OK, since this thread started by saying that Ginnie Springs owners are free to do what ever they want, let me get right out in front and say that I agree, they are free to run their business however they see fit. Their choices may be in part derived from the standards of some, or a conglomoration of many agencies. They may base their opinion on their perception of the level of legal exposure they are willing to take in the event of an accident. Whatever their reasons, they are free to place restrictions on their customers.
The various agencies that have instruction programs can make restrictions on just what they feel divers who have successfully completed differing levels of instruction should limit themselves to.
If I don't like it I should either buy Ginnie Springs (will they take a check?), or become a voting member or otherwise take control of the agencies. Since we all know that the likelyhood of me taking control of anything larger than my own personal life is pretty remote (my wife will attest to just how much control over my own life she is willing to give me) all I can do is stand on a soap box and say what I think.
First a little background about myself and my experiences that might be germane to this issue. I have successfully completed cave diving instruction to the level of "Full Cave" diver with both TDI, and NACD. My instructor for both of these was GDI, the initiator of this thread. I have not spoken with GDI about this post or this specific issue. At various points in my instruction GDI did make clear to me the limitations that both TDI and the NACD make on divers at various levels of instruction. My experience as a cave diver is still very limited and I choose to dive in a very conservative manner.
The situation at Ginnie Springs with regard to the distance of penetration into the cave could be addressed by simply putting up a sign either at the lips or near the keyhole indicating that Intro level divers should proceed no further into the system regardless of their remaining gas supply, this limitation would be independent on whether the diver in question was wearing a single cylinder or double cylinders, it would simply be a distance limitation in that one single system.
It would seem reasonalble to me that the agencies should permit divers who have demonstrated proficiency in the use of double cylinders to dive doubles without an extra time limited waiver. Divers who have not demonstrated proficiency in doubles would be limited to single cylinders until they separately show proficiency in doubles. The agencies could offer separate instruction in the safe use of double cylinders, this class could be a prerequisite to most if not all technical instruction with a provision that a diver who could already demonstrate proficiency could get a waiver without needing separate instruction. I think that it would be good for these agencies to encourage the use of double cylinders in overhead environments in preference to single cylinders.
With the agencies on board with the training for double cylinders and a distance limit represented by the sign Ginnie Springs would be free to adjust their policy regarding the use of double cylinders by all divers otherwise trained to enter the cave.
It would make sense for the agencies to revise the gas limits for Intro level divers from 1/3 for single cylinders or 1/6 for double cylinders to perhaps (i'm picking a number out of thin air without any accident analysis) 1/4 regardless of cylinder configuration. This of course might invite a revision of the depth limits to a shallower depth and greater emphasis on staying out of decompression. If a diver was diving independent doubles then it would be wise to make clear that the 1/4 limit was to be applied to each cylinder and not just the total gas supply.
I also think that decompression training should be a prerequisite to Apprentice and Full cave. If a diver already had decompression training then that diver could have a waiver to do decompression dives even at the Intro level, but no other changes with regard to gas supply or depth.
There are many issues either being specifically discussed or talked "around" in this thread and they are all related in some way to each other and the answers are not easy nor will they be fast in coming.
Well there are my two cents.
Mark Vlahos
