Pushing the limits? Is it a good idea?

[EFX]

Good point. Context is everything in diving. That's why it's so important when an instructor or mentor tells a new diver something, to explain why you're telling them that. Pushing your limits isn't necessarily a bad thing ... it's how we grow as divers. What's a bad thing is doing something inherently dangerous without realizing it ... or why you should do it. And divers often do those things even while staying within the limits of their training (e.g. buddy separation) ...... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Bingo. Divers need to know why certain scenarios are dangerous, what are the risks, and what generally can be done to mitigate those risks. I'll explain more later. Certainly, we learn by "pushing our limits" but we can also learn by not "pushing our limits". Is diving to 70 ft (when it should be 60 ft) 3 out of 10 dives pushing the limits? Maybe. Maybe not? Depends on the individual. Everyone has different risk tolerances. This is why setting hard (soft) limits is so problematic and why we get into long sometimes tedious and argumentative threads on what constitutes OE's.

I think we need to be careful when we throw around terms like "overhead environments (OE)". By any stretch of the imagination an anchor chain is not an OE. However, it can be every bit as dangerous. Suppose a new diver looses control of their buoyancy and drifts up just as s/he swims under an anchor chain and gets pinned under the chain. You instruct them about this possible risk and give possible solutions. This "risk-solution" information can be generalized toward any non-specific OE like swimming under boats, arches, etc. Of course "real" OE's like cavern/cave need to be presented in a longer presentation.

This presents a problem for new divers. It's just too much information to remember when new divers are struggling with the basics. That's why catchy slogans like "60 ft limit" for OW divers, or "No OE's" are needed but as boulderjohn points out are useless because they don't convey the needed info on the risks/dangers.

As already mentioned dive op's who take divers on questionable dives without explaining the risks-solutions are contributing to a serious problem that could eventually lead to a fatality. Even (relatively) experienced divers are susceptible to the "trust me" dive op. I did devil's throat in Cozumel a few years ago going through that restricted, what 30 ft? swim-through at 120 ft depth. I was the fifth diver in a single-file line of eight divers. I thought about it later, after the dive, how dangerous that dive was for me. What if the diver somewhere ahead of me had a problem and panicked? I can't go forward and can't backup -- I'm trapped. Could I have panicked or the diver behind me? If I knew the risks I may not have gone through the swim-through.

Or how about a swim-through I suspect most divers here on SB would find relatively risk free. Where I dive frequently there are two swim-throughs: a 20 ft boat and a 20 ft corrugated 4 ft diameter steel tube set at an angle. You can clearly see from one end through to the other end of the boat and it is wide enough (barely) for two divers side-by-side. The tube however, is just wide enough for one diver, has no objects to get snagged on you can clearly see through to the other side (no bends or turns). IMO, the tube presents more risks than the boat but yet I have routinely seen more divers go through the tube than the boat. The tube is not viewed as a wreck. What are the risks? I have a gas problem and need to share air but we can't - no side by side. I loose control of buoyancy and get pinned to the top. How do I get out? There's nothing to grab onto. I have to pull or push my way out.

So, explain the risks and the possible solutions and let divers, honestly if they can, evaluate those risks in light of their own experience and their buddy's and determine whether they continue.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I had the great honor of being able to write this account of one of my friend Edd Sorenson's rescues. In the process I had a couple hours of phone conversation with the father of the young girl. One of the telling things was his statement that his kids knew what caverns are like because he had taken them into the Ballroom at Ginnie Springs. Therein lies the problem. The Ballroom at Ginnie springs is unlike almost any cavern anywhere and is not representative of the challenges of overhead diving. That's why openwater divers are allowed to go there. It's also why our attempts to educate are so vital. I've always felt that it is absolutely not enough to say, "Don;t go into the overhead." We have to also explain why. By doing that we allow reason to enter the minds of the inexperienced divers instead of just shutting them off. My buddies and I always make a point of engaging openwater divers we see at sites we also cave dive at. We explain all the extra gear and the obstacles you are likely to face. By taking the mystery out of it for them it allows them to understand it and make the logical decision to get training if you are interested in that type of diving.

Rescue at Twin Caves- A Lesson for SCUBA Divers | Florida Dive Connection - Florida SCUBA Diving News and Information

Among other things, the Ballroom has that grate over the cave entrance to prevent people from going any further. Other caves don't have that. In a cave, you can't depend on someone else doing something to save you from your own poor decisions ... you have to learn not to make them. That young lady was extremely lucky that Edd managed to find her and bring her out alive ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[boulderjohn]

I had the great honor of being able to write this account of one of my friend Edd Sorenson's rescues. In the process I had a couple hours of phone conversation with the father of the young girl. One of the telling things was his statement that his kids knew what caverns are like because he had taken them into the Ballroom at Ginnie Springs. Therein lies the problem. The Ballroom at Ginnie springs is unlike almost any cavern anywhere and is not representative of the challenges of overhead diving. That's why openwater divers are allowed to go there. It's also why our attempts to educate are so vital. I've always felt that it is absolutely not enough to say, "Don;t go into the overhead." We have to also explain why. By doing that we allow reason to enter the minds of the inexperienced divers instead of just shutting them off. My buddies and I always make a point of engaging openwater divers we see at sites we also cave dive at. We explain all the extra gear and the obstacles you are likely to face. By taking the mystery out of it for them it allows them to understand it and make the logical decision to get training if you are interested in that type of diving.

Rescue at Twin Caves- A Lesson for SCUBA Divers | Florida Dive Connection - Florida SCUBA Diving News and Information

As a part of my presentation in "Understanding Overhead Environments," I show two slides: 1) a picture of the opening of the cavern at Jackson Blue taken from the inside, and 2) a picture of the opening of the cavern of Twin Caves taken from the inside. At first glance, these two pictures of two cavern openings only a few hundred yards apart from each other look very similar, but I point out the rocky nature of the ground at Jackson Blue and the smooth surface of the bottom of Twin Caves, the result of the deep, soft silt that caused the near catastrophe you described. I then go into that incident to show how that one seemingly minor difference in the two caverns was so nearly fatal.

 

[Neilwood]

As a part of my presentation in "Understanding Overhead Environments," I show two slides: 1) a picture of the opening of the cavern at Jackson Blue taken from the inside, and 2) a picture of the opening of the cavern of Twin Caves taken from the inside. At first glance, these two pictures of two cavern openings only a few hundred yards apart from each other look very similar, but I point out the rocky nature of the ground at Jackson Blue and the smooth surface of the bottom of Twin Caves, the result of the deep, soft silt that caused the near catastrophe you described. I then go into that incident to show how that one seemingly minor difference in the two caverns was so nearly fatal.

This is probably why the general rule of no overhead environments came from - without experience, it would be hard for a beginner to know the difference between the two so better to simply make it none at all than try to draw a line in the sand (or should that be silt??).

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Neilwood I think you hit the nail on the head there. Easier to throw out a blanket than go into detail. The other issue may be hat some people figure if we give too much detail to help decision making that people may think that consitutes a course that qualifies them to do dives beyond what they should.

My thought process when I did Fishrock cave may have been flawed according to some. I will risk the consequences and explain the factors that came to play for me to make that decision.

I had over 200 bottom hours in quite a variety of conditions including surge, current and night dives.
I knew I had my bouyancy dialed in.
I knew the small group of people I was diving with and had dived with them regularly.
All but me and my hubby had been through the cave multiple times
I studied the map and looked at video of going through the cave.
I knew there were no side tunnels or entanglement hazzards
I knew of the bubble caves at the ceiling and that air was breathable.
I knew my gear was in good condition and double checked it before entry.
I knew my gas consumption would easily allow me to complete the dive with a huge reserve.
I knew that it was rock rubble and shell grit bottom with no chance of silting.
We carried extra torches

Even so my dive plan meant I would go through the dark section of the cave with no stops until I was in the light zone of the exit.
Having considered all of that I made my decision but I will admit I did not like the chimney. I kept reminding myself that even though we couldn't go side by side for part of it.. I would not get stuck because I knew of a couple of divers who had gone through comfortable and were two to three times larger around than I was. I also reminded myself that if I had an equipment problem I didn't have far to go to where I would be able to be side by side to share air with my buddy.

Was my decision making process adequate who knows? There is are no cave diving course on offer in our area or weren't last time I checked. I certainly wouldn't spend the money to go to Melbourne, stay there and take a course to do one or two dives through Fishrock.

I have also refused to do "Swim throughs" that looked small to me or that I wasn't comfortable with the information I had on them prior to the dive. I guess we all make decisions about what risks we take on. I have also refused to take divers to sites I felt were beyond their ability. I really don't care if they feel judged or slighted or misunderstood.. if I feel the risk is too high.. they won't be diving it with me!

 

[Neilwood]

Neilwood I think you hit the nail on the head there. Easier to throw out a blanket than go into detail. The other issue may be hat some people figure if we give too much detail to help decision making that people may think that consitutes a course that qualifies them to do dives beyond what they should.

My thought process when I did Fishrock cave may have been flawed according to some. I will risk the consequences and explain the factors that came to play for me to make that decision.

I had over 200 bottom hours in quite a variety of conditions including surge, current and night dives.
I knew I had my bouyancy dialed in.
I knew the small group of people I was diving with and had dived with them regularly.
All but me and my hubby had been through the cave multiple times
I studied the map and looked at video of going through the cave.
I knew there were no side tunnels or entanglement hazzards
I knew of the bubble caves at the ceiling and that air was breathable.
I knew my gear was in good condition and double checked it before entry.
I knew my gas consumption would easily allow me to complete the dive with a huge reserve.
I knew that it was rock rubble and shell grit bottom with no chance of silting.
We carried extra torches

Even so my dive plan meant I would go through the dark section of the cave with no stops until I was in the light zone of the exit.
Having considered all of that I made my decision but I will admit I did not like the chimney. I kept reminding myself that even though we couldn't go side by side for part of it.. I would not get stuck because I knew of a couple of divers who had gone through comfortable and were two to three times larger around than I was. I also reminded myself that if I had an equipment problem I didn't have far to go to where I would be able to be side by side to share air with my buddy.

Was my decision making process adequate who knows? There is are no cave diving course on offer in our area or weren't last time I checked. I certainly wouldn't spend the money to go to Melbourne, stay there and take a course to do one or two dives through Fishrock.

I have also refused to do "Swim throughs" that looked small to me or that I wasn't comfortable with the information I had on them prior to the dive. I guess we all make decisions about what risks we take on. I have also refused to take divers to sites I felt were beyond their ability. I really don't care if they feel judged or slighted or misunderstood.. if I feel the risk is too high.. they won't be diving it with me!

My mind, with regards to doing a dive or calling it, always returns to Jim Lapentas - Who is responsible thread - this was one of the first threads I read on this forum and was way before I got my OW cert. Made me think a lot about how I wanted to dive.

With regards to your decision to do that dive, you were in an experienced group and made an educated decision. You certainly weren't doing a "trust me" dive following a random DM. You did a lot of prep for it by the sounds of things.

 

[boulderjohn]

Neilwood I think you hit the nail on the head there. Easier to throw out a blanket than go into detail. The other issue may be hat some people figure if we give too much detail to help decision making that people may think that consitutes a course that qualifies them to do dives beyond what they should.

Those attitudes definitely exist, and my experience creating the course on overhead environments demonstrated the full range of thinking.

I first started discussing the idea of such a course in a cave divers forum. (I actually had a different idea at first, and I will describe it in another post.) About half the people responding to my request for thoughts believed I was nuts, and they believed that the blanket "just say no to any overhead environment whatsoever until you are cave trained" was the best policy. The other half thought it was a great idea.

Once I had a rough idea of what a course should look like, I contacted PADI ahead of time to make sure I was not on a fool's errand--would it be possible to get such a course approved? PADI assigned the discussion to a high level staff member who is also an experienced cave diver. His initial reply was that such a course would not be possible--people who wanted to learn to dive overheads should take the appropriate course. The discussion that followed was too lengthy to recreate here, but I essentially pointed out that for the most part their really is no appropriate course for what most people are doing. It helped that this PADI staff member was, like me, from Colorado. Here in Colorado we have annually about the highest number of divers per capita in the nation.and we have no real local diving. Our most popular dive destination is Cozumel, where just about all those thousands of divers pass through overhead environments on almost every dive day. In Colorado, I am one of only a small handful of instructors certified to teach Cavern Diver (the course he wanted them all to take), and we have no caverns in which to teach the course. I also pointed out that I was not trying to certify them to dive overheads; I was just trying to teach them about the dangers found in the different kinds of overheads so they would understand why people are concerned about them.

I finally got approval to create a course that is academic only; I was allowed to add an optional pool session that teaches buoyancy, trim, and non-silting kicks. I was not allowed to have an open water component. So that's the course I made.

What is significant is that the course really does contradict the blanket rule about no overheads, for it does say (with PADI approval) that some very basic overhead environments can be dived without certification in a course like Cavern Diver.

 

[boulderjohn]

I am not a rock climber, but many of my friends are quite serious about rock climbing, and I learned from them that rock climbers have a number of rating systems that warn potential climbers of the degree of difficulty of a planned climb. I am a skier, and I know the universal system found on ski maps to warn skiers of the varying degrees of difficulty of the different slopes. I play golf, and before playing a new course, I check the slope rating on the score card to choose the tee boxes most appropriate to my ability. I used to be a serious volleyball player, and I used the standard rating system to chose the level of competition in which I would complete prior to entering a tournament.

Thinking about all of those rating systems made me wonder why we don't have such a system for diving overhead environments, and I set out to make one. I did not want to to do it by myself, figuring that it would be better if it came from a joint effort of a number of people with a lot of credibility. I myself am not among the elite of either cave diving or wreck diving, so I would definitely need help differentiating those top level dives. That was the original idea I pitched, but it did not get a lot of love. It drew mostly responses like, "Nice idea, but I'm too busy." It also drew some hostility, the reasoning for which I never understood.

When I eventually created the class, I made a scale similar to a ski map. I made no attempt to differentiate cave dives--I left that as a blanket "don't go into a cave without appropriate certification." Of course, that scale has no universality and will only be known to those who take the class. I still see a value to having a universal ranking system for overheads (and perhaps diving in general), but I don't see it happening soon.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

That sounds excellent @boulderjohn I don't know if you can do it here but I sure would love to just see the categories you have developed

 

[boulderjohn]

That sounds excellent @boulderjohn I don't know if you can do it here but I sure would love to just see the categories you have developed

I would essentially have to put the whole curriculum online here. It starts with the most basic, easy overhead and then escalates, showing how introducing different factors (number of exits in sight, restrictions, entanglement hazards, silt,--everything I could think of--can increase the level of danger and the amount of training, experience, and equipment needed. The last category is caves and true wrecks (with internal passageways, entanglements, etc.), overheads that demand a very high level of training, experience, and equipment. It then tells how to get the training to do the overheads safely.