Don't get me wrong I believe it is possible to make a dive "safe enough" to justify the activity. The only way to do that is to to teach people how to recognize the risks so they can make the determination about what is "safe enough" for them. We can't do that by sugar coating the activity and telling them that is is a safe activity.
No argument there, though to be fair you did lead with the hyperbole and then contradict it in the next sentence. It's the style and approach that I was attempting to ask about in this thread.
I certainly agree with most of what you say here. I also find it ironic that you find it unacceptable to show a video that encourages divers to think for themselves rather than enter an environment because someone else is pressuring them to do so. The video specifically mentions Instructors not trained for cave dying in caves!
Your sense of irony is a bit blinkered I have to say. Never said such a thing. I attempted to use my take on the impact of this THREAD (for the umpteenth time, not the vid) and the tack it evinced as an opportunity to ask about how the subject of risk is approached.
... so where's the "line" at which it's not safe anymore. There are caves ... I've been in a few ... where you can be only "several body lengths" from the entrance, and with one errant fin kick so silt up the bottom that you can't see your hand in front of you. Now what do you do? Do you know which way is out? Did you bother to run a line, or simply rely on the fact that you could see the entrance? It's incredibly easy once the silt's stirred up to get yourself so turned around you end up going deeper into the cave, thinking that's the way out ... or you end up in that side passage right near the entrance that takes you into a completely unfamiliar part of the cave.
The answer as you know is the same as for all such questions: it depends. History shows that the overwhelming majority of those who dare to venture "into" "caves" or any other graded danger manage to stay on the right side of the line, presumably with the probability of also getting better at it through experience. Does that derive significantly from their fortune of having been exposed to copious reinforcement that fatality is the risk? I mean, the title is
A deceptively easy way to die? Read it and weep. Who knew? (I know, I know, x,y,z obviously didn't 'cause they died. That's some QED right there for sure). If not, then is it simply that it's too much trouble to elaborate much on the internet, so simply blurting out the biggest and most primal fear is the best shorthand? The rest will naturally follow from such a seductive entree? Of course, there are plenty of good sober thoughtful discussions here on SB. I'm not talking about those.
I assume you have kids. When coaching them to cross the road safely, did you find it most effective to first warn them in lurid terms that they could die in the next moments if not taking heed of your counsel? And then for good measure, blindside them regularly with similar fearful reminders, out of the blue, so as to best ensure one more life would be saved?
I solo dive. Sometimes I do solo dives in rather deep or remote places, where I incur deco obligations, and/or where help is many hours away. Occasionally I do it in places where if something bad happened, there's no one even around who would know I was missing. Some people would call those kinds of risks dangerous. And if I were not appropriately trained, experienced, and equipped (both physically and mentally), the risks would certainly be beyond what a reasonable person would call acceptable. But having been trained, having experienced the potential hazards, carrying redundancies, having maintained a physical and mental state that enables me to manage the potential hazards reduces the risks to an acceptable level. I am more cautious in terms of paying attention to what's going on around me. I'll be quicker than usual to pull the plug on the dive if something doesn't "feel" right. I'm put more effort into planning and preparation, and into mentally assessing the risks as the dive progresses. Because, at all levels, that's what a responsible diver does. That same dive, performed by someone who is unaware of the risks, hasn't been properly trained, or even by someone who has overestimated their ability to manage the risks, would amount to an interview with Darwin.
OK. I've started a couple of replies, but realize I'm not sure what you're conveying here. I'll read it as an elaboration of matching preparedness to circumstances. Every rational person does that but not many are shooting a ridge in a wingsuit or clearing a building in Fallujah, so extreme training and protocol are not so critical generally. Over the years of reading similar accounts here I've often wondered, does what you do scare you on any level, in the sense of residual trauma - ever watch an interview with Jeb Corliss? - and do you think that colors your approach to scuba advice or instruction?
It depends on the individual. Most folks have a reasonable sense of survival. Not all do ... I've seen people do some surprisingly stupid things underwater, even on simple open water dives. I've seen people swim inside a wreck without a light, into a cave without a line, and attempt stupidly deep dives on a single AL80, without even a thought of whether or not they had enough gas in the tank to make it. Most of the time nothing goes wrong, and they come out of it just fine ... without even a clue of the risks they were taking. But all it takes is for one single thing to go wrong and their margins are so thin that they end up dead.
Aside from inferring something you can't know, if that were true, the body count would be higher. Since it isn't it's apparent their capabilities are better matched to the circumstances than you give credit for. I've done the first two things you mention, had things go wrong, and survived not from enormous fortune, but because the margins are not usually that thin. Maybe assessment of margins is the where the assertion of cluelessness goes wrong.
Taking training *from a professional* is a very different thing than blindly following a *professional* into an overhead environment and simply trusting that they know what they're doing. The former occurs under very specific, controlled circumstances, by someone who has experience in the environment they're taking you into, and precisely for the purpose of teaching you how to recognize and mitigate the risks. The latter is a tour guide, being paid to show you a good time. As was the case in Italy, they often have little more ... or in some cases less ... experience in that environment than you do. They are not being regulated by any agency in terms of what they can and cannot do. You haven't vetted them ... as you (hopefully) have with your instructor. The risks you are taking in those two circumstances are not even close to being comparable. The fact that you'd even make that argument is a clear indication that you have no clue what you're talking about.
You simply begged the question. Setting aside the false dichotomy between who teaches and who leads astray, this is just reiterating only listen to the good instructors, and when they're wrong, don't listen to them, they weren't good instructors.
Have you ever even taken a tech class? I'm beginning to think not.
Nope, I've no interest in that sort of diving, and through experience have learned to distinguish adequately (presumed through inference). If I get spooked, I re-visit.
Actually they're good analogies in this respect ... in all of them you're putting yourself into an environment which is well beyond your everyday experience, and which can kill you quick if you haven't properly prepared to manage the risks. I realize you think that simple reef dives are inherently safe ... but I know of plenty of fatalities that have occurred in relatively shallow, benign water. Many of them have been rather extensively talked about right here on ScubaBoard in our A&I forum. Some of them involved former members ... some of whom were rather well known and experienced divers when those accidents occurred. The risks are there, always ... and all it takes, regardless of your skill and experience ... is to take them too lightly ...
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
That's another hyperbolic turn of phrase. Rec scuba per se is not so much beyond the experience of swimmers and snorkelers - with notable upgrade in survivability-enhancing equipment. The risks that scuba uniquely introduces are easy to grasp and manage. So yes, I think simple dives are inherently safe enough, since I've had basic training and was fortunate enough to gain experience and some confidence prior to coming to SB where some of the pros seemed intent on scaring me back out of the water (and into their classes perhaps).
The choice of sites is a whole different matter. Fortunately it seems like many locales have plenty of the safer ones, if one prefers.
Sure, people die, but what convinces you that sensationalizing that that's what's at stake is so vital for the Basic Scuba forum? Or are we back to arguing whether caves are indeed dangerous or not? Maybe you just don't share my reaction that invoking death is sensationalizing.
For those poor souls you refer to, in that moment they realized that their survival was imminently at stake, do you think they were better prepared and more effective rallying to the task, having had a long history of training that was heavily flavored with the insinuation they were going to die?
