DumpsterDiver emergency ascent from 180'

[northernone]

Due noting the video is now unavailable.

As discussion continues can we please remain thoughtful that the equipment malfunction resulting successful bailout with prepared contingency preserved the life of a fellow diver. We can critique the diver's definition of adequate bail out and caution others from adopting his calculations but at the end of the day he is alive to post the video. I am glad for this fact.

As to the working definition of suitable person bailout size (addressing buddy separation plus equipment failure or solo equipment failure), we have dozens of threads already for no-deco dives suggested guidelines as well as the various agencies standards. Suggestions range from CESA (none), to spare air, to 13 cube, 19, 30,40, 80 and a few suggesting 100s. I'm an advocate of adjusting bailout based on the site conditions. I feel most adequately prepared with 300+ cft breathable gas along with me. This is impractical for many.

I'm going to highlight how response to an incident using a thought out contingency plan bailout procedures in a deliberate and calm manner can make the difference of life and death. Panic or lack of proficiency could have been fatal no matter the size of the cylinder.

Regards,
Cameron

 

[2airishuman]

I believe he has re-edited the video to add some music and commentary. Here is the new URL:

 

[stuartv]

I have never dived with an AL40

...

Again, I find an AL19 to be the sweet spot for most dives where I carry a pony.

Maybe if you tried an AL40 you would find it's an even sweeter spot than a 19. Not trying to bust on you at all. Just making an observation. If you had tried it and still maintained that a 19 was preferable, your thoughts would be more persuasive to me.

I use an AL40. The size never impacts me at all, so a cylinder that is shorter and 1" smaller diameter doesn't seem like it would be any "nicer," to me. Sort of six of one half a dozen of the other, in terms of how the size affects my dive. The 40 being over 1 pound less negative than a 19 (comparing full to full) seems like it would be an overall improvement (not to mention having twice as much emergency reserve).

 

[CuzzA]

@stuartv , I view Normalization of Deviance as having little to do with standards written by ONE training agency (Hell even the training agencies can't agree on many aspects of diving) on best practices of solo diving, and one agency's standards can't be applied universally to every diver, where the majority have never even been trained by that organization.

Does SDI set the hard protocol for solo diving for everyone? Says who? With that logic just about every agency is deviating from normalization because they don't follow GUE's standard for long hose and bungeed second. Am I deviating because for my solo fishing rig I have an AIR2 and back mounted pony which would be frowned upon by some agencies? Is every commercial fisherman (many who dive solo past 130 ft.) deviating because they don't follow SDI's solo training standards?

I posed the question because the statement was made without putting any specific reasoning behind the post. Your argument is he's violating SDI standards? So here's the way I see it based on the definition of "Normalization of Deviance"...

A diver routinely dives to 180 ft. with his pony, but one day he forgets his pony at home and decides to do the dive anyway. Now, due to his success on the pony-less dive and because in the past there have been no incidents he decides to start leaving it at home. That is normalization of deviance.

In the case of this incident, we can question the size of the pony bottle he used, but normalization of deviance is a weak argument, unless you believe he chose to use the 13, rather than a bigger bottle he usually dives with. Maybe in hindsight he will now think a bigger bottle would be better, maybe not. Do you think he doesn't know his SAC rate and what his NORMAL needs are or his abilities? Or do you think he does, knows they are lacking and decided to ignore that?

Now, where we do probably agree is I think DD cuts it real close with his bailout gas planning. But we don't know the specifics of what his actual gas consumption was or his plan. We can only speculate, which leads me to my next point..

You guys know he's aware of this thread, I think it's obvious since you can't see the video, and yet ScubaBoard is allowing the disparaging remarks about him, which I think is fine, he's a big boy and can take it, except he's not getting the ability to answer questions and defend himself or who knows, maybe he'll agree with everyone.

 

[2airishuman]

Now, where we do probably agree is I think DD cuts it real close with his bailout gas planning. But we don't know the specifics of what his actual gas consumption was or his plan.

DD and I discussed bailout gas planning at length in other threads (while he was still participating here) and to a lesser extent privately.

The essence of his gas planning for bailout is, to paraphrase, that you bring enough gas to allow an immediate, prompt, direct ascent to the surface in an emergency. He has stated that an ascent should start immediately after a failure of the primary gas delivery system and that therefore there is no need to plan for a period of time on the bailout at depth. I do not believe his bailout gas quantity is planned around a safety stop although I expect he would make a safety stop if there were gas available. I think that this video shows that he was diving his plan -- he started the ascent immediately and switched to the pony only after it was under way.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

You are doing an admirable job of representing him.

 

[charlier]

Now, where we do probably agree is I think DD cuts it real close with his bailout gas planning. But we don't know the specifics of what his actual gas consumption was or his plan. We can only speculate, which leads me to my next point..

You guys know he's aware of this thread, I think it's obvious since you can't see the video, and yet ScubaBoard is allowing the disparaging remarks about him, which I think is fine, he's a big boy and can take it, except he's not getting the ability to answer questions and defend himself or who knows, maybe he'll agree with everyone.

Two brief comments. My free diving experience has provided a different perspective while scuba diving. Mostly, staying calm and relaxed at 30m, and understanding my limits in a stress free quiet environment. Over the years, I have always enjoyed reading DD posting and comments.

 

[CuzzA]

DD and I discussed bailout gas planning at length in other threads (while he was still participating here) and to a lesser extent privately.

The essence of his gas planning for bailout is, to paraphrase, that you bring enough gas to allow an immediate, prompt, direct ascent to the surface in an emergency. He has stated that an ascent should start immediately after a failure of the primary gas delivery system and that therefore there is no need to plan for a period of time on the bailout at depth. I do not believe his bailout gas quantity is planned around a safety stop although I expect he would make a safety stop if there were gas available. I think that this video shows that he was diving his plan -- he started the ascent immediately and switched to the pony only after it was under way.

Definitely personal choice. I would suggest everyone consider using rock bottom gas planning. Especially if you've never had an incident to know how you would react in an emergency. I think that is key.

 

[stuartv]

Sure, my point is what are the standards for free diving and is this a deviation? If you are trained in both than the standards for both would apply to your decision making/planning process I would imagine?

He wasn't freediving, so freediving standards don't apply. When you are at 100' with 4 ATA of gas pressure in your lungs, the standards for freediving are completely irrelevant.

@stuartv , I view Normalization of Deviance as having little to do with standards written by ONE training agency (Hell even the training agencies can't agree on many aspects of diving) on best practices of solo diving, and one agency's standards can't be applied universally to every diver, where the majority have never even been trained by that organization.

Does SDI set the hard protocol for solo diving for everyone?

Your point is valid and that is why I was careful to say that MY judgment of the situation would be that it is normalization of deviance, based on MY training. But, the question is not really whether he deviated from the standards of MY training. The question is whether he deviated from the standards of his own training. It is my SPECULATION that he has not had training that would support doing the specific things that he was doing. But, if I am wrong, then I would revise my opinion on whether his dive represented normalization of deviance.

Characterization of normalization of deviance by giving an example where on one dive you did something significantly deviant and then decided it was okay and kept doing it after that does not really paint the full picture, I don't think. I think normalization of deviance is often much more subtle than that. It is something that accretes over a period of time. Today, you are certified to dive to 130'. Tomorrow, you dive to 131' and you are fine. The next day, you go to 132' and are fine. You continue to build on this until one day you are diving to 160', with the same tanks and gas supply that you were using at 130' and you've done it so much without incident that it becomes the new normal. You gradually build up this feeling that you've done something so much, advancing your boundaries in tiny little increments, and never had a problem that you genuinely start to believe that the new normal is just as safe as the boundary you started with.

You could argue that you started with a safety margin of X% at 130'. As you incrementally build up to diving to 160', your safety margin decreases, but your skill and experience increase to make up for it, so that you are still just as safe. However that thought does not, in my opinion, adequately reflect a couple of inescapable facts. One, if you're 30' deeper, it WILL take longer to get to the surface once you being your ascent. And, two, nobody is invulnerable to narcosis, and narcosis is not 100% predictable (as far as I know). What works for you 100 times might not work on attempt # 101. A HP seat blowout on the day you happen to get unusually narced and you're at 160' with an AL13 pony is a day that might not end very well for you. Or maybe the surprise stress of the blowout turns out to be the tipping point into narcosis that you weren't really experiencing up to that point. Even DD cannot say with certainty that that is not going to happen. And we know that depth, stress, and exertion are all factors that CAN contribute to narcosis.

I think there is a reason that so many experts cite normalization of deviance as a major factor in scuba accidents. Like I said earlier, I am not saying DD is bad or trying to criticize him. I'm just saying that this example seems, to ME, to be a pretty clear case of normalization of deviance. No judgment from me on him as a person or diver.

I AM now curious whether DD will continue to do the exact same dives (i.e. that deep, still with only a 13 for a pony). Did he take this as a wakeup call? Or as confirmation that what he's been doing is just fine?

Blowing an HP seat is not that unusual, from what I understand. If that (one and only problem) happened to me and I survived with so little air left, I would probably be making new plans to give myself more margin in the future. If I had two problems, or one problem with complicating factors, and I survived with such a thin margin, I might (MAYBE) feel like my dive planning had been acceptable. But, one (not unusual) problem that happened with pretty much ideal (for me) timing (i.e. very early in the dive), and no complicating factors that arose to slow me down at all, and I still only hit the surface with a tiny amount of air left, would make me feel like I needed to change my planning in the future. But, I am still pretty new at all this....

 

[seeker242]

Sure, my point is what are the standards for free diving and is this a deviation?

It's a freediving deviation to bring a scuba tank with you yes. Freediving ascents are typically quite fast and you don't want to have to deal with the potential for lung overexpansion