Dangerous psychology- Diving beyond one's training

[MXGratefulDiver]

Getting back to this for a moment ...

I agree, scuba diving is more than simple physics and basic math. That's not what I said, though. I said the theoretical education of planning dives and the information required to do that planning is basic physics and simple math. Literally, children can do it.

Physics and math cannot answer the question "Should I go?" Answering that question requires an understanding of the potential risks involved, and a realistic assessment of your ability to deal with them.

An example, if I may ... one of our popular destinations locally is a pair of ships, sunk as artificial reefs, off the coast of Nanaimo, Vancouver Island. Both ships have been cleaned up and prepared as suitable for both recreational and technical divers, depending on the dive plan. And although penetration is discouraged for recreationally-trained divers, it's common for divers ... even recreational instructors teaching classes ... to take students inside through some of the easier routes.

So let's say you've decided to take that "easy" stroll down Burma Road, a simple swim-through that most any reasonably competent recreational diver can handle, and at some point you decide to veer off into a side passage ... just a few feet, to see what's down there. After a couple minutes of "exploring", you turn around and head back to the main passage ... but coming to a T-intersection, you realize this isn't where you were, and you don't quite know which way to go. You check your gauges and realize that you've overstayed your welcome ... gas reserves are a bit low, and you've got only a couple minutes of NDL left. Your buddy points down one direction, and you're convinced you should go the other way.

What do you do? And why?

Technical diving, while taking more effort to plan carefully, as far as I can tell, still doesn't require any further advanced math than figuring out mixes (which may be less trivial than I realize but I assume it's not significantly more complicated than figuring nitrox MODs) and deco times. I suspect making choices like which specific gasses to use and when is where the real art of technical diving comes and that most definitely is where experience takes on a major role. Kind of like using 2 different blends of Nitrox for a given depth and a time within NDLs for either mix. Why choose 32 when 30 will do? I don't know, but I suspect as I get more Nitrox experience I'll start to develop my own beliefs and reasons for selecting a given mix other than strictly following MOD and "house blend". I believe that is more in line with what your instructor example might have been hinting at, but as I said, I'm willing to concede that may be my bias and inexperience speaking.

Technical divers need to be able to understand both the benefits and drawbacks of the mixes they choose ... at what depth a given mix is appropriate ... what the drawbacks and benefits will be for the available choices ... how the choice of breathing gas puts limits on not just depth and bottom time, but ascent rate ... what effects too much oxygen can have, and what to do in the event of an overdose ... about how much time you have at a given depth on a specific size tank ... and many other things that will be specific to the environment they're diving in.

For example, the biggest risk in cave diving isn't your choice of gas ... it's getting lost. How do you avoid it? What do you do if it happens? What to do if you lost the line? How do you tell you're going in the direction you think you are? What to do if you lose your ability to see? These are all life-and-death choices that no amount of math and physics will help you with. More importantly, what can I do to minimize the risk of having to make one of those choices?

Safe diving, at all levels, is about making good decisions. And critical to decision-making is not just the requisite knowledge, but the context that experience provides you with to apply that knowledge appropriately. It's great to know how to get yourself out of a bad situation ... it's even more critical to make decisions that will keep you from getting yourself into one. The most significant difference between recreational and technical training is an emphasis on forethought and planning that prepares you not only for the dive and the contingencies you might be called upon if the dive goes bad ... but also for the judgment to know when to scrub the dive. This has less to do with math and physics than it does with drawing on the experience-based context you've (hopefully) accumulated before embarking on dives at this level.

It's about way more than just selecting the right type and volume of gas ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[boulderjohn]

I said the theoretical education of planning dives and the information required to do that planning is basic physics and simple math. Literally, children can do it. Technical diving, while taking more effort to plan carefully, as far as I can tell, still doesn't require any further advanced math than figuring out mixes (which may be less trivial than I realize but I assume it's not significantly more complicated than figuring nitrox MODs) and deco times. I suspect making choices like which specific gasses to use and when is where the real art of technical diving comes and that most definitely is where experience takes on a major role.

I can teach the physics and math behind technical diving to a high school student who has never been in the water. That does not make that student a proficient technical diver.

What you are missing is the skill work it takes to do those dives. Decompression diving is not just a matter of going deeper and coming up slower. Cave and wreck penetration is not just a matter of bringing the right number of flashlights. It takes a surprising amount of skill to do even the basics of those dives, like navigating a delicate environment without destroying the visibility or the delicate formations around you, maintaining a precise ascent profile and holding a deco stop for 20 minutes, shooting a bag from 200 feet so that you can perform drifting deco in open water, laying line properly so that it will work for you in an emergency exit and won't interfere with someone else's diver or line laying, dropping off or picking up stage and deco bottles without losing buoyancy control, switching tanks on deco stops without losing buoyancy control, etc.

There is more to that, though. The key difference between those kinds of diving and open water recreational diving may seem minor, but it is very much a big deal--the surface is not available to you in an emergency. IN an open water NDL dive, unless you have done something really bizarre like getting your foot caught in a giant clam, you can always head to the surface in an emergency. You don't have to have any other skill. In technical diving, every problem must be solved under water, and because of the extra equipment there are extra problems. What do you do if you have a first stage or valve failure? Can you do an air share effectively without plummeting to the bottom or shooting to the surface? Can you search for a lost buddy in a cave or wreck without getting lost yourself? Can you find a lost guideline in a silt out? Can you exit a cave or wreck in a silt out while sharing air? What do you do if some mechanical problem prevents you from using a decompression bottle during a deco stop? There is much, much more.

Those skills all sound much easier than they are. In two of my cave diving classes, I was accompanied by students who were not with me on other days of training. On both days, we were exiting the cave with me in the lead. We passed through a large room with a high ceiling and a silty floor, and we then entered a much smaller, rocky passageway. The instructor (in the rear) had the other diver signal OOA, and I donated the regulator. That diver inhaled and immediately shot to the roof of the cave, fortunately a few feet above us, and I had to wait for the diver to regain buoyancy control and come back to me. That is one of the easiest skills in the list above, but neither diver, despite significant prior training, could execute it properly. The instructor had wisely waited until we were in that passage to do the skill. If he had done it a minute before, the OOA diver would have pulled me up about 30 feet to the ceiling. If the diver had plummeted instead, we would have been totally silted out. I am sure that in each case the other diver would have insisted that he or she had the skill to do an air share and maintain buoyancy control, and it took a skilled instructor to show the problem without putting both students at risk.

 

[redacted]

It takes a surprising amount of skill to do even the basics of those dives, like navigating a delicate environment without destroying the visibility or the delicate formations around you, maintaining a precise ascent profile and holding a deco stop for 20 minutes, shooting a bag from 200 feet so that you can perform drifting deco in open water, laying line properly so that it will work for you in an emergency exit and won't interfere with someone else's diver or line laying, dropping off or picking up stage and deco bottles without losing buoyancy control, switching tanks on deco stops without losing buoyancy control, etc.

Are you saying that the ONLY way one can master those specific skills is if they are taught by a certified instructor?

 

[boulderjohn]

DrBill,
If I understand you correctly, you didn't feel much narcosis at 200ft. But now you get "narced out of your gourd" at 60ft - 130ft (rec OW limit - rec advanced limit) ?
What changed? Does age play a part in narcosis? Does cumulative life time dives play a part?
My scientific (and safety) mind begs the question.

I will take the liberty of answering for Dr. Bill--he can add to it or correct it if he wishes.

The truth is that narcosis is not well understood. We have a theory on what causes it, but that theory is not truly solid. It affects different people in different ways for reasons that are not understood. I have never in my life felt any recognizable sensation of being affected, but I know I have been even while feeling fine because of an obvious impairment of my reasoning ability or memory. Other people feel something quite clearly while it is happening, anything from a euphoria to a sense of fear. In one of my classes at 150 feet, my instructor was diving on air and I had a helium mix. We switched regulators for a while, and he told me he could feel a clear difference. I could not see any difference at all.

In one study, three different groups of people were given a detailed lesson on narcosis and its effects the day before being subjected to a test in which they had to perform tasks at depth. The three groups were told very different things. One group was told that it was not a big deal and it could be managed effectively. At the other extreme, the others were told it was unavoidable and debilitating. The three groups performed roughly as they were told they would.

There seems to be some indication that people who frequently do dives that would be expected to include a narcotic effect develop some kind of immunity or tolerance to its effects. That may be the biggest factor in Dr. Bill's situation.

---------- Post added November 28th, 2012 at 09:45 AM ----------

Are you saying that the ONLY way one can master those specific skills is if they are taught by a certified instructor?

I did not say that. It is possible that someone who is not an instructor would be willing to spend many, many hours working with me for free to see that I get it. It is possible that this non-certified person may have intuited the instructional skills and tricks that are taught during certification training. It is possible that someone who has no such training could teach me all the correct skills.

And if something goes wrong on a dive like that I will have the rest of my life to find out if I made the right training decision.

 

[dadediver]

I agree with fjpatrum on the stress issue. If you have learned to cope with stress, I really think you are better prepared to cope with other kinds of acute stress.

The US military agree's with this model. You only get two bites at the apple on most evolutions. I seen very intelligent, strong minded and physically very strong men fail on the stress evolutions, while the skinny, not as smart guys breeze through the down and dirty tasks and pass. It is how you can handle different situations off the fly without letting your mind run away with the what ifs. I am not saying, there isnt a a need for training, but I seen well trained persons panic for when thier training and all of thier practices should had kicked in.

 

[fjpatrum]

Getting back to this for a moment ...


Physics and math cannot answer the question "Should I go?" Answering that question requires an understanding of the potential risks involved, and a realistic assessment of your ability to deal with them.

An example, if I may ... one of our popular destinations locally is a pair of ships, sunk as artificial reefs, off the coast of Nanaimo, Vancouver Island. Both ships have been cleaned up and prepared as suitable for both recreational and technical divers, depending on the dive plan. And although penetration is discouraged for recreationally-trained divers, it's common for divers ... even recreational instructors teaching classes ... to take students inside through some of the easier routes.

So let's say you've decided to take that "easy" stroll down Burma Road, a simple swim-through that most any reasonably competent recreational diver can handle, and at some point you decide to veer off into a side passage ... just a few feet, to see what's down there. After a couple minutes of "exploring", you turn around and head back to the main passage ... but coming to a T-intersection, you realize this isn't where you were, and you don't quite know which way to go. You check your gauges and realize that you've overstayed your welcome ... gas reserves are a bit low, and you've got only a couple minutes of NDL left. Your buddy points down one direction, and you're convinced you should go the other way.

What do you do? And why?



Technical divers need to be able to understand both the benefits and drawbacks of the mixes they choose ... at what depth a given mix is appropriate ... what the drawbacks and benefits will be for the available choices ... how the choice of breathing gas puts limits on not just depth and bottom time, but ascent rate ... what effects too much oxygen can have, and what to do in the event of an overdose ... about how much time you have at a given depth on a specific size tank ... and many other things that will be specific to the environment they're diving in.

For example, the biggest risk in cave diving isn't your choice of gas ... it's getting lost. How do you avoid it? What do you do if it happens? What to do if you lost the line? How do you tell you're going in the direction you think you are? What to do if you lose your ability to see? These are all life-and-death choices that no amount of math and physics will help you with. More importantly, what can I do to minimize the risk of having to make one of those choices?

Safe diving, at all levels, is about making good decisions. And critical to decision-making is not just the requisite knowledge, but the context that experience provides you with to apply that knowledge appropriately. It's great to know how to get yourself out of a bad situation ... it's even more critical to make decisions that will keep you from getting yourself into one. The most significant difference between recreational and technical training is an emphasis on forethought and planning that prepares you not only for the dive and the contingencies you might be called upon if the dive goes bad ... but also for the judgment to know when to scrub the dive. This has less to do with math and physics than it does with drawing on the experience-based context you've (hopefully) accumulated before embarking on dives at this level.

It's about way more than just selecting the right type and volume of gas ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

You and others seem to have gotten hung up on my example of gas planning, which is something even we uneducated novices can recognize the significance of, and somehow seem to think that I believe that's all that's involved in technical diving. I don't believe that. It's one more example of people making assumptions about what I know based upon my experience level "on paper" despite never having dived with me.

As I have said several times in this thread, I'm not talking about the required skills of any particular dive being something you can learn from a book. I have repeatedly stated that in water skills can only be learned in the water.

I am saying that the theoretical education of planning a dive is easily acquired without an instructor. I am saying that any person, with a little motivation, can educate themselves well enough to do risk assessment, for themselves, on any dive available to do anywhere in the world. It is up to the individual to then decide whether or not that is a dive they want to do given their current skill set. Risk assessment is what all of this boils down to and no one can decide someone else's risk tolerance. Plain and simple, no matter how much we say "get more training" there will always be individuals who will push well beyond the limits of their training. Many will survive, by luck. Some will survive, by skill. Some will die, arguably also by luck, but I think most of us would agree more by being foolish.

My point was that those decisions and level of information isn't the education I was referring to learning on your own, though I believe a lot of it can be with just more diving under your belt. I have taken PADI OW and TDI Basic Nitrox. I think I have 27 dives now. I'm slowly ticking off the things I think will get me to where I can do the dives I want to do with any boat out there. I've done a few dives down to 85-90 feet. I've done a dozen more in the 60-70 foot range. Most of my dives are in the 40-60 foot range. I can safely perform a CESA from 90 feet, I've practiced it. I've done a dozen or so night dives, I've done surf entries, boat entries, drift dives, now a couple dry dives, cold water dives, warm water dives, and had a camera on almost every dive to this point. I have had several "emergencies" (as folks here often consider them) that I dealt with just fine, generally on my own. I've never panicked and I've dealt with these "emergencies" because of previous "stress management" (What TStormdiver quoted as ' Essentially summed up in Sheck Exley's quotation, "Survival depends on being able to suppress anxiety and replace it with calm, clear, quick and correct reasoning..." ' ) training I've had in various other activities I've participated in over the last 20 years. Am I qualified to do the Andrea Doria? No. Any cave, anywhere? No. Could I plan those dives on paper? Absolutely, given a week or two of time to do research and get a little book learnin'. Would I then go and do those dives? Not on your life, let alone mine. But that has to do, as I've said before, with my own risk tolerance. Nothing more, nothing less. The research I could do in a couple of weeks time would realistically make me all too aware of what the real risks are- even the ones I don't know of at this moment.

Someone made a suggestion that I put my money where my mouth is and make a comparison of what I think I know before a class versus what I know after the class. I plan to do that, if I remember, after whatever class I take next. Right now I have no courses on the horizon but I think it would be a great way see if I know what I think I know. I understand the concept of "you don't know what you don't know" and I actually tend to believe it. I just think it's abused in threads like this when someone asks a question or suggests something a bit askew of the bell-curve of what most of us find acceptable progression. You see it in every "Should I solo dive" thread there is and your article sums up the decision tree fairly well, I believe. In the end, each individual must make the choice and the diving community as a whole hopes for the best outcome.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

Truer than you think.

I think it safe to say that neither of us is qualified to assess the other's diving or experience level -- and since you and I would never be dive buddies, that's not much of a problem. You would be wise to stick to pontificating in generalities, rather than commenting on the extent of others' personal knowledge.

 

[DCBC]

...I am saying that the theoretical education of planning a dive is easily acquired without an instructor. I am saying that any person, with a little motivation, can educate themselves well enough to do risk assessment, for themselves, on any dive available to do anywhere in the world.

I'm sorry, but your mistaken. Everyone with the interest to learn has to start somewhere. From your description, you're off to a good start. I encourage you to find an experienced mentor (not necessarily a 'certified' instructor) and dive.

The most important things that you'll learn about diving in the years to come, will not come out of a book, but by doing. After you establish a firm foundation, the greatest majority of your future diving knowledge will come through others and personal diving experience.

The only source of knowledge is experience. - Albert Einstein

 

[NAM001]

The utopic answer is certainly NO. Statistically speeking it is another matter altogether. A lot of if's have to be right to make that work. The big question is how do you know when you have it right. Does that mentor know when it is right or do they just have a lot of dives compared to you and an assumprption is made? Often what is tagged right and what works best for the mentor are 2 diffferent things. When a mentor is teaching what works best for him as the standard, things can go south when done that way in an ennvironment that is not what the mentor dives. I know that the qualilty of the instructor can negate the effectiveness of official training standards. That is obvious from the quality of many beginners that are dumped off in the water with new cards. From that aspect mentors may be much better than agency instructors. However , for the serious training matters, i use certified instructors for the verifiable completion of standards and mentors for how to improve the utilization of those skills and perhaps prep me for further training. For me there are not that many serious training courses. perhaps a half dozen, and all fundimental courses. mentor training = boat, nav, equipment, photo, and those courses that are designed to enhance the diving experience or build upon the basic training. The basics ow-aow/deep/nitrox/dry suit/trimix/tech/penitration related/rebreather/deco need to be done by a trained instructor. Mentors for me give me the basis to get the most out of formal training. Ther one word in your statement is the word MASTER that i believe is a multi purpose word. From being a instructor and working in the field. (navy) what constitutes mastering skills for the purposes of meeting training requirenents and what it is for operational effectiveness are 2 different things. Statistically an instructor will never,never,never make you competant in your endevor. mentors do that. Instruction give you the basics. Mentors coupled with repeditive appication develope profienciency. The best training i have had was when formal instruction was done in a mentoring fashon. I guess that means i was over qualified for the established regimantation of the course, or i should have taken that training long ago when i was the equivilant standard trainee model for that level of training. Mentors will never be without a purpose in diver training or should i say developement but without instructors assigned standards for the expectations of various traing levels the distinctness of those levels become a blur and then meaningless.

Are you saying that the ONLY way one can master those specific skills is if they are taught by a certified instructor?

 

[redacted]

I know that the qualilty of the instructor can negate the effectiveness of official training standards.

I would add that the quality of official training standard may limit best practices in scuba. How many years did the official training agencies deny recreational divers the benefits of nitrox? How much longer will they uphold the low standards that compromise safety in the name of profits?