Diver dies in Manatee Springs

[PfcAJ]

Mishap analysis & "Blamestorming"

Still not seeing it.

making a decision to violate cave diving rules and guidelines is what we’re discussing here.

 

[chillyinCanada]

"Mishap analysis would identify those actions as causes, and recommend other actions that would prevent (or greatly reduce the chance of) the mishap in the future."

Blind traverse. No experience in the system. No apparent plan to verify the exit or return if necessary. No consideration of the flow at the exit. All contributing actions. All clearly identifiable mistakes that can be learned from.

You do not know what they considered. You only know the result and ate making judgements from there.

You are not suggesting actions for learning based on how it appears.

 

[tmassey]

I did this dive back in December: an instructor warned us that the exit was completely blocked and to stay back away from the debris pile, and we then went down to see the obstruction and then back to catfish. I couldn’t see any daylight from the upstream side and would have never have attempted to find a way through. I was near the floor, and it wasn’t until seeing the photos in this thread that I now realize where the exit is — at the top. Still won’t try the exit.

I have a question about the concept of a traverse, and validating an exit. I would have never thought that verifying the exit is 100% required for all traverses. Both Manatee and Devil’s Eye / Ear, for example. They’re just a few hundred feet apart. If I can do the complete traverse well within proper gas allocations, why do I need to validate the exit from the exit side: I’m validating it from the other side! Did I miss something in my training?

In the case of Manitee, it’s the inability to turn around that stops me, not the fact I don’t know what’s farther down. After all, I never know what’s farther down! But I would have never thought an unverified Eye to Ear traverse would be breaking the rules: at any point, I could simply turn around. Even the other way: it would technically be a siphon, but extremely manageable to reverse if necessary.

Or a less trivial example: P1 to Challenge. I’ve done that, too, and we didn’t validate the exit. There wasn’t even a mention of validating the exit. Because we simply would have turned around, abandoning the traverse if necessary.

Am I missing something?

 

[helodriver87]

I can tell you for a fact they didn't verify the exit, chose to do the traverse blind, and had no experience in the system. Solution: know the system or talk to more knowledgeable people first if you don't. Don't do a blind traverse to an unverified exit.

 

[helodriver87]

I did this dive back in December: an instructor warned us that the exit was completely blocked and to stay back away from the debris pile, and we then went down to see the obstruction and then back to catfish. I couldn’t see any daylight from the upstream side and would have never have attempted to find a way through. I was near the floor, and it wasn’t until seeing the photos in this thread that I now realize where the exit is — at the top. Still won’t try the exit.

I have a question about the concept of a traverse, and validating an exit. I would have never thought that verifying the exit is 100% required for all traverses. Both Manatee and Devil’s Eye / Ear, for example. They’re just a few hundred feet apart. If I can do the complete traverse well within proper gas allocations, why do I need to validate the exit from the exit side: I’m validating it from the other side! Did I miss something in my training?

In the case of Manitee, it’s the inability to turn around that stops me, not the fact I don’t know what’s farther down. After all, I never know what’s farther down! But I would have never thought an unverified Eye to Ear traverse would be breaking the rules: at any point, I could simply turn around. Even the other way: it would technically be a siphon, but extremely manageable to reverse if necessary.

Or a less trivial example: P1 to Challenge. I’ve done that, too, and we didn’t validate the exit. There wasn’t even a mention of validating the exit. Because we simply would have turned around, abandoning the traverse if necessary.

Am I missing something?

If you have the gas to turn the dive and go all the way back, you're fine. That's the difference between a simple and complex traverse. A complex traverse has to be proven. It's arguable that this one is complex due to the flow you'd have to fight on the way back.

 

[tmassey]

But that’s not what is stated here:

Anyone trained as a full cave diver should know to never do a traverse, or circuit with an unverified exit. With this stated, I am pretty sure that >90% of people who have done this traverse in the past, have done it without same day verification of the exit. Just like divers who regularly enter Devils ear, and exit through the eye. Nobody sets up that dive, even though technically we all know it’s breaking a rule. This issue at Manatee seems to be be the trap that illustrates the risk we take when “bending” these rules.

@Caveeagle states that doing the ear/eye in one dive is “breaking a rule”. In my understanding of my training, with sufficient gas (and for the ear/eye “sufficient” is pretty small), a single-dive traverse of the ear/eye would not be breaking a rule.

I don’t mind breaking a rule — when I fully understand the rule and why I’m breaking it. But I hate the idea of breaking a rule because I simply don’t know better.

 

[rddvet]

I did this dive back in December: an instructor warned us that the exit was completely blocked and to stay back away from the debris pile, and we then went down to see the obstruction and then back to catfish. I couldn’t see any daylight from the upstream side and would have never have attempted to find a way through. I was near the floor, and it wasn’t until seeing the photos in this thread that I now realize where the exit is — at the top. Still won’t try the exit.

I have a question about the concept of a traverse, and validating an exit. I would have never thought that verifying the exit is 100% required for all traverses. Both Manatee and Devil’s Eye / Ear, for example. They’re just a few hundred feet apart. If I can do the complete traverse well within proper gas allocations, why do I need to validate the exit from the exit side: I’m validating it from the other side! Did I miss something in my training?

In the case of Manitee, it’s the inability to turn around that stops me, not the fact I don’t know what’s farther down. After all, I never know what’s farther down! But I would have never thought an unverified Eye to Ear traverse would be breaking the rules: at any point, I could simply turn around. Even the other way: it would technically be a siphon, but extremely manageable to reverse if necessary.

Or a less trivial example: P1 to Challenge. I’ve done that, too, and we didn’t validate the exit. There wasn’t even a mention of validating the exit. Because we simply would have turned around, abandoning the traverse if necessary.

Am I missing something?

Yes, you should have been taught you must verify your exit if you are doing a planned traverse and exiting from somewhere other than your entrance. Unfortunately because something like this happens so infrequently in Florida and the reality is you really don’t need to verify your exit for the well know traverses such as the grand traverse, that it seems some instructors aren’t teaching it. But as being proven by this incident, it’s not a wise idea.
I was taught always know your exit is verified and clear. I also enter the ear and exit the eye regularly. But I would never do the manatee traverse blindly.

The scary thing is the exit being blocked was posted to Facebook but it appears very few people knew or saw the post.

 

[helodriver87]

But that’s not what is stated here:


@Caveeagle states that doing the ear/eye in one dive is “breaking a rule”. In my understanding of my training, with sufficient gas (and for the ear/eye “sufficient” is pretty small), a single-dive traverse of the ear/eye would not be breaking a rule.

I don’t mind breaking a rule — when I fully understand the rule and why I’m breaking it. But I hate the idea of breaking a rule because I simply don’t know better.

It's breaking a rule if you're violating gas rules to complete. A simple circuit or traverse can be completed start to finish before hitting turn pressure for a linear penetration. Think p1 to Olsen or the Godzilla circuit at Madison. You can get all the way to the end, realize your exit is blocked, and return within thirds. A complex circuit would be like the sweet surprise/mainland circuit. You're not doing that on thirds, so you have to setup and validate it first.

 

[tmassey]

Yes, you should have been taught you must verify your exit if you are doing a planned traverse and exiting from somewhere other than your entrance.

That's in agreement with @Caveeagle. But not with my understanding.

It's breaking a rule if you're violating gas rules to complete. A simple circuit or traverse can be completed start to finish before hitting turn pressure for a linear penetration.

That's in agreement with my understanding.

I dug out my book: TDI Diving in Overhead Environments, 2013, page 103:

Simple Traverses. A cave dive should never be thought of as simple; however, this word is associated with traverses and circuits that may be completed in one dive and fall within standard gas management rules. For an open circuit diver, a simple traverse means that the entire dive can be completed using no more than one third of a diver's total gas supply.

The procedure continues, but never mentions verifying the exit before beginning. It does mention returning the opposite way to retrieve previously-installed equipment. But never verifying the exit.

Again, this was in the context of a number of people reacting that attempting to do Catfish to Mainspring as a traverse without verifying the exit was an obviously-standards-breaking thing to do. I think it is dangerous, but not because of the traverse or breaking rules, but because of the flow and restriction. But that's not the argument others are making, and to highlight that, several people have used the example of Devil's Ear to Eye as another commonly-done but obviously-standards-breaking thing to do.

It seems that to TDI, that is *not* a standards-breaking thing. Is it a violation of some other standard besides TDI?

I appreciate the discussion here. It's given me the opportunity to go back and verify my understanding, as well as the original source material. I'm comfortable with the rules as I've learned them. I'm not trying to change anyone else's mind. It does seem to me that the *traverse* portion of their dive did *not* break the standards as I was taught them. I am curious to know if there is an organization for whom this would have been a standards violation.

(For the rest of it: wedging yourself into a tiny restriction with massive flow behind you... That seems like a clear "no way" to me. But cave diving is a clear "no way" to 99.9% of human population, so using our own sense of right and wrong here probably isn't very meaningful...)

Edited to add: this is, to me, *not* a meaningless discussion. Normalization of deviance makes it so that when you break rules, you tend to break rules more. By having a more specific rule (verify the exit when you have to violate gas rules), you break rules less, and you deviate from them less. It's no different than telling a child "Stove Hot!" even when the stove is off. You're just setting them up to ignore the rules... I'm trying to avoid that for myself, too!

 

[PfcAJ]

That's in agreement with @Caveeagle. But not with my understanding.



That's in agreement with my understanding.

I dug out my book: TDI Diving in Overhead Environments, 2013, page 103:



The procedure continues, but never mentions verifying the exit before beginning. It does mention returning the opposite way to retrieve previously-installed equipment. But never verifying the exit.

Again, this was in the context of a number of people reacting that attempting to do Catfish to Mainspring as a traverse without verifying the exit was an obviously-standards-breaking thing to do. I think it is dangerous, but not because of the traverse or breaking rules, but because of the flow and restriction. But that's not the argument others are making, and to highlight that, several people have used the example of Devil's Ear to Eye as another commonly-done but obviously-standards-breaking thing to do.

It seems that to TDI, that is *not* a standards-breaking thing. Is it a violation of some other standard besides TDI?

I appreciate the discussion here. It's given me the opportunity to go back and verify my understanding, as well as the original source material. I'm comfortable with the rules as I've learned them. I'm not trying to change anyone else's mind. It does seem to me that the *traverse* portion of their dive did *not* break the standards as I was taught them. I am curious to know if there is an organization for whom this would have been a standards violation.

(For the rest of it: wedging yourself into a tiny restriction with massive flow behind you... That seems like a clear "no way" to me. But cave diving is a clear "no way" to 99.9% of human population, so using our own sense of right and wrong here probably isn't very meaningful...)

Edited to add: this is, to me, *not* a meaningless discussion. Normalization of deviance makes it so that when you break rules, you tend to break rules more. By having a more specific rule (verify the exit when you have to violate gas rules), you break rules less, and you deviate from them less. It's no different than telling a child "Stove Hot!" even when the stove is off. You're just setting them up to ignore the rules... I'm trying to avoid that for myself, too!

The passage you quote references standard gas management rules.

I think a howling siphon kind of eliminates the use of standard gas management.