Please post a list of these real problems that I don't understand. Please be specific and up to the point. Otherwise it is hard to learn.
Personally, I am disinclined to to that. Posting such a list might encourage you to sit at your keyboard and rationalize about how you could 'easily' deal with each scenario - a trait displayed already. That could lead to an assumption that you had 'dealt with' those risks.
Risk mitigation has to be more than a hypothetical exercise - largely because there is a strong psychological factor that presents itself when dealing with issues underwater. Knowing what to do, and being able to perform that function are two entirely distinct issues. If that weren't true I'd be hanging out on the NASA forum and adding to my resume weekly...
If I'm understanding correctly, you mean that, contrary to the advise given by others here, that you believe one should not even enter a pool alone with scuba gear since one cannot breathe underwater in a pool? I'm not arguing or disagreeing, I just want to make sure I've properly understood your enigmatic sentence
I meant, merely, that one should be cognizant of the dangers of having a finite air source in an environment that cannot sustain human life. Depth is irrelevant if that finite air source expires, or becomes inaccessible, and you cannot reach an infinite air source (the surface). You will drown just as surely at a depth of 5" as you would at 5' or 50'. The issue is whether you can reach, and remain at, the surface.
Plenty enough people manage to abbreviate their lifespans in the 'benign' environment of a swimming pool. Most of those people didn't have to deal with negative buoyancy via a weight belt and other heavy scuba equipment. Achieving positive buoyancy is the obvious mitigation to this - but a failure to do this is a notable factor in many, if not most, scuba fatalities. Typically panic and/or the lack of ingrained responses are the culprits behind that failure.
For the novice diver, panic and/or lack of ingrained response are two issues that must be assumed to be relevant and potentially contributing to any issue they face underwater. Thus, the issues of
experience and
training are absolutely critical factors when calculating the relative
safety of any given diving environment.
In short:
- It is wrong to dismiss or perceive dangers based on depth alone.
- It is wrong to assume a reaction or response, unless that reaction or response is proven to be reliable.
- Problem solving is not a reliable skill when under stress.
- What may be ludicrously safe for diver A, may not be safe for diver B.
- Panic, negative buoyancy and water (of any depth) are a killer combination.
What if I die in a car accident on a way to the pond? What then, ah? What then? What if it is a semi who could not stop or an SUV that failed to see a red light? What if?
It's very easy to be flippant, or show bravado, about the issue of dying. Yes, a life can be snuffed out in the blink of an eye on any given day. The decisions we make in life should be aimed to reasonably reduce the possibility of that happening - reducing the threats to those that we have no possible influence upon.
The decision to go diving unsupported, whilst not truly aware of the risks or your ability to mitigate them, with the barest minimum of experience and capability, is never...can never... be considered an unavoidable accident.
Scuba diving is an enjoyable and rewarding pursuit.
Unfortunately, for many divers the sheer pleasure of diving makes it very difficult to comprehend the risks that we face. Those risks do nothing to engage our instinct for self-preservation until they present themselves.... and then it might be to late. Your self-preservation instinct becomes nothing more than a last-ditch, mind-numbing panic to reach the surface.
Experienced divers are often safe divers, because they've encountered the risks at first-hand. They've had tangles, run low-on-air accidentally, got caught in currents, lost visibility, made human errors, experienced equipment failures... and, most importantly, examined their performance and psychological responses with the benefit of post-incident
hindsight.
Their self-preservation instinct develops as a consequence to this. They enjoy the pleasure of diving, but temper that pleasure with a foresight and recognition that they are exposing themselves to dangers. They don't trust to blind-luck - because they know that the threats can, and should be, mitigated.
The capacity for human ego to lead a person into an avoidable fatal accident, for lack of patience, the expedience of convenience or a failure to realistically consider their capabilities against the demands required... can best be described as evidence supporting 'Darwin's Law'.