Safe Diving Practices - Yes or No?

[DevonDiver]

It appears to me that you used the term 'rules' in your original post, then when referring to me you substituted the term 'advice'.

Good point. My apologies. I wasn't even aware of that - which shows how certain concepts can be ingrained without realization. I'm ex-military, so I do tend to understand 'rules' better than suggestions. My point with starting this thread wasn't to be judgemental however; I was hoping to build a better understanding of varying perceptions within the diving community.

So at one time or another I've not followed the advice, rules, guidelines, whatever you want to call them. Shall I go down the line and address each and every item in your list? No. But I will try to give you a feel for where I'm coming from. To begin with, I wasn't certified when I started diving. At that time there was no requirement to be certified. I started diving solo. I used old used dive gear that I rebuilt myself. There were no BC's and pressure gauges were a luxury and not required, let alone an alternate air source. I've allowed non-certified divers to use my gear, I've even taken a non-certified person diving. Again, certification was not required. At that time no one did safety stops. I've done deco dives, some not even planned. There was no "Technical Diving". I've exceeded recommended depths, but at that time, the only recommended depth to exceed was 130', but sometimes you just hafta go for it.

So, at the time you started diving, what safety advice was prevalent within the community? What was the 'common wisdom'?

Get the picture? Probably not.

Absolutely do.

Most people will read this and consider me reckless. Simply, I started diving when there weren't so many ... restrictions, how's that word.

I partly agree. Dive operations manage restrictions. The agencies just produce recommendations.

So... looking at a wider context (beyond your own experience), how do you feel these 'restrictions' are applicable to the modern diving community?

Do the restrictions match the training given nowadays?

Those are BS standards, You should be somewhat aware of the area your entering, but here our dives are high current so you dont know what way exactly your going. Solo diving in a safe area is not any more risky then team dives (BHB is a great solo dive area). Exceding your limits with no overheads on OW and no deeper then 60' is garbage too since you can easily go to 100 and few people get narked there, just watch your times and air.

But what exactly qualifies people to do these dives? Or do you believe that the existing training provision does indeed provide competence for those activities? Or do you just believe that the activities are safe or easy enough, that there aren't sufficient risks that require restriction or specialised training?

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

This is the kind of attitude I am keen to investigate. It seems to be a predominantly American phenomenon.

There isn't a single mention of these being 'rules', either in the thread or the documents themselves. But, still, they seem to engage a rebellious streak in certain divers who then seek to flout them.

Zieg... I am interested. What thought processes did you engage when making the decision that you would not apply safety advice​ to your diving activities?

You're right ... they're not rules ... they're recommendations.

However, many dive charter operators turn them into rules, and insist that they be followed.

I tend to avoid those operators.

I'm not Zeig ... but my answer to your question would be that diving is, to me, an exercise in personal responsibility. The last thing I want is someone who knows nothing about me, and next to nothing about the conditions I dive in dictating to me how I should be conducting that dive.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[imwright1985]

But what exactly qualifies people to do these dives? Or do you believe that the existing training provision does indeed provide competence for those activities? Or do you just believe that the activities are safe or easy enough, that there aren't sufficient risks that require restriction or specialised training?

What gave the agancies the authority to extablish theses standards, Who tried them and said this set is appropriate if you have this training and what not. how is going through a swim through that you can see the other side different (slong as you dont silt it up) then just swimming in the open ocean, yet some people insist that I need to be wreck certified. With diving deeper then our declared maximum I say you take your time and learn your gas consumption since that will be changing, making sure that you are staying in the gas mix ceiling, and that you have a buddy to help monitor you for narcosis

 

[Zieg]

DevonDiver, so many more questions. And they are GOOD questions.

Thank you for not attacking, after my original post I expected to be flamed by some. But the day is still young.

I've always had an issue with the 'rules'. I like recommendations. I know, that makes me one picky sob. I've had too many people over the years go on and on about the 'rules'.

As for the safety advice prevalent within the community, the 'common wisdom'; learn the basics of diving, read, go diving with someone with experience, ...go diving. A mae west was highly recommended and I had one. Weight yourself properly. Get certified if you can. Simple. When I did take a class, the only real thing I learned beyond what I had picked up on my own was buddy breathing. But up to that point I really didn't need it since I didn't dive with anyone.

Are the restrictions applicable to the modern diving community, and do these restriction match the training given nowadays? Now that is the best question of all, but a hard one for me to answer. This is just my opinion. Everyone goes on about how much better their dive training was years ago, when they took diving, you know, the good ole days. I've come to the conclusion that the quality of training hasn't changed a bit, just the quanity. The agencies have just streatched out the process. You are still subject to the instructor, who may teach you the bare essentials or teach you the full monty. In the old days, we didn't have as much equipment to deal with, and diving was simpler, you were reliant on yourself.

Do the restrictions match the training given nowadays? I don't have that answer. I know, that for me, many of the restrictions are a annoyance but yet I feel that some of the people who are diving may need even more restrictions.

I remember when dive boats started to require bc's. I thought that was outta line and going completely overboard. Then I was getting on a dive boat when I was informed that next time I would have to have a jacket not a horsecollar bc or they wouldn't let me dive with them. That's alright, I quit diving with them.

I know that some people NEED rules.

A couple of years ago I got in a discussion on this board about some dives an OW diver made. He took advantage of ideal conditions, dove with a divemaster, and made two dives beyond the recommended depths for his training. Most of the responses he got were that he 'broke the rules' and lucky to be alive. I asked what rules did he break and people attacked me. Finally the one die hard agreed that they weren't rules but recommendations. I've noticed that since then the majority of divers now use the phrase 'within your confort level'.

 

[DevonDiver]

This is going a bit off-topic, as there are other threads to debate the 'rights' of agencies to dictate standards, or what those standards are.

My concern on this thread was primarily to ascertain the rationalisations behind differing viewpoints on adhering to recommended safe diving practices, in relation to the specific courses/levels that are applied to. I'm still keen to develop that discussion, because I am considering writing an article on the subject.

What gave the agancies the authority to extablish theses standards,

They aren't 'standards'... just recommendations.

I think that the fact that the agencies issue the qualifications, does give them the right to define the limitations they recommend appropriate for those qualifications.

Who tried them and said this set is appropriate if you have this training and what not.

I would assume that the recommendations are directly linked to the skills and knowledge contained in a specific course/s.

i.e. There's no self-sufficiency material in the Open Water course, hence they don't recommend solo diving.

I guess that the agencies do recognize that a diver can gain skills/experience from other means, other than taking formal courses, which is why general recommendations are given, rather than strict qualification limits?

how is going through a swim through that you can see the other side different (slong as you dont silt it up) then just swimming in the open ocean,

You answered your own question there. The risk of silting, coupled with an inability to directly ascend to the surface, is what makes it different to open ocean.

Open Water divers are taught to use specific techniques for Out-Of-Air emergencies; in particular air-sharing with a buddy and the Controlled Emergency Swimming Ascent (CESA).

Loss of visibility can render standard air-sharing procedures ineffective.

Overhead obstructions can render the CESA and Buoyant Emergency Ascents ineffective.

In addition, Open Water divers aren't taught gas management, which means that they are unable to effectively plan minimum gas contingencies (i.e. 'Rock Bottoms') for air-sharing - which is especially important when direct, immediate ascent may not be possible when sharing air.

Thus, the agencies have recognised that the training given for open water diving does not provide sufficient guarantee of safety in an overhead and potentially low-visibility environment, because their emergency out-of-air protocols may be ineffective in those circumstances.

yet some people insist that I need to be wreck certified.

Every diver, even professionals, have a right to decide the skill-set they require from a buddy in any given diving environment. If you don't know how to air-share within a confined, overhead, low/zero-viz environment... If you don't know how to use a guideline... If you don't know how to propel yourself without raising silt and disturbing visibility.... they have an absolute right to decide not to accompany you into that environment.

A business has an equal right to impose such restrictions. It may be your life... but any incident will also effect their safety and their business reputation.

This is really beyond the scope of this thread - although it does highlight diver perception of certification courses being taken to provide a 'license' to conduct a certain activity, rather than certification courses being taken to provide knowledge and capability to conduct that activity.

With diving deeper then our declared maximum I say you take your time and learn your gas consumption since that will be changing, making sure that you are staying in the gas mix ceiling, and that you have a buddy to help monitor you for narcosis

No disagreement with this. That's why the agency (at least PADI) make depth recommendations based on training and experience. The 18m depth recommendation is for "newly certified Open Water Divers". It's a myth that PADI impose a 'limit' of 18m unless you've done AOW etc etc.

That said, whilst progressive depth experience is the right way to increase your capabilities; there is also the issue of developing knowledge that needs to accompany such diving activities.

You correctly identify narcosis as one factor that needs to be addressed. There are other factors, such as; gas management, emergency decompression procedures, equipment considerations etc... that become more critical as you dive deeper.

Where dive operations have strict limits (based on qualification) it is to ensure that you, the customer - an unknown quantity - should have knowledge of those issues, those risks and have the experience and skill to mitigate them. How else would they know that you're not just an over-confident moron who wants to push the limits and doesn't think the rules apply to them?

To be fair, some dive operations do run a process of check dives, that can assess the individual divers' capabilities before allowing them to conduct advanced dives. That is more fair - but many divers don't like the concept of being assessed before being 'allowed' to conduct X, Y and Z dives...

Either way, a dive pro is prudent to ensure the competence of his dive buddies (customers) for any given dive... and some of those customers will get upset if that competence is found lacking (whichever assessment method is used).

 

[Jax]

Wait . . . I see everyone answering the PADI rules of diving . . . .

Isn't the question "Do you follow your agency's rules?" ?

Obviously, the SDI's Solo Diver Rules will contradict the other NAUI / PADI / etc. rules for dive with a buddy.

However, since I am trained, I am not violating my agency's rules . . . so I see it. I am following my agency's rules for the activity I am executing.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I solo dive ... therefore I do not always follow NAUI's rules.

I follow Bob's rules, which to my concern are much more conservative and well-defined than NAUI's ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Jax]

On a serious note: A colleague of mine has just died. I'm just trying to get the details, but was due to a dive incident. I mention it in this thread simply because they guy was 'Mr Safety'. There is great truth in the saying, if you really want to avoid DCS, don't dive. Sometimes it doesn't matter how many procedures you follow.

So sorry to hear this.

 

[DevonDiver]

Wait . . . I see everyone answering the PADI rules of diving . . . .

Isn't the question "Do you follow your agency's rules?" ?

Obviously, the SDI's Solo Diver Rules will contradict the other NAUI / PADI / etc. rules for dive with a buddy.

However, since I am trained, I am not violating my agency's rules . . . so I see it. I am following my agency's rules for the activity I am executing.

Thanks Jax.

That was one of my points in the OP. The issue isn't whether you agree/disagree with PADI's recommendations, I just posted them as an example.

The issue of adhering to safety recommendations is relative to the safety recommendations that apply to you/your qualifications.

If you're a PADI trained recreational diver, then the 'Safe Diving Practices' are applicable. If you aren't, then they don't.

With particular regard to 'recommended limitations' in specific diving activities (related to qualification), then I am interested to know what people consider acceptable grounds to exceed those limitations, and how they make a reasonable judgement call on their personal capability to safely do that?

 

[Jax]

*ahem* :focus"

Please . . . before we get a 'coffee' thread in Whine and Cheese.


Someone above makes the comment that all of this is "common sense". I'd like to dispute that. (Surprise!)

"Common" sense is the least common of all the senses. (forgot who said that) "Common" sense comes from information passed down through the 'elders' to the youngsters.

Diving with a buddy is common sense amongst most OW divers.

To a trained and more experienced diver, it's common sense that solo diving is applicable (preferable) in some situations.

To those of us without a lot of experience (however one may measure that), "common sense" dictates we follow our agency's rules (training) strictly. Once we gain experience (or we think we've gained experience), we become more comfortable in bending or breaking the rules.

To some divers that like to poke fun at newb's adherence to rules . . . You're 'pushing' (using peer pressure) for someone to dive outside of their current level of "common sense", into your comfort level of common sense, when the newb may or may not have the abilities to deal with the same situations your experience level designates as common.

For those that laugh at the 'coffee lady' -- to YOUR level of common sense, she is an idiot.

To those that have looked into and learned the whole story, there isn't any common sense about it, just a greedy corporate attitude that eschews the previous 700+ individuals that were hurt.

And to anyone really, if you spill coffee on yourself, you expect every part of your body touched by the coffee to be instantly cooked?

In the same way, those who dive outside of their agency's rules have an expectation of what is normal. The question is, do they have the experience to broaden that expectation to be appropriately prepared for the possible abnormal outcome?