Running out of air- a perspective

[Sea Lioness]

I completely disagree with the analysis given in the article quoted at the beginning of this thread, specifically the part where it says

"There are no reliable statistics on how often divers actually run out of air. But I believe there's absolutely no way divers run out of air on 41% of their dives. The reason that's significant is that, statistically, you'd expect a direct correlation between how often a behavior occurs and how often it produces the outcome you're measuring.

For instance if we knew that 80% of the Southern California dives occurred from boats and 20% occurred from shore (I'm making these numbers up), you'd expect that 80% of the fatalities would come from boat dives and 20% would come from shore dives.

But in the case of out-of-air, we have a behavior that seems to be relatively rare (less than 1%?) that produces an inordinately high (41%) number of the fatalities. Specifically, if out-of-air is a relatively rare occurrence, the fact that it produces a significant percentage of the fatalities likely means that running out of air is far more dangerous behavior than we think it is." [emphasis added]

First of all, the logic here doesn't work for me. If 20% of SoCal dives are from shore, and 80% of dives are from boats, I would only expect the breakdown of accidents to be 20/80 shore/boat if diving from shore and diving from a boat had no bearing on the cause of the accident, or that they were equivalently dangerous. If diving from a boat is more dangerous (say because of the possibility of getting separated from the boat, or because they can reach deeper dive sites, or because dangerous predators don't come as close to shore, or because boats can go to dive sites with higher current, for example), then I would expect more than 80% of the accidents to be from boat dives. If, on the other hand, shore diving is more dangerous (say because of the risks in dealing with surf entries/exits, or more entanglement risks, or lower visibility, or...) then I would expect that more than 20% of the accidents would be from shore dives.

So, yes, running out of air, if it is involved with 41% of fatalities, while happening on FAR less than 41% of dives, is clearly a VERY risky situation. I'm pretty sure that just about EVERYONE in diving already knows that. The idea behind training divers what to do in the event of running out of air (regardless of whether it is caused by equipment failure or inattentiveness) is to REDUCE the risk of death (or, if you prefer, to INCREASE the chances of survival) in the event of it happening.

I can certainly believe that increased emphasis on NOT ever running out of air would be a good thing, but it is still extremely important to teach divers techniques for successfully handling the situation when it occurs. The question you need to ask to understand this is: "How many divers who run out of air actually die, and how many survive?" By teaching scuba divers how to survive running out of air, we increase the number of divers who survive out-of-air emergencies, which is obviously a good thing. By ALSO emphasizing how critical it is NOT to run out of air, we hope to reduce the total number of out-of-air incidents in the first place, which is also obviously a good thing.

As an instructor, I try to build in my students a habit of frequently checking their SPG, so that they do not run out of air, and that is an EXTREMELY important skill, precisely because running out of air is so dangerous. However, it is also extremely important for me to provide my scuba students with the skills that could save their lives if they do run out of air for any reason.

 

[merxlin]

Ken seems to (oddly) being arguing for only teaching one approach (scare and belittle new students) as a solution to what he perceives as the teaching of only one approach (what to do if you do find yourself in an OOG situation)...................

I'm not sure I see that in this article. Where does he suggest scaring and belittling new students? Does telling a new student "41% of all scuba deaths are the result of running out of air - here is how you avoid that" seem harsh. I'm not following. Can you elaborate?

My take from the article is that we spend a lot of time training new divers how to handle running out of air, but not how to avoid running out of air.

 

[scubadiver888]

I have a few problems with the bulk of this article.

First, he states that "These cases do NOT involve equipment failure." Is this stated in the DAN study? Or is this what he believes to be the case. Something in the back of my head makes me think this might be the writer's personal opinion and not entirely supported by the study.

Second, since 41% of fatalities are the result of running out of air the writer comes to the conclusion that "running out of air is far more dangerous behavior than we think it is." Or is it? If you are uncomfortable in the water and you run out of air you might panic. Most divers I talk to agree that panic is probably the most dangerous thing you can do while diving. So is running out of air the problem or is panicking the problem?

Third, running out of air is one thing but running out of air in a ship wreck, a cave, diving below 140 feet, etc. is another story. I will agree that the Deep Diver certification is lacking any proper gas management. Even if we taught the rule of thirds it would be better than what is being taught right now. However, the logic the writer has used to come to this conclusion seems dubious.

Fourth, some people just take unnecessary risks. I've seen people argue that the speed limit should be raised to 110 km/h in my city. The argument is that 90% of the people drive 120 km/h already. Most people know full well that if the speed limit was raised to 110 km/h the majority of people would start driving 130 km/h. In the same regard, there will always be people who if they knew how to calculate their gas consumption would leave no or little reserve after a while.

Fifth, are the people running out of air new divers. If they are the writer might have something. If they are people with no certification or people who have been diving for a decade or more then his conclusion is unfounded.

Sixth, I've known people to receive the proper training, forget it and later claim they were never taught a skill. The one thing I was taught in my Deep Diver course was to keep an eye on your gas. It will disappear a lot quicker at 120 feet then it will at 30 feet. I believe even my Open Water course talked about how, compared to the surface, you use twice the air at 33 feet, three times the air at 66 feet, four times the air at 99 feet and five times the air at 132 feet.

Bottom line, is this a convincing article? Not to me. There is too much conjecture and not enough facts to support his conclusions. However, could we use better minimum training on gas management? Absolutely.

 

[Rainer]

You could start with his needlessly offensive first sentence...

My take from the article is that Ken Kurtis likes to beat his chest.

I'm not sure I see that in this article. Where does he suggest scaring and belittling new students? Does telling a new student "41% of all scuba deaths are the result of running out of air - here is how you avoid that" seem harsh. I'm not following. Can you elaborate?

My take from the article is that we spend a lot of time training new divers how to handle running out of air, but not how to avoid running out of air.

 

[knowone]

The taught plans suggest solutions whereby you are sharing with someone
that has a similar amount of air as you, which obviously will not sustain two.

Or you have another option of bolting controllably of course for the surface.

And does not inform of lifetime neurological and physical problems

IF you survive DCS.


All dives are overhead dives, conducted by folks with NO knowledge
of the intricacies of the simple equipment that sustains them.


Keep them stupid.

Simple

:bs:​

So I call those proponents of their particular brand of teaching
to desist from sanctioned speakings and educate with the truth

And make them smart.

FROM the START.

Simple.



So the answer to the question about when the next specialty is available

is

PSI only means something when you equate it to the volume of your tank.
.

 

[merxlin]

You could start with his needlessly offensive first sentence...

My take from the article is that Ken Kurtis likes to beat his chest.

Fine. Ken like's to beat his chest. Is running out of air smart? Lets discuss the message, not the messanger.

I still don't see where anyone is advocating not teaching divers how to handle an out of air situation, but are advocating more education on how to avoid doing it, and being more honest about how what happens if you do. Someone explain the downside to me here?

 

[merxlin]

.................So, yes, running out of air, if it is involved with 41% of fatalities, while happening on FAR less than 41% of dives, is clearly a VERY risky situation. I'm pretty sure that just about EVERYONE in diving already knows that..............

The statistic is that 41% of diver deaths were triggered by an out of air situation. If everyone knows the ramifications of running out of air, why do so many divers that still run out of air DIE?

 

[Peter Guy]

This issue was extensively discussed after the DAN study came out. I was one of those who really didn't believe Ken was advcocating NOT teachiing OOA responses but, to the contrary, asking a "What If" question as to how we might teach OW differently (and better). I'm still not sure he isn't just musing as opposed to advocating.

HOWEVER -- I do believe there is more than a kernel of truth in his underlying questions -- ARE we teaching OW students properly when it comes to the issue of properly managing/monitoring their air supply? I don't know the answer. On the one hand the vast majority of people are "back on the boat with 500 PSI" -- BUT, going OOA (or seemingly OOA) does appear to be the trigger for too many incidents -- some of which result in death. And Ken is absolutely correct -- there is NO EXCUSE for running OOA -- it is just entirely preventable.

Ken -- Thanks for the article.

 

[String]

"Running out of air" isn't always preventable no matter what the article states. Although modern dive gear is very reliable it isnt perfect. It can break


I don't think entry level training teaches people enough to not run out of air. Over emphasis on the buddy system and "they have an octopus" and not enough on dive planning and monitoring to actually prevent them running out in the first place.

Then again 1 single alternate air source ascent in the entire does doesn't in my view prepare someone for an air-sharing ascent 5 years down the line either!

Yes if you run out of gas your buddy MIGHT be there and he MIGHT be able to help you should not replace methodical dive planning and conduct.

 

[seaducer]

For instance if we knew that 80% of the Southern California dives occurred from boats and 20% occurred from shore (I'm making these numbers up), you'd expect that 80% of the fatalities would come from boat dives and 20% would come from shore dives.
.

Ya beat me to it. The author is not that good at extrapolating information from statistics and falls into some common traps. His example just drives that point home.

I should think drowning (running out of air) accounts for a considerable number of diving fatalities, but what is causing divers to go OOA? If we can pinpoint those causes then we can do something to reduce those numbers. Simply recovering a body with no air in the tanks is not enough information to go on. I think reading about near miss accidents is a better use of OUR time, since the people involved can relate what happened that lead to the incident.

I wonder how many diving fatalities occurred before the diver even made it to the dock...