How dangerous is diving?

[DevonDiver]

If you do go back through the thread I think you'll find that very few responders took a stab at the actual question.

That's probably because "diving" isn't a singular activity - it encompasses a spectrum of different activities, in different locations, with varying associated risks. The level of 'danger' is also intrinsically linked to the appropriateness of training, knowledge and equipment. Regional factors play a large role in risk variability also, factors such as; water conditions, access to emergency/hyperbaric care, standards of support dive operation safety all play a determining role in 'danger'.

If we were to 'scale' diving risks; then recreational open-water diving, with appropriate training and equipment, within 18m/60' of the surface, in a well-supported location with professional supervision would rank as an exceedingly 'safe' activity.

On the other end of the scale, diving into overhead environments, beyond the recommended depth and decompression limits of 'recreational' diving, without appropriate training and equipment, without professional supervision and in an area poorly supported by emergency and rescue services would rank as an exceedingly 'dangerous' activity.

Permutations of those extremes would fill the scale between.

 

[Bob DBF]

To clarify my earlier post, mitigation of risk in a dangerous environment makes you more safe, but does not make the environment less dangerous.

Unless you can breathe water, you are at a distinct disadvantage if there is an equipment, training or buddy failure. The A&I forum has examples of success and failure at overcomming the dangers involved.




Bob
-------------------------------------
I may be old, but I'm not dead yet

 

[dadediver]

Diving within rec limits strikes me as considerably less dangerous than many or maybe most other rec activities. One clear difference in favor of diving is that there's not much danger from the actions or inactions of others when I dive. More directly, there are only a couple of fatality or serious injury risks uniquely related to open circuit SCUBA underwater, which are pretty easy to minimize while still diving fun, fascinating, and diverse locales. You can certainly make it more dangerous by choice of conditions, equipment, and profiles - and some of judgement in those regards probably only comes about through experience, meaning surviving danger. Yet I don't find that my pursuit of experience or fun draw me all that much in the direction of those dangers, so for myself at least I think it's fair to say diving isn't so dangerous, relative to other outdoor activities.

I've never jumped out of a plane in a squirrel suit - though it looks amazingly, terrifyingly, FUN - but I don't consider it proof that jumping for the fun of free-fall is dangerous.

Flying with a wing suit is no more dangerous than free falling with out a wing suit IF you are trained. Skydiving is a dangerous sport, be it static, free fall, formation flying, wing suit flying.

---------- Post Merged at 12:06 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 11:57 AM ----------

That's probably because "diving" isn't a singular activity - it encompasses a spectrum of different activities, in different locations, with varying associated risks. The level of 'danger' is also intrinsically linked to the appropriateness of training, knowledge and equipment. Regional factors play a large role in risk variability also, factors such as; water conditions, access to emergency/hyperbaric care, standards of support dive operation safety all play a determining role in 'danger'.

If we were to 'scale' diving risks; then recreational open-water diving, with appropriate training and equipment, within 18m/60' of the surface, in a well-supported location with professional supervision would rank as an exceedingly 'safe' activity.

On the other end of the scale, diving into overhead environments, beyond the recommended depth and decompression limits of 'recreational' diving, without appropriate training and equipment, without professional supervision and in an area poorly supported by emergency and rescue services would rank as an exceedingly 'dangerous' activity.

Permutations of those extremes would fill the scale between.

But you have some pretty big assumptions with words like training, proper equipment, well supported locations and supervision. There are a many accidents and deaths that happen in shallow water diving,divers with brand new gear and newly minted divers (recently trained). I would venture to guess that the deep diving, overhead diving stats on deaths is actually less per capita just for the fact that these divers are "better trained on self reliance".

 

[DevonDiver]

But you have some pretty big assumptions with words like training, proper equipment, well supported locations and supervision.

Not really.

Well supported locations: Compare risk of getting DCS in Florida (15 minutes to nearest chamber via heli-vac) versus Ascension Island (2500 mile flight to nearest chamber). Some locations have effective, swift emergency/medical response. Some have a better standard of medical care. Others have less. That impacts upon survivability, should an incident occur. It is a distinct risk factor.

Training: Appropriateness and diligent application of techniques and knowledge applicable for risk mitigation under given conditions/circumstances. OW qualified diver at 60' in the ocean has a safety level. Same OW diver at 60' in a cave system has a different safety level. Training dictates that - as it provides appropriate risk mitigation for a given circumstance​.

Supervision: Chance of external input towards incident resolution. Massive factor in reducing risk, especially with novice divers.

Take an inexperienced diver who doesn't apply safe diving principles and has allowed their core emergency skills to deteriorate. Stick them in a remote location, with no access to experienced support. You don't see increased risk in that?

There are a many accidents and deaths that happen in shallow water diving,divers with brand new gear and newly minted divers (recently trained).

Wouldn't that support the "pretty big assumptions" I made?

Brand new gear = advice given to divers to practice and familiarize with new gear, to seek training if necessary. Training and experience dictating risk factor.

Newly minted divers = task-loading plus skills not yet ingrained, plus no benefit of experience. Less likelihood of proper application of skills, as trained. Risk offset by conservative diving and support/supervision.

Shallow Water = Core scuba risk factors still applicable. Drowning and lung-overexpansion injury still 100% relevant. Proper training, and application thereof, instrumental in mitigating existing risks, thus setting an overall risk parameter for the dive. Risk of DCS is considerably less in shallow water. Risk of drowning decreases, because the surface is a shorter time/distance travel away (CESA more likely chance of success).

Given the same diver... more risk factors become prevalent as depth increases. More risk of DCS, air-depletion, narcosis etc. Chance of DCS less in a rapid ascent from 15', compared to 50' for a given bottom time. Slower air consumption reduces risk of accidental depletion through insufficient observation/awareness. More risk factors become prevalent if new, unfamiliar gear is used - development of experience, need for gear specific training/familiarization. So on, and so on.

As I said... "scuba diving" is a sliding scale of risk... upon which varied parameters dictate a specific risk level unique to the diver and the dive undertaken.

 

[tye1138]

The biggest problem with diving is the ease of being certified and the fact its considered a "vacation" activity by many. All over the world, people are pushed through basic OW courses, so they can enjoy their vacations more. Most vacationeer's never really comprehend the full danger of diving, they act as if the whole thing is a ball of fun; "look at the pretty fish".

Its when you get complacent; "I rarely look at my gauge and never had any problems" thats when stuff bites you; "I can't believe I ran out of air".

In terms of SCUBA diving being macho... There are situations which for sure are very macho related to diving; deep, tech, cave, wreck, cold/ice, all stuff which requires some training and big cahoonas! But recreational diving, throwing on a 3mm wetsuit and jumping off a boat into the 100+ vis warm waters of some vacation spot far away.... yea, there is nothing "macho" about that. Those dives are a conversation starter around the water cooler at your white collar office when everyone else talks about their tennis elbow and golf with dad. ROFL!!!!

For the well initiated seasoned diver, I think we all understand the "risk" and reduce that risk as much as we can. I don't think SCUBA diving is anymore dangerous for the seasoned guys then driving to the dive site. :shrug:

 

[je76]

I would agree with much of what Tye says in his post and would expand on it a little more.

The business aspect of diving is one that basically says, "Everyone and anyone can dive so come sign up". It is after all a business meant to make money and while that tenet may be true on some basic level it most certainly does not address the inherent dangers of diving. Lost in the sales pitch of "look at the pretty fish" is the looming danger that the average vacationing diver only understands when they have an accident.

But to try and quantify the dangers of diving is difficult. On a regular warm water dive in say the Caribbean does an experienced diver (say 200+ dives) whom dives regularly in a variety of conditions, has decent skills, some advanced training and is within his limits have the same risk that a diver who logs 2-4 dives per year with unpracticed skills? I would say not. I also think the former has a healthier understanding of said danger and isn't fooled by warm water with good viz. The danger is there lurking just beneath the surface.

Then add the fact that some dive destination resorts are as interested in a diver having a good time as they are interested in running a safe operation and now you can increase the danger for that diver logging 2-4 divers per year exponentially. We have probably all seen divers put in the water that have no business being in the water on a given day but didn't have the experience to know it.

When asked by people that I know about how dangerous diving is I often answer that it is as dangerous or as safe as I make it. But I dive regularly in varying conditions, have some advanced training, good amount of hours logged and own my own maintained gear. Does this same risk assessment apply to those people who have been diving for 25 years but only have 25 dives, even in the warm waters of the Caribbean or other vacation destination?

 

[vladimir]

In terms of SCUBA diving being macho... There are situations which for sure are very macho related to diving; deep, tech, cave, wreck, cold/ice, all stuff which requires some training and big cahoonas!

You meant cojones, Spanish for balls. I like the juxtaposition with macho, Spanish for male. The big kahuna probably has big cojones.

 

[tye1138]

You meant cojones, Spanish for balls. I like the juxtaposition with macho, Spanish for male. The big kahuna probably has big cojones.

LOL yes, you are right! HA!

 

[CT-Rich]

Flying with a wing suit is no more dangerous than free falling with out a wing suit IF you are trained. Skydiving is a dangerous sport, be it static, free fall, formation flying, wing suit flying.

It is the landing that tends to catch people up...

 

[spoolin01]

Flying with a wing suit is no more dangerous than free falling with out a wing suit IF you are trained. Skydiving is a dangerous sport, be it static, free fall, formation flying, wing suit flying.

But, I want to do it like THIS! That's what I had in mind, in comparison to, say, jumping off the roof. Many years ago I decided to draw the line at leaping into thin air, so I'll just watch videos instead.

... I would venture to guess that the deep diving, overhead diving stats on deaths is actually less per capita just for the fact that these divers are "better trained on self reliance".

I'll bet this is not correct. There simply isn't much of a technical challenge to avoiding drowning, embolism, or DCS, at 60 ft with a bottle of air on your back, unless you've compounded things with similarly risky choices over other variables, like the technical divers. Absent panic or medical emergency, a lot of the rec scuba accident stats go away. It may be a bit of a fudge to exclude panic as a risk of scuba, but it helps me strive for a 'reasonable person' assessment of risk.

I would agree with much of what Tye says in his post and would expand on it a little more.

The business aspect of diving is one that basically says, "Everyone and anyone can dive so come sign up". It is after all a business meant to make money and while that tenet may be true on some basic level it most certainly does not address the inherent dangers of diving. Lost in the sales pitch of "look at the pretty fish" is the looming danger that the average vacationing diver only understands when they have an accident.

But to try and quantify the dangers of diving is difficult. On a regular warm water dive in say the Caribbean does an experienced diver (say 200+ dives) whom dives regularly in a variety of conditions, has decent skills, some advanced training and is within his limits have the same risk that a diver who logs 2-4 dives per year with unpracticed skills? I would say not. I also think the former has a healthier understanding of said danger and isn't fooled by warm water with good viz. The danger is there lurking just beneath the surface.

Then add the fact that some dive destination resorts are as interested in a diver having a good time as they are interested in running a safe operation and now you can increase the danger for that diver logging 2-4 divers per year exponentially. We have probably all seen divers put in the water that have no business being in the water on a given day but didn't have the experience to know it.

When asked by people that I know about how dangerous diving is I often answer that it is as dangerous or as safe as I make it. But I dive regularly in varying conditions, have some advanced training, good amount of hours logged and own my own maintained gear. Does this same risk assessment apply to those people who have been diving for 25 years but only have 25 dives, even in the warm waters of the Caribbean or other vacation destination?

This is kinda over the top, don't you think? Blanket aspersions over the character of dive professionals aside, couldn't the same thing be said for many other outdoor recreational activities, like biking or skiing, and have a similar relationship to real demonstrated risk? Don't the stats for many thousands of divers who nevertheless seem to successfully complete their dives each year, and come back for more, suggest otherwise? Is the typical rec scuba diver less prepared than other outdoor sportspersons, or suffer a worse experience for it?