Bent in Belize--Blue Hole Incident

[RJP]

Isn't the first mistake signing up to dive a site that is deeper than recreational depths?

Wouldn't any wall dive such as Cayman, Hawaii, etc be "deeper than recreational depths" by definition? The Blue Hole is essentially a wall dive... you don't need to go to the BOTTOM of it.

 

[tracydr]

Wrong! Dive tables are not very conservative.

Depending on the dive table, they can be anything but conservative. The U.S. Navy tables are very liberal. The first electronic dive computer, the EDGE, used a liberal algorithm similar to the navy tables. In 1983, we were happlily using the EDGE. It gave us liberal bottom times on deep ( 130+ ) air dves.
We were young ( 20's ), dumb and ready for adventure.

Yes, we used dive tables before the EDGE.

The recreation dive tables are more consevative than the U.S. navy tables, but they are similar to the newer dive computers.

The reacreation dive tables are not VERY conservative. The reason why they seem conservative when you are doing multi-level dives is because they penalize you for your deepest depth.

I didn't mention Navy dive tables because I don't feel they are appropriate for recreational divers. They've not been tested on the average recreational population. They were designed for the average, über-fit Navy diver, in his 20's, diving on a regular basis, doing physical fitness on a regular basis, not overweight, etc.
I think in another post, I even said that he had gone out of range for recreational tables which means he required a six hour surface interval ( due to dropping below 130 feet). Of course, he could have used Navy tables and still been able to be on the table, but Navy tables would not have been appropriate, IMHO.
And, recreational dive tables do end up being quite conservative, since most people don't dive square profiles. Even the ERDP is conservative. How many people really only dive at three levels during a dive? The fact that we don't dive square profiles this does add conservatism to using tables.
Just using the tables causes most divers to actually plan their dive. This in itself will create conservatism within the diver as they are not "riding a computer" that they don't understand. Any time a diver is actually making a plan and diving the plan I feel they are more safe than just jumping in the water without any plan at all. ( okay, unless it's an obviously stupid plan)
I'm by no means advocating that we all go back to tables and ditch the computers. Computers have been a great tool for the dive world. But, I do think the tables/eRRDP have their place and new divers especially should still be learning how to use them. If for no other reason than it helps them to understand dive planning and the basics of where the stuff inside their computer comes from. Just reading the fine print on the PADI dive table is instructive.

 

[Thiad]

Wouldn't any wall dive such as Cayman, Hawaii, etc be "deeper than recreational depths" by definition? The Blue Hole is essentially a wall dive... you don't need to go to the BOTTOM of it.

If you go to the bottom of it, consider yourself (probably) dead. It's 407' deep. The formations, which are the highlight of the dive, start deep - past 130'. Most divers end up between 140'-150' when diving it - that's the norm, and people don't usually go to see the lovely wall (and I do like it - lots of lobsters). It's not a dive to take lightly by any means, but there's probably not a poster here who hasn't read the stories of the "trust me" dives that go on in Belize when people dive the Hole. People want to see the stalactites and those are beyond 130'. Is it dangerous? That's for each individual diver to decide and to make an informed choice. Yet we've seen time and time again, and read the stories, of local dive companies more than willing to take divers - of almost any level, to the Blue Hole and they do go past 130'.

 

[RJP]

If you go to the bottom of it, consider yourself (probably) dead. It's 407' deep. The formations, which are the highlight of the dive, start deep - past 130'. Most divers end up between 140'-150' when diving it - that's the norm, and people don't usually go to see the lovely wall (and I do like it - lots of lobsters). It's not a dive to take lightly by any means, but there's probably not a poster here who hasn't read the stories of the "trust me" dives that go on in Belize when people dive the Hole. People want to see the stalactites and those are beyond 130'. Is it dangerous? That's for each individual diver to decide and to make an informed choice. Yet we've seen time and time again, and read the stories, of local dive companies more than willing to take divers - of almost any level, to the Blue Hole and they do go past 130'.

Interesting. In Truk I saw people diving the San Francisco Maru (deck at 165fsw) on single AL-80's. Sure, the guides are slinging extra tanks and they stage some tanks at the tie-in, on the line, and there's a reg at 20' but holy cow... Some of these people should not have been doing ANY dive in Truk, much less 165fsw. The Odyssey's approach is "you are adults, here's the dive site... it's up to you to plan your dive - including whether to do the dive at all." They offered an earlie/shallow dive for anyone not wanting to do teh SFM, and one guy did take them up on that, but everyone else was going to dive "the money wreck" regardless.

 

[SC_Hoaty]

Wouldn't any wall dive such as Cayman, Hawaii, etc be "deeper than recreational depths" by definition? The Blue Hole is essentially a wall dive... you don't need to go to the BOTTOM of it.

I take it you posted before reading through. I clarified I didn't mean hard bottom.

 

[Thiad]

Yeah, it is interesting and sad. The day I dove the Hole, at least four of us, including myself, were OW divers with absolutely zero right to be doing that dive. One had recently been certified, and the others had limited dives (under 20).. I went down with an instructor who stayed with me, and only me, the entire dive - probably the only saving grace of the day. Yet I consider it the most idiotic thing I've done to date in my diving career - though I did not go down beyond 110'. I had absolutely no right to be diving there - period. Even with 200 dives behind me, it's not anything I'd consider diving now.

I think it's absolutely amazing you don't hear of more accidents at the Blue Hole considering the number of divers that dive it on a yearly basis. Yet for the dive companies, it's a huge $$ maker. If memory serves me right, it cost close to $350 to go out there. That's not chump change.

 

[SC_Hoaty]

Yeah - I don't mean you need a hard bottom. But when what you go to see is at 150', shouldn't the alarm bells in your head start ringing?

Quoted so RJP doesn't have to read back.

 

[Hank49]

I think it's absolutely amazing you don't hear of more accidents at the Blue Hole considering the number of divers that dive it on a yearly basis.

But, the record speaks for itself. Perhaps it's more an indication that the danger is overblown by the "scuba police".

 

[RJP]

I take it you posted before reading through. I clarified I didn't mean hard bottom.

I read it through... I just didn't realize that the PLANNED depth for the Blue Hole was as deep as it is.

 

[ScubaSteve]

But, the record speaks for itself. Perhaps it's more an indication that the danger is overblown by the "scuba police".

I would agree that there may not be a long list of accidents occurring at that site however that does not mean it is a good idea or a smart idea. Taking new divers to 150+ feet on an AL80......I would think that most anybody that thinks there is nothing wrong with this is making money from taking those divers there.