they are working hard to reduce incidents from the time the airplane leaves the chocks until it gets back. The FAA approach has a lot has to do with personal responsibility and the ability to administrativly sanction rule breakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by wingman
One thing I'd like to see in cave diving is a dive plan simply left on a dashboard. There are many false alarms reported because there is no way of telling if a team is overdue. And if they are a timely search will know where to look. Cave diving remains a free and unsupervised activity unlike flying that has a controller to remind you if you go astray. I'd give any money to see the invention of an underwater transponder and EPIRB. /Ken
Nice twist on words Andrew.
I said I believed absolutely the rule should not be changed. The complacency should be addressed.
There is a difference. And to me it is about the complacency.( And I am just as guilty as most)
I personally believe when we discuss complacency as an accident contributor we don't give enough thought to our own complacency.
Where do we draw the line?
The majority of folks surveyed (68.25% when I posted this) do not alway's run a continuous guideline to the surface. (counting all situations in which we were trained to run a line)
Does that mean we can change the rule? No, I don't believe that.
Does that mean complacency is OK? No, I don't believe that either.
Do we just say "alway's run a continuous guideline" *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*
Do we address the complacency somehow?
Do we start teaching "here's your card, your a big boy/girl now, these are the rules that are OK to break, but only in cave x,y,z under x,y,z conditions"
Maybe we should just stop talking about it before the agencies revoke our cards. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
I think that if "there are too many jumps were there should be T's" is a very poor excuse to not run a line.
I think the problem here seems to be a bunch of complacent/lazy/stupid/ divers completely disregarding the most basic of basic cave diving safety procedures and actually trying to rationalize this.
The problem is not relining a cave with T's instead of jumps so that lazy/complacent divers don't need to run a jump, the problem IS the divers actions and how to change that, not change the line to accommodate unsafe behavior.
The poll indicates to an extent what problem is out in the "open" so to speak, but I can only imagine what additional safety violations some divers are doing on a routine basis.
I have never dove in FL but I have dove a bunch in Mex and the caves there have numerous jumps, reach gaps, T's some very complex too, doing 4-5 jumps or more is a fairly routine thing, and it is a non issue, always run a line, period. I can't imagine the lines in FL being more complex than Mex, (I could be wrong) and it is not an issue, I just do not understand the mindset of people who don't run a line no matter how well you think you know a cave.
I think the vast majority are not skipped because they are more complex, but actually the extreme opposite -- appear simple and trivial "How could I NOT find my way back from here?"Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
The way I read the suggestion was to either make it a T so it is a non-issue or make it more of a jump so that the "simple" threshold is passed and the diver says "I need to put a line here".
It would be great if the rule was adhered to 100% of the time, but in the absence of that, can we do something to improve the acceptance rate?
Cheers,
Jeff
Pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
Ken,
"Bonehead" eh?
I'm sure that's not aimed at me. It's aimed at my theory, therefore not derogatory. Right?
Sheesh. Gotta love the onesidedness of rule application around here.
Jay,
So given this thread, is is your intent to always run lines in future? That's commendable... but I predict that one day, going into a Ginnie-like entrance with scooters and stages, you'll backslide...
There's a middle ground. I think it makes sense to explore that middle ground - the alternative is to leave everyone finding it for themselves, as they currently do. Once a rule is broken by 50%, it's just not an effective rule.
Your comment on "Do we just say "alway's run a continuous guideline" *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink* " is a great example. Many instructors cease to run lines with their students once they hit advanced classes like sidemount, stage, scooter etc.. So taht's exactly what our community is doing.
Maybe I can help you understand one scenario where I do not run a line, and my reasoning for having a lazy/stupid/complacent mindset.Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
Following the gold line to a jump that is a U shaped tunnel that is 200ft long and reconnects with the main tunnel five feet from the gold line.
Install a jump line from the gold line to the white line in the tunnel. Swim the tunnel. Return to gold line without running a jump/gap reel.
Pull first jump reel on exit.
My reasoning:
There are numerous times when diving the gold line in caves when divers are more than 5 feet from it. Nobody is screaming that we do not have a reel tied off.
In one of the most popular caves in FL, Ginnie Springs Devils system, the majority of swimming divers enter the system and choose a path that is high and to the left. The gold line is on the right, sometimes more than 20 ft away. Nobody wants to write a rule to protect these lazy/stupid/complacent divers.
Have you ever been more than a couple of feet off the line you were following? If so, did you deploy a reel first?
Maybe I am being extremely dangerous. I am very opened minded to arguments against my reasoning in this situation. Maybe my mind could be changed.
Absolutes, rarely are.
Andrew,Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
Please stop "predicting" what I am going to do or say or twisting my intentions or anyone elses. It adds no value other then demeaning yourself.
Flying vfr outside of certain airspace classifications does not require a controller. You are free to fly into a thunderstorm if you wish and there are people who do not listen or simply ignore...a student pilot here in pensacola chose to fly his cessna skymaster (center line thrust twin) that he was learning to fly in out of the area prior to one of the hurricanes two years or so ago. He put his wife and 2 kids on board (a student is prohibited from carrying passengers) took off, crashed and all 4 were killed. Point is flying is not as supervised as you might think. General aviation flyng can be considered dangerous...at least you get fairly good data:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Hill
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/08nall.pdf
I'm just trying to work out what you're saying here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
It ties in with your other thread. I suppose it's a philosophical issue of whether not running a line at somewhere like the Ear is "complacent", or "sensible". I'm not sure how one differentiates. But if there's no good reason otehr than pattern formation for running one at Ginnie, the chances of falling back to one's prior behavior one day are pretty high.
For some reason I can't picture excately what you are describing but I can say this, yes many times on the mainline in caves here or in Mex I am off the line a bit, but I am following a line and paying attention to the line, if at any point something goes wrong I am never far off to the point that I could not immediately swim back and reconnect to the line. The big difference is that if you do not run a continuous line to OW you are at some point disconnected from the exit, now say some sort of emergency happens be it small or big you need to be able to get out and follow the line without even having to guess which way is out and not add stress and risk to an already potentially bad situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Bryan
To each his own I guess the people who don't run jumps will continue to do so and think it's ok.
I dive fairly extreme conditions here as we are doing mainly exploration and almost every exit is zero viz, deep inside an unexplored cave in zero viz the meaning your life hangs by a thread takes on a whole new meaning, that line sliding through your hand feels real good.
But when I dive known caves and do some "recreational" cave diving in systems that don't silt out etc.. I always run a reel no matter what, even on reach gaps that are only a foot apart, I respect each cave as much as an unexplored one.
I think it is more dangerous to dive a nice cave you think you know real well that has been dove thousands of times, "recreational" cave diving it appears has people loose respect for the cave environment and they start becoming complacent.
When you are in a unexplored cave you have your guard up 100% and I think it should be like that in every cave on every dive.
I think that you guys who don't always run a line should take cave diving way more seriously, it is a potentially deadly activity that has many risks involved as it is, why unnecessarily increase the risks?
Many deaths have occurred either directly or indirectly from not having a continuous line to OW, should you not learn from that and always run a line?
So it will take a few precious minutes more to run a line, or maybe require a second incredibly painstaking dive to retrieve a jump a reel, so what? do you not consider you and your buddy's increased safety worth it?
Why not stop doing bubble checks and S drills too while we're at it, oh yeah and don't rinse your regs anymore and leave all the sand and silt in them too, there is such a small chance anything will happen to them and anyway you always have two so why bother...
You're right I got caught up thinking about the east coast being as congested as it is. The CEO of MacAfee virus software has an ultra light school in several areas of SW NM and SE AZ. You can go there cold and in a week get a ticket to fly UL's from one site to another. Some are several hundred miles apart and there are four degrees of difficulty. An "A" ticket gets you rights to fly over the desert. "B" gets you permission to go 500AGL over populated areas and C and D are mountain and canyon routes.Quote:
Originally Posted by wingman
Throughout this thread not one mention that Ginnie, Devils and Peacock being primarily training caves. Some instructors require plenty of reel work, others long swims and yet others a mix of these skills. Since they are training sites seasoned divers need to behave like seasoned divers and follow the rules. The basins and entrances are well travelled and crowed and often covered in reels, but so what. Setting a good example is a good thing.
What is apparent is that there are many goal oriented people wanting to go to new places in the cave and some do so by leaving the rules of the sport behind in order to meet whatever goal they set. The line is there to get you out of the cave and in an emergency you need to be on it like glue, Those that did not make it out of a cave have no voice in this discussion so right or wrong I've elected to say something. I do know that everyone person who has exited with a problem says they were glad the line was there. /Ken
There are some competing arguments about lines.
In places like Ginnie, so many divers are complacent in terms of not running a line from OW that the line has to be run as far out as it is. If you moved it back to the lips, or even half way through the gallery, most of the divers who think they could get out in a silt out would discover they can't if the real deal
ever occurred and peristed for any significant period of time.
On the other hand, with the diver traffic in P1, having the line 350 ft back would make for some interesting spagetti. Little River on a busy day can get interesting, especially when one or two teams get real inconsiderate about running their lines properly, keeping them out of the way, not running over the top of earlier lines, etc.
Personally, I enjoy the challenge of running a primary line cleanly in places like Little River or Orange Grove and I get a bit irritated with poorly run lines as they create a hazard for all involved. But on the other hand, if you apply it to Ginnie on a holiday weekend, it could get interesting if every team ran their own line. It would require a great deal of skill and consideration to make it all work and I am probably just grateful that not everone runs a line so that I can run mine.
It is much less easy to excuse not marking a jump as having 2-3 teams with lines on a particular jump is not that difficult.
I am not a real believer in the "T everything" solution either. As stated previously it will encourge more blind circuits. And if divers are not wanting to leave a reel, they probably also won't leave a cookie to mark the exit side either and sooner or later, a diver is going to come back for some reason and under stress, make a wrong turn with potentially fatal results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
The only problem I've had with running a line was at Little River with a large team of OW roto-tillers. They grabbed the top of the rod after 3 other teams were on it, didn't use a single tie off til they got to the gold. They crossed 3 lines repeatedly and one guy pulled my line placement off while wallowing in the sand. :mad:
There's nothing like taking a little pride in your line work. I love to see others do the same, it's just another challenge that attracts me to the sport. If I swim in Little River as Team 6 and there are 6 lines run perfectly, I smile the whole time I'm running mine and take a bit more time to check out the placements others used.
Ok I see the diagram and I understand what you mean, but I would not do the visual back to the gold line, I would place a second jump reel and retrieve it on a second dive if by myself or have the last diver in the team reel it up, reconnect with the gold line and then exit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Bryan
more time consuming 2-3 minutes more to place and reel in but always connected out and safe.
What if in a 3-4 man team you do the visual jump, then a diver causes a silt out and the last buddy comes to the gap were there is no jump line? he does not see you or anyone else and you are now separated, you on the mainline him still on the side tunnel and a gap between you. In my opinion the lack of a second jump reel has just created a potentially dangerous situation for nothing else but not running a reel.
I am by no means a cave diving safety expert but what I have learned so far is that it is ALWAYS better to be more conservative all the time, and in my view always having a line to OW should be a routine safety practice.
Obviously if the mainline ends in OW then I can see not placing a line, but that is not what we are talking about here.
A triumph of dogma over thought...Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
Ken, I think that they are just applying standard risk management practices and not flaunting rules. I am not really sure where the word "rule" came into play but they seem to be interpretted as commandments. Even the word rule is a bit fuzzy. These are not laws or regulations maybe they are rules of thumb? Exley's book used the term "blueprint" which implies a plan. In the forward Exley refers to them as procedures not rules. And on the last page he presents the "Ten Recommendations for Safe Cave Diving." The only place where a "rule" is mentioned is with regard to the third rule. Why is the first recommendation: "Always use a single, continuous guideline from the entrance of the cave throughout the dive."? The words continuous and single seem to imply no jumps period which supports FW's suggestion for Ts not jumps. I also note that the third recommendation is with regard to deep diving. In the text it seems deep is defined as 150 feet but he finally says: "The maximum safe depth for cave diving is 130 ft." He also suggests that the "foolhardy" who insist on diving deeper should contact experienced cave divers for guidance. Recommendation 6 is "Always carry the safest possible scuba." Are OC, OCR, and CCR equally safe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Hill
The "rules" are for training but once trained then it is decision making and risk management that comes into play. When scootering on exit from ginnie and i hit the maple leaf I run through some risk management thoughts:
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...sprocdscrp.pdf
and will do a visual jump onto the big room/bone room line knowing that that line terminates at the park bench in the junction room where i do not have a jump reel attached. I know conditions where i am, what they were when i went by and what i have observed there on hundreds of other dives, I know where the line ends on the curved bench of limestone and i know where the goldline is on that same curved bench. Running through the risk management scenario I feel that's in the green/blue area of the matrix so i decide to do the 2 jumps without a line. As Exley often suggests...contact an experienced cave diver. The problem is that here on the cdf we have a large variance in training and experience. With some experience data I think you could easily explain what is being observed in Andrew's poll. When i was working on my glider pilot rating and flying the schwietzer i envied the high performance gliders and hoped to do the kind of cross countries that they were doing and reaching the altitudes they were getting to. On my first 30 or so solos did i venture far away from the strip? No. Nor did I get above about 5,000 feet. I built my experience and judgement and this after thousands of hours of powered flight. I would highly recommend the FAA publications (2 pdfs) here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...3?OpenDocument
Bill
Is that unsafe or stupid to do it that way as opposed to do the visual as the diagram shows?Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
I may be wrong but I don't think so.
In the diagram shown, the diver goes from a continuous line to exit to another continuous line to exit.... At all time, the diver has a line that he can follow blindly to the exit. IMHO This is not a "visual" jump. (I'm assuming both lines can be seen from the same spot at the same time. We are not talking about having to go through a small silty hole to jump on the other line... we are talking a passage where you can easily see both lines.).Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
IMHO A "visual jump" is when you jump visually on a line that does not lead to an exit. The issue is when you come back the visibility might not be good enough to see the other line.
The above diagram is very typical of many dives at Ginnie where you can jump (properly with a reel) on a side passage early in the cave (Bone Room, Lip/keyhole bypass, Hill 400, Rollercoaster) and then visual jump back on the main line further in the cave. In that case, you can jump visually on the main line and exit that way. It implies a circuit so gas requirement needs to be considered and need to dive both sides first, etc. These circuits do not require a setup/clean up dive since you can pick up your spool in your way out. In FL, most main line is not white line so you know you are on the main line for sure.
Bill,
I understand what you are saying and the parallels are more than one would think. There is one reality in the cave diving world and it is governed by the people that give us access to sites. That access is only as good liability issues that do not create a potential detriment to the finances of the land owner, criticism of public policy or more importantly a PERCEIVED danger to the public.
Just after Blueprint, SCUBA training issues (or lack of) threatened closure of many dive sites and the permanent destruction by explosive of others. The NACD was formed then the CDS and training to dive in underwater caves became available. This training was initially taught by the NACD and the CDS and virtually ignored by all others commercial training agencies save for the YMCA very briefly. Training, using the five rules of accident analysis dramatically reduced fatalities and those entering caves were permitted to do so with understanding divers would follow the same basic rules as we know them today. There have been other additions to the training as technology developed but the basics remain the same.
Now some are in a discussion of rules on a public forum and keeping a tally of who and how many PEOPLE bend them. (Notice I didn't say trained cave divers.) Not surprising there are the posts that reflect either side of the issue, with none supported by scientific data only anecdotal stories. Scientifically, it’s an effort in futility because we don't know who is answering the poll, we don't know what their qualifications are and we don't know if they are being cute with their answers so as to sway the poll. That makes the poll "rubbish." The individual posters to the thread have valid things to say about the topic but since there is no conclusive answer the default has to be to go back to the basics.
Back to the rules. How many news stories have you seen about general aviation incidents that concluded the with "pilot did not file a flight plan" leaving the uninformed reader to think the pilot did something wrong. It is pretty much the same way after each diving fatality .... the media and authorities want to know who or what do we blame? The pilot may have used poor judgment in bucking the weather or ignored it completely. If so, it can be said a rule was broken. Everyone's happy.
We now have given the appearance that (some say) the rules are broken and not followed. That can't be good for cave diving! There is an assumed risk in cave diving that both the authorities, land owners, insurance underwriters and media are willing to accept as long as the rules are obeyed. Open disregard for "rules" will at some future point cause a public stir or detriment to the land owner. Some future litigant (there have no successful ones to date) may point at these discussions and plant a seed in a jurors head that cave diving rules aren't meant to be followed but get a wink and a nod. If there is a successful suit and a judgment is paid out just wait and see what happens next. The result will be site closure or at best conversion of public and private sites to ones requiring an insured guide. Forget about scootering because of product liability or inability to supervise the dive issues. Same for solo diving, they’ll be history.
So were doing this for the sake of some inquisitive and intellectual people that have been around a couple of years who want to know … exactly what? Then there are a couple of other people on this site that have actively negotiated with land owners, state and county officials to get sites open. In most cases it took years. In some cases the land owner did their homework and wanted to know if mixed gas was required. In some cases they wanted guides. In some cases they banned solo diving or scooters or imposed daily limits.
I have repeatedly suggested that this may be a good topic for a workshop breakout where those with credentials to speak and dive meet and see if there is in fact a better way to do things. The place to discuss topics to amend rules based on new technology and improved performance of tradition SCUBA gear is there not here.
Rules make the world go round but until they are changed they need to be followed. Kind of like waiting for a red light at 0300, no cars anywhere but yours. Go thru it you get a ticket.
Thanks for the post that may help some others understand the importance of this matter. … Dive safe - fly safe. /Ken
If your buddies are silting out a visual jump like this then maybe it's time to find new buddies...Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
And if you're by yourself, how are you going to silt out the passage in front of you?!?
Seriously, if you come to the end of a white line circuit back to the main line and you can see the gold line (I'm talking less than 20'), would there really be a concern of silting out that 20'? I've done this 2 different ways. Start the white line circuit at the closest point to exit placing a jump spool. Visual back to the gold line and pull the jump spool at the beginning on the way out. Or, on the way in, place a jump spool at the closest point to exit and visual at the back end (knowing you have placed the jump spool at the other end giving you a continuous line to OW). And before anyone starts bringing up the question of how will I know the white line is intact, the distal visual is typically within 15-20' in an area of limestone and almost no potential for silting out the passage. Should I need to return because of the extremely low chance of a line break and I come back to a silt out for whatever reason, I deploy my safety at the end of the line and run it to the gold. I only do this on perpendicular lines so finding the gold wouldn't be an issue.
I was just saying that if for some reason viz is lost before and at the jump, for example a small sized side tunnel with a silty floor, percolation, sometimes you end up diving with new buddies that may or may not have good buoyancy many things could happen to mess up the viz.
Anyway to each his own, I will continue to "err" on the side of safety and always place a line I feel more comfortable that way, and the more experience I gain the more I feel I should "even more" always have a line.
You could have your buddy hold the reel you take the end swim to gold line with it, when you get there give 3 quick tugs buddy winds the reel in. This was taught to us in the NAUI Cave Class.Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
That is a good way to do that type jump, and not have to leave a line behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oister
Whatever the method why not take the extra few minutes and make the dive that much safer? you guys can sit there and rationalize as much as you want why it's ok to do visuals, I think you are wrong.
This may seem a bit harsh but to those of you who think it's ok to not run a line and also have families, ask your wife/husband, kids, parents, close friends even, what they think about whether or not you should make the extra effort to always run a line or not.
Maybe you will listen to them or maybe not, but give it a try.
:clapper:clapper:clapperQuote:
Originally Posted by wingman
Standing O for Bill!
I see this employed quite often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oister
First let me again thank you for productive input.Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
In my book diving with someone you do not know, did not checkout with other divers, or did not check out with a test dive around the basin/cavern zone, and then entering a siltable passage with them, is way more dangerous/complacent/irresponsible than not running a jump reel 5ft to mainline as in my scenario.
As you said, we could debate this forever, but in the end I doubt we will come to the same conclusion.
As for the comment about telling my family...I would let Bill (wingman) take my wife on the dive he was just explaining anytime they wanted to go.
I meant that there is always a chance of a silt out or loss of viz on every dive, be it bad control, or many other factors, that is what you train for cave diving, you need to be able to do everything with no viz.
Since that possibility exists, I find it safer to have a continuous line at all times period. As for being productive, I think I am, I am trying to convince someone to adopt a safer approach to diving, I am criticizing unsafe practices and so far I am not convinced by anyone's rational or reasons for doing visuals.
I think complacency and laziness has taken over and yes I think it is productive to talk about this, but there really is no diplomatic way of putting it.
So don't take it personal and keep doing visuals, i wont be diving with you any time soon or anyone else who thinks it's ok to do visuals ever.
I may be completely wrong so if I am please forgive me, but it is my understanding that the recent accident at Devil's eye may have been compounded by the fact that visual jumps were made and also may have contributed in part to the diver getting lost.
If so should this not be reason enough to maybe at least think about always running a line?
Just a thought.
One last thing I would like to point out, I have read many posts stated that the rules are outdated and need to be rewritten, I can see how some rules could be made more conservative and safer, some could argue a more aggressive change is needed, could very well be true.
Always having a continuous line to OW is NOT one of those rules, I think there is nothing you can safely change about that.
Just like "be trained in cave diving and stay within the limits of your training"
There may be a handful of extreme exceptions like the exploration of Blue Springs in Arkansas for example, were the line was found to be more of a hazard than a safety feature, but that will never be the kind of conditions 99.9% of divers will ever face so it should not be taken in any way as reason to ever consider changing the guideline rule.
A few points, in no particular order...
(1) The FAA exists because there is a public safety issue in every flight. If a cave diver screws up he/she isn't likely to crash into an apartment building and take out your grandmother. It's great to draw on concepts & procedures developed by the FAA, but be very careful - the last thing we need is some government regulatory agency getting its nose under our tent! Or even getting the idea they can.
(2) There's room for common sense, even if it breaks a "rule." If I know where I am and can see a gold line that I know and I'm solo, I can swim to it without running a line. If it's silty and we're a four man team, use the "last man cleanup" method... that sort of thing.
(3) Here is a story that appeared on the Deco Stop a few years ago that I have all my students read, as sort of a base for the 'line' or 'no line' decision making process... If you haven't read it, please do.
Silt!
Rick
Great story, reading that just further reinforces my opinion that you should always run a line.
As you stated if you are diving solo and see the gold line you can just swim to it, but I would not.
In zero viz the gold line is just a line, but that's me I am overly cautious and I will not change that, I love cave diving as much or even more that surfing and i don't want to get into trouble for something as dumb as not running a line.
In a cave I have been exploring here now for the past year in most places if you don't run a line even just to go see a few feet away the percolation is so fierce that you loose viz extremely fast almost instantly, but the cave is big and looks cool so I think that divers with a lowered sense of respect for the cave environment would probably not run a line, it just does not look necessary, and they might, god forbid, get caught off guard and get into trouble.
To me always running a line is just doing what you would do in the worst case scenario, zero viz, so why not routinely be prepared for the worse and always run a line?
I don't get it.
In your small sized side tunnel with a silty floor, percolation I'd run a line. But in Bill's example, I'd likely not run a line. It's all dependent on the passage. The visual jumps I'm talking about don't even require the 3 tugs Oister mentions because you can still see your buddy because the lines are that close!Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
And I do talk to my wife about these jumps...before every dive we do in which we plan them...
Taking that approach to diving you would probably also (I hope I am wrong) do visual jumps at Chan-Hol and the Grand Cenote to name just two, as many of the gaps are reach jumps and are only a foot apart in super clear water, and each clearly marked with an exit arrow.
A great way to increase the chances of getting lost.
To each his own, may the force be with you...
The rules we have adopted today are based upon accident analysis over a long period of time however, they are inherently anecdotal. It is very difficult to do a randomized control trial to test placing lines versus not placing lines. It seems as though some in the community want to change the rules. I am not saying that change is a bad thing. I think discussion is very important and expect that rules will be amended as time goes on and technology/technique advances. Given that the current "rules" have been shown to be safe (nothing is perfect) and accepted it gives the sport stability when its [cave diving] very existence is protected by these rules being in place.
For instance, when a fatality occurs... News media jump in and want to know... why? who's to blame? should we close these caves?
If "standard practice" was violated the diver in question is found at fault and we all move on. Accident analysis is performed and no one screams "dynamite the caves"!
Want to change the rules? Come with some data. Right now the rules seem to be just fine and if you choose not to follow them then accept the consequences.
Again these rules exist first and foremost to promote safe practices. Secondarily they protect our sport in the event of a fatality.
Just my $0.02
Sean
Three points:
1) Cave deaths are way down over 15 years ago.
2) Far more people are cave diving, and far deeper and more aggressively. Penetrations of 4000 feet are now commonplace.
3) Yet we have roughly 50% compliance on what is claimed is an inviolable rule.
Anyone see any contradictions?
I agree, but a huge proportion of cave deaths have been from untrained divers I might be wrong but I think it might be upwards of 70-80% even (correct me if i'm wrong).
There is no contradiction (I think), there has been a big effort to educate OW divers in the hazards of cave diving so there are way less deaths today thanks to that and so the number of accidents goes way down, thank god.
Of the trained cave divers deaths, I think many were caused in some way or other by not following standard safety practices.
Anyway what are you insinuating, that since 50% don't always follow standard cave diving rules, the rules are not valid and not worth following? I agree that the rules could be better and even more conservative, but that 50% of divers do not follow them does NOT mean they are not good standard safety guidelines. I think it means that trained cave diver accidents are very rare, and almost all dives will be uneventful, some dives will have small problems and some very rare dives will have full blown emergencies and it is on one of those dives that I think having always followed the established safety standards (or even more conservative modifications of the standards, not the opposite) can make the difference between life or death.
When you:
a) Have low compliance on a rule, and
b) Few deaths,
Then the rule IS due for amendment.
Plus, as I have reiterated ad nauseam, there is a middle ground - and that's where the danger lies. There are SAFE times not to run a line. And INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS ones. Since everyone is making up their rules as they go along, there are a lot of dangerous violations, that could be avoided by having more sensible rules with higher compliance.
Ok I don't agree with you on the validity of the rules but I understand your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
Having said that, it is not the rules that are not sensible enough and thus people are not following them, it is the people who don't follow the rules who are not being sensible, not the other way around.
I think that if people cannot see the logic in super basic safety rules, they will be even less likely to follow more stringent ones.
What would you change or add to the existing basic rules to make them safer and "easier" for people less "disciplined" to follow?
I would be interested to read what you would change/add to the current safety guidelines to increase conservatism, you may be right and make things safer, or not.
All I can say is, 50% of the cavediving world disagrees with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
And if by "discipline" you mean mindlessly following anything an authority figure tells you to do, then I'm as undisciplined as they come - and proud of it. Boo-yah! (sp?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
The poll numbers are rubbish by any standard and yet you feel free to quote them!
It appears that you have created something not scientific but something very much like a low end marketing ploy. Have you worded it knowing you would get your results? People that know polling would advise those who have been following this thread to research the internet and discover what real pollsters call SLOPS*. It appears that is what you have cleverly created and call statistics. Then you call for these statistics to modify the rules.
The last line from the below link says something about polls like yours. "Aren’t they just proving why rules and regulations are needed to avoid anarchy?
*( SLOPS were originally “self-selected listener opinion polls” and now often refer to today’s ubiquitous “self-selected online polls.” Read more:
http://weiksner.com/2007/09/07/slops...#ixzz0SFLavGy4)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
" Typically, in SLOPS, persons with strong opinions (often negative) are more likely to respond. ... interest is that the clever acronym, SLOPS was ...
Read more: http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/pamphlet.pdf
- - - - - - - - - -- -
If your education level is as high as someone told me it is, you owe this forum an apology. /Ken Hill
Ken, I'm getting a little sick of this. I am, indeed, very qualified to talk on this topic.
It was a simple, quick poll of people ON THIS BOARD. I view that as a pretty unbiased sample, given that this board is wholly aimed at cave divers. And I am still unclear who it is you think will truly dive always running lines, yet post that they don't to bias the sample.
And actually, it's YOUR accusation of unprincipled intent that I find egregious. And you, not I, need to do a bit of apologising.
Seriously. I get accused of being:
- Insane
- boneheaded, and
- Unprincipled
by moderators!
And it's ME that get threatened with a banning!
Methinks the moderators SHOULD meet. To get their own house in order. You, and Forrest, are out of line. I apologised for my statement. Neither of you have bothered to.
Man up and apologise, both of you, or admit to your hypocrisy. Or of course do the easy thing and ban me.
And what really gets me is that my intent is to make this sport safer, through the application of exactly the sort of discussion and thought that set up the early rules. You guys just want status quo, silence, and a nice warm fuzzy feeling of pseudo safety. Complacency in short. But are willing to attack me in return.
Ken, one final suggestion. Find the MOST qualified person you know (skip comes to mind) and ask him to create a "scientific" poll. I will eat my words publicly if the responses come out substantially differently, adn demonstrate that a majority always run lines.
One other point - I was incredibly conservative in my interpretation. A raw interpretation is that SITY SIX percent don't run lines. I realized that there might be some confusion over locations like P1 and REDUCED my estimate. IN the interest of not overstating my position.
YOU owe me an apology. Not vice versa.
Edit - I've just read that SLOP stuff. The intent there is to pretend to represent a wider group by polling a biased subset. Most of the posts on this thread have been FOR your side. Interestingly it's a largely silent group that aren't posting that voted that they didn't always run a line. Think about that for a second. Why is the readership of CDS likely to be a subset biased in favour of NOT running lines? I for one cannot think of any plausible reason. I await yours. But do yourself a favour - chat to someone like Skip first (or perhaps Wingman/Bill), since this is a field that you know little to nothing about, and your'e going to get into trouble fast.
4) and a much larger data set in the last 15 years, than the previous 15 years, both in number of dives, duration of said dives, and complexity of said dives.Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
Wow!
all this arguing is really stupid.
Anyone who does not always run a line is just lazy and rationalizing that laziness into something else, like: it is safe to not use a line all the time and do visual jumps, cause "I know the cave", "the gold line is right there" "there are too many lines already" "the tunnel does not silt out and I know there are no side tunnels" etc..the reasons go on and on...
In the end though I think it all boils down to laziness.
I think the mindset starts out something like this: Oh my god the tedious placing of yet another jump reel, shheeesh how many times do I need to do that, I know this cave inside out and I have dove here so many times, what the hell I'll do a visual, after all what could go wrong I know this cave like the back of my hand, hey that worked out great, it saved me 3 minutes and the hassle of placing the reel and it is just as safe since I know the cave so well, that's a stupid rule you don't always need to place a line, just sometimes as long as you know the cave, they lied to us at training.
Here's an interesting observation.
We were at Ginnie on Sunday from about 10am until 6pm and, while not super busy, it was steady with several teams there entering exiting or in the system while we were in there. But oddly enough the only line I saw the entire day was ours. Same goes for jump lines - we did not see any other than ours from the lips to the Maple leaf.
So I'd be willing to bet that the only people running lines at Ginnie are anal retentives like me and students taking classes. It would be intersting to do a pole on who does/does not do lines just in regard to Ginnie.
did a poll like that already, and posted the link in this thread somewhere.
I don’t think your poll addressed what kind of divers ran the lines at Ear (Eye) either. It might be interesting to know is it only students on courses/divers still practicing towards Full/newbies/instructors/divers with deranged personalities/divers afraid that someone will bust them not doing it/divers who have no concern for others/divers at night/most experienced divers/men/women or divers from all walks of lifeQuote:
Originally Posted by atedeschi
Sounds very dangerous, I never dove in FL less Ginnie, really I fail to understand the logic of this kind of behavior, no matter how well you think you know a cave.Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
To me it seems (god forbid) that this kind of behavior is an accident waiting to happen.
Well maybe you should reserve judgement till you get one or two dives in there. So where do you dive? BillQuote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
Quote:
Originally Posted by alias
In Response:
Dove Devils on Sat with a buddy.
- we are both full cave
- not instructors
- not deranged
- could care less what others think
We installed a primary in the ear and all three jumps required for our dive. Left primary in on exit as we were planning a second dive that day.
Dive 2
Agreed to join another 2 man team for this dive. Planned the dive as 2 2man teams not one 4 man team although we were all diving together.
- They were both full cave
- one an instructor and the other Abe Davis qualified.
- I have dived with both before and know their skill level.
We put in both the required jumps for the dive.
Hope this helps you
John
I don't care what cave it is I always run a line, no matter how safe it may look. I live and dive in the Dominican Republic, been to Mexico a few times too to film for an upcoming cave diving documentary, that's it only dove DR and Mex so far but I do plan on doing a dive trip to FL in the near future, and yes I will be running a line all the time, lol..Quote:
Originally Posted by wingman
I think that is how it should be done all the time, regardless of your experience level or how well you know the cave.Quote:
Originally Posted by billybones519
If you had been there the Sunday prior, you would have seen me (in sidemount) enter without a primary - But then again, that's not the whole story.Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
The whole story is that there were 3 primaries run to gold from the eye. One happened to be for a team that my daughter was a part of. I was doing a short dive (< 700'p), and would meet them on their way out.
So, someone else's observations would have been:
1) A sidemount diver entered without a primary and broke a cardinal rule
2) That rule should never be broken
In reality, common sense prevailed because of the situation:
1) There WAS a primary in that I knew wouldn't be taken out before I exited, therefore I didn't break the rule.
2) There were 3 cave classes occurring at the same time at (~100'p - 200'p), which meant me running a line would have just made a bigger mess.
As someone said earlier, "Absolutes rarely are".
Exactly. Whether divers run a line or not at Ginnie is only part of the question - the rest of it is why do they do or do not do it and what level are they at?Quote:
Originally Posted by alias
I agree with you on common sense. That was my point. The observation was that we put the only line in there and followed teams who had clearly entered without a line and then saw other teams coming out who clearly went in without a line. We also passed teams entering during our exit, but again saw only our line entering the system. Clearly, the issue was not an over abundance of lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by brockbr
If there had been a line there before we entered, I would not have made the same observation or conclusion.
Your observation supports mine. You saw 3 lines and 3 classes, begging the question of whether people run lines in Ginnie outside of a class.
Also, using another team's line is fine, but only as long as they know you are "using" it. We had a similar arrangement with a pair of divers diving to Into limits. And the agreement was they would cookie the line and pull the cookie after they left. Given that we were planning a 90 minute run time, I was confident the cookie would be gone when it was time to pull the line, but if not we would have left the line in.
I think it's clear from the responses and the poll itself (as well as my own observation) that many experienced cave divers and even instructors at times forgo running a line at either a well known jump, a jump that is physically close to the mainline, or to a cave entrance they feel they could exit from in zero visibility due to flow or other factors. Creating more rules or refining the existing ones isn't a panacea.
I think we call can agree that running a continuous guideline to the surface is safer. Whether we put that into practice or not is quite another matter.
That's not the question. it's subtler than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudboy55
Given that everyone agrees with you, the question becomes what's the tipping point? Everyone becomes TOO complacent because they see everyone else not laying line... then one day they go TOO far.
That's the problem with not discussng this. Each person is inventing their own safety standard. This is really dangerous.
We were the 4th team in at Little River this morning. First reel in! I guess the 1st team could have run one, but they did 2 dives so I figured I would have seen it. Very sad indeed. At least the intro group came over and asked if they could use our primary as an egress, and I just asked them to cookie it so we wouldn't pull it with them in the system.
Do me a favour. Next time you're at little river, when your deco obligation is over, swim to the end of the gold line. Go slightly negative (say a pound or so, so that when you breathe in deeply you go neutral to positive). Close your eyes and release everything. Report on what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meister481
I've only been in Chan Hol and Gran Cenote a few times. My approach is only in caves I am very familiar with.Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
Ahhhh...now your posts make sense. Florida caves are very different than Mexico. I have been diving in both. In Florida I will swim past Ts and not place my own marker because I know the marker there is a permanent one and that no one is going to come in behind me and remove or change it. In my limited experience diving Mexico caves I have already experienced a change in the lines of a system while I was diving that system!Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
The tipping point is a good choice of words.Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
That is what I was hoping to discuss in the complacency thread.
Don't forget to record the date as well. Some days Little River is pumping ferociously, some days there is very little flow, so much so that you can easily hover motionless in the cavern. Some days it is reversing, just ask the carcass that is in there now.Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
And I'll never forget the "dive" I made in there where you couldn't see sunlight from the bottom in the basin. Yes, I aborted when I saw the viz wasn't going to clear up once inside, but it was a good lesson. Being able to see the exit isn't just affected by siltability.Quote:
Originally Posted by crawford
Quote:
Originally Posted by crawford
Agreed guys (and gals!). And those would be good days to run a line. That's exactly what a lot of divers do - there are sensible days to run and sensible ones NOT to.Quote:
Originally Posted by sskasser
What worries me is this type of scenario - a new diver sees a few teams not putting lines in on a pumping day. So they say "Oh - no one puts lines in here. Cool!". Next trip, 3 months later, it's reversed and tannic. They don't put a line in, and try to follow the RH wall, and end up lost in Catfish Alley. That would suck. But since they ONLY learn quietly and with no guidance, they come to think it's ALWAYS cool to not run a line.
That's the problem. People are learning from otehr divers' actions but not from conversations with them. So they end up doing stupid stuff.
How many certified cave divers have died between the begining of the main line, and open water while exiting a cave??
Bob Klauck
At least two, that I have heard about.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScubaBob-Squaretank
Most likely they wouldn't die between the end of the line and the entrance, but deeper in the system trying to find the entrance. There are a couple of examples in "Blueprint for Survival" which are old and of course complicated by other issues, but Andrew's point is valid IMO that it's what you do with that bad habit later or somewhere else that gets you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScubaBob-Squaretank
My point was really about making assumptions, and the fact that caves are dynamic. The more complicated our plans, the more susceptible they are to being undermined by bad assumptions. So you can exit Ginnie on x00 psi from the Hill 400 jump. On what day? Well Ginnie is Ginnie. But apply that assumption to last months dive at Little River where the flow varies greatly and BAM...or worst in TN or somewhere where conditions vary from day to day.
I see it all the time in managing engineers in my job. Very intelligent, bright folks. One has a phD from Stanford, another a masters from Rutgers, etc. And I regularly get looks of terror during the 11th hour of a project when a basic assumption proves to threaten months or years of work. We lose money or miss a product launch deadline, but in the business of cave diving, that assumption costs you your life.
I agree and not to seem annoying but if you always run a line then that problem is a non issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
I do not think that running a line or not should depend on cave conditions, I think you should be prepared for the worse and make it routine a routine procedure to run a line, like doing thorough bubble checks, that's super easy and should be a routine thing too.
Although very unlikely the conditions could change during a dive, you could be doing a long dive and a dive team seriously silts out a passage or jump etc..
I did a dive once, ran a line form the entrance as always and went off, when I got back near the entrance viz went to almost zero, turns out there was a really big thunderstorm and the rain dumped allot of mud and silt near the entrance. Could have been a bit of a problem but was a non issue, cause I had a line.
Now I know nothing of cave conditions in FL and how they could or could not change, but why not assume the worst since it really costs nothing to add a line other than a few extra minutes of your time, and carrying a few extra reels.
I dunno, just a thought...
That can happen in FL too. I have seen the head pools at Peacock, Little River, and Telford have extremely reduced visibility due to thunderstorms.Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip1
So were doing this for the sake of some inquisitive and intellectual people that have been around a couple of years who want to know … exactly what? Change the rules ?? Furget about it !!
+ on the problems caused by poor assumptions. I work with too many attorneys and statisticians who start with assumptions that really don't accruately reflect the real world, and they get irratable when you point out that their data and or assumptions are badly flawed.
I often refer to the advantages of cave diving as it quickly kills those who rely on poor assumptions or making incorrect assumptions based on flawed or over aggragated data. If the same thing happened in DC, we'd have infinitely more effective government in about 6 months once Darwin had a good crack at it.