Dive boat procedures for administering O2

[Thalassamania]

So the answer is... "It depends..."

Knowing that it's rare to have a deco chamber on board these science vessels (though there are some that do) and even rarer that they have the new inflatable deco chambers (yes they exist)... so assuming there isn't one on board...

No National Science Foundation vessels that I know of.

Most of the guys I know that'd be doing this kind of diving would probably ask for an O2 bottle and head back down to 20 or 30 ft. for a bit to alleviate the pain and symptoms... ok, even deeper than that. They would likely do in water deco since it's a mild hit.

Water is close to zero and the divers is on the edge of shivering already.

Know several that routinely (monthly?, quarterly?) get mild hits for strange reasons (ok, they don't dive conservatively and they dive often)... do this.

If I had any kind of hit, not to mention one on a "routine basis" I might just rethink what I'm doing and how I'm doing it.

 

[plongeursousmarin]

Maybe I did not explain what happened very well. There were between 25 to 30 people on board, many of whom newbies or on checkout dives and such, and the there was just 4-5 of us aware of anything wrong with our buddy. Our buddy finally informed the crew as people were jumping in already (he had intentionally waited until the deck was cleared of people, he was very self-conscious, maybe he did not want to freak out new divers who knows?), some were already well into their dive. Reading all the posts on this thread, it seems like people think that everything's cut and dried. It hardly ever is, and it was not in this case. For Chrissakes, the captain talked to DAN. I don't know what was said in that conversation but all I know is that our buddy was not put on O2. I did not want to go in for the second dive, I felt like you all, that I should stay around instead of going in and having my little fun, yet the victim, his buddy and the crew (captain and DM) insisted I go - I mean really insisted (I know this crew well, I dive with them often). So I dove. I know it's easy for you all to judge from behind the computer screen, if you'd been on that boat maybe you would have been confused about what to do as well and you would have said OK, there are already 20 people in the water, the captain, the DM the sick guy and his buddy insist that I go do my dive, so I guess I'll go, it was not like people were stepping over a dying guy writhing in pain on their way to the transom to do their giant stride. All I was asking was what are the procedures about administering O2 because when I asked the captain whether he'd used it on our buddy after I came back on board, he told me that weird answer ("no otherwise we have to take him in"), which really threw me. I tried to be as objective as possible in the account that I gave but I can't help living the events from my own perspective... Anyway our buddy is fine, I dove with him 2 weeks ago, he got checked out and his condition is not related to diving from what his MD told him.

 

[Dadvocate]

Try this one on for size:

You're out in the middle of the North Atlantic, 4 days away from the nearest helicopter evacuation point. A diver comes up a computer that went into deco but never violated having emptyed his tank between 20 and 10 feet. The diver has a rash on his back that itches and may be skin bends or maybe drysuit squeeze. He also has a "nagging" elbow that could also be "tennis elbow".

There is an ongoing science program and the ship plus the science party represents about $25K per day (not to mention the shear impossibility of rescheduling this party of scientists onto any ship in the near future, plans are made at least two years in advance).

What do you do?

I think Pickens is on the right track already, though the specifics of in-water decompression treatments are way over may head to be honest.

Your example case relates more to the planning stages of this science mishap. If this expedition requires $25,000 a day to run, and if the scientific benefit from the research being done is important enough to continue at that time, it would be prudent to have safety measures in place relative to the type of diving being done in that expedition and the importance of keeping it going.

It boils down to logistics in the end. Given that 4 days is the time period needed to get to an evacuation point (by boat, right?), deserting the program isn’t a reasonable option anyway and won’t do much for the hit diver if indeed he is in trouble. One would need to do something at that location regardless. I think that is Picken’s point.

If things were bad and medical treatment were needed, I suppose they’d have to get a helicopter to the boat and fly quite low back to some medical facility. Long range copters can do this I suspect, though I readily admit to ignorance on this point.

Who was the female scientist at the North Pole a few years back with breast cancer who was whisked away during a warm weather window so that they could do a mastectomy? That really happened, cost loads of money and for a time interrupted the work being done in that expedition. She was also the onsite doctor I recall. They chose their peer’s life in that case and rallied behind getting her to safety.

I would argue that this would be justified in this case as well though the logistics are obviously different. The best solution comes beforehand. I would say that an on site chamber would be the best of all of the costly options.

Cheers!

 

[Dadvocate]

Plongeursousmarin

Maybe I did not explain what happened very well. There were between 25 to 30 people on board, many of whom newbies or on checkout dives and such, and the there was just 4-5 of us aware of anything wrong with our buddy. Our buddy finally informed the crew as people were jumping in already (he had intentionally waited until the deck was cleared of people, he was very self-conscious, maybe he did not want to freak out new divers who knows?), some were already well into their dive. Reading all the posts on this thread, it seems like people think that everything's cut and dried. It hardly ever is, and it was not in this case. For Chrissakes, the captain talked to DAN. I don't know what was said in that conversation but all I know is that our buddy was not put on O2. I did not want to go in for the second dive, I felt like you all, that I should stay around instead of going in and having my little fun, yet the victim, his buddy and the crew (captain and DM) insisted I go - I mean really insisted (I know this crew well, I dive with them often). So I dove. I know it's easy for you all to judge from behind the computer screen, if you'd been on that boat maybe you would have been confused about what to do as well and you would have said OK, there are already 20 people in the water, the captain, the DM the sick guy and his buddy insist that I go do my dive, so I guess I'll go, it was not like people were stepping over a dying guy writhing in pain on their way to the transom to do their giant stride. All I was asking was what are the procedures about administering O2 because when I asked the captain whether he'd used it on our buddy after I came back on board, he told me that weird answer ("no otherwise we have to take him in"), which really threw me. I tried to be as objective as possible in the account that I gave but I can't help living the events from my own perspective... Anyway our buddy is fine, I dove with him 2 weeks ago, he got checked out and his condition is not related to diving from what his MD told him.

Try not to take it too personally. Everyone makes decisions that in hindsight seem less than wise. I’m as guilty of that as the next guy/gal, and I am not merely referring to diving scenarios. The responses that you feel are chiding you are based on what you gave us at the time, and frankly on the decisions you made at the time this took place.

You state in your OP that you have concerns about what took place, and you displayed (at least in my opinion) some regret or at least some circumspection at how things were handled.

I understand that the captain talked to DAN. I understand (now) that others were already in the water. But the fact remains that the diver’s leg was to quote you quoting him “paralyzed.”

Let me ask you this question based on the information you’ve now provided: What reputable dive operator, DM, or boat captain “insists” that a diver go into the water when he or she has reservations of any kind about doing so? I’m new to this sport, but I know practically and instinctively that this is a massive no-no under any circumstances. I’ve already experienced dive operators doing this kind of thing with friends of mine in the Philippines for various reasons that involved squeezing more dives out of customers, and I no longer dive with these operators for that very reason.



On top of that, you now tell us that the diver in question appears to have hid his symptoms, perhaps not wanting to frighten others, further underscoring the idea that he was embarrassed. Instead of looking at us as ripping you a new one, ask yourself if you’d do the same thing the next time around if a diver shows the symptoms this guy did. Without hedging my bet one way or the other, if your answer is no and this response has anything to do with the feedback you’ve gotten on this thread, then I’d say the endeavor was worthwhile. If the answer is yes and the opinions expressed by other divers doesn’t produce the feeling that you’ve done anything wrong, then that is equally satisfactory for somewhat similar reasons. You are really the only person who can rate the value of what has transpired so far.

Just to make sure you don’t think I want to get all holier than thou with you, I’d like to say that I respect your candor, both in the post above and in the original OP. Insofar as you have told the truth about what has happened, you chose to open yourself up to criticism in a way that many others would not. That is as standup as it gets in my book, and I applaud anyone who is willing to do the same. Regardless of the conclusions you draw from the feedback you’ve gotten here, I’d say you deserve a nod for even stepping up to the plate in the first place. Whatever comes of this thread for you, me and everyone else is what it is. No matter what people conclude then, we all have you to thank for the thought experiment.

That is the honest truth.

Cheers!

 

[Thalassamania]

I think Pickens is on the right track already, though the specifics of in-water decompression treatments are way over may head to be honest.

In-water decompression in a polar environment is out of the question.

Your example case relates more to the planning stages of this science mishap. If this expedition requires $25,000 a day to run, and if the scientific benefit from the research being done is important enough to continue at that time, it would be prudent to have safety measures in place relative to the type of diving being done in that expedition and the importance of keeping it going.

A meeting of the best and brightest that NSF and the UHMS had to offer recommended against the facilitization of chambers on NSF vessels.

It boils down to logistics in the end. Given that 4 days is the time period needed to get to an evacuation point (by boat, right?), deserting the program isn’t a reasonable option anyway and won’t do much for the hit diver if indeed he is in trouble. One would need to do something at that location regardless. I think that is Picken’s point.

If things were bad and medical treatment were needed, I suppose they’d have to get a helicopter to the boat and fly quite low back to some medical facility. Long range copters can do this I suspect, though I readily admit to ignorance on this point.

We were four days away from the point at which the longest range helicopter available could reach us.

Who was the female scientist at the North Pole a few years back with breast cancer who was whisked away during a warm weather window so that they could do a mastectomy? That really happened, cost loads of money and for a time interrupted the work being done in that expedition. She was also the onsite doctor I recall. They chose their peer’s life in that case and rallied behind getting her to safety.

That was the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station where in 1999, the winter-over physician, Dr. Jerri Nielsen, discovered she had breast cancer and had to rely on self-administered chemotherapy using supplies dropped at great risk to the air crew in the dead of the austral winter (July). She was rescued from the station in an equally dangerous October landing. She was in deadly danger but, as the winter-over physician her crisis did not effect the ongoing research programs directly.

I would argue that this would be justified in this case as well though the logistics are obviously different. The best solution comes beforehand. I would say that an on site chamber would be the best of all of the costly options.

Cheers!

The impracticality of chambers is covered in the findings of the report cited above on Page XII and in a great article by Dr. Bill Fife of Texas A&M that begins on Page 43.

PS: It turned out to be suit squeeze.

 

[Dadvocate]

Thalassamania

In-water decompression in a polar environment is out of the question.

I saw your response to Pickens on this point. Duly noted.

A meeting of the best and brightest that NSF and the UHMS had to offer recommended against the facilitization of chambers on NSF vessels.

In the agenda of the meeting of these best and brightest minds, the specific goal of the workshop in question was to highlight the need for a physical presence at these open seas research sites and to figure out what safety procedures for scientists could be implemented without “unduly imped[ing] scientific efficiency.”

I am certainly not in any position to question the expertise of the people who attended this workshop, and I would be remiss if I assumed that I knew all the aspects being considered in these talks. Nonetheless, language is something I do know fairly well. In wording safety considerations in the context of efficiency, a worrisome motif immerges right from the opening pages of this document in my humble opinion. It seems to me that the primary focus is one that is skewed in dangerous “bottom line” thinking. This never bodes well for safety outcomes in my opinion.

And given their agenda of promoting this type of scientific research which is difficult for all the legitimate reasons they cite, it is hard to escape the feeling that special interests and jargon are being used to justify making cuts in safety measures. I’m not saying that this is necessarily wrong, though I tend to lean toward a safety at all costs mindset, something my more fiscally conservative friends berate me for all the time.

In referencing this, I only mean to point out that the bottom line stated and approved by all those going into this meeting does not necessarily have to work for others who would look at this research and the inherent dangers with less emphasis on the budgetary concerns you mention earlier, or at least not with the same priorities. A scientist, like anyone with special interests to preserve, will make concessions that would otherwise seem unpalatable if they did not have to pander to those with the purse strings paying the bills and expecting results.

Just an observation.

Also, the document you offer states clearly that this discussion forum-workshop “represents one of the first times each of the major parties appreciated the problems of the others.”

I find this very telling indeed. If in fact this is true, the findings you offer to justify not having a recompression chamber on site come from a process that has essentially just begun. Considering the fact that this meeting was done within the context of scientific models and within the net of safety measures for these operations, it is safe to assume that other meetings will take place over time to revisit these conclusions with the added advantage of including more data gathered at the sites conducting this research. So, what we really have at this point is a snapshot of a process that has just begun, one that will no doubt be reevaluated once people begin to implement the agreed upon steps taken from the meeting. Is it really fair then to prop up their conclusions as definitively as you have done? Perhaps this isn’t what you mean to say. If so, I apologize if I am putting words in your mouth.

In light of the considerations above then, I think it is very interesting that the findings you offer as clear cut in nature appear to be more probative than imperative. Given that the panel admits to there being little in the way of universal practices for these science expeditions at the moment and given that this workshop represents one step of an early process, I think we might want to hold of on giving too much weight to the conclusions they have come to. This would just be prudent in my opinion.

I also think there is room for a bit a wiggle. In the recommendations, they state that “[n]ormal at-sea scientific diving from UNSOLS vessels does not require the provision or use of onboard recompression chambers.”

To this we have to ask some questions related to your query. Does North Atlantic scientific diving at four days flight from any location qualify as “normal”? And if you say it does indeed constitute a “normal” consideration, does that mean the next guy with the relevant background will? Or the guy after him? The information provided in the opening for this study seems to suggest that this “uniformity” is not there.

You claimed in your response to Pickens and to me that an in-water decompression would have been the wrong call given the freezing climate, as I referred to above. But then we now definitely have a quibble because this same source you offer states that this practice is a feasible consideration for the aforementioned normal sites.

They claim:

“In-water, oxygen decompression or the use of NITROX should be evaluated as techniques capable of providing greater safety margins.”

So, for a normal site then, this procedure could be used as Pickens suggests, which would then support his (?) statement that each case is different. That the North Sea site is limited from such practices for geographical considerations as well as those related to climate might in fact entail a lack of “normalcy”. If so, wouldn’t this site be a prime candidate for recompression chamber consideration given that other options recommended are not available?

I am still struggling to see the relevance in comparing the case in the OP with this case. It is interesting fodder regardless. If I may, could I pose a question to you?

As you state, the man was the victim of “suit squeeze” and thus was fine. Since you’ve cited the findings of the report and also offered up Dr. Fife’s article for consideration, what would have been the appropriate action if indeed the man had had DCS? What would have been the protocol for helping him, and would that have been run through a pejorative lens of “impeding” the project?

Ostensibly, the procedure for this man called for an “efficiency” that boils down to wait and see. I assume that after some time aboard the ship the man’s condition would have worsened to the point where something needed to be done if indeed he was hit. What would the call have been at that point, after things had deteriorated?

It seems we’ve spent a good amount of time wondering what not to do. I’d be very interested in knowing what would happen to a hit diver out there in the middle of freezing nowhere.

Thanks for the thought experiment by the way.

Cheers!

 

[Thalassamania]

Thanks for what ranks amongst the best and most thoughtful analysis of the UNOLS report that it has been my pleasure to read.

I saw your response to Pickens on this point. Duly noted.

There’s general agreement that as a tropical remote site measure in-water recompression can be an expeditious technique of last resort (especially when diver can be provided pure oxygen through a full face mask with coms), but it is not an “approved” procedure and is not practical in polar regions. I have an idea of running a hose from the vessel’s domestic hot water out to a perforated tube that could be inserted through a wrist or neck seal that might result in a temperature controlled water bath inside the dry (now wet) suit for the stricken diver. I’ll have to play with this one.

In the agenda of the meeting of these best and brightest minds, the specific goal of the workshop in question was to highlight the need for a physical presence at these open seas research sites and to figure out what safety procedures for scientists could be implemented without “unduly imped[ing] scientific efficiency.”

The context of “unduly imped[ing] scientific efficiency” was a concern that the deployment of a chamber on a vessel would mean either giving up two science berths for a chamber operator and tender who would be useless to the science party except in an emergency or the need for two members of the party to obtain and maintain those skills on top of everything else that they already had to obtain and maintain.

I am certainly not in any position to question the expertise of the people who attended this workshop, and I would be remiss if I assumed that I knew all the aspects being considered in these talks. Nonetheless, language is something I do know fairly well. In wording safety considerations in the context of efficiency, a worrisome motif immerges right from the opening pages of this document in my humble opinion. It seems to me that the primary focus is one that is skewed in dangerous “bottom line” thinking. This never bodes well for safety outcomes in my opinion.

And given their agenda of promoting this type of scientific research which is difficult for all the legitimate reasons they cite, it is hard to escape the feeling that special interests and jargon are being used to justify making cuts in safety measures. I’m not saying that this is necessarily wrong, though I tend to lean toward a safety at all costs mindset, something my more fiscally conservative friends berate me for all the time.

No one was suggesting making cuts, they were (and are) suggesting resisting the suggestion of mobilizing chambers for all NSF diving cruises. To date, I believe, there has been only the decompression incident that is discussed in the report and the moral of that story is to “stick by your guns” after disqualifying a diver or, perhaps, if such an individual is an essential element to a research program to go thorough the expense and “scientific inefficiency” to mobilize a commercial chamber and crew for a cruise that individual was on.

In referencing this, I only mean to point out that the bottom line stated and approved by all those going into this meeting does not necessarily have to work for others who would look at this research and the inherent dangers with less emphasis on the budgetary concerns you mention earlier, or at least not with the same priorities. A scientist, like anyone with special interests to preserve, will make concessions that would otherwise seem unpalatable if they did not have to pander to those with the purse strings paying the bills and expecting results.

Just an observation.

Please note that there was universal agreement amongst the attendees who included scientists, hyperbaric experts, institutional administrators, institutional marine superintendents, diving safety officers, and ship’s masters.

Also, the document you offer states clearly that this discussion forum-workshop “represents one of the first times each of the major parties appreciated the problems of the others.”

I find this very telling indeed. If in fact this is true, the findings you offer to justify not having a recompression chamber on site come from a process that has essentially just begun. Considering the fact that this meeting was done within the context of scientific models and within the net of safety measures for these operations, it is safe to assume that other meetings will take place over time to revisit these conclusions with the added advantage of including more data gathered at the sites conducting this research. So, what we really have at this point is a snapshot of a process that has just begun, one that will no doubt be reevaluated once people begin to implement the agreed upon steps taken from the meeting. Is it really fair then to prop up their conclusions as definitively as you have done? Perhaps this isn’t what you mean to say. If so, I apologize if I am putting words in your mouth.

While the discussion has, of course, continued. In fact the issues are rehashed, in detail, during the planning for every diving cruise that goes out. There has been no call for revisiting the issue nor has there been, to the best of my knowledge, an incident that would lead me to see the need for formal revisitation.

In light of the considerations above then, I think it is very interesting that the findings you offer as clear cut in nature appear to be more probative than imperative. Given that the panel admits to there being little in the way of universal practices for these science expeditions at the moment and given that this workshop represents one step of an early process, I think we might want to hold of on giving too much weight to the conclusions they have come to. This would just be prudent in my opinion.

Or perhaps, as is rarely the case, the panel got it right … history would favor that conclusion.

I also think there is room for a bit a wiggle. In the recommendations, they state that “[n]ormal at-sea scientific diving from UNSOLS vessels does not require the provision or use of onboard recompression chambers.”

To this we have to ask some questions related to your query. Does North Atlantic scientific diving at four days flight from any location qualify as “normal”? And if you say it does indeed constitute a “normal” consideration, does that mean the next guy with the relevant background will? Or the guy after him? The information provided in the opening for this study seems to suggest that this “uniformity” is not there.”

Got to have some wiggle room, the example presented would be considered “normal.” Abnormal would be the kind of stuff that went on with, say, the Monitor Project or any of what we would today refer to as “technical” diving.

(continued)

 

[Thalassamania]

(continued)

You claimed in your response to Pickens and to me that an in-water decompression would have been the wrong call given the freezing climate, as I referred to above. But then we now definitely have a quibble because this same source you offer states that this practice is a feasible consideration for the aforementioned normal sites.

You point out a potentially telling future contradiction. Were in-water recompression to be an “accepted” protocol, then a situation that predictably obviated the use of that technique would have to be consider a “special” rather than a “normal” situation.

They claim:

“In-water, oxygen decompression or the use of NITROX should be evaluated as techniques capable of providing greater safety margins.”

So, for a normal site then, this procedure could be used as Pickens suggests, which would then support his (?) statement that each case is different. That the North Sea site is limited from such practices for geographical considerations as well as those related to climate might in fact entail a lack of “normalcy”. If so, wouldn’t this site be a prime candidate for recompression chamber consideration given that other options recommended are not available?

The suggestions, while trivial and possibly even a bit banal in today’s context, was that NITROX on air table would reduce risk and that the use of oxygen for what we call “safety stops” today could also reduce risk and both would be more “scientifically efficient” than deployment of a chamber. Keep in mind that within the context of this entire discussion diving outside of the “no-decompression limits” of an approved table/schedule/computer is not permitted.

I am still struggling to see the relevance in comparing the case in the OP with this case. It is interesting fodder regardless. If I may, could I pose a question to you?

As you state, the man was the victim of “suit squeeze” and thus was fine. Since you’ve cited the findings of the report and also offered up Dr. Fife’s article for consideration, what would have been the appropriate action if indeed the man had had DCS? What would have been the protocol for helping him, and would that have been run through a pejorative lens of “impeding” the project?

There is no doubt that if I (or the DMT that was aboard, or the Captain, who was consulted) had decided it was a bends case we would have had to move a flank speed to our closest evac site.

Ostensibly, the procedure for this man called for an “efficiency” that boils down to wait and see. I assume that after some time aboard the ship the man’s condition would have worsened to the point where something needed to be done if indeed he was hit. What would the call have been at that point, after things had deteriorated?

Actually had the pain had a different history (first time ever and not having occurred non-diving in the past) or resolved as a result of the oxygen or worsened I’d have had no option but to end the cruise.

It seems we’ve spent a good amount of time wondering what not to do. I’d be very interested in knowing what would happen to a hit diver out there in the middle of freezing nowhere.

Thanks for the thought experiment by the way.

Cheers!

A seriously hit diver in those conditions would not have a good prognosis. I’m excited about playing with the hot water supply idea to create yet another option. Thanks for the help.

 

[Dadvocate]

Hi, Thalassmania! I answered step by step in this post, so I think my opinion starts to shift more as I progress below. I thought I’d leave it as is for “efficiency” sake

There’s general agreement that as a tropical remote site measure in-water recompression can be an expeditious technique of last resort (especially when diver can be provided pure oxygen through a full face mask with coms), but it is not an “approved” procedure and is not practical in polar regions. I have an idea of running a hose from the vessel’s domestic hot water out to a perforated tube that could be inserted through a wrist or neck seal that might result in a temperature controlled water bath inside the dry (now wet) suit for the stricken diver. I’ll have to play with this one.

Very interesting indeed. You obviously have an understanding of the isolation of these scientific sites that I do not. I come from the perspective of tropical thinking. The Philippines kind of mandates that. At the same time, I also viewed the report and your comments from an “evacuation” mindset, also symptomatic of someone who considers getting any hit diver out and to safety ASAP or having a recompression chamber handy as normal, something that obviously costs a great deal of money.

I appreciate that you understand the impracticalities of a chamber (although I am still on the fence about whether not to accept the cost and hassle of an on-site chamber being impractical) and that you see the best solution is one that must be provided on site.

This idea of yours is a clever concept by the way, a way to maintain an agreed upon suggestion offered by UNSOLS while also noting the realities of a very cold dive site.

The context of “unduly imped[ing] scientific efficiency” was a concern that the deployment of a chamber on a vessel would mean either giving up two science berths for a chamber operator and tender who would be useless to the science party except in an emergency or the need for two members of the party to obtain and maintain those skills on top of everything else that they already had to obtain and maintain.

That makes a lot of sense. I see where you are coming from. I do recall that the portions of the report I read included a very high degree of training for personnel on board, and not merely related to diving-specific skills. This was the reason I gather for having a meeting that took everyone’s knowledge into perspective. This would make your suggestion above about using the natural environment with a heating source even more viable. I’m getting a far better picture now of the specifics.

It also seems to me that the UNSOLS panel sees training on land beforehand as a far better cost effective way to reduce the risks of DCS and other injuries on board. This makes sense even to my skeptical self. If money and time are spent on insuring that divers really know what they are doing before they step onboard the boat and thus are not stretching their limits on these important expeditions, the risk of DCS becomes far less of a potential threat to life and ultimately to the research being done.

From this consideration, I’d have to agree with you that carrying a large piece of equipment, replete with operations personnel would be overkill and extremely costly. This would have to mean then that the training provided the divers and crew would be strictly adhered to. There was nothing I saw to indicate otherwise in the report. In fact, the gist I got was that this training and the agreed to procedures would be treated as sacrosanct once the boat was underway. Correct me if I am wrong.

No one was suggesting making cuts, they were (and are) suggesting resisting the suggestion of mobilizing chambers for all NSF diving cruises. To date, I believe, there has been only the decompression incident that is discussed in the report and the moral of that story is to “stick by your guns” after disqualifying a diver or, perhaps, if such an individual is an essential element to a research program to go thorough the expense and “scientific inefficiency” to mobilize a commercial chamber and crew for a cruise that individual was on.

I’m reading through your points step by step in between classes. It seems this comment above underscores an emphasis on procedure and safety beforehand. And it also goes back to that notion of what “normal” is. As long as this idea of normalcy stays in check and is not assumed flippantly then I can see some merit in this practice.

I also wanted to ask you something that I mulled over last night. Aren’t there oil rigs out there in the North Atlantic that have chambers for their diving welders? I seem to recall reading that somewhere. If so, would these be accessible?

Please note that there was universal agreement amongst the attendees who included scientists, hyperbaric experts, institutional administrators, institutional marine superintendents, diving safety officers, and ship’s masters.

Again, I would not want to place myself in a position of arguing against any of these highly accomplished people. My only point was to respond to what I considered an interesting case study that you offered and to do so as an objective layman for lack of a better term. Sometimes having a set of eyes outside the field specific eyes looking at the issue can shed some light on what is going on (Remember the anecdote about a little girl in a car telling all the engineers trying to figure out how to get a stuck long haul truck out of a tunnel to let some air out of the tires?). I may not shed light on anything, but I believe I am benefiting greatly from the exchange all the same.

While the discussion has, of course, continued. In fact the issues are rehashed, in detail, during the planning for every diving cruise that goes out. There has been no call for revisiting the issue nor has there been, to the best of my knowledge, an incident that would lead me to see the need for formal revisitation.

Okay good. So in the end, the panel seems to think that efficiency in cost and safety is best served through the training of all members of the crew and in making sure everyone on board has a good understanding of what needs to be done for a host of scenarios. Safety then is a question of making sure things don’t get too compartmentalized in practice or prople on these boats. Am I correct in seeing things this way?

Or perhaps, as is rarely the case, the panel got it right … history would favor that conclusion.

As things stand now, perhaps you are right in suggesting this. The caveat I would offer is that no one should ever allow this assumption to dwell for too long in their heads so as to become complacent. That could be a costly mistake for someone down the line. If as you say each expedition is viewed anew before it goes out to sea, it seems that this hubris has not taken hold. That would mean that “normalcy” is not assumed going in but earned as the UNSOLS recommendations run their respective courses. Correct?

You point out a potentially telling future contradiction. Were in-water recompression to be an “accepted” protocol, then a situation that predictably obviated the use of that technique would have to be consider a “special” rather than a “normal” situation.

Which brings up the need for clever solutions similar to what you mention above. I am getting a better picture of the realities involved. Thanks.

…Keep in mind that within the context of this entire discussion diving outside of the “no-decompression limits” of an approved table/schedule/computer is not permitted.

Yes, I am beginning to see this better now from this post, and you are putting the context of what happens on these trips into a clearer view for me. That is unless you disagree with what I say above about an emphasis on specialized training.

Cont.

 

[Dadvocate]

Carrying on…

There is no doubt that if I (or the DMT that was aboard, or the Captain, who was consulted) had decided it was a bends case we would have had to move a flank speed to our closest evac site.

Could a person survive for four days with this condition? This seems an impossibility to me.

Actually had the pain had a different history (first time ever and not having occurred non-diving in the past) or resolved as a result of the oxygen or worsened I’d have had no option but to end the cruise.

Okay, excellent. I’m particularly taken by the “pain having a history” comment. So in this scenario then, the diver knew somewhat instinctively what was happening already. This obviously mitigates the symptoms much more so than a guy on a boat who is exhibiting signs of denial or embarrassment on top of not being unable to move his leg. This is a rather important point, I’d say.

A seriously hit diver in those conditions would not have a good prognosis. I’m excited about playing with the hot water supply idea to create yet another option. Thanks for the help.

And thank you for the education. As ridiculous as this topic change will sound to close things out, the writer in me has to wonder what novel lies hidden in these science trips.

A deep sea expedition in the North Atlantic… the captain of many years on his last sojourn…the young and beautiful scientist, Rebecca, on the verge of discovering (insert your favorite mystery)… and the rebel deckhand, Jean M, an embittered loner who never knew love until he met Rebecca. What will they do when… happens? Will it be life or the expedition????? Okay, a bit cheeky, but it has potential.

I’d love to get on one of these boats some day and take notes. I imagine there are some intense personalities on these trips. The problem for me and is science-diving-boat experience. In UNSOLS’ standards, I’d be as useless as useless as a recompression chamber operator .

Thanks for the exchange. I’ll read deeper into the report later on. I have my living to earn at the moment.

P.S. Given your sign out quote, are you a fan of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, etc.?

Cheers!