How often do you run a line?

[phillip1]

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.

[phillip1]

One last thing I would like to point out, I have read many posts stated that the rules are outdated and need to be rewritten, I can see how some rules could be made more conservative and safer, some could argue a more aggressive change is needed, could very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.

[uncle ricky]

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

[phillip1]

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.

[RN]

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.

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!

And I do talk to my wife about these jumps...before every dive we do in which we plan them...

[phillip1]

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...

[karst.window]

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

[aainslie]

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?

[phillip1]

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.

[aainslie]

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.