Additional measures beyond analyzing, labeling, and notox procedures to help prevent incorrect deco gas switches

[crofrog]

To recap the thread: A member proposes unconventional ideas to supplement a standard procedure, and everyone tells the member about how the idea is bad and will not work. All despite the fact that the proposal has roots in human factors and industrial design. Is it perfect? Probably not, but neither is groupthink.

Ya'll have a wonderful time!

It’s not novel. It’s ideas from the 90s that killed a bunch of people which is why collectively the tech community moved away from it.

 

[mr_v]

It’s not novel. It’s ideas from the 90s that killed a bunch of people which is why collectively the tech community moved away from it.

Ever considered building upon such ideas instead of shutting them down? Have you ever given any thought about the alternatives and improvements?

 

[iliketopetsharks]

Ever considered building upon such ideas instead of shutting them down? Have you ever given any thought about the alternatives and improvements?

Alternatives? Like analyzing and marking your cylinders, labeling them in clear, bold font to avoid confusion and having a sound gas change procedure that includes looking and pointing at the cylinder where the gas is coming from?

 

[crofrog]

Ever considered building upon such ideas instead of shutting them down? Have you ever given any thought about the alternatives and improvements?

Collective the community did in the late 90s and developed the current gas switch procedure. Which when adhered to has as far as I know resulted in 0 fatalities.

So I don’t waste time trying to solve problems that are already solved.

The current practice of labeling the tank and verifying the gas switch with multiple checks is the gold standard for a reason: it addresses the entire system, not just one piece. The steps involved—verifying the gas analysis tape, checking the permanently attached MOD label, performing a gas interruption check to ensure the regulator is connected to the tank you are switching to, and having a team verify all of this—create multiple layers of protection. These checks ensure that every switch is deliberate, verified, and backed by proper procedures. This process isn’t just about the individual component; it’s about making sure the entire system works together to prevent potentially fatal mistakes.

On the other hand, introducing a color-coding scheme might seem like a simple solution, but it introduces more risks than it solves. Color coding fails to account for the overall system and its complexities. It can lead to confusion and even a false sense of security. You can’t pick and choose single pieces of the system and say you’re doing human factors and claim you’re improving safety. True human factors engineering requires a holistic approach that considers the system in its entirety. Simplifying it down to color-coded gear actually increase the likelihood of failure.

The current practice—comprehensive and multi-layered—has been developed through years of learning, experience, and dead divers. It works because it ensures that every switch is verified through deliberate checks and cross-checks, not just relying on a visual marker that can fail.

 

[inquis]

To recap the thread: A member proposes unconventional ideas to supplement a standard procedure, and everyone tells the member about how the idea is bad and will not work. All despite the fact that the proposal has roots in human factors and industrial design. Is it perfect? Probably not, but neither is groupthink.

Ya'll have a wonderful time!

Invoking HF doesn't make it immune from criticism. In fact, the point of HF is to address the underlying cause of diver error.

Error: Diver switched to a gas below MOD
Why? Diver didn't follow training/standard procedure.
Why? They had instituted additional complexity and adopted a process known to be error prone.
Why? Because they think NASA's color coding of gas pipes (that cannot change) is somehow relevant to diving (where regs can be moved and colors change).

HF would actually point to follow the simpler/standard approach as a means of reducing risk in the future. Reference primary information in decision making rather than derivative information which may be erroneous.

 

[tursiops]

Is it perfect? Probably not, but neither is groupthink.

You are being unnecessarily pejorative. It is consensus, not groupthink, and it is evidence based.

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

KISS

NOTOX

.

 

[eightytwenty]

Ever considered building upon such ideas instead of shutting them down? Have you ever given any thought about the alternatives and improvements?

Your "alternatives and improvements" are the goobrification of a system that works. Zip ties on the hoses? Color coding? Labels on the second stage exhausts? Are you serious?

 

[NothingClever]

@mr_v

Introducing your determination of groupthink doesn't make a dent in the reasons we have brought up.

A procedure that requires positive control (uninterrupted hand trace and needle bounce) and second person confirmation is what prevents a bad gas switch, not labels on the exhaust deflector or colored mouthpieces. @divezonescuba 's proposals didn't account for common occurrences that would immediately disrupt a diver's reliance on his proposals. In fact, given that o-rings and regulators fail and need to be swapped out, labels could actually increase the risk of a bad gas switch.

I want @divezonescuba to win (be a helpful resource to new technical divers) but he has to do better with his content development.

 

[rddvet]

To recap the thread: A member proposes unconventional ideas to supplement a standard procedure, and everyone tells the member about how the idea is bad and will not work. All despite the fact that the proposal has roots in human factors and industrial design. Is it perfect? Probably not, but neither is groupthink.

Ya'll have a wonderful time!

If you agree and want to use what he has presented in the video go for it. None of us care. But you're missing the fact that none of this is new or novel. These are things that have been discussed ad nauseum over many years and just like has been shown in this thread have many reasons they should not be followed. His ideas are frought with reasons why they don't actually work or could be dangerous. He's posting these videos for all to see as if he's an expert. Some unsuspecting new technical diver is going to end up watching, skipping the tried and true gas switch procedures, and using a color coded hose and killing themselves when the reg is on the wrong tank. Its dangerous for him to push these ideas that have been disproven time and time again.
You're getting offended because we're showing reasons why they are bad ideas. If you like his ideas, use them. But don't use them and forego standard gas switch procedures.
The dudes videos suck ass, most are frought with stupidity that has been debunked, and are going to hurt someone one day. I feel bad for anyone who chooses him as an instructor.