Confessions of a Mortal Diver

Um.

After the first gauge problem, I thought: "ok... so he screwed up."

when I got to the end, I was thinking," what a dumbass."

Yep, that's enough to give anyone dick pyle's!

Interesting story. He was involved in the Coral Reef Adventure Imax. He had the deepest dives.

I guess it's different if you have to do what he did for your job. But.. it still seems excessively naive to use the same sticky gauge AGAIN after it has already failed you once. I also don't think I would have gotten in the water again so quickly after getting the bends.

Personally I'm not sure that the "job" aspect of this makes much difference. Choosing to do a job in a way which involves taking significant risks is a matter of attitude, just as much as ignoring the warning signs and taking a risk on an individual dive.

Someone who thinks he/she is invulnerable is much more likley to be be injured, whether in diving or in any other activity where safety guidelines are needed.

I understand that it's very common to ignore some safety rules, and not just in diving. Each time a safety rule is breached and there is no adverse consequence, we tend to learn from the experience by concluding that the safety rule is too stringent. But the safety rules are set such that an accident is very unlikely. If we breach the rules "by a small amount" then still most times nothing would go wrong ... but the probability is worse. The worse the breaches, the worse the probabilities.

It's like playing Russian Roulette ... strictly following the safety guidelines is like having a gun with 100000 chambers, and a bullet in only one. Ignoring the rules so blatantly is like having 6 chambers and 1 bullet. Then if the first 3 times I play, there's no disaster, does that mean I should conclude it's safe enough to play with 6 chambers?

Depends on your attitude to risk.

-David

Lots of good points David, and summarised this is called complancy - A desease we all suffer from in certain degrees; day in, day out, and whilst diving too. However, not every individual, thank goodness is so blatently stupid.

"I could easily walk across that high-wire yesterday, and the day before!"

The trouble is that our "safety rules" are inconsistantly established and are often pulled out of someone's butt. Take, for example, the ridiculous oxygen exposure tables for nitrox or the constant ascent rate "rule" regardless of depth. How will anyone get injured holding their breath on descent? Some of these rules have little or no bearing on a diver's ultimate safety and tend to undermine peoples' respect for the rules that do. Often the rule is chosen based on what is easy to teach rather than what makes sense or actually works.

On the other hand, divers are eager to forget or blatantly disregard their training in order to get more bottom time. On my last trip, I used a new computer (Suunto Vytec) which consistently gave me less bottom time than everyone else. Their advice was to get a computer that gave more bottom time. "No use doing a extended safety stop after my 100 foot dive", they think, "I only went one bar into the yellow.". On another trip, my dive buddy switched from Nitrox to air because her new nitrox computer (set properly) gave her less bottom time than her old Solution did. "So why use nitrox?" she asked. This is the kind of critical thinking that is commonplace in diving today.

So what we have is too little respect for the risks of diving combined rules that are sometimes ridiculous. This is what happens when we try to pump out as many recreational divers as we can for fun and profit. I blame the PADI mentality.

Related to this, one of my best friends growing up joined the Air Force in order to pay for his medical school education. In the service, his specialty was hyperbaric medicine and by that time he was already a recreational diver. The two things he said to me that stuck in my mind were (1) overexpansion injuries are virtually impossible unless a diver has a mechanical sensitivity to them, and (2) he would never dive deep again. When asked about the first point, he said that the vast majority of us are not at risk, but we all need to be careful. When I asked him to define deep diving, he said 60 feet. All of us take for granted our safety more than we probably should.

Ultimately, the only safety rule that makes accidents unlikely is not to dive. We have to accept the risks we face, understand what's happening to our bodies and use our brains. As far as the diver in the story goes, he too easily attributes his mistakes to teenage invulnerability. He was, and still is, a "dumbass".

To Quote Craig's Very valid observations and points, and add:

Q.The trouble is that our "safety rules" are inconsistantly established and are often pulled out of someone's butt. Some of these rules have little or no bearing on a diver's ultimate safety and tend to undermine peoples' respect for the rules that do. Often the rule is chosen based on what is easy to teach rather than what makes sense or actually works.

A. Absolutely correct, This is very often the case: They are often there as a cover-your-ass litigation issue as prescribed by certain mass-production agencies. They have little or no baring on the real issues confronting divers who find them self in trouble. Especially that often fatal first time, as more often than not these issues were not taught by people qualified to do so, and couldn't fully understand the implications themselves.
As a novice I would have prefered to know more about decompression theory, self survival in the unlikely event of, and maybe a few real facts like why all your skin would drop off well before inwater decompression would cure your DCS.

Q.Take, for example, the ridiculous oxygen exposure tables for nitrox or the constant ascent rate "rule" regardless of depth. How will anyone get injured holding their breath on descent?

A. Yes, the Nitrox system sucks - Main reason: Adjusting the tables removed any benefit the extra oxygen had in the mix. Never too many films around of people having convulsions so students can see what happens on too rich a mix for an intended depth.

"Nitrox gives me more bottom time..." Bullsh!t, You still have the same size cylinder as anyone else and you still breath at the same rate as you did on air!
IMO It should have stayed a 'Stop Gas'. Plus how do you readily treat a bent, convulsing nitrox diver?
This is one of the Big issues both Karl Shreeves (Commander Data) and I had with the stuff before PADI started marketing the courses.
"Yes, You can become a mixed gas professional in just a few controled dives." - Can you £*&^!

Holding your breath on descent can cause lung collapse and all manner of squeezes, this is why free diving is not open to everyone.

The dumbass conclusion I think is unanimous but the story I though is something that should be Mandatory reading material in all courses.

Also the word 'Divemaster' often has so much illharity contained within it and so much sadness too, as 60 dives or so in a lake is all the practical experience that's needed.

Yes, particularly when you use a sled to rocket you down from the surface to 300 feet!

I certainly don't advocate breath holding on descent with scuba of course. The point is that the "don't hold your breath rule" should be "always be aware of your bouyancy, keep your airway clear on ascent, breathe naturally, and understand that a lung full of air could cause an unintended ascent". Of course, "overexpansion injuries are very bad" goes without saying, too. The trouble is, the latter is harder to teach in these days of dumbing down and covering up.

In reading this, all I could think was what it would take for me to have made the same sequence of poor decisions. Then there was the pit in my stomach as he described his injuries. Finally, I wondered how I would avoid the same fate and concluded that I should not plan solo bounce dives to 200+ feet on air without a redundant supply, avoid blow-n-go emergency ascents for 200+ feet after 15+minutes of bottom time at extreme depth. and finally skip the "lather-rinse-repeat" process that sealed his doom.

I concur...

I actually think this is appropriate for beginners. And for more experienced divers, it's still appropriate to have a default mode of behaviour which is safe.

Take the "don't hold your breath" rule.

Especially when somebody is learning to dive, there is a lot to think about at one time. In this situation, it's important to keep the rules as simple as possible, and to keep beginning divers in situations in which they are unlikely to suffer any serious consequences even if they make a big mistake.

I understand from my reading that it's virtually impossible to suffer from any DCS effects if dives are limited to about 10m. And new divers' first dives are not deeper than this. At that depth, what sorts of things could go wrong? Even if the equipment fails, it's easy to swim to the surface from that depth without taking a breath. There are other divers around all the time, lots of alternate air sources... in other words, lots of safety backups.

However, at shallow depths, lung overexpansion injuries are more likely. Ascending from 40m to 30m while holding breath would see the air in the lungs expand by 25%. But from 10m to the surface brings an expansion of 100% - providing the best possible chance of such an overexpansion injury. And that emergency ascent to the surface is an obvious possibility to a panicked new diver.

So a good way to reduce the likelihood of this potential serious accident that could befall a diver on his/her first dives is to make a discipline of "never hold your breath".

Of course there are many situations in which holding your breath won't result in any problem. Probably that's almost every situation, in fact! I do actually think it's a good idea to regard this rule as a default, and only ever hold breath by consciously deciding to depart from normal procedure, because in an emergency - the most likely situation for a fast buoyant ascent - people are less likely to remember to do something important if it is not a normal part of their behaviour.

This is just an example where as it happens I think I know enough to comment. My point is that a large part of safety in a lethal environment (I certainly can't breathe water!) is to have automatic patterns of behaviour which are safe and will continue to be safe even if one day I panic and don't pay attention to them. From this point of view, very simple consistent rules that can be a standard part of behaviour are very much safer because they are more likely to be followed in an emergency situation.

As we learn more, and have confidence in our ability to stay calm in an awkward situation, it's (by personal decision) appropriate to relax some safety requirements to reach consistency in the "riskiness" of the various procedures we rely on. But each extra thing we have to remember to do differently from usual in an emergency is a potential source of injury or death.

Having said all that, I do think it would be nice if the degree of conservatism in all the safety rules was consistent. Inconsistencies do tend to undermine our respect for the rules that matter... It would also be nice to have a better idea of the riskiness of breaking the rules ... I'd like to be able to make my own assessments of risk but I don't have enough information.

-David

Didn't realise I wrote so much ...

I'm with David on this one. I think PADI has done a great job of bringing SCUBA to the masses - with a safety record better than virtually any other sport.

I was only certified 4 years ago, under the PADI system. I've furthered my SCUBA education by taking additionaly courses and by reading everything I can get my hands on. I can intelligently pick and choose situations in which I may stretch PADI's recommendations.

I think that you must oversimplify when teaching open water. THis makes SCUBA available to almost anyone, and benefits us all as the sport becomes more popular.

Re: nitrox
I'm surprised that Bob isn't using nitrox almost routinely. I use it consistently on dive trips, and it does safely allow more dive time at 60-90ft

No you shouldn't over simplify initial courses - OW, the very nature of the qualification is misleading and having pulled out 11 people in various states of deadness with this qualification I can comment with some qualification.

Unfortunately, a lot of people do not take studying as seriously as you or I!
Nitrox:

No, I have a CNS that I value too highly. Nitrox has no advantage to me what-so-ever and I do 400+ dives a year.

I'm surprised to hear you be so black and white on this one Bob! How about Trimix? Or O2 for decompression stops above 30 ft (10m) on deep dives? I'd say there are reasons for each of the different mixes. I personally prefer Nitrox for dives between 50-100 fsw (the majority of dives I do in places like Cozumel). I definitely feel better using Nitrox, and the increased O2 does give a little bit of a margin of safety when used properly. Above 100 ft or so, I tend to either use air, or a very light mix of EANx, like around 24-26%. Beyond that it's air for now, and trimix later this year once I finish my mixed gas certification.

As for "Open Water" certification, I've got mixed emotions on this one. I can understand why PADI and the other agencies have simplified the initial courses in an effort to make it more appealing to the masses, and as a result have gotten more people dving. Having taken courses from SSI and from IANTD, there is a significant difference in the depth of information between your average OW course, and the courses offered by the smaller, more "tech-focused" agencies. I would guess that your average diver would not make it through the basic certifications if the courses were as comprehensive as they should be. Maybe that would be the safest option, but it would really limit the number of divers, and therefore the industry as a whole that relies on those increased numbers.

That being said, I'd like to see the certifying agencies rethink their classifications. The idea of a PADI diver being an "Advanced Open Water" diver after around 12 dives (I think) is simply ridiculous. Many students I've met have gotten their OW certifications without ever setting foot outside a lake or quarry, which is not exactly open water. This is especially dangerous in areas of the world like the Northeast US, Pacific NW, and any other low vis cold water location. Seeing an OW diver on a wreck dive in NJ for the first time is scary. The problem is one of competition at that point. Too many people are caught up in the titles that a few dives bring them. Who wants to be a basic entry level diver with Agency X when you could be a Master diver with Agency Y?

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now...

No, you shouldn't. The goal needs to be to produce qualified divers, not pump out as many certs as possible. People need to understand what's going on before putting their life and health in jeopardy. It's not hard either.

Kasey, on what basis do you claim that PADI has "a safety record better than virtually any other sport"?

DAN's annual report reported an injury rate of about 9 per 10000 partiicpants (don't quote me on the exact number) - 10 fold lower than soccer. Even safer than bowling. With that kind of safety record I find it difficult to accept that the training is insufficient. I agree that there is a great deal more to learn after an OW cert, but the same can be said for a new driver, pilot, etc. Some responsibility must fall on the student to develop his skills and abilities.

I have to admit I only dive Nitrox in the US. For me it only took one trip to the chamber to get me to switch to 32%. Thats another story....

"Nitrox gives me more bottom time..." Bullsh!t, You still have the same size cylinder as anyone else and you still breath at the same rate as you did on air!

Thats not thinking outside the box, if you have more bottom time (table time) then why not get bigger tanks? Thats what I do, I dive with HP 100s now. (Over filled)

One of my dive buddys who has "logged 5000+ dives" and has "been teaching / diving since before I was born" stated over and over for years that Nitrox is bad stuff! ...LOL...He was diving Trimix on Sunday....Kind of reminds me of some of you.

Tshepherd be carefull in Cozumel with Nitrox, I have gotten up to 50% mix that had been marked at 36%. Don't let them test it with the dive shop gear, bring your own O2 analyzer.

Good advice in general, not just for Cozumel. It's amazing how inconsistent the labelled contents are with what's actually in there...

Trimix works well as it has a reduction of both oxygen and Nitrogen by adding helium - This just makes you talk funny on coms... Enriched air is used for stops, but travel gas is often required too - Way too complicated if you need to take a camera, maybe!!!

I don't think the FAA would favour too many pilots getting qualified in just 4 days eh, but times change.

That story is by Richard Pyle - a known "deepwater fish collector" otherwise known as whacko, total freaking nutcase. Where do you Centropyge narcosis got its name?

At the Flowergardens you're nuts if you don't dive Nitrox. Five 70' dives in one day.

Cheers
James

That story is by Richard Pyle - a known "deepwater fish collector" otherwise known as whacko, total freaking nutcase. Where do you Centropyge narcosis got its name?


Hence my earlier quote about a related diving disorder!!! His IQ is measured in meters not feet.



At the Flowergardens you're nuts if you don't dive Nitrox. Five 70' dives in one day.


Of course that makes pefect sense.

DAN's annual report doesn't say anything about PADI's safety record nor does it include incidents that go unreported. My DCS incident is certainly not a DAN statistic. For all we know, every diving injury is PADI-related.

In order to make the statement you did you'd need data on PADI as well as comparable data on "virtually every other sport". In addition, I doubt any bowling injuries result in loss of life, so it's bogus to suggest that PADI's safety record is "even safer than bowling". Not diving at all results in a superior safety record. Would you attribute that to PADI's quaity training, too?

Non-reporting of injuries applies to any such study. My guess would be that at least as many bowling injuries go unreported as do with SCUBA. So, are you suggesting that diving is NOT remarkably safe? Would you say that PADI's safety record is not exemplary? How many people have you (personally) seen injured or killed? After 500 dives I've seen a handful of fire coral stings, and I know of 2 local DCS and a couple fatalities in the last 3 years. In comparison to my football/soccer/cycling experience - this is the safest sport (activity really) I've ever participated in. I think you'd be in a very small minority to argue that SCUBA hasn't become much safer under PADI's generalship. By bringing SCUBA to the masses, responsibly, the organization has benefited us all. More divers means better equipment development, and equipment has certainly come a long way.

PADI's classes are taught at a 12yr old level. Of course as you examine it you'll feel that a great deal is left out. The critical information has been greatly simplified out of necessity. However, remember that these divers are only "certified" to dive to sixty feet on conservative tables. Bob, of the deaths that you have witnessed, how many of them followed those basic guidelines set forth by PADI - Never dive alone; never hold your breath; limit of 60ft; dive within your zone of comfort and experience with equipment in good condition. Now exclude those that had cardiac arrests or other incidents while underwater. How many would be left?

No longer is it required that we put our equipment on while falling to the bottom of the ocean. No longer do we exclude all but the most fit individuals. Yet the safety of the sport has steadily improved based on stats from DAN.

Making the open water class more comprehensive would do one of two things - exclude people that could safely dive within PADI's envelope; or certify people with just enough knowledge to be dangerous. You suggest telling people under what circumstances you can hold your breath?!?! On your first un-guided dive, beginning you ascent from 30 ft.... might be the worst time to get confused. Never hold your breath is enough information to keep the ignorant safe.

Perpetuating the belief that SCUBA is an extreme activity just keeps my insurance higher, and my friends and family from enjoying the sport.

Kasey

Here you go again. It appears your position is that bowling is more hazardous than scuba diving. How many deaths are attributed to bowling? I personally know of no deaths attributed to recreational bowling, football, soccer, or cycling. I have been witness personally to multiple DCS incidents; one mine, one severe, and all were diving within computer limits. My case as well as the severe one were done during training and on tables, not computers.

I am saying that scuba diving is a potentially dangerous sport. Are you saying otherwise? Proper education is required for it to be done safely.

Scuba diving is not under "PADI's generalship" so any improvements in scuba safety cannot be simply attributed to them. "The safety of the sport has steadily improved based on stats from DAN" is another preposterous, misleading statement. You now claim that if not for DAN, the sports' safety would not "steadily improve"? I have no concern for DAN or PADI when I dive. My safety depends on me.

It is not PADI that is responsible for eliminating strenous qualifications or difficult entry techniques. It is not PADI who contributes to the improvements in equipment that you claim benefit us all, yet you would have us believe that we have all this by the grace of "PADI's generalship" and the "stats from DAN". I would say that safety has improved through the efforts of a great many people and organizations and that DAN and PADI would like to claim the credit.

As for certifying "people with just enough knowledge to be dangerous" you've got it completely backwards. That's what we do today because of PADI. Requiring more comprehensive education fixes that. It doesn't cause it. No, I don't endorse telling people "under what circumstances you can hold your breath" nor do I believe that holding my breath with result in Satan stealing my immortal soul. I don't endorse lying because it is convenient. I don't endorse retaking multiple choice tests (only the wrong answers) repeatedly until getting enough right to pass. I don't endorse teaching wrong information because it suits a 12 year old audience. I don't endorse the ignorant diving. You do, or at least you said so.

I don't perpetuate the belief that scuba is an extreme activity nor do I believe that it is. I think it fine that your friends and family enjoy the sport, and their safety choices are their concern, not mine. Insurance rates are based on claims and what the market will bear, so it's crappy education that you endorse that keeps rates high. I think divers who complete comprehensive training should get a break on insurance and PADI OW graduates should have to pay extra.

The original topic of discussion was that people learn to push the limits as they get away with mistakes and don't suffer consequences. I added that poor education contributes to that problem. You added that we all have PADI to thank for our sport's terrific safety record. Thanks for the insight.

Ladies and gents,

This is a topic that has been discussed and will continue to be discussed ad infinitum on just about every bulletin board related to scuba diving.

I'd like to ask that we respectfully leave the discussion where it is as this is not going to be resolved in this forum and likely we have gained all of the available information that we are going to get here.

If some of you would like to continue, please start another topic with a different name - perhaps "Dive Safety Statistics" or similar.

Thanks to all,
James Wiseman

I appreciate your moderation as do we all but these things had to be said to raise awareness and critique.

Misleading the masses is not educational it is dangerous - Diving is not, and never has been for everyone.

I actually appreciate your moderation, James. Wetpixel was once a place where differing opinions were respected. Craig, I really wish you would tone down - you've attacked my opinions on 3 three different occasions on this board and on DD. It seems that any opinion that conflict with your own is "preposterous." I think that as a moderator you should embrace differing opinions. To me, that is what makes discussion interesting. I wouldn't be here if it weren't to learn and share with people of different opinions and experience.

Kasey

I have to agree with some of the comments. I think too many people misinterpret what their certification really means.

I like to think of ow certs as a learners license. Yes you can drive but, you are really inexperienced and need to be limited. Also, it is a skill. A skill that if not used regularly can be partially lost thus reviews and refreshing your skills should always be done.

How it compares to other sports etc I think is like comparing apples to oranges. I don't like when it is done in most situations as they generally do not evaluate all the factors behind the statistics to provide a more accurate portrayal of the results and, a more comprehensive comparison.

I am in no way diminishing the comments of the others here only stating my thoughts.

"and on DD"

Kasey what is DD?

Hi Gang,

Some difference of opinion is always good. That's what these bulletin boards are all about. If we all just sat around and patted ourselves on the back, we would not grow and improve. Also keep in mind that we are discussing some "cutting edge" stuff here and are BOUND to disagree on some things.

However, I want Wetpixel to be a place where everyone feels comfortable. I would just like ask everyone to follow the "golden rule" when posting. Do unto others...

With that said, neither Mac or PC is better. PADI, NAUI, IANTD, are all good certification agencies. The Ike DS125 and Sea and Sea YS90Dx are both great strobes.

And finally, my favorite - no one camera is the best for everyone. Unless it's my camera of course...:-)

Cheers
James

DD = digitaldiver.net

OIC thanks..

R, IC 2!

Might not be a bad idea for those people posting this thread to print it, read it and check their facts and come back to it. An awful lot of misconceptions and misinformation being posted here.

I like this topic as long as it stays civil. I have found myself becoming more conservative with experience. It should be the other way but it's a matter of perspective. I couldn't wait to get my nitrox cert so I could increase my bottom time when I could not even stay down long enough to exceed air limits. Now, I dive nitrox when the situation calls for it like a flat profile less than 100 feet. I also dive nitrox on live-aboards but do it very conservatively. I leave my duplicate computer on air and try to stay within it's limits as well.

One of the things I don't like about the current state of certifying agencies is the level of experience required for divemasters and instructors. I have seen a PADI instructor, with fewer dives than I as a AOW diver at the time, freak out in black water. Our rescue training for the boat races involves a lot of black water training and the instructor couldn't handle it. Yet this instructor was qualified to and did in fact lead classes of new students in Lake Travis, a notoriously dangerous place, subject to extreme thermoclines and silt outs.

This brings me to another question. I have heard a few make comments about inexperience based on diving lakes or quarries. Diving a lake like Travis and many others can not prepare a diver for a lot of things he may encounter in the ocean. However it does offer valuable training under adverse conditions that a recreational diver who dives at resorts may never encounter in a life time. A 100 foot dive in Travis far exceeds the training a person would get in 20 100 foot dives in blue water.

I am what most would call a novice diver. I learned to dive with PADI this time last year and now have about 70 odd dives.

But it really doesn't take long to spot the dangerous diver. They seem to exude an air of carelessness and seem to believe that they know better than all the experts that have created the rules and guidelines that currently exist.

During a recent dive trip around asia i would say that 20% of divers are what i would call a liability to themselves and to others. Some just don't seem to know their own limitations or if they are an experienced diver develop extreme complacency.

I am a military aircraft quality engineer by trade, and so this tends to bias me towards establishing limitations and not relying on just a single piece of equipment.

I also feel that a lot of the dive shops and schools have a lot of responsibility which they fail to live up to.
I have been on a number of dives with dive operations that either mix the abilities of people diving, fail to make adequate dive plans, use poor equipment, allow inexperienced divers to exceed their own ability and most importantly will not tell off a diver for poor or dangerous diving practices. They just seem to care too much about money or the instructors and dive masters are too scared of losing their jobs.

Every single diver must be responsible to themselves and their dive buddies for identifying their own limitations and those of their dive buddies, and if in doubt about any aspect of safety on a dive to either abort the dive or fix the problem.

As far as not getting the bends below 10m? this is not true. It is possible. This has occurred in Royal Navy divers who have been constantly yo-yo ing up and down.

I have also noticed the rather poor provisions for emergency oxygen on board dive boats, especially in Asia

Thanks for the correction on bends below 10m - I hadn't heard of specific exampless of the type of cases you mention, and I guess I was thinking in terms of conventinal dive profiles without considering other situations. However the DAN course on Oxygen for Diving Emergencies that I did last year left me very unwilling to "yoyo" even without having heard of specific cases where it caused problems.

BTW do you think being "a military aircraft quality engineer by trade" tends to make you conservative; or is it that a natural tendency to be conservative makes you suitable for your job?!

-David

He did it again 12 years later.
http://www.alaska.net/~surlyc/ACWD/Confess...al_Diver_II.htm

This is my favorite quote from his account:
"For many of us, 100 feet is fairly far up a long list of decompression stops. After a dive to 400 feet, arriving at 100 feet is like arriving to a safe haven."

Is this guy for real??

Surely this is a prank!

The tale is now available in hardback or softback.

really? Are you pulling my fin?