Lost Buddy Marker

[piikki]

I recently found an area of Ginnie even, where the arrows point out to the fastest exit....if you're side mount, if you're backmount you can't even pass through!

I saw this comment earlier, and resisted sidetracking but can't anymore. How can this be? What is the logic behind granting places exit arrows? I was trying to dig my memory whether I was taught that arrows might only indicate a possible air source/exit as in one should not trust one can get to it... which sounds nuts.

If one was able to get out by removing gear and free diving the last bit, maybe I could understand but if there is a long SM hike that could be devastating in some CF or emergency situation. I think it could be bigger risk marking something as exit that is not a possible passage for some divers ever vs assuming some unverified stable exit becoming unpassable (because of collapse etc).

I know there is a reluctance to make more traffic signs for cave but maybe this is one where the markers should be different (like restricted exit?). I assume these places aren't on the paths most traveled in the cave/s? How are they marked on maps?

Again, no wonder I was so emphatically taught not to trust arrows I have not verified or placed myself.

 

[limeyx]

Hey it was this question, good example BTW

So how would YOU answer it?

It is a good question but you seem to be dodging the one that was aimed directly at you at this point

 

[limeyx]

I saw this comment earlier, and resisted sidetracking but can't anymore. How can this be? What is the logic behind granting places exit arrows? I was trying to dig my memory whether I was taught that arrows might only indicate a possible air source/exit as in one should not trust one can get to it... which sounds nuts.

Sometimes no logic, or someone puts an arrow going "the wrong way" and it never gets removed

or. some caves that are not frequently dived. so you are diving the original exploration line.
For example. I dove a cave not often dived that was a string of cenotes all in a row.
The explorers had come down from one end only, so a lot of arrows were pointing back to their original exit (many hundreds of feet away) even though there was a cenote just a couple of hundred feet further into the cave.

This makes sense because they had not discovered the new cenote yet, and is OK because there would be no line to the new cenote.

Now, the explorers find the new cenote and realize that say 4 or so arrows now point toward an entrance that is much further than the new one they found, but dont change them (for whatever reason). This is a real situation and not something I made up

Also, you get all kinds of divers entering all kinds of holes in all kinds of gear, and it can be hard to get everyone to agree whats the "best" exit.

 

[limeyx]

You find the line using your safety reel and you secure it to the found line. Now you anchor the two lines together, Then using your same reel, from the anchor point you begin searching for the lost buddy. ...

Ummm, no. Once I have found the line, I stay on it! The most likely place to find my team/buddy is on the line! Even if they got separated from the line like I did (and how would I know ?) then they will be trying to get back to it just like i did. No reason to take my reel or spool and go galivanting off in weird places.

 

[ucfdiver]

Hey it was this question, good example BTW

So how would YOU answer it?

If I'm over a p200 arrow at Olsen, I'm heading to Olsen. If I'm not much past the half way arrow, I'm heading to peacock.

If I were low on gas exiting Ginnie, and had entered on mainline via the bigroom/bone line and hopped on mainline from there, I'm going to take mainline home.

If I'm in the NE corner tunnels in Ginnie, I'm taking MY exit no matter what. If I'm in a lesser dove cave, I'm taking MY exit because there's higher risk of a line break.

There's rules... and there's common sense. Sometimes you have to think beyond the training manual. Not sure that's the response you were looking for, but it's what I'd do.

 

[limeyx]

You re-calculated your exit gas for Olson or for the entrance (exit you came from)?

The exit he came from. Read the description of how he marked the arrow with the cookie on the non Olsen-side of the arrow he placed going toward Olsen

 

[ucfdiver]

I saw this comment earlier, and resisted sidetracking but can't anymore. How can this be? What is the logic behind granting places exit arrows? I was trying to dig my memory whether I was taught that arrows might only indicate a possible air source/exit as in one should not trust one can get to it... which sounds nuts.

If one was able to get out by removing gear and free diving the last bit, maybe I could understand but if there is a long SM hike that could be devastating in some CF or emergency situation. I think it could be bigger risk marking something as exit that is not a possible passage for some divers ever vs assuming some unverified stable exit becoming unpassable (because of collapse etc).

I know there is a reluctance to make more traffic signs for cave but maybe this is one where the markers should be different (like restricted exit?). I assume these places aren't on the paths most traveled in the cave/s? How are they marked on maps?

Again, no wonder I was so emphatically taught not to trust arrows I have not verified or placed myself.

My guess is Jeff Hancock (who keeps up a lot of the lines in Ginnie) is SM, most of the tunnels in that area are SM, so he ran the lines to suit the larger population of divers for that area. By taking the BM route, you're adding about 400-500ft more distance to get out.

 

[piikki]

The exit he came from. Read the description of how he marked the arrow with the cookie on the non Olsen-side of the arrow he placed going toward Olsen

Yes. How would one even calculate gas for exit one does not know? Like say in my example I said I have never been to Olsen (I have not). Once I pass the mid point, I do know the distance but I do not know, say, depths or restrictions, ie the the travel time it might take me to get to "the closer" exit. - Naturally smarty pants would have looked at the cave map before dive and seen, at least, that the cave does not drop to 150 ft before Olsen but let's play simples again. One might not know/remember every time.

 

[limeyx]

Yes. How would one even calculate gas for exit one does not know? Like say in my example I said I have never been to Olsen (I have not). Once I pass the mid point, I do know the distance but I do not know, say, depths or restrictions, ie the the travel time it might take me to get to "the closer" exit. - Naturally smarty pants would have looked at the cave map before dive and seen, at least, that the cave does not drop to 150 ft before Olsen but let's play simples again. One might not know/remember every time.

Well, I am not familiar with that area but there are cases (definitely in Mexico) like say Nohoch, where you may pass a cenote on the way into the cave, and the line may traverse through or under that exit.

In this case, if you have already swum past this point on the way into the cave and are now exiting, but very close to that exit,I guess you could make an argument to go there, but your buddy may now make for the original exit and you reduce the chances of meeting up with them. You also have to make darned sure you can exit the water and reasonably get help in such a situation, and that you haven't gotten sufficiently confused about where that exit actually is ....

 

[GDI]

Thanks. I did recall that one, just not in that detail.

My understanding of that report is that both divers had two spools/reels on them. One failed to deploy them, the other deployed one and became tangled.

In light of that, are you at liberty to discuss what part of this analysis led to the recommendation of carrying two safety spools?



Wasn't that a snap 'n gap at one point too?

At Peacock I do not recall off the top of my mind a snap 'n gap line at the pot hole.

These fatalities often result in more study then what the reports provide by them selves. The training agency training directors sit down and discuss them with training commitees and look at ways of mitgating further risk be that through policies, standards and procedures (S&P) and/or equipment and new technology. Any changes in an agency's S&P towards equipment or training will result in a trend analysis having been completed and discussed (Accidnet Analysis). This fatality including some others suggest the use of a redundant safety as a means towards risk mitigation, hopefully to reduce the risk. Of all the equipment we carry for redundant systems, we for years have not carried a redundant safety reel/spools.