Cozumel Incident 9/4/11

[Dan G]

I am still not seeing the analogy between these type of dives and free solo climbng, which is free climbing without a rope. Climbers who do this climb within their limits. They do not combine free soloing with a climb at the edge of their skill level. Also, the speed you gain by not having a rope can function as a measure of safety.

To me, this dive did not have anything that functioned as a measure of safety, and the divers were not well within the limits of what can be done using the equipment they were using.

Now I have more pitches climbed under my belt than dives made, so I accept that I am biased in the fact that I see free soloing as an acceptable form of climbing, as long as it is a technique that is used properly. I do not see the same sentiment being expressed by the vast majority of technical divers.

 

[boulderjohn]

I am still not seeing the analogy between these type of dives and free solo climbng, which is free climbing without a rope. Climbers who do this climb within their limits.

There have been so many threads over time that I am not sure to what post you are responding. I think I made a similar response some time ago. In the post I remember, the poster compared the two on the assumption that the divers represented the ultimate skill and knowledge of scuba diving, and they were thus free to take the same kinds of risks that climbers at the peak of that training, experience, and skill can take.

Although I agree with your post, to me the real danger in that comparison is the assumption that these were divers at the peak of training, experience, and skill for scuba diving. That is a completely false assumption that really needs to be eradicated. These divers were at the peak of skill for recreational divers. They were superbly skilled for people who are trained to dive to 130 feet on a single tank of air. In that environment they reign supreme.

But they entered another environment, an environment for which they had no training that I know of. They did not have the proper equipment. They just saw it as an extension of recreational diving, and they dived as if it were an extension of recreational diving rather than the technical dive it really was. As James (fdog) said earlier in the thread, anyone with the training to do that dive would not have done that dive.

 

[Mossman]

There have been so many threads over time that I am not sure to what post you are responding. I think I made a similar response some time ago. In the post I remember, the poster compared the two on the assumption that the divers represented the ultimate skill and knowledge of scuba diving, and they were thus free to take the same kinds of risks that climbers at the peak of that training, experience, and skill can take.

Although I agree with your post, to me the real danger in that comparison is the assumption that these were divers at the peak of training, experience, and skill for scuba diving. That is a completely false assumption that really needs to be eradicated. These divers were at the peak of skill for recreational divers. They were superbly skilled for people who are trained to dive to 130 feet on a single tank of air. In that environment they reign supreme.

But they entered another environment, an environment for which they had no training that I know of. They did not have the proper equipment. They just saw it as an extension of recreational diving, and they dived as if it were an extension of recreational diving rather than the technical dive it really was. As James (fdog) said earlier in the thread, anyone with the training to do that dive would not have done that dive.

I was the one who compared them to free climbers.

Forget about training. That's completely arbitrary. Who says that 130' is the most they were trained to dive? Why use a number pulled out of an agency's rear end?

They were very skilled single tank divers just as free climbers who summit without O2 are very skilled climbers. It is safer for the skilled single tank diver to use technical gear and oxygen (deco gas) to execute the dive, but it doesn't give one that same sense of freedom being bogged down with equipment. It is safer for the skilled free climber to use technical gear and oxygen to execute the climb, but it doesn't give one that same sense of freedom being bogged down with equipment.

There is no real cut and dried difference between what is a technical dive and what is a recreational dive except for arbitrary numbers. These divers were just doing an extra deep recreational dive. Simple as that.

As for properly trained divers never doing these sorts of dives, I think you must have missed an article posted earlier in this thread (or one of these threads) about heads of tech agencies, obviously trained to know better, doing extreme deep air dives. Just because one knows better doesn't mean he can't do something stupid.

 

[boulderjohn]

Forget about training. That's completely arbitrary. Who says that 130' is the most they were trained to dive? Why use a number pulled out of an agency's rear end?

Because there is no evidence that they were trained to do any dives beyond 130 feet. That's the limit to which recreational dive agencies train. DO you have evidence that they received training beyond that depth?

They were very skilled single tank divers just as free climbers who summit without O2 are very skilled climbers. It is safer for the skilled single tank diver to use technical gear and oxygen (deco gas) to execute the dive, but it doesn't give one that same sense of freedom being bogged down with equipment. It is safer for the skilled free climber to use technical gear and oxygen to execute the climb, but it doesn't give one that same sense of freedom being bogged down with equipment.

GOtcha. The sense of freedom is a good and reasonable excuse to ignore safety factors.

There is no real cut and dried difference between what is a technical dive and what is a recreational dive except for arbitrary numbers. These divers were just doing an extra deep recreational dive. Simple as that.

Wow. It is amazing that a diver with as much experience as you claim can have gotten that experience without learning more.

As for properly trained divers never doing these sorts of dives, I think you must have missed an article posted earlier in this thread (or one of these threads) about heads of tech agencies, obviously trained to know better, doing extreme deep air dives. Just because one knows better doesn't mean he can't do something stupid.

You must be talking about Brett Gilliam. Yes, he has done those dives, and he has written some really sorry explanation as to why it was OK for him to do those dives but not OK for others to do those dives.

 

[suprane]

There is no real cut and dried difference between what is a technical dive and what is a recreational dive except for arbitrary numbers. These divers were just doing an extra deep recreational dive. Simple as that.

Excuse me!?!? :shocked2:

I'll be the first to agree that there is not a " line in the sand" (or in the water!) that marks the limit of what is a recreational dive and the beginning of a technical dive. But, having said that, when you go sooo far beyond what any agency or reasonably intelligent diver would consider the limits of recreational diving then there can be no doubt in anybody's mind that you are now into the "technical" realm of diving! If you even take the MOD of air as your reference point (218 ft at 1.6 ATA), then there is no doubt that these divers exceeded that in a monumental way!.... And planned to do so from the dives' inception!

And the fact is that they KNEW that what they were doing was dangerous! I have no doubt of that! And, they knew that they were ill equipped and (if they stopped to think about it!) ill trained for the undertaking! I can only speculate as to what their motivation was (bragging rights, the thrill, whatever). But there is no doubt in MY mind that they didn't know that what they were doing was dangerous and WELL beyond anybody's definition (except perhaps yours!) of "recreational" diving!

... End of story!

 

[DandyDon]

Excuse me!?!? :shocked2:

I'll be the first to agree that there is not a " line in the sand" (or in the water!) that marks the limit of what is a recreational dive and the beginning of a technical dive. But, having said that, when you go sooo far beyond what any agency or reasonably intelligent diver would consider the limits of recreational diving then there can be no doubt in anybody's mind that you are now into the "technical" realm of diving! If you even take the MOD of air as your reference point (218 ft at 1.6 ATA), then there is no doubt that these divers exceeded that in a monumental way!.... And planned to do so from the dives' inception!

And the fact is that they KNEW that what they were doing was dangerous! I have no doubt of that! And, they knew that they were ill equipped and (if they stopped to think about it!) ill trained for the undertaking! I can only speculate as to what their motivation was (bragging rights, the thrill, whatever). But there is no doubt in MY mind that they didn't know that what they were doing was dangerous and WELL beyond anybody's definition (except perhaps yours!) of "recreational" diving!

Which is why I reference it as a stunt dive if you will. I suspect that this sort of thing happens based on tales of others doing similar dives with the tired explanation that "It hasn't hurt/killed me yet" or "I'm still here." We see those illogical phrases offered for justification in all sorts of discussions - until the approach fails.

Additionally, they knew they were diving uninsured - at least for two of them. I don't know which DAN insurance the SC resident had, hopefully one of the two plans with no depth limits. The DAN coverage for Mexican residents is not much, but I understand they didn't have even that. The Mexican citizen still is in Cozumel and can obtain some help from their Social Security coverage, and I hope he was signed up for it. The US citizen apparent obtained enough thru donations for the medivac flight to the US, but I don't know of any coverage there?

... End of story!

A statement with a poor track record.

 

[Mossman]

If we're complaining about semantics here, than I'll second Dandy D's calling it a "stunt dive" rather than a "recreational" or a "technical" dive. It was a recreational dive done to "technical" depths but I still maintain that's just like free climbers who do recreational sort of climbing to technical heights.

As for the silly statement, "Wow. It is amazing that a diver with as much experience as you claim can have gotten that experience without learning more." what the heck does that mean? I am technical trained to 150 feet, by the "rules" of the agency where I sought training. I have done a "recreational dive" on a single tank without tech gear to 167 feet. What is a diver with as much experience as I claim supposed to have gotten out of these two dives? That recreational dives can easily be done to depths much deeper than recreational standards? Like I said, your statement is silly. I've learned a heck of a lot in my 637 logged dives and myriad classes, obviously more than you.

 

[Simon-]

Guys, this isn't a dick-swinging contest on who has done more/knows more (though I do know who my money would be on).

 

[Doubler]

Recreational/Technical I really don' t much care. What really twist my whiskers in this whole sorry tale is the lack of engaging brain before they hit the water. Did they even give one iota of thought to what could happen if something went wrong. Did they even think about the financial disaster this is going to be for their family. Did they care about the emotional strain to loved ones and friends. "Stunt Dive" well put Don. This stunt ruined the careers of two people, will probably severly impact the life of one diver for ever. Training had nothing to do with this it was all EGO. I truly hope for a speedy recovery by all involved and I hope other "Ego" divers take heed. One of the worst conversations a diver can have usually starts out with " how deep have you been, I've been to......conversations like this may end up like this incident.

 

[Ayisha]

As for the silly statement, "Wow. It is amazing that a diver with as much experience as you claim can have gotten that experience without learning more." what the heck does that mean? I am technical trained to 150 feet, by the "rules" of the agency where I sought training. I have done a "recreational dive" on a single tank without tech gear to 167 feet.

To compare technical training of *only* 150 feet and doing a dive to 167 feet can hardly be compared or extrapolated to diving to 350 - 400 feet.

What is a diver with as much experience as I claim supposed to have gotten out of these two dives? That recreational dives can easily be done to depths much deeper than recreational standards?

bold added

Again, 2 dives is not much experience beyond recreational depths and there is no experience beyond 167 feet - a far cry from 350 - 400 feet.

167 feet is NOT "much deeper" than recreational standards, sorry. My bet, as someone else said, would be on those who have significant training, experience and appropriate equipment for dives to around 400 feet, and they wouldn't have done a bounce dive on air and without redundancy.