Rick
Hetland
Firstly, Rick, Hetland, et al are correct in pointing out that things can go wrong and that training and experience are the skills needed to survive all kinds of things in the water. Additionally, I think it is also fair to point out that people need to know their faults and adjust to them accordingly when diving. I agree that having a closed mind to what-if scenarios is a poor way to go about diving. But I don’t think these relevant posts are effectual responses to what ID is saying on this particular point.
In all fairness to him, I think people taking issue with his position need to at least take issue with what it actually is instead of creating a strawman that is easier to critique and ridicule. Relying on watered-down versions of his position gets us no closer to putting his comments into proper perspective, whether or not any of us agree with his position.
For instance, his “never” in his earlier post does not imply that he will do pre-dive preparations mistake free every time for years into the future. It isn’t fair to paint him with that brush. In fact, he basically admits that the potential for error is part of the process he undertakes in his pre-dive routine.
ID:
Why is he checking his gear multiple times if he is being cavalier about his safety checks? Also, multiple checks on gear is not endemic of an inexperienced diver, whereas spotty pre-dive checks can be the product of experience unfortunately. I’d say he is well aware of the fact that he is capable of making any number of mistakes at many points in the time leading up to his dives. This is the very reason why he does multiple checks, so as to negate the chance that he will allow any one potential mishap, mistake, or oversight to become an issue in the water.
Now the choice of words in “generally” and “usually” leaves some room for consideration in how consistent this process really is, but not enough to call his practices into question the way others have done. At least that is how I see it.
If he does this routine every time without fail as he says he does, then I think he is justified in saying he will “never” allow this particular scenario to happen to him.
Even if he is wrong and some crazy set of unforeseeable and amazing occurrences takes place in the future that finally does distract him long enough to keep him from making that last required check, it would not be because his normal, rehearsed routine was at fault. Quite the contrary actually. And I think this is the point that needs to be recognized.
It is one thing to say that a simple, quick, and halfhearted pre-dive routine leads to these types of blunders. It is another to say that one who engages in consistent, multileveled, and deliberate pre-dive checks is just as capable of falling prey to these probabilities. If it is confidence that drives the latter practice, I say more power to ID.
In all the ways that someone can become confident (call it arrogant if that is what you think), it is far safer to apply the mindset ID has to multiple pre-dive checks than it is to put that confidence completely in the unknown. I don’t agree that laziness or complacency will necessarily set in for all divers at some point in time. I agree with ID that poorly assembled equipment need never be seen in the same light as say failed equipment. I also think he is right to say that an oversight of this kind is not a “mistake” in the same way that a panicked diver makes poor choices while in duress. ID is absolutely correct to make this distinction in my book, whether or not people can indeed do the checks he says he does as “easily” as he says they can be done. Easy or not, they should be done as he claims he does them.
Where the controversy is in this is statement is beyond me.
Of course we all need to be ready for the unexpected while diving, and I think that was what people wanted to discuss when this point originally came up. Maybe ID’s confident stance appears to reject this axiomatic reality on its face. It doesn’t need to be seen as a polarizing position, however. ID’s contribution to the thread is to make sure people don’t see all diving contingencies in the Rumsfeld-esc “stuff happens” type of way. Personally, I think there is a great deal of merit in the distinction he has made if for no other reason than getting people to attempt to take these pre-dive checks more seriously: seriously on a consistent, unyielding, and thus confident basis.
That said, all divers need to also be prepared for the unknowns that a pre-dive routine can’t possible save us from.
Cheers!
Hetland
Firstly, Rick, Hetland, et al are correct in pointing out that things can go wrong and that training and experience are the skills needed to survive all kinds of things in the water. Additionally, I think it is also fair to point out that people need to know their faults and adjust to them accordingly when diving. I agree that having a closed mind to what-if scenarios is a poor way to go about diving. But I don’t think these relevant posts are effectual responses to what ID is saying on this particular point.
In all fairness to him, I think people taking issue with his position need to at least take issue with what it actually is instead of creating a strawman that is easier to critique and ridicule. Relying on watered-down versions of his position gets us no closer to putting his comments into proper perspective, whether or not any of us agree with his position.
For instance, his “never” in his earlier post does not imply that he will do pre-dive preparations mistake free every time for years into the future. It isn’t fair to paint him with that brush. In fact, he basically admits that the potential for error is part of the process he undertakes in his pre-dive routine.
ID:
Why is he checking his gear multiple times if he is being cavalier about his safety checks? Also, multiple checks on gear is not endemic of an inexperienced diver, whereas spotty pre-dive checks can be the product of experience unfortunately. I’d say he is well aware of the fact that he is capable of making any number of mistakes at many points in the time leading up to his dives. This is the very reason why he does multiple checks, so as to negate the chance that he will allow any one potential mishap, mistake, or oversight to become an issue in the water.
Now the choice of words in “generally” and “usually” leaves some room for consideration in how consistent this process really is, but not enough to call his practices into question the way others have done. At least that is how I see it.
If he does this routine every time without fail as he says he does, then I think he is justified in saying he will “never” allow this particular scenario to happen to him.
Even if he is wrong and some crazy set of unforeseeable and amazing occurrences takes place in the future that finally does distract him long enough to keep him from making that last required check, it would not be because his normal, rehearsed routine was at fault. Quite the contrary actually. And I think this is the point that needs to be recognized.
It is one thing to say that a simple, quick, and halfhearted pre-dive routine leads to these types of blunders. It is another to say that one who engages in consistent, multileveled, and deliberate pre-dive checks is just as capable of falling prey to these probabilities. If it is confidence that drives the latter practice, I say more power to ID.
In all the ways that someone can become confident (call it arrogant if that is what you think), it is far safer to apply the mindset ID has to multiple pre-dive checks than it is to put that confidence completely in the unknown. I don’t agree that laziness or complacency will necessarily set in for all divers at some point in time. I agree with ID that poorly assembled equipment need never be seen in the same light as say failed equipment. I also think he is right to say that an oversight of this kind is not a “mistake” in the same way that a panicked diver makes poor choices while in duress. ID is absolutely correct to make this distinction in my book, whether or not people can indeed do the checks he says he does as “easily” as he says they can be done. Easy or not, they should be done as he claims he does them.
Where the controversy is in this is statement is beyond me.
Of course we all need to be ready for the unexpected while diving, and I think that was what people wanted to discuss when this point originally came up. Maybe ID’s confident stance appears to reject this axiomatic reality on its face. It doesn’t need to be seen as a polarizing position, however. ID’s contribution to the thread is to make sure people don’t see all diving contingencies in the Rumsfeld-esc “stuff happens” type of way. Personally, I think there is a great deal of merit in the distinction he has made if for no other reason than getting people to attempt to take these pre-dive checks more seriously: seriously on a consistent, unyielding, and thus confident basis.
That said, all divers need to also be prepared for the unknowns that a pre-dive routine can’t possible save us from.
Cheers!
