The "New" Ginnie

[bigairt]

Andrew,

I don't know you and I'm new to this. However, I think it is cool that there are people like you who are willing to live in the 2nd standard devation rather than the third. I also respect that you are not advocating changing any of "best practices" defined by the various agencies.

Who told Christopher Columbus he was GUARANTEED to come back alive (or any of the other great explorers for that matter)? I wonder how many great previous discoveries were made by someone just past the point at which they should have turned around. I appreciate your drive and your willingness to take risks.

I also understand that there are a lot of people tearing things up. That can't be legislated. To a newbie that lurks on the boards and doesn't have much to add yet, I'm amazed by the double standards and pi$$ing contest that go on.

If NASA announced tomorrow they were looking for volunteers to be the first person on Mars with the catch that they can't get you back, True explorers would line up.

Thanks for your efforts.

[bigairt]

Not smart at all Andrew. .

But, in general, cave diving IS smart?

[Nazaar]

nonsense. rebreathet oc reserves are based on a total loop failure.

Rebreather divers' OC B/O is based on whatever they feel like at the time, ie. their own risk assessment. Ideal B/O is a CCR diver carrying/staging enough gas on themselves to get them out from the worst case scenario. If you're diving in a group/team/pair it's very common to share bailout past a certain point (depth or penetration), ie. assuming ONE total loop failure if you're diving with someone else. It's less common, but happens, that people carry gas assuming things like non-loop failure (SCR options), or adhering to the idea that stats show most CCRs fail in the first 10 minutes, so you only need that amount of bailout.

[MengTze]

I know of Andrew's gas plans for these dives.

Beyond convention; yes.
Risky; not dramatically.
Made by a mad man; definitely not.

[Gary]

nonsense.

If it is nonsense to you than you should read it over again until you figure it out.

What's your safety ratio on a siltout+lost off the line?

• Little River '93: used your proposed air rules - no gear failure - siltout+lost off the line - made it out about 20% of the way
  
• Eagles Nest 2004 - no gear failure - siltout+lost off the line ON THE WAY INTO THE CAVE on the early portion of the dive - one tied up in his own line, the other found farther into the cave on the main line.
  
• Devil's Eye (same portion of cave you are pushing thirds in) March 2008 - silt - delayed exit - ran out of gas - assumably wasn't pushing thirds.

Andrew your problem is you throw out any data points that don't support your thesis.

Most of these guys had more experience then you, more qualifications then you, more gas then you are leaving yourself and had no gear gear failure that caused their gas problems.

BUT YOU have a theory on how to use less gas "with greater safety" without actually addressing what killed them. You never considered their accidents - or ANY cave accidents - only your "theory". You have a math degree, an assumption related to closed circuit bailout that doesn't apply to most cave accidents and a mathematical theory that you think justifies you bringing less gas.

A theory that you can't prove or even show how it provides any safety margin for even the simplest accident.

I have 8 years of nuclear "single point failure" safety analysis as a Reactor Operator and another 15+ years reviewing cave diving accidents and their causes. I'd put my experience and background in this up against your math degree any day of the week.

You, however, will complain that you are being persecuted because you are right and everyone else is wrong. That the "Third's Rule" is hopelessly outdated and insufficient and how your "math rule" based on your incorrect assumptions provides better and more consistent safety across a wide range of accidents you never even considered.

You are a proponent for ignoring rules you never took the time to understand and have a history for ignoring good advice and it's reasons because it doesn't fit with the way you believe the world should be.

You live in a fantasy land where your oblivious math formula has more weight then the sum total of all human knowledge. In this way you are even worse then John Robinson who, if you presented enough information and applied it forcefully enough, you could break through his personal shield of BS and occasionally bash a fact into his skull.


Now you should probably take your misguided theory and see how it applies to the other 21 billion accidents and failures that can occur on a cave dive and see how well it holds up.

[aainslie]

I'n not claiming to be persecuted at all Gary. It's not persecution when only one person "persecutes". It's merely silly.

Edit - you know Gary, the weird thing is, if you stopped and asked me carefully what I was doing offline, you'd find that what I do is way MORE conservative than thirds. I only break "thirds" in a technical sense. I actually have WAY more than double the gas necessary at all points.

I've gotten lost to the point it took me 20-30 minutes to work out where I was several times, once on an extended traverse in an infrequently dived cave with a LOT of T's... I've been silted out repeatedly (albeit not in Ginnie... at least recently )... I must admit I've never been able to tie myself up in the line. And I've always exited with no sense of panic because believe me, I ALWAYS know how much gas I have. And it's ALWAYS way more than double the gas necessary to exit.

I'm not a mathematician, Gary. I'm a scientist - I'm a trained engineer, and my PhD is in the social sciences. One of the basic tenets of the scientific method is testing theory in two ways - public debate (via peer review), and empiricism via testing. I've done both - although I DO wish I could find a peer to review what I'm doing instead of you.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I believe in TWO things - 1) base planning around having a minimum of DOUBLE the gas required to exit, usually more; 2) keep a constant risk profile, i.e. don't let your risk profile be a function of the flow rate or level of restrictions in a cave. Thirds occasionally breaks the first tenet, and always breaks the second one.

What REALLY cracks me up is that all THREE of those accidents (perhaps not the first, but I suspect even that one) would have occurred on thirds. So what exactly are you using them as evidence of - that what I'm doing is bad (and btw you still don't know what I'm doing, another point of amusement for me) or that thirds is bad? because what they're REALLY evidence of is that a sufficiently large CF will kill you no matter what your reserves.

[cavediver515]

It is said that a truly intelligent person knows that they don't everything.

[aainslie]

It is said that a truly intelligent person knows that they don't everything.

Difficult to tell who that's aimed at...

[dougchappell]

I love you guys. Without this stuff to read, my airline layovers would truly be pathetically boring...

After cave diving and flying aerospace machines for a number of years, I've been subjected to nearly every standard, method, training syllabus, technique, and mathematical formula copious enough to keep Einstein amused. But at some point, for many of us, it comes down to TLAR, which means That Looks About Right.

TLAR is something that comes with experience, will evolve with due regard to the subject matter at hand, and is not something to be taken flippantly or for granted. It comes from taking baby steps, from the experience that the building block approach slowly provides, and from listening to your gut when it's telling you that it's time to go.

If we all dove with every humanly possible contingency covered, we'd never make it out of the Devil's Eye parking lot. Cave diving is supposed to be fun, but at some point it can cease to be. If it feels like more of a job than a hobby (for the recreational cave diver), you might be in the wrong line of sport. If you don't believe me, just ask Rick Crawford... I'm kidding, of course.

My hope is that with the few minor but needed changes in the operational procedures at Devil's Eye, the new section will be visited, surveyed, and explored with the utmost of safety and conservation. That's what cave diving is all about, right?

Doug

[Jerry]

Gary,

Having been on two of the three recoveries you reference; I can say you are wrong, AGAIN.

While I do not know Andrew that well; I know of his activities from others that I trust. His exploration has been far more safely organized than any of your examples and as far as I know Andrew is certified for everything he is doing. Your examples weren't.

While I am not keen on cheating gas quantities on my person; I have to say I haven't thoroughly studied Andrews methods so I won't comment.

You need to learn to only speak about things you know.

Jerry