DAN missed the boat ...

[MXGratefulDiver]

I see what your saying. But the original post by NWG was about what the proper advice of an agency like DAN should be.

DAN's first advice was that the diver should have remained topside after the first dive.

After that, when commenting on what could have been done about the free-flow, Dan said this:

The question that arises from that quote is, should DAN have recommended the buddy system instead of a pony bottle? That's what my point was directed at.

Let's examine again what the article stated ...

Originally Posted by Joel Dovenbarger, Vice President of DAN MedicalServices
What could this diver have done to prevent decompression illness? Depth and rapid ascents are a bad combination. Remaining topside after the first dive would have reduced the diver's total nitrogen exposure, and he would not have experienced the rapid ascent. He should have checked his tank pressure before going back into the water.

What about a redundant, independent air source? The limiting factor for most planned dives is the amount of air available in the tank. For the unexpected event like a free-flow, a secondary alternative source of air to breathe is a good option.

What could this diver have done to prevent decompression illness?

1. Maintain better contact with his dive buddy (everyone's assuming the dive buddy left him ... but all the article says is that "he was unable to signal his dive buddy"). Yes, agreed, this takes both parties. However, remember the circumstances of this incident ... these two were doing a deep dive in a high-altitude lake. That doesn't suggest vacation "insta-buddies" to me.

2. Once on the surface, remain on the surface. Mr. Dovenbarger mentions this, but in the context of "reducing total nitrogen exposure" ... when, in fact, total nitrogen exposure wasn't the problem.

Mr. Dovenbarger went further to state that "He should have checked his air pressure before going back into the water". Wrong answer ... going back into the water was a bad idea, no matter what his air pressure was.

And yes, certainly, any analysis of the cause for this accident should have focused on the breakdown of the buddy system. Had the injured diver been able to make contact with his dive buddy, the problem would most likely have been resolvable without even coming to the surface ... the standard response is to share air, shut down the tank valve on the free-flowing reg, wait a few seconds for the ice to melt, and turn it back on again. If the reg continues to free-flow, make a shared-air ascent and end the dive.

Had this occurred, the need for the first ... much less the second ... rapid ascent would not have occurred and the diver would not have injured himself.

I really do think that without making that point, the analysis was worthless ... and gives the incorrect impression that the way to resolve poor buddy skills is to buy more gear. That doesn't resolve the problem ... the gear may be useful under some circumstances, but poor buddy skills will still be a part of the diver's regimen and will sooner or later lead to an accident that gear cannot address.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[djanni]

It seems most of you are arguing that it's a training issue and since a lot of you are Instructors I can understand that.

No amount of training can eliminate mistakes, poor judgement or plain old screw ups. This poor guy really screwed up.

In this particular situation a Pony bottle might just have made the difference.

I don't think I read where anyone has argued that if the diver had a pony bottle he would still have taken a hit.

 

[Web Monkey]

It seems most of you are arguing that it's a training issue and since a lot of you are Instructors I can understand that.

No amount of training can eliminate mistakes, poor judgement or plain old screw ups. This poor guy really screwed up.

In this particular situation a Pony bottle might just have made the difference.

I don't think I read where anyone has argued that if the diver had a pony bottle he would still have taken a hit.

He took the hit because he went down again, ran OOA and did an emergency ascent.

A pony wouldn't change anything except possibly the speed of the first ascent.

If he went down again, even with a pony, he would still have run OOA (a pony doesn't do anything for inattention and many don't have SPGs anyway), and rocketed to the surface, however this time he would have had an extra few minutes at depth.

Even a whole SCUBA shop full of gear won't make up for a series of bad decisions.

Terry

 

[djanni]

He took the hit because he went down again, ran OOA and did an emergency ascent.

A pony wouldn't change anything except possibly the speed of the first ascent.
If he went down again, even with a pony, he would still have run OOA (a pony doesn't do anyhthing for inattention and many don't have SPGs anyway), and rocketed to the surface, however this time he would have had an extra few minutes at depth.

Even a whole SCUBA shop full of gear won't make up for a series of bad decisions.

Terry

Well... maybe???

He did what he did. We can't assume that he would have deployed the pony when had the freeflow.

On his second descent he went down on his primary tank. I would think that he would not have deployed his pony until he ran out of air. At that point his pony might have provided enough air for a normal ascent. Guess it depends on the size of the pony.

On the 2nd descent, if he ran out of air, deployed his pony and continued his search for the lost buddy,,,,,, then that's a totally different argument.

A serious breakdown in the buddy system is a prescription for disaster and by no means am I suggesting any equipment makes up for stupid but I've done some pretty stupid things in my life even when I knew better. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I don't carry a pony either. However, this story does give me pause to wonder.

 

[Peter Guy]

Boxcar wrote

The problem, of course, is that no amount of training you have will make your partner a responsible dive buddy.

To which I must reply, WRONG! My training to make me a very good buddy (I'm talking theoretically here!) also includes having a discussion with the "buddy-to-be" while on the surface which outlines what I expect from him. It includes "lost buddy procedures", OOA procedures, who leads, what formation, etc.

It is certainly true that the "buddy-to-be" might still blow everything off, BUT, there is a much better chance that, to the contrary, the "buddy-to-be" will actually BE the buddy we all (I think) want.

So, Boxcar, yes, MY training can (and has) made an "insta-buddy" a much better buddy. If your buddy doesn't have the "proper" training, it is NOT too late to start during the pre-dive brief.

 

[jkling17]

If signaling your buddy requires more than poking him in the ribs, you're diving solo. He should be right there if you have trouble.

Well it depends. Off the NJ coast in 10-20' vis - yep the buddy should be darn close all the time - within 10' max, and regularly checking to make sure they each know exactly where the other is. In warm clear Caribbean waters, a good buddy doesn't have to be quite that close - but that doesn't change how often we should look to see where they are and if they are ok.

That diver got super lucky. Going back down was close to the dumbest thing that I've heard of. I'm wondering why his buddy didn't come up looking for him after 1-2 minutes. Bad buddy ...!

 

[Boxcar Overkill]

I'll finish my involvement in this thread by saying that I think Bob's analysis is not only right, but way more insightful (and helpful) than the DAN analysis. But I don't think any of that makes DA Aquamaster's point untrue. Which means I disagree with Peter - I don't think I can reliably make my insta-buddy an effective piece of safety equipment by brieifing him before the dive.

Granted, I'm less experienced than either of those three divers, but that's my opinion.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

I think Boxcar overkill made a good point - none of this has any bearing on the reality that many buddies are bad at staying together and current effeorts to create any significnat change in that among recreational divers have failed. We need to consider what we do differently in terms of eqwuipment in light of that reality.

I also agree that the diver's mistake was not directly related to a failiure of the buddy system or to the lack of a pony, but you have to ask whether the implied demands of a buddy system provided a motivation to de descend. It clearly did as after all he would not have went down again if he were solo. (a similar psychological factor is at often work in accidents that result in double fatalities among the buddy team.) Also, you have to ask if the use of a pony by the missing buddy, and the knowledge of the nonsurfaced buddy that the other diver had a pony and by inference a degree of redundancy would have reduced the perceived need to go back down to notify and or support the buddy still on the bottom.

I also feel that used properly, a pony would have still prevented an OOA ascent. If the diver had done the same thing - ascend on his freeflowing reg, then finish a safety stop when it stopped freeflowing (keeping the pony in reserve as a last resort source of gas) or alternatively switched to the pony immediately and shut down the freeflowing reg (using the pony as a menas to prserves the maximum amount of gas), the gas available on the second dive, through either adequate gas in the primary with some reserve in the pony, or a full pony with some reserve in the primary tank would have either prevented the OOA situation or ensured enough gas in one tank or the other to make a safe ascent and safety stop.

The only argument would then be whether the extra gas would have made him more likely to choose to redescend (still the wrong decision) but it is a moot point as he did it anyway with no reserve gas at all.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

Sounds like you already bought stock in a pony bottle manufacturing company. Congratulations, I am sure you are going to get rich.

You are implying my arguments are based on some self serving financial interest or are based on a desire to sell equipment.

It is in fact a personal attack and an effort to discredit my arguments by discrediting me personally - an approach that is not logically valid. I can't count the number of times a defense attorney has lacked a case and resorted to discrediting me as a witness. It sends a pretty clear message anytime it happens in court or on SB.

If you lack a valid response, stop typing. Peronal attacks are not allowed under the TOS.

 

[Bismark]

Lighten up dude. This is not a court of law and it is looks silly when someone tries to make it one. You are entitled to your opinions regarding pony bottles and so am I.

Someone didn't have their coffee this morning.