At what point do you run a line?

[Thalassamania]

so, i've been in a hard overhead environment at about 30 fsw on a reef down in akumal where the 'swimthrough' was probably 30 feet from end-to-end. i felt comfortable down there without a line since i had doubles, a backup mask, DIR trained buddies, about 3h of gas on my back, etc, and the bottom was rock/coral that wouldn't silt out. the biggest hazard to me down there was the other recreational single-tank divers entering the overhead where their skills, gas, etc were unknown -- not the lack of an upline...

Every rule can be taken to a "reductum ad absurdum." Some are just easier than others.

 

[lamont]

I hear ya! At risk of having my post deleted (do it if you must!) I think it goes even further - and this thread is a good example!!!! I'm not trolling OR trying to start a fight BUT....as I read it, the whole thrust of the thread is in some kind of denial that anyone except a "DIR" person might have a valid answer to the question. THAT'S why I don't think the thread belongs in this forum.

Any suggestion that ANY answer is only worthwhile if it's from a "DIR" source only serves to bolster the perception of arrogance that many feel. (which is hardly ever justified IMO....but here seems to exist ((also IMO))...)

Please...correct me if I'm wrong, because I really don't know (and KNOW I don't)....but I think this so called "grey area" is simply grey for some DIR divers because DIR/GUE has never specifically addressed the issue - therefore there IS no "DIR" answer. On the other hand - other agencies have...and as Rick quite rightly pointed out...have adopted practices that are decidely "safe diving practice". The concept of which I think is absolutely DIR!!! (i.e. Doing It Right)

For those agencies there is no grey area....or at least if there is...it's a LOT smaller!

This is a prime example of why the DIR forum needs to be made opt-in. I'm really tired of responding to this kind of hysterical bull**** all the time.

It is not my problem if you are so insecure that you interpret someone asking for DIR-specific advice as denial that any other way of diving can be safe.

Get a spine.

 

[Kim]

I'm really tired of responding to this kind of hysterical bull**** all the time.

Then don't.

It is not my problem if you are so insecure that you interpret someone asking for DIR-specific advice as denial that any other way of diving can be safe.

I've yet to see the DIR specific definition of an overhead. You got one?
It has absolutely nothing to do with insecurity - well....maybe yours.

Get a spine.

Insults in the place of reason? I'd have never had you down for that!

 

[JimC]

I've yet to see the DIR specific definition of an overhead. You got one?

This is the closest I could find:

"With the exception of certain recreational-level specialty diving activities, open water divers are never under overhead obstructions that would prevent them from making an immediate ascent directly to the surface." pg 21, GUE Cave1 Manual v1-1 by Jarrod Jablonski.

However in the cavern diving section no mention is made of a guild line whatsoever. This could leave the reader to interpret that so long as you are within the cavern zone (as defined on pg 24-25) you do not need a guild line. That is patently absurd and an obvious oversight, so I wouldn't put much faith in the missing information.

"Entering an overhead environment without a continuous guildline to open water greatly increases the likelihood of a fatality." pg 28, GUE Cave1 Manual v1-1 by Jarrod Jablonski.

This leads me to believe that the only proper answer is that any time you are in an overhead environment, which is implied as any overhead obstruction preventing direct accent, you must run a guild line. To do otherwise is to take unnecessary risk which is, I believe, generally though of as the antithesis of DIR.

 

[Kim]

Thanks Jim. It's not very clear is it?
I suppose:
"With the exception of certain recreational-level specialty diving activities.."
could be taken to mean swimthroughs, but one is still left with no clear idea of where one ends and an overhead begins. (If I'm reading the meaning correctly)

 

[Rainer]

This is the closest I could find:

"With the exception of certain recreational-level specialty diving activities, open water divers are never under overhead obstructions that would prevent them from making an immediate ascent directly to the surface." pg 21, GUE Cave1 Manual v1-1 by Jarrod Jablonski.

However in the cavern diving section no mention is made of a guild line whatsoever. This could leave the reader to interpret that so long as you are within the cavern zone (as defined on pg 24-25) you do not need a guild line. That is patently absurd and an obvious oversight, so I wouldn't put much faith in the missing information.

"Entering an overhead environment without a continuous guildline to open water greatly increases the likelihood of a fatality." pg 28, GUE Cave1 Manual v1-1 by Jarrod Jablonski.

This leads me to believe that the only proper answer is that any time you are in an overhead environment, which is implied as any overhead obstruction preventing direct accent, you must run a guild line. To do otherwise is to take unnecessary risk which is, I believe, generally though of as the antithesis of DIR.

"With the exception of certain recreational-level specialty diving activities"

whatever that means.

 

[CompuDude]

So out of curiousity, how is "cavern zone" defined on pgs 24-25? Seems that might answer part of our question.

 

[lamont]

Insults in the place of reason? I'd have never had you down for that!

There's no recourse to reason possible here. You do not allow for it. At that point about all I've got left is flinging poo because you're not interested in rational discussion you just want to talk about the DIR divers all keeping you down.

And you changed the subject. This is your problem:

as I read it, the whole thrust of the thread is in some kind of denial that anyone except a "DIR" person might have a valid answer to the question.

That is entirely your insecurities coming through. When a sentence on the Internet starts out "The way I read it..." that a very good indicator that what is immediately coming next is going to be horribly sloppy thinking or some straw man argument dreamed up by the poster that has no reflection to reality.

Nobody was denying that anyone else might have a valid answer to the question, or that the DIR answer was necessarily correct. The OP, however, was looking for an answer from a specific source. You twisted that into a position where the only possible answer is a DIR answer. The only place where that actually exists, though, is in your own head.

If you can't stop yourself from leaping off your mental rails like that, you need to either excuse yourself from this forum or forcefully be excused.

 

[Kim]

There's no recourse to reason possible here. You do not allow for it. At that point about all I've got left is flinging poo because you're not interested in rational discussion you just want to talk about the DIR divers all keeping you down.

And you changed the subject. This is your problem:



That is entirely your insecurities coming through. When a sentence on the Internet starts out "The way I read it..." that a very good indicator that what is immediately coming next is going to be horribly sloppy thinking or some straw man argument dreamed up by the poster that has no reflection to reality.

Nobody was denying that anyone else might have a valid answer to the question, or that the DIR answer was necessarily correct. The OP, however, was looking for an answer from a specific source. You twisted that into a position where the only possible answer is a DIR answer. The only place where that actually exists, though, is in your own head.

If you can't stop yourself from leaping off your mental rails like that, you need to either excuse yourself from this forum or forcefully be excused.

I think you are completely missing the point.

I am still waiting to see if there IS a specific answer to the OP's question. So far it seems unlikely, it certainly hasn't been forthcoming except for RTodd's answer:
"Technically, there is steadfast answer for this question too. No direct ascent - always run a line."
However - people are twisting the finality of the above to make "exceptions". Do you seriously expect me or anyone else to believe that just because a DIR trained diver makes an exception to a rule, that exception becomes the correct DIR answer?
Ergo - it's NOT a DIR answer and in that respect shouldn't be in this forum either.

If you weren't so busy leaping off your own mental rails and ranting about excluding people and starting yet more forums etc, then you might actually contribute to the discussion at hand, which quite simply is trying to establish what GUE/DIR defines as an overhead that needs a line. It's a perfectly reasonable discussion, and I for one am very interested in the answer (if there is one), and how it compares to definitions and practices of other training agencies.(although I'd make those comparisons elsewhere or in the privacy of my own head! )

You'll note that I absolutely haven't posted any of those definitions in this thread - they aren't DIR. Consequently I still believe that this thread would have made far more sense in another forum. Just because a thread isn't in the DIR forum doesn't mean that it can't also have DIR answers in it.

To put quite simply RTodd summed it up in his very first comment in the thread:
"It is just too gray to answer".

That should have answered it right there.

However - I think that there IS more to it than that, but to discuss that would have meant moving the thread. The refusal to do that, or see the reason for it, (at least by some, including the OP) is what prompted my comments.
To accuse me of:
"you just want to talk about the DIR divers all keeping you down."
is a) seriously confusing me with someone else, and b) sounds like a persecution complex.
I can see that the original question was valid in this forum, so maybe moving the whole thread was not the best solution. Splitting it after RTodd's post might have made more sense.

Speculation is speculation, whether done by a "DIR" diver or anyone else. If it's not covered then quite simply it isn't covered, and then there IS no correct answer that fulfills the criteria of an acceptable answer here under the forum rules.......except RTodd's first comment.

 

[Rick Murchison]

So out of curiousity, how is "cavern zone" defined on pgs 24-25? Seems that might answer part of our question.

The "cavern zone" (daylight zone, within 130' of the surface, no deeper than 70', no restrictions, minimum visibility 40 ft - NSS/CDS definition; I expect GUE's is either the same or very close) is usually an overhead environment and requires a line. The distinct difference in the cavern zone and a swimthrough is that if you silt out a cavern you'll need the line to get back out, whereas if you silt out a swimthrough you're ok because the siltout is behind you; you're looking at your exit from the entrance and all the way through...
That does bring up a good point though... you & your buddy should never enter a swimthrough until the folks ahead of you are clear, and you can still see the exit.
Rick