I am "dumb enough", let me know whenOriginally Posted by aainslie
Welcome to the Cave Diver's Forum.
I am "dumb enough", let me know when
If you review the post that is basically what the team would have done as a minimum as the bends in the passage would have reduced the ability of seeing any light on the other side without going down to to the sandslide. What you saw would then dictate possible actions.
1. Seeing no light tells you one thing,
2. Seeing a light totally motionless tells you something else,
3. Seeing a light wildly gyrating around tells you yet again something different, and
4 seeing a light moving normally around sends a different message.
All of them may generate different actions. Number 1 tells you he is not there or is significantly deeper or is maybe floating face up on the ceiling. Going through the restriction to explore further but no deeper is probably low risk. Number 2 tells you he is possibly dead and is at least immobilized so the same action as one makes sense. When you get there you just have to decide if the diver could benefit from assitance or not. Number 3 suggests a siezure or panic which and presents greater risk of exertion at a higher PPo2 if you proceed. Number 4 just suggests the need to beat the diver with the light again to get them with the program.
The question again is a matter of risk assessment and how far are you willing and/or is it prudent to go if the diver does not return. One of the subtle risks here is not assessing the increasing risk at each stage. In most accidnets it starts with one steps that looks safe but then leads you progresssively further into a chain of events that may become fatal. From that perspective proceededing at a high PPO2 in a cave without being very aware of the need to avoid a great deal of exertion is a really bad idea.
I agree it is not a restriction in the truedefinition of the word as it is about 3 ft high and very wide. But it is also somewhat silty in the best of circumstances in back mount as you only have a few inches of extra clearance. It is "restrictive" in the sense that it would not be someplace I want to have to remove a non responsive or uncoorperative diver and it could not be done cleanly consequently making it low viz or no viz most of the way through.
In my experience, getting through the sand slide takes about 75 feet, not 50 feet, and it actually seems longer as you can't swim through it fast and clean - you'd have to pick one or the other.
Another incorrect assumption on your part. Have you been there? The room just before the sand slide is on a steep slope but is about 40 ft long, 40 ft wide and perhaps 20 feet "thick" (since depth does not really work as a descripter given the slope.)
It's a big place and the plan was to go there and then hold around 100-120 ft to look around for a couple minutes. Consequently no one expected the team to stay in a neat orderly line as would be the case in a tight pasage. It certainly was not a case of a diver elbowing their way past 3 other team members. At the same time the plan was not for anyone to go below 110-120' let alone drop to the end of the room and negotiate the sand slide then drop to 140'
And in the context of the situation the diver's actions were normal right up until the moment they were not. The mission was to become familiar with the passage tleading up to Hendley'e Castle to the limit of the MOD. The diver in question had 30% so from theor persepctive 120' was reasonable and, if you've been there, you may recall a ledge at the end of the room where the line passes under it just before the steep slope to 135' and the start of the sand slide. It is a perfectly understandable response and within the intent of the dive to duck under that ledge (about 117') and look down the slope to see the next segment of the route. The mistake/lapse in judgment came when the diver kicked foward and then headed down the slop to the sand slide to see the next segment of the route, then pushed through the slide to see the next segment. There was no warning that he would do the first brain fart, then no reason to suspect he would massively complicate with a second brain fart while ignoring vigourous light signals from two other team members.
I agree its rational, it just reflects the realities of cave diving versus OW diving.
Number 3 is just the reality that a hard deck for a dive plan is the hard deck for the dive, regardless of how deep you could potentially go. As for it being easy for a diver to follow a cave and unintentionally go deeper, that is just as true in a cave as it is on a wall. But is is a event that results from piss poor situational awareness and the solution to that is not to bring along a gas mix to accommodate an unaware or undisciplined diver. If doing so is considered "DIR" please feel free to correct me on that point.
Number 4 is just solid dive planning, if the plan were to go into Hendley's Castle, we'd have used stages and different bottom mix. The fact that we had 32% and back gas only dictated a different plan with a hard deck well above the sand slide. Again, I'm not going to plan a dive to consider possible but unanticipated stroktastic actions on the part of one dive. Thats not a "defense" that is just common sense.
Number 5 just is what it is. Any diver who would treat a PO2 of 1.6 on back gas 35 minutes back in a cave directly under a hard overhead the same as they would treat being at a PO2 of 1.6 on O2 with an immediate bailout to much a lower PO2, then they are a complete and total idiot. Same with number 6.
I love to hear other peoples considerations and I don't mine being challenged on my own assumptions, its the reason for making the post in the first place. But it is a two way street, if I hear something that A) does not mesh with the facts, B) is more or less dogmatic with little real thought behind it, or C) is seriosuily flawed thinking that does not consider the potential consequences, I am going to point that out.
Then there is the fact that in a strong current some people prefer to use simpe low tech and reliable solutions like jon lines and uplines while others choose to scooter the deco. I am in the end going to do what makes the most sense for the given conditions and situation based on training, experience and the council of people I respect regardless of what I read on the internet.
Here is another issue for discussion relevant to the orignal scenario. Do you consider the aspects of informed choice, freewill and personal responsibility of a diver in potential trouble when deciding the degree of risk you or the team should go to to render assistance?
Personally, if a diver gets into trouble through no fault of their own or unintentionally due to events they could not forsee (perhaps just through inexperience), I will move heaven and earth to render assistance and take what ever risks are neccesary short of creating a probable double fatality scenario to assist them. In the case of my normal dive buddy, I'd even give my life to save hers.
On the other hand, if a diver intentionally takes risks or does something stupid, I am less inclined to risk my life or the lives of team mates to assist them. In my opinion, if a diver wants to take unnecessary risks or dive in a reckless or thoughtless manner, that's their call, but they need to be prepared to suffer the consequences and not expect others to feel obligated to assume greater levels of risk to pull their fat out of the fire.
That type of diver is perhaps better off on a team with like minded individuals who may be heroically inclined to save his or her dumb ass, but then again maybe not as that support just increases the potential for them to do something stupid. I do know my team is better off without them.
hard to say.
people I dive with wouldn't do those things. it's why I dive with them.
but yea, hypothetically, you factor all that in when you decide what kind of risks you're going to take
Yeah, I'm not sure i'd be that rational underwater. Diver in trouble = fix is about as far as I'm likely to think.
Andrew Ainslie
Almost extinct cave diver
I take it you don't have any family to think about?
Risk assessment is a huge part of any rescue attempt. When I teach my open water classes, I try to ingrain in my students some basic rules ...
- make a plan and stick to it
- don't do unpredictable things that will cause your buddies to stress out
- don't do irresponsible things that will put you in danger
- don't follow someone else who's doing irresponsible things that will put you in danger
I teach ... and believe ... that a diver's responsibility to their buddy ends when that buddy breaks one or more of those rules. I will go to great lengths ... and depending on circumstances perhaps even put myself at great personal risk ... to help someone out who makes an honest mistake or who finds themselves in trouble despite their best efforts to avoid it. I will not, however, endanger myself trying to "fix stupid". To my concern, if someone wants to court Darwin that's their decision ... mine at that point is to not emulate their behavior.
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
Believe me, I agree with you. I just think (and I think it's a FAULT) that I'm unlikely to be rational underwater when I see someone about to kill themselves. It'd really suck if it ended up in a dual fatality, I agree. Especially since my own fatailty is of marginally more concern to me than most.
Andrew Ainslie
Almost extinct cave diver
I think we all share that same fault to some degree. In officer candidate school one of the things that the NCO's consistently tried to stomp out of me was a tendency to lead from the front to an excessive degree and to ride to the sound of the guns so to speak myself rather than delegate and have someone else do it.
Their point was simply that putting myself at undue risk and possibly getting myself killed or injured was not going to help the efficiency of the unit or get the mission accomplished. My point was that I was 1. young, 2. an adrenaline junkie and 3. brought up in the romantic ideals of what a "hero" was. Turns out they were right, but it took awhile to see it, and age has a way of putting that kind of thing in perspective. Often in the middle of the night when you wake up and suddenly realize what an idiot you were/how lucky you are to still be alive.
I think the same reasoning applies to cave diving emergencies. To avoid needlessly putting yourself or team mates at risk, you have to consider the possible situations, the possible actions and the possible outcomes in advance in order to give you a larger bag of effective responses to draw from when/if the situation arises. Putting something together on the spot without the benefit of any preconsideration is going to be a lot more difficult and probably a lot less effective.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks