Ken Kurtis
Contributor
In another thread, there was talk of the DAN Fatalities Workshop held in April. I was there for all three days. (Phenomenally interesting and a really good and frank exchange of information and ideas. Much of it - materials, PowerPoint presentations, videos, and more - is available online at DAN's website.)
In a separate thread on the workshop, the following comment was made:
I think Peter raises a very valid and critically relevant point and I wanted to make this a thread of its own, rather than just bury it in the other thread.
Dick Vann, VP of DAN Research, presented some info (can't recall if it was a pre-workshop paper or at the workshop itself) where he and Petar Denoble looked at 900+ case studies of fatalities over a 10-year period. In a little less than half of those (350-ish), they were able to identify the triggering event that caused the accident and led to the fatality.
Inn 41% oof those cases, the trigger was . . . OUT OF AIR.
This got me to thinking.
If you're looking at something statistically, you'd assume there's a direct correlation to how often something occurs in the population vs. how often it occurs in whatever you're measuring. In other words, if 10% of divers are left-handed, you'd assume that 10% of the people who get bent are also left-handed. If the number is significantly higher (or lower) than 10%, then you'd wonder if left-handedness plays some factor in the bends.
In this instance, we see that 41% of the fatalities start because someone ran out of air. I do not for a minute believe that 41% of the total dives made end up in people running out of air. In fact, I'd guess that the rate of people running out of air is something on the order of 0.1% (or even smaller).
Since we do not know the total number of people who run out of air in the study period, we can't really come up with a rate of out-of-air fatalities. For all we know, every person that ran out of air died. For all we know, only 10% of the people that ran out of air died.
But what we do know, is that of those who died, running of out of air factors in significantly. And the next thought is that if we could prevent people from running out of air, we could eliminate 41% of the annual fatalities (which would mean about 37 fewer deaths each year).
So then the question becomes: Why do people run out of air? The answer I've come up with is one that I think is controversial but true: Because we tell them it's OK to run out of air.
Now, before you decided I'm totally crazy, let me explain that outrageous statement above. Because I'm absolutely certain that if I polled evetry instructor reading this and asked, "Have you ever told your students that it's OK to run out of air" the answer would unanimously be "No!!!" And if I polled every certified diver who's reading this and asked, "Have you ever been told it's OK to run out of air" the answer would be a resounding "No!!!"
So how could I possibly think this? Here's why:
In basic classes, I'm sure we all teach "Don't run out of air, don't run out of air, don't run out of air." But we follow that up with: "But if you do, there are some options." (And we go into combinations of octo, buddy-breathing, pony, free ascent, etc.) We present these options as not only resonable, not only as easy to learn (after, we teach it in a BASIC class) but we also imply, if not state directly, that they have a high incidence of success. We've just inadvertently told them "Don't run out of air but if you do, it's OK because here's how you can solve that probem."
I think we need to stop doing that.
Would it be better simply NOT to teach OOA options? And to simply say, "If you run out of air, there's an excellent chance you're going to die, so don't do it." (Or maybe teach OOA options as an advanced skill.) Shouldn't we be putting the Fear of God in them about running out of air? Because we're certainly not doing it now.
The other issue with OOA is that there's no penalty for running out of air, other than killing yourself. And how many people REALLY think that whatever they're doing is going to result in their death? Right now, people run out of air and can keep diving. Assuming they don't kill themselves, there's no penalty for it other than a little embarassment in front of other divers.
Maybe we need to change that school of thought. At Reef Seekers (my dive company) we've had a very simple rule on our charters: Run out of air, and you're done diving for the day. Period. No exceptions. Our thought is that you got lucky once, and we don't want to tempt fate twice. In 30 years, we've had exactly one person run out of air (and they lived).
At the DAN workshop, I was asked what I thought the penalty ought to be. I said I thought it was simple: Run out of air, and we revoke your certification card. Want it back? Then you're required to do some remedial training that emphasizes not running out of air. Run out of air twice? Find another sport.
Running out of air, based on the stats, seems phenomenally dangerous. It's certainly not something any of us would recommend yet it's something that, as an industry, we tolerate. Yet it's also something that clearly kills people. And that in turn, has got to have an effect on our insurance rates. Think about it: If we could eliminate 37% of the fatalities tomorrow, wouldn't that also result in fewer lawsuits which should also result in lower insurance rates?
That's about it in a very long nutshell. Thoughts???
- Ken
In a separate thread on the workshop, the following comment was made:
I am again struck by the information as to the triggers of dive accidents and how they don't really seem to correlate very well with a lot of Open Water training.
I think Peter raises a very valid and critically relevant point and I wanted to make this a thread of its own, rather than just bury it in the other thread.
Dick Vann, VP of DAN Research, presented some info (can't recall if it was a pre-workshop paper or at the workshop itself) where he and Petar Denoble looked at 900+ case studies of fatalities over a 10-year period. In a little less than half of those (350-ish), they were able to identify the triggering event that caused the accident and led to the fatality.
Inn 41% oof those cases, the trigger was . . . OUT OF AIR.
This got me to thinking.
If you're looking at something statistically, you'd assume there's a direct correlation to how often something occurs in the population vs. how often it occurs in whatever you're measuring. In other words, if 10% of divers are left-handed, you'd assume that 10% of the people who get bent are also left-handed. If the number is significantly higher (or lower) than 10%, then you'd wonder if left-handedness plays some factor in the bends.
In this instance, we see that 41% of the fatalities start because someone ran out of air. I do not for a minute believe that 41% of the total dives made end up in people running out of air. In fact, I'd guess that the rate of people running out of air is something on the order of 0.1% (or even smaller).
Since we do not know the total number of people who run out of air in the study period, we can't really come up with a rate of out-of-air fatalities. For all we know, every person that ran out of air died. For all we know, only 10% of the people that ran out of air died.
But what we do know, is that of those who died, running of out of air factors in significantly. And the next thought is that if we could prevent people from running out of air, we could eliminate 41% of the annual fatalities (which would mean about 37 fewer deaths each year).
So then the question becomes: Why do people run out of air? The answer I've come up with is one that I think is controversial but true: Because we tell them it's OK to run out of air.
Now, before you decided I'm totally crazy, let me explain that outrageous statement above. Because I'm absolutely certain that if I polled evetry instructor reading this and asked, "Have you ever told your students that it's OK to run out of air" the answer would unanimously be "No!!!" And if I polled every certified diver who's reading this and asked, "Have you ever been told it's OK to run out of air" the answer would be a resounding "No!!!"
So how could I possibly think this? Here's why:
In basic classes, I'm sure we all teach "Don't run out of air, don't run out of air, don't run out of air." But we follow that up with: "But if you do, there are some options." (And we go into combinations of octo, buddy-breathing, pony, free ascent, etc.) We present these options as not only resonable, not only as easy to learn (after, we teach it in a BASIC class) but we also imply, if not state directly, that they have a high incidence of success. We've just inadvertently told them "Don't run out of air but if you do, it's OK because here's how you can solve that probem."
I think we need to stop doing that.
Would it be better simply NOT to teach OOA options? And to simply say, "If you run out of air, there's an excellent chance you're going to die, so don't do it." (Or maybe teach OOA options as an advanced skill.) Shouldn't we be putting the Fear of God in them about running out of air? Because we're certainly not doing it now.
The other issue with OOA is that there's no penalty for running out of air, other than killing yourself. And how many people REALLY think that whatever they're doing is going to result in their death? Right now, people run out of air and can keep diving. Assuming they don't kill themselves, there's no penalty for it other than a little embarassment in front of other divers.
Maybe we need to change that school of thought. At Reef Seekers (my dive company) we've had a very simple rule on our charters: Run out of air, and you're done diving for the day. Period. No exceptions. Our thought is that you got lucky once, and we don't want to tempt fate twice. In 30 years, we've had exactly one person run out of air (and they lived).
At the DAN workshop, I was asked what I thought the penalty ought to be. I said I thought it was simple: Run out of air, and we revoke your certification card. Want it back? Then you're required to do some remedial training that emphasizes not running out of air. Run out of air twice? Find another sport.
Running out of air, based on the stats, seems phenomenally dangerous. It's certainly not something any of us would recommend yet it's something that, as an industry, we tolerate. Yet it's also something that clearly kills people. And that in turn, has got to have an effect on our insurance rates. Think about it: If we could eliminate 37% of the fatalities tomorrow, wouldn't that also result in fewer lawsuits which should also result in lower insurance rates?
That's about it in a very long nutshell. Thoughts???
- Ken