Devils Throat TAKE LIGHT

[MikeFerrara]

I am questioning the wisdom of posting here even as I type this. As is often the case with these boards, unless you check them religiously, you will more than likely have your posterior picked apart, shredded, bisected, dissected, or all-of-the-above for no reason other than someone got bored. Regardless of what one attempts to communicate, someone else will always know more. That said…

Well, I suppose I'll pick part of your post apart but not because I'm bored.

Unlike most who have been unrelentingly critical, pompously superior, and exemplary in the “Monday morning quarterback/divemaster” department, I was actually ON this dive that has sparked so much speculation. A few salient points:

Pompously superior?

1. Maybe I have a death wish but I have NEVER considered Devil’s Throat a technically demanding dive.

It wouldn't be a challenging dive for many...but we know it's proved more than that for some right?

Terms like “overhead environment,” “cavern training,” “accident analysis” may excite some folks but they don’t do much to enhance my diving experiences.

Those terms don't exist for the purpose of exciting anybody. The overhead training that is designed around accident analysis exists so that divers can take a sensible approach to diving in an environment that has otherwise proven to be very dangerous. More specifically the goal is to avoid incidents like this one. Historically it's been shown to be very effective.

Whether or not it has or could enhance your diving experience is one issue. Whether or not it could have enhanced the dive experience of the women who almost drowned is another.

IMO, to write off such knowledge and training in light of incidents like this seems...well...Pompously superior.

Devil’s Throat, while deep, is a few kicks in a dark tunnel. I’ve done caves, cenotes, and wrecks from Palau to the Papua New Guinea. I’ve done night dives in pitch black on the Great Barrier Reef. Devil’s Throat doesn’t come close to the thrills or challenges garnered when you drop down in a ripping current in the Galapagos and you’re fighting a moray for a bit of volcanic rock to grab onto before your mask gets ripped off. By the current and there's always a current.

Your world wide wreck and reef adventures, while very interesting, don't seem related to the fact that this and other "deep dark tunnels" have presented certain problems.

One might ask, how to avoid those problems in "deep dark tunnels"?

Note how "tunnel" seems to imply "overhead environment", one of the terms that you've found not to excite you. The very phrase "deep dark tunnel" actually identifies several of the "specific hazards" of overhead environments. The commonly accepted approach to managing those specific hazards of course being generally described by the "rules of accident analysis"...repeated again for clearity
1, Be trained for the environment.
2, have 3 lights (the sun counts as one)
3, reserve 2/3rds of your gas for exit
4, have a continuous guidline
5, keep depth or END above 130

Something DID go wrong last week in Cozumel but unless you are clairvoyant, psychic, telepathic, or have the ability to do a Vulcan mind meld, you don’t know if you would have made any other choices on this dive. Again, I was there.

One does not need to be clairvoyant to know that there is a HUGE amount of historical data showing that most accidents in underwater overhead environments have been cause by failure to follow one or more of the above listed general rules of accident analysis.

Sure – bring a light. Sure – stay with your buddy. If you can honestly say you’ve never had a buddy get away from you, you’ve never had someone panic near you, and you’ve never done a dive you thought was a tad challenging after the fact, well then you’ve been extraordinarily lucky.

Your predilection for the irrelevant continues. Whether or not I've had a buddy get away from me or had someone panic near me or have been lucky or not just doesn't seem at all related to the incident being discussed.

I dive with steel 120’s which are readily available with this DO so a discourse on aluminum 80’s is moot. I dive with 120’s AND do nitrox on the second dive as a safety buffer zone. Those are my choices. To attempt to dictate someone else’s preferences or second guess their choices with the luxury of hindsight? Try herding cats. Ultimately, you are responsible for yourself and, if you’re wise, a competent buddy.

I didn't notice anyone here dictating anything to anyone. We are all free to kill ourselves as we see fit.

3. I have often glibly said “you put your life in the DM’s hands,” but I didn’t realize how true that was until last week.

That seems to be the prevailing attitude in diving. May there always be a really good DM very close by.

I’ve had masks ripped away and air turned off and fins loosened. For training and for fun. (I know. Odd sense of humor.) But, having been there, I would not second guess what happened on this particular dive. As I said to TexasScuba53 the night before they left - WE learned a cheap lesson that day. WE watched and learned at someone else’s expense. Fortunately, WE all came out okay. And for that I will be eternally grateful.

Well, he has already stated the lesson he learned. What did you learn?

4. And here’s something to ponder – how do you know what your reaction will be when it is a loved one who is in trouble? I saw someone blow an O ring at 80 feet while right next to the Rescue Diver certified spouse. The spouse panicked and literally tried to hold the first stage to keep the air from escaping. Not a good plan. Fortunately, the diver with the damaged equipment knew enough to get a hold of the spouse’s octopus and calmly turn the tank off. I am convinced that had it been someone other than the spouse, the reaction would have been different. And I will never say which diver was the husband and which was the wife. J

There’s a lot to be said for training and advanced certifications but you can’t possibly know how you will react if it’s a loved one’s life at stake. I don’t care how well qualified you think you are. Until it happens to you, you don’t know what you will do. Trust me on this one. I am all for post ops and discussions and we on this dive discussed it. Ruminated. Mulled it over. Wondered. And hugged.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here but the purpose of training is to make some of those unknowns a little more known.

Sorry to be so long winded. Maybe that's really why I dive with 120's. Tone and tenor carry a lot of weight with me. Sanctimonious posturing does little to enlighten us as to how to do it better. Finger pointing? I’ve got the finger for you. Be well all - sbc

Rather than offering or disputing content you focus on ad hominem attacks of those who have. You have a finger for...well there you go. It's settled then.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Yes, I think you're right. Critical incident review last for weeks and include the interviews of everyone who came in contact with the event to ensure all perspectives are captured. More info is needed.

That's true when you are starting from scratch or otherwise must assume a unique situation. While there may be many possible secondary of complicating factors, when it comes to dive accidents in overhead environments there is a large amount of existing data. I think we could make a statistically sound case for looking first at the application of those 5 rules of accident analysis. A lot of the initial analysis has already been done and I haven't see anything offered here that would lead me to believe that it isn't applicable in this case.

IMO, what calls for some analysis here is the fact that we have such a large number of divers who are willing to ignore that entire body of knowledge backed by so much historical data and why they somehow feel that it doesn't apply to them.

All said, of course, with full knowledge that someone will soon step in and again make accusations of sanctimonious posturing and offer me another finger or something.

 

[Ron Brandt]

IMO, what calls for some analysis here is the fact that we have such a large number of divers who are willing to ignore that entire body of knowledge backed by so much historical data and why they somehow feel that it doesn't apply to them.

So true Mike, so true.

Ron

 

[Jarrett]

Huhhh???? If you are referring to my post, I fail to see where I was seeking unsolicited or uninformed opinions...

Nah, mostly Mike Ferrari.

 

[Rick Inman]

Of course lacking the grounds or ability to do that [dispute content] you can always try something else.

Hee hee... That's often my strategy when I blow out of argument gas.

I've enjoyed reading this thread - especially your elitist posts, Mike , from which, if I shut up and listen long enough, I always learn something. Thanks for your input.

It's become cliché to say that diving the Devil's throat requires more training than most have who make the dive. It's also cliché' to say that if you point your B-B-Gun at you best friend you could shoot his eye out. Both may be true, but both take the fun out of it, and is advise often ignored.

Fact: People will continue to dive the Devils Throat who have zero cave/cavern training.

Fact: Most people will survive with nothing but good memories.

Fact: More "incidents" will occur, and then, more discussion on ScubaBoard.

Hope: Some SB members will read these threads and not do the dive because of what they've read, and save themselves from having an incident.

Question: Would dive opps who refuse to take OW divers to the DT lose business? Are dive opps motivated to do this dive for that reason?

I am questioning the wisdom of posting here even as I type this. As is often the case with these boards, unless you check them religiously, you will more than likely have your posterior picked apart, shredded, bisected, dissected, or all-of-the-above for no reason other than someone got bored. Regardless of what one attempts to communicate, someone else will always know more. That said…

Unlike most who have been unrelentingly critical, pompously superior, and exemplary in the “Monday morning quarterback/divemaster” department, ...
... Sanctimonious posturing does little to enlighten us as to how to do it better. Finger pointing? I’ve got the finger for you.

Well, in your first ScubaBoard post, you have managed to insult the vast majority of members, you've belittled the very concept of posting on this board, and then you've given us the finger as a parting shot.

The good news is, you can always come back with helpful, thought-out and educated posting and redeem yourself. Some of us have found that if you listen to others who you disagree with, dialog with them respectfully and open your mind to other ideas, you can actually learn something and be a better, safer dive from having posted on this board.

Hope you come back! Evidently you've enjoyed lurking, so why not contribute?

 

[scubadobadoo]

Nah, mostly Mike Ferrari.

I fail to see where Mike's posts are unsolicited or uninformed? They may be a bit intense and more than the OP had in mind, but this is a public forum so anyone is allowed to post so out goes the unsolicited idea. As for uninformed, I see you have less than 50 dives. Have you ever tried to tell a teenager that one day they might understand? Well, it usually doesn't work and they end up resenting you for even saying something like that.

All that said, this thread is going nowhere now. It's turning personal and zero learning is taking place at this point. I agree with Mike's posts but they are IMHO getting a little heavy handed now.

For the record, I have no interest in diving this specific site and have turned it down when offered in the past. I see no more at 130 feet than I see at 40 feet.

 

[redacted]

Hope: Some SB members will read these threads and not do the dive because of what they've read, and save themselves from having an incident.

And probably more will think about the added dangers inherent to that dive and many other dives involving swimthroughs, talk about those dangers with their buddies and others, do the what ifs, and ultimately do that dive in a safer manner than they would have without this thread and Mike's help.

 

[pilot fish]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this dive site should be reclassified as a cave dive and cave dive training required to do this dive safely?

By definition/convention a cavern is just the lighted portion of a cave. The configuration of the cave doesn't have anything to do with it. Leaving the lighted zone puts you in a cave.

What makes overhead training applicable is that it's in an overhead. A couple of years ago PADI came out with a statement concerning "swim throughs". They allowed an exception the the "no overheads" rule in OW training because of some of the neat little toys in dive parks. I don't have the documents handy but, if I remember correctly, they essentially outlined their intent and then left it up to the instructor what constitutes a swim through. As far as I'm concerned if it takes more than a couple kicks to get out, it isn't a swim through. In either case, leaving the lighted zone is never going to make it as a swim through.

What's a beter measure though? OW divers, in theory, are taught to dive in open water meaning that they ALWAYS have direct access to the surface. Let me ask you a question. Worst case, if you decide that you have to go up immediately while in devils throat, how far do you have to go to an exit (worst case)? If there are indeed sections where two divers can't pass through side by side and you aren't using long hoses or redundant breathing equipment you have to be able to do it without breathing because you can't count on being able to share. If you can honestly say that there is no overhead barrier that is any factor or that could cause a significant delay then I would agree that no overhead training is needed. If the answer is anything else then you have some things to think about. Namely, if you have a problem what are you going to do? The problem could be anything from a lost mask to a catastophic gas loss. Personally I am not a repecter of certification cards but you can't breath water.

 

[Dan Gibson]

And what have your posts offered. Absolutely nothing. Mike has offered sound advice for those who wish to listen. If one choses not to follow it, fine, but don't try to disuade others from learning.

Nah, mostly Mike Ferrari.

 

[pilot fish]

Thanks.

After reading Mike, you and some others I realize that more concern and prep should go into these tyes of dives.

PF, you've asked a good question.

I started a thread a few days ago about the "what ifs". I think most of us who do primarily recreational dives don't think about the "what ifs" very much. Diving is amazingly safe, considering the hostile environment in which it takes place. Recreational diving, particularly at moderate depth, really does allow escape to the surface, and consciously or subconsciously, we all count on that.

What the poor lady involved in this incident found out is that overhead environments DON'T allow that escape. If all goes well (and the vast majority of the time, it does) you swim through this passage and come out the other side exhilarated and excited by the experience. When a problem occurs, though, you are in a narrow, dark passage from which you MUST exit before you can even begin an ascent. Apparently, which I didn't know, the swimthrough is even more fraught with hazard because there is apparently light you can see which is NOT an exit, and in fact belongs to a passage in which you can get stuck. So if you have a problem and get frightened and head for the nearest light, you can end up like the woman in the incident -- stuck, scared, buddyless and without the training and skills to cope with the situation. Compound this with the depth, where everybody is going to be at least a little compromised by narcosis, and you have a recipe for a disaster which was only averted in this case by the prompt and amazingly successful actions of the DM and the dive op.

A lot comes down to how you want to think about risk. If you want to take the position that 99.9% of the time this swimthrough is uneventful, so you count on it being so for you, you've got a pretty good chance of being right. If you look at it the other way, in the rare occasion that something DOES go wrong, it's so likely to be lethal that you may not want to take that risk. I don't. The combination of depth, dark and overhead is more than I want to play with.

I'm going to go dive caves. But I'm going to do it with full training, proper equipment, the right buddies, and only if I've been evaluated and judged capable of keeping my composure and solving problems underwater by an uncompromising evaluator.

Somebody made the observation a while back that cave divers aren't extreme sports folks -- they aren't into the adrenaline of risk. They're actually quite boring, tedious, methodical people who are obsessive about details and risk-averse. That's me.