DAN Report thoughts

[seabass]

The key problem with the statistics as mike pointed out in the original post is no one knows how many dives are being done. Asking for government regulation or changes in training policy (which would be expensive and involve risk) without knowing the frequency of accidents just doesn't make sense. If there were 10 accidents in a year and 1 billion dives, it doesn't make sense to change a thing. In light of that frequency it may mean that the divers share some rare psychological problem that leads them to freak out under stress. Now clearly there aren't 1 billion dives going on, but how about 10 million? Padi claims that there might be between 1.6-2.9 million active divers in the US which represent 35% of the worldwide divers. That is 4.5-8.3M active divers in the world. Let's use the low number and assume that they dive on average 4 dives a year. that is around 18 million dives/year. Lets say that there are about 1000 accidents a year and 100 fatalities. Based on the assumptions this could represent the upper bound for accident frequency. This would mean that there is about 1 accident in 18000 dives and 1 death in 180000 dives. Before beginning any program or trying to change the way things are done, you have to have an idea of the current state so that you can measure the cost benefit of any change you make. I personally think 1 accident out of 18000 dives sounds very safe and potentially doesn't require any formal change in the training (which would be very expensive). However it would depend on the accident rates relative to other types of activities.

If you believe that we should be trying to get the accident rate to zero then there really is no basis for a discussion.

 

[seaangel]

I am in the middle of completing the Stress and Rescue course through SSI and I have some recent thoughts on this discussion. It is correct to say that SSI does not have a Peak Performance Bouyancy course, however speaking only from my experience with my instructors, I found that after my OW cert they were more than willing to continue my training and work with me on all of my skills. They encouraged me to continue to dive with them and other experienced divers in our area to learn more. One of the divers that I have spent more than 50 dives with now told me early on that my OW cert was my license to learn. Demonstrating to the agencey that I was able to perform the skills necessary to dive and knew the important safety issues to diving. It did not say I was automatically dubbed proficient in these skills. It takes practice to become proficient in any skill.

I have 88 logged dives since May 21, 2001, I have been to alot of various dive sites and local sites. I have made the majority of these under the guidance of either my instructor or his designated divers that by the old school completed what was then known as "Experience Course" now would be the Master Diver Certification for SSI. I am still learning and continue to work on my skills. Bouyancy I found is not a problem, but I still work on it. I found out that different salt water even with the same wetsuit and gear can change the weight you need, so did these experienced divers, we all were underweighted on our first dive in Cozumel this past July. Yet, two weeks before we all dove in West Palm with no problem using the same weights. The key is Awareness of what is going on.

I spent an hour in the pool last evening to practice my basic skills, which I have to redemonstrate again to my instructor for the Stress and Rescue certification. I had to demonstrate them the night before last in the pool and then repeat them at the lake Sat. I was the only one in our group that came last night to practice. Am I anxious, no by no means just see that practicing helps to make these skills as natural as I can. Face it we are two legged mammals that live on land, not built for underwater life.

I think rather than trying to find fault with the different agencies or place blame on the taught skills people need to take more responsibility for themselves. No one can make another person be responsible they have to do it themselves.

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[O-ring]

...and it seems fitting here. There is a difference between people who just want to breathe underwater and people who want to be divers. Another signature from somebody on this board (I can't remember who, sorry) is also poignant - "A diver who photographs what she sees, not a photographer who dives." Most of the people in my dive club are photographers who dive..

Some cannot understand why one would waste time practicing skills in a murky quarry or lake when you don't *have* to do it since you already have a c-card. A buddy I dive with had the same discussions with his girlfriend (also a diver). She couldn't get why he kept going out to the quarry with us ("haven't you seen everything in there by now?", etc.). When he finally explained to her that he approaches diving like a sport, say skiing or golf, and that you have to practice to be good at it, she understood and left him alone to his quarry glory.

I don't think these two factions in diving, labled here according to my nomenclature, the "underwater tourists" and the "divers" will ever really understand one another.

 

[DeepSeaDan]

Hey Mike...

I like your philosophy.

I too go to significant lengths to impress upon my charges the absolute necessity of conservatism as the cornerstone of safe diving. How one must learn to crawl before they can walk, & perhaps oneday even to run.

Someone on this board opined an Instructor candidate should have a minimum of 500 dives in varying conditions before being considered eligible to train others. I think this individual is correct. There are far too many inexperienced divers joining the Instructor ranks for too long & I believe this to be a disservice to the student & a potential recipe for disaster. There is NO substitute for experience. Above all else, it engenders a sense of respect for the water & a knowledge of the many pitfalls awaiting the ill-prepared/attitudeinally challenged neophyte diver.

Should minimum standards be elevated? Perhaps, though a good start would be to drop "Advanced Diver" in favour of the older "Open Water II" designation. The word "advanced", in my mind, evokes a false sense of achievement/ability in the mind of the student. This travesty is compounded by the ridiculously insignificant number of dives required to become an "Advanced" diver. A concerted effort could be made to bring back the students for supplementary training/diving experience under the watchful eye of diving leaders. After a time, & maybe about 50 dives, the students should be eligible for an "Advanced" rating.

The economics of the dive industry has effectively deep-sixed this rationale in favour of faster, user-friendly programs "for todays busy lifestyle!" Problem is, the water is still as dangerous as it ever was; it pays no heed to how "busy" we are.

You & I, other like-minded Instructors on this board & elsewhere will continue in our ways, & work on the outside to try to improve the state of the art. Having such a widely read forum as this is an invaluable tool in getting the message across & I congratulate, once again, the people behind this fine site for making it as good as it gets.

Best Regards,
D.S.D.

 

[MikeFerrara]

To pick a new starting point with some numbers...

More than half involved procedural problems on the part of the diver.

4% running out of gas
5% unspecified equipment problems
8% missed decompression
nearly 25% reported rapid ascents
More than 40% percent of those injured reported difficulty maintaining buoyancy

Does this point to poor skills as a significant problem or am I am alarmist as Popeye states?

Does the fact that vis in our local quaries goes away when a few divers get in the water suggest that poor skills are common or am I just an alarmist? There are many posts on this very board by others who have seen the same thing so I think we can rule out my imagination.

Are the average depths stated in the report appropriate depth for these injured divers or divers with a similar skill level?

IMO poor buoyancy control and depth don't mix concidering the consequence of CO2 retention and narcosis. Cold water adds an additional degree of buoyancy contro difficulty because of the additional suit worn, suit compression and the amout of weight carried.

There was a post on this board a while back where someone told of a bucnh of free flows they witnessed in one weekend at Gilboa, some of which If I remember resulted in rapid ascents. I will look for the thread.

 

[O-ring]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...
To pick a new starting point with some numbers...

More than half involved procedural problems on the part of the diver.

4% running out of gas
5% unspecified equipment problems
8% missed decompression
nearly 25% reported rapid ascents
More than 40% percent of those injured reported difficulty maintaining buoyancy

Does this point to poor skills as a significant problem or am I am alarmist as Popeye states?

Does the fact that vis in our local quaries goes away when a few divers get in the water suggest that poor skills are common or am I just an alarmist? There are many posts on this very board by others who have seen the same thing so I think we can rule out my imagination.

Are the average depths stated in the report appropriate depth for these injured divers or divers with a similar skill level?

IMO poor buoyancy control and depth don't mix concidering the consequence of CO2 retention and narcosis. Cold water adds an additional degree of buoyancy contro difficulty because of the additional suit worn, suit compression and the amout of weight carried.

There was a post on this board a while back where someone told of a bucnh of free flows they witnessed in one weekend at Gilboa, some of which If I remember resulted in rapid ascents. I will look for the thread.

Look at the two main problem areas that were reported by injured divers... #1 was Buoyancy and #2 was Rapid Ascent...anyone see a commonality here?

On the topic of that thread...if you can find it...IMO, free flows should not result in rapid ascents. I bet this is due to people freaking out and holding their breath (breathing too deeply and exhaling too slowly, etc.) while trying to deal with the freeflow. Why aren't people practicing this if they are diving in conditions where the water might be cold enough to cause freezing?

 

[MikeFerrara]

The story of the 5 free flows in a weekend at gilboa can be found here

here

 

[Popeye]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...
To pick a new starting point with some numbers...

It would help if we knew more about the sample group. Are these DAN numbers? And how many there were (728?). And what year this was.

Now, for the purposes of discussion, how many dives do you assume take place in the US (and Carribean. if applicable) each year?

Your sample is meaningless without a base line.

It's like a one armed man holding up one hand and saying "I caught a fish this big".

More than half involved procedural problems on the part of the diver.

What did the other half entail?

4% running out of gas

Due to what? What kind of dives? What experience level? How many were regulator failure? SPG failure? Actual OOA (negligence)?

5% unspecified equipment problems

What skills problem does this indicate? How can you attribute this to diver error?

8% missed decompression

Due to what? What level of training? OW or GUE Tech 3? What kind of dive? Was the missed deco intentional? Does this include blowing safety stops?

nearly 25% reported rapid ascents

Why? From what depth? Narced? Poor procedure? Didn't even realize they were ascending?

More than 40% percent of those injured reported difficulty maintaining buoyancy

Why? What level of diver certification? How much experience?

Does this point to poor skills as a significant problem or am I am alarmist as Popeye states?

This is such a lack of information that it's stunning. Alarmist. 728 "incidents" out of several million dives. Little or no specific information on the cause of the incident. A declining incident rate for over 30 years.

It's insignificant. The only information this report provides is a heads-up for points that divers can self monitor, and possibly improve on.

Does the fact that vis in our local quaries goes away when a few divers get in the water suggest that poor skills are common or am I just an alarmist? There are many posts on this very board by others who have seen the same thing so I think we can rule out my imagination.

With this virtually invisible -splinter- of information, how can you insinuate the "trend"? How do these numbers compare to previous years? How many new divers are added to the baseline (192,000 from PADI alone)?

Are the average depths stated in the report appropriate depth for these injured divers or divers with a similar skill level?

What average depths? What was the certification and experience level of each of the injured divers, in relation to the depth that they were injured at?

Did the OW rookie get bent from 90 ft? Or was it the Trimix Cave diver?

IMO poor buoyancy control and depth don't mix concidering the consequence of CO2 retention and narcosis. Cold water adds an additional degree of buoyancy contro difficulty because of the additional suit worn, suit compression and the amout of weight carried.

What is this continual reference to CO2? Do you have a study for that as well? Another boogie man?

There's nothing here to form an opinion on, Mike. Just a very poor crutch for the argument that you already have.

It's a half empty glass of water kinda thing.

Is this 728 divers in 200,000?

728 dives gone wrong out of 3,000,000?

I would suggest answering this one statistic at a time, or the post will be huge.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Popeye,

I don't need the number of divers in the universe or the number of dives they conducted because I'm ont trying to calculate the probability that any one will be injured.

I wouldn't try to use the data for probability calculations. It doesn't take detailed calculations to know that buoyancy control problems can be dangerous and can lead to rapid ascents.

Are you saying that since the vast majority of divers with poor buoyancy control don't get hurt that it's ok if some do?

All I gather from the DAN data is a description of the characteristics of the divers involved in incedents. They seem to be among other things divers with poor buoyancy control. I say that because 40% of the injured divers reported buoyancy control problems.

BTW this thread and my post refers to the same report. It is the 2002 report which contains data from the year 2000

 

[MikeFerrara]

Popeye once bubbled...


It's insignificant. The only information this report provides is a heads-up for points that divers can self monitor, and possibly improve on.

Your catching on now I think

What is this continual reference to CO2? Do you have a study for that as well? Another boogie man?

Yes but not on the net that I know of. I almost don't believe you took a trimix class. Didn't any of your training include diving phisiology specificaly the effects of CO2 build up? The effects were well covered in the text I was required to study with references to scientific studies.