Are you on good terms with Lady Luck?

[Thalassamania]

What you say is true, Lynne, let me repost an edited version of something from a few years ago:

I have always modeled safety as a "cone" in the water that is point down. As long as you are inside the cone you're OK, when you start to drift outside of it you are in trouble and when you are completely outside of it you are not going to make it. Skill, as transmitted through training as well as experience both teaches you how to stay, not just inside, but in the center of the cone so that even as you go deeper and the circle scribed by the intersection of the plane of your depth and the cone narrows, you are still close to the middle. Panic results in the almost chaotic jump from inside the cone to somewhere outside the cone with little or no frame of reference as to how to get back. This is sometimes the result of a single big predictable or stochastic event, but is more often the result of a series of small displacements, each one of which multiplies the one(s) that came before. What is the difference between say Parker Turner struggling to get to the opening till he passes out and the new diver clawing his way to an embolism because his valve was not open all the way? Are either of them just bad luck? I don't really know ... some would say that it is a lack of imagination, while others would say that it is strength of will. If I had to guess I say that lack of panic comes from the habituation of good habits that jump you back into the cone, almost without concern as to where you were displaced to. Thinking slow, taking a deep breath and remembering that even if all your gear has failed you've got four minutes or so (rather a long time) to solve your issues can go a long way.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

I've been ruminating over some of the accident and incident accounts which have recently been posted, and something kind of gelled for me.

Every dive has requirements. You need a certain amount of gas, have a certain limit with respect to decompression (whatever it is), perhaps need to be able to swim against current or get back on a boat in big swells. Each of these parameters sets a part of the limit that describes the dive.

It is hard to argue with there being "requirements" for making "a dive" but IF we are going to discuss requirements for a basic scuba dive someone needs to come up with a working definition for basic scuba diving. I could easily define basic scuba diving as single air cylinder, open circuit, 130' max unrestricted distance to surface and no stops, but then a lot of "other" basic scuba divers might not define basic scuba diving exactly the same, so when we discuss basic scuba diving we are not really discussing the same thing.

One of the most popular "basic" Maui shore dive sites is 5 Graves / Turtle Town / Makena Landing. I have made basic scuba dives there with 63, 72, 80 (77), 100 and 120 cf tanks, and the plan does not change; dive until you have to surface; hard for me to say that dive site requires or needs a certain amount of air. With a max depth at this site of less than 50 feet, even doing a 130 cft shore dive, for all intensive purposes there is no decompression limit.

My first questions for the OP would be "are there not basic scuba dives where there is no certain amount of air needed and are there not basic scuba dives where there is no limit with respect to decompression?

When the resources you bring to bear are far in excess of what the dive requires, luck plays almost no role in how the dive comes out.

Having made hundreds of basic scuba dives at Makena Landing, I have seen nearly all the cool stuff one could see there, but no tiger sharks, no dolphins, no hawksbills, no Javanese morays. Some crappy tourist divers have made one yo-yo, roto-tiller dive there and spent "quality time" in the "bubble cave" with a Hawaiian monk seal; so I am seriously jealous of them! No matter what resources I bring to that dive site, luck always has a big role in every dive there.

If I do a 30 foot reef dive in calm, sunlit water, with double 80's on my back, a RIB to come pick me up if I get lost, and a very solid, experienced dive buddy, luck is going to have a hard time playing havoc with that dive.

I contend that most divers need to have made such a dive for it to be considered "basic" and I would need some hard evidence for "double 80's" to thusly be considered "basic" even in a local sub-forum.

On the other hand, if you do a bounce dive to 300 feet on a single Al80, you are seriously counting on everything going exactly according to plan . . . and in this case, if Lady Luck has a frown on her face, the outcome is not going to be pretty.

So now I am seriously confused as to why this discussion is in Basic Scuba Discussions because this is not basic scuba diving that is being discussed. I'm of the opinion that lots of basic scuba divers were/are not aware of the current event precipitating this sentence, and I do not see any reason to reach out and make basic scuba divers aware of this very UN-basic scuba incident. Now there are a bunch of high testosterone 20 somethings reading various threads where some of the fairly respected SB members are admitting ".... gone 250-ish, but never 300 on a single 80."

If I had never seen a Warren Miller movie, would I have attempted solo snowboard helicopters off avalanche prone cornices?

The closer you dive to the limits of your resources, whether it's gas, strength, experience, decompression, surface support or whatever, the larger a role you are allowing Lady Luck to play in how the dive comes out. Since she is known to be a fickle mistress, it may not be a great idea to invite her along for the dive.

If the Original Post for this thread had just been the first and last sentences, I might not be here asking some interested member to painstakingly quote my post, with the OP's quotes included. Or perhaps just show her the spousal version.

 

[Jax]

So we should stick our heads in the sand and pretend stupidity does not kill divers, Halemano?

That same argument is used to prevent sex education in school. Uh, not talking about it doesn't mean it won't happen.

At least one diver changed his view - 'I used to think bounce divers were brave; now I think it is poor judgement', or words to that effect.

In fact, it seems that the overwhelming majority of incidents are diver error, and that error seems to come from an inability to SEE the consequences of their actions.

Two people drowned in Florida, when one person seemingly couldn't SEE to dump his gear and do an emergency ascent.

Three people have been horribly stricken due to their inability to SEE that things could go so horribly wrong.

Yet, every time I dive, there are people that haven't thought about, what can go wrong here? and when something happens, they are totally unprepared, and tend to go with a panic reaction.

 

[boulderjohn]

It is hard to argue with there being "requirements" for making "a dive" but IF we are going to discuss requirements for a basic scuba dive someone needs to come up with a working definition for basic scuba diving. I could easily define basic scuba diving as single air cylinder, open circuit, 130' max unrestricted distance to surface and no stops, but then a lot of "other" basic scuba divers might not define basic scuba diving exactly the same, so when we discuss basic scuba diving we are not really discussing the same thing.

I think the idea of basic scuba is diving within what is considered to be recreational limits. That means no decompression required and nothing stopping the diver from going to the surface in an emergency.

One of the most popular "basic" Maui shore dive sites is 5 Graves / Turtle Town / Makena Landing. I have made basic scuba dives there with 63, 72, 80 (77), 100 and 120 cf tanks, and the plan does not change; dive until you have to surface; hard for me to say that dive site requires or needs a certain amount of air. With a max depth at this site of less than 50 feet, even doing a 130 cft shore dive, for all intensive purposes there is no decompression limit.

OK. That is certainly a basic scuba dive location. I agree.

My first questions for the OP would be "are there not basic scuba dives where there is no certain amount of air needed and are there not basic scuba dives where there is no limit with respect to decompression?

Absolutely. Still not clear on your point.

Having made hundreds of basic scuba dives at Makena Landing, I have seen nearly all the cool stuff one could see there, but no tiger sharks, no dolphins, no hawksbills, no Javanese morays. Some crappy tourist divers have made one yo-yo, roto-tiller dive there and spent "quality time" in the "bubble cave" with a Hawaiian monk seal; so I am seriously jealous of them! No matter what resources I bring to that dive site, luck always has a big role in every dive there.

You bet. Heart attacks can happen anywhere. Still don't see your point.

I contend that most divers need to have made such a dive for it to be considered "basic" and I would need some hard evidence for "double 80's" to thusly be considered "basic" even in a local sub-forum.

When TS&M added the part about having extra air, she was emphasizing the fact that she would certainly be safe under those conditions. She was giving an example of an absolutely safe situation. She did not say it was necessary.

So now I am seriously confused as to why this discussion is in Basic Scuba Discussions because this is not basic scuba diving that is being discussed. I'm of the opinion that lots of basic scuba divers were/are not aware of the current event precipitating this sentence, and I do not see any reason to reach out and make basic scuba divers aware of this very UN-basic scuba incident.

I think the reason is obvious. There are people who see extending recreational limits as some kind of a macho thing that can be done without a clear understanding of the danger. I think it was intended as a warning, and I think it is a good one.

Now there are a bunch of high testosterone 20 somethings reading various threads where some of the fairly respected SB members are admitting ".... gone 250-ish, but never 300 on a single 80."

I think you should provide links to this. Even so, your point is not clear. I have gone beyond 250 feet, and I have talked about it. In those posts, I also mention the training, practice, and equipment it required, emphasizing that it would be foolhardy to do otherwise. I did say that I did not do it on a single AL 80, because I would not dream of it. Once again, I am missing your point. What is wrong with saying that doing such a dive requires training, practice, and equipment. Are you arguing that we should instead say that it is OK to go to those depths on a single AL 80?

If I had never seen a Warren Miller movie, would I have attempted solo snowboard helicopters off avalanche prone cornices?

Beats me. Did you do that, and is that movie why? I have seen lots of those movies. I have shaken Warren Miller's hand after a run of my own. I'm not stupid enough to do anything like that. Missing your point again.

If the Original Post for this thread had just been the first and last sentences, I might not be here asking some interested member to painstakingly quote my post, with the OP's quotes included. Or perhaps just show her the spousal version.

You have me baffled here.

 

[Teamcasa]

Luck? Save it for the rabbits.
I plan my dives and dive my plan, all clearly in the scope of recreational and fun diving. Feel like a bounce to +130', call someone else.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

You can plan your dives and dive your plans and you can configure your gear and protocols so that it will take maybe one, two, three (or more) simultaneous failures to result in your death, but I find it hard to reconcile the idea that luck (or the grace of God) is not involved in me returning from a beer run to 7-11 or from a 200' solo dive on air to spear a stupid fish...

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

You can plan your dives and dive your plans and you can configure your gear and protocols so that it will take maybe one, two, three (or more) simultaneous failures to result in your death, but I find it hard to reconcile the idea that luck (or the grace of God) is not involved in me returning from a beer run to 7-11 or from a 200' solo dive on air to spear a stupid fish...

Considering the kind of beer they typically sell at 7-11, I'd say you'll be lucky if it doesn't give you hearburn.

Halemano ... would you consider a 200+ foot bounce dive on an AL80 to fall within the limits of basic scuba diving? How about a 400-foot bounce dive? Because those are the dives that brought this discussion to mind. In both cases, the people conducting those dives were using basic scuba diving equipment in ways it was never intended to be used.

Ignorance is bliss ... stupidity costs extra ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[TSandM]

Yes, there are dives that don't really have an air requirement, or a functional deco limit. If they also have easy topography (so simple navigation) and a hard bottom, they're dives where you don't have to bring much to the table to avoid luck playing much of a role. These are beginner dives, simply BECAUSE their requirements are so minimal.

But the dives we did in Indonesia, on walls with a bottom at 600 feet, in current -- those are really basic dives, albeit a bit more advanced than those from the original paragraph. Here gas could be an issue, deco could be an issue, navigation could be an issue, and strength could be an issue. Plan the dive as marginal on any (or more than one) of those criteria, and you are depending on luck to fall your way. That's all I'm saying.

 

[knowone]

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.





Albert Einstein Quotes - BrainyQuote

 

[VooDooGasMan]

Hale I'll tell ya why TS&M made the thread, she can not dive deep air, and does not like my style of diving, then when the spearo's got involved and members, she can not for the life of her understand, nor her friends, and friends stick together.
She made the thread cause of me, If you look at the time I woke and took a look in the middle of the night, read the thread and new what it was trying to accomplish, so I posted right away.
The truth behold, Brett, yes TDI BRETT, met his fiends in the bahamas and did these dives, one diver tied two 80's together, they went as far as they could brett made it to close to 400 or so.

You have to do something to know for your self.

I was a kid, were talking young teenager and dove deep wrecks in lake superior, before the vis became like it is with the zebra muscles clearing it up. I have been doing deep quick dives repetively all my life. pretty much started doing a third deep dive to just unhook the anchor.

It is a shame that they keep it a secret, that you can fly down to deep depths, take a look and come back up and with a short SI do it again.

Another is on a reef or pinnacle that goes deep, goo to 300' then come to about 100' and finish with a 50 to 60 min dive.

Now do you need to have a couple of dives under your belt, DUH! but that is it, every dive is a new personal goal, a photo dive, spear dive, cave dive, wreck dive, or plain old deep dives.

I'm a kid that that learned not to listen to people, learn for myself is how I raised myself. I'm a self knowledge diver, been in predictaments that are deadly, Doin well over 100 dives in the past couple of months I had stuff come up and dealt with it and thats what you do.

But bounce diving on bigger tanks is just more gas to go deeper or stay longer.

The al80 gives the diver enough to not get themselves in trouble, not so much that you do not have enough to do the dive, the more air the more you have to deal with. I have a ferry sunk in front of my house in 77' of water, an al50 is all I take to do a 60 min dive, I'm faster, less weight on belt, 14# its like a tropical dive belt.
I can spear my ling and enjoy my dive.

Diving is dangerous, diving is safe, diving is just plain fun.