When did it become okay to bend or break the rules?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skip

You guys don't get it. Bending the rules (bending? or creating?) is the only way to progress to rules that actually save lives. i think that's what aanslie (sp?) is beating his head against the wall to express. exley is dead. he was a thinking diver who gave us the stone tablet, but he didn't say do what I say and stop thinking about it forever more.

And to splatter it all over the internet is today's best way to get divers to think for themselves and save their lives. Those who disagree will at least have considered, or reconsidered, their reasoning (a good thing). Even those who don't participate will hear about it from those who do and the trickle down effect will improve cave diving safety for us all.

Don't tell me that the rules of cave diving are sacred and never to be changed, that experience and logical thought have nothing to offer to the betterment of our safety. I may or may not agree with aainslee (sp?), but his insistence that there is still much to learn is undeniable.

-skip

---

Thinking divers are a good thing, and I believe rules can and should change, if for the better. However, the rules are working if they are followed properly and no one can deny this. I just don't see a need to fix something that is not broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by contender

Thinking divers are a good thing, and I believe rules can and should change, if for the better. However, the rules are working if they are followed properly and no one can deny this. I just don't see a need to fix something that is not broken.

---

What are the rules for diving a siphon?

I'm all for modifying the rules, but it needs to be done to the consent of experts. Cave diving can definitely be thought of as a scientific learning process. Many ancient cultures thought the Earth was flat, and most people believed it without question, then someone thought about it and discovered that a sphere is a better model for the Earth. That theory held up to all tests at the time and became the new standard. Even later, some scientists thought Earth was a bit "squished" due to the speed of its rotation. They did some tests on their idea and it proved to be correct.

This isn't a perfect analogy to the question at hand, but it serves to illustrate that the general consensus is not always the perfect fit for the topic at hand. If no one questioned anything and tried to modify the rules a little, no progress would ever be made. If the modifications prove beneficial, they will get incorporated into the rules; if they are detrimental, they will be thrown out.

The important thing is that these modifications be done by experts who record and analyze their data and provide a scientific case for why the consensus should be modified. The rules were made by experts that did just that, so something more compelling than the evidence they provided is necessary for change.

People will still bend and break the rules, but that is their own personal choice and I believe it should not be advocated to the entire community willy nilly. Let everyone start from the established, proven guidelines and they can figure out on their own what they feel comfortable bending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skip

exley is dead. he was a thinking diver who gave us the stone tablet, but he didn't say do what I say and stop thinking about it forever more.

---

Very true. But how many divers have the discpline to make their dives safer? How many will use this as an excuse to break the rules? How many are just not capable of thingking?
I can see where in some situations it is possible to skip a primary reel, but not using a line for a blind jump is just stupid. I see no problem in reserving less than one third on some dives and parts of all dives, as long as there is always enough left to exit with an oog team member. But this call for a high awareness level, and is never an excuse to go "just a little bit further".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BackstageDiver

...Many ancient cultures thought the Earth was flat, and most people believed it without question, then someone thought about it and discovered that a sphere is a better model for the Earth. ....

.... If no one questioned anything and tried to modify the rules a little, no progress would ever be made. If the modifications prove beneficial, they will get incorporated into the rules; if they are detrimental, they will be thrown out.

The important thing is that these modifications be done by experts who record and analyze their data and provide a scientific case for why the consensus should be modified. The rules were made by experts that did just that, so something more compelling than the evidence they provided is necessary for change.

....

---

'Any doctrine that will not bear investigation is not a fit tenant for the mind of an honest man'
-Robert Ingersoll

Just be careful who those (self)proclaimed experts are. Some 'experts' will want to keep status quo to ensure current doctrine remains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MengTze

'Any doctrine that will not bear investigation is not a fit tenant for the mind of an honest man'
-Robert Ingersoll

Just be careful who those (self)proclaimed experts are. Some 'experts' will want to keep status quo to ensure current doctrine remains.

---

Seems when we do accident analysis with exception of medical issues,or Parker Turner's accident,one of the basic rules has been violated. These core rules have been well tested,and when there is a fatality due to violation of these rules,then we have tested the rule again with lethal results. The rationale that we should test these core rules for validity is like saying I am going to commit murder to see if,"thou shall not kill" is applicable anymore, or the 3 angle of a triangle don't add up to 180 degrees. I am all for challanging the norm,that has been where cave diving innovation has come from,and accident analysis may prove there are more rules we need to consider,but the core rules have been verified enough in the obit column.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelly Jessop

..... I am all for challanging the norm,that has been where cave diving innovation has come from,and accident analysis may prove there are more rules we need to consider,but the core rules have been verified enough in the obit column.

---

I think we are in agreement on this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelly Jessop

the core rules have been verified enough in the obit column.

---

The core rules have been verified by accident analysis, but possibly (probably) they can be adapted without extra hazard.
Where the guideline rule has been generally proven by a lot of accidents, there are probably lots of situations where you could for instance skip the primary reel and not be less safe. In other caves/entrances the situation can totally different, and not using a reel a suicide attempt. Blind jumps without a spool certainly fall in this category.
Some adaptations of the air rule may not influence safety, or even improve it. Other adaptations are just plain ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mart

The core rules have been verified by accident analysis, but possibly (probably) they can be adapted without extra hazard.
.

---

Ask PADI if they can teach emergency swimming ascent with breath holding,it will speed up the ascent. I think this can be adapted without extra hazard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mart

The core rules have been verified by accident analysis, but possibly they can be adapted without extra hazard. ... Blind jumps without a spool certainly fall in this category.

---

They can not. Not without "Extra Hazard"

Even in the discussion of the accident at Devil's recently we can see where not running lines introduces extra hazard to a dive.

And shorting gas rules certainly introduces extra hazard. Whatever you think your risks are each 100psi more or less you reserve than thirds increases/decreases your risk by a factor of 5 - 10.

Can we modify gas reserve rules to take advantage of outflow in a way that they might still be considered "as safe as thrids in no flow"? Yes, we probably can.

Can we do it without indroducing extra hazard? NO! It can't be done. There is certainly extra risk created in doing so.


Not only is there extra risk from making these kind of changes there is also extra risk introduced in complicating the rules. Introducing vageness, descision making, conditional statements and grey areas. These each also entail additional risks.