Safety Stop

[jeckyll]

So you just watched your buddy "unintentionally" ascend from 40'?

Interesting.

Actually, no.

I signalled to see if he was ok, he responded. We had discussed this situation pre-dive and decided that should his buoyancy get away from him, he would signal ok and I would make a slow ascent (the viz was good enough that we could exchange light signals). If he was in trouble he would signal so with his light. He did not signal 'trouble' so I followed what we had planned.

 

[OneBrightGator]

When did you exchange signals?
How close were you?
How would you have responded had he not returned an ok signal?
Your dive plan expected buoyancy problems and included buddy separation during ascent (assuming "buoyancy problems" would cause/be during an ascent)?

 

[jeckyll]

When did you exchange signals?
How close were you?
How would you have responded had he not returned an ok signal?
Your dive plan expected buoyancy problems and included buddy separation during ascent (assuming "buoyancy problems" would cause/be during an ascent)?

You seem to have made up your mind that what we did, how we planned to go on this dive is unsafe. That's fine, but at least come out and say it.

 

[TSandM]

OneBrightGator, I pick up a critical tone as well.

When I was first diving, I had a lot of buoyancy problems. I blew a lot of stops. I knew in advance that it was likely. Anybody I dove with got told that. What should we have done, planned that anybody diving with me should put themselves at the same risk I was taking? I remember one dive where I corked and my buddy sat at 20 feet for a minute, and ten feet for a minute -- I could see him, he could see I was okay. I didn't have any problem with what he did.

I'm taking Rescue right now, and one of the prime concepts is not to create a second victim. Seems to me that, if someone is worried that there will be a problem, you have two options -- either don't dive at all (which won't solve the issue, if practice is what one needs) or set things up so you don't end up with two injured divers at the end of the dive, especially if the attempted intervention of the second diver is likely to be ineffective. Nobody except my original instructor ever succeeded in hauling me back down once I was going up . . .

 

[OneBrightGator]

All I did was ask some questions to get clarification because some things were unclear. Yes, from what you have posted so far this dive could have been very unsafe, but I was giving you the benefit of doubt until I understood what you were doing.

 

[gcbryan]

I see nothing wrong with how Jeckyll handled things. If I were the buddy and I knew for sure that I would have an uncontrolled ascent from 40 fsw then I would have suggested a shallower dive.

Regarding the whole mandatory safety stop wording it's nonsensical. I understand deco theory and I do safety stops and more on every dive but to call a safety stop mandatory makes no sense. Whether PADA refers to it that way in the manual or not is irrelevant.

Either the concept of a NDL makes no sense or the use of the term mandatory safety stop. If it's mandatory it's a deco stop. If the definition of NDL is no deco limit then you can't have a mandatory deco stop.

 

[Zoomer]

http://www.divetekadventures.com/Images.htm

Check out accents

 

[lowwall]

I think the arguments are an artifact of (PADI) OW training. It doesn't really provide enough information on decompression to allow a diver to make informed decisions on safety stops, instead substituting a couple of rules of thumb.

I can understand why it's done this way. PADI doesn't want to scare potential divers off and the rules of thumb do provide a reasonable margin of safety for the type of diving most recreational divers do. But I wish they'd at least include some more in depth info in an appendix for those who might be interested.

Alex

 

[jeckyll]

All I did was ask some questions to get clarification because some things were unclear. Yes, from what you have posted so far this dive could have been very unsafe, but I was giving you the benefit of doubt until I understood what you were doing.

Well, I was diving with someone new to a drysuit and we planned ahead and discussed the possibilities that he may mess up his buoyancy. (We discussed other situations, such as buddy separation, failure of gear, max depth & time, turn pressure given the dive etc etc as well of course)

I would think that any time someone has the chance of becoming too buoyant and making an uncontrolled ascent (not sure that uncontrolled is the right word, given that he was able to slow the ascent rate, just not enough to get negative again), planning for that possibility is the best thing to do. We took the approach of treating it like buddy separation. I.E. slow ascent, then meet at the surface.

If you have suggestions for handling such a situation in a manner that is safer, I'd welcome hearing them. Especially how to 'help' the buddy in such a way that they can become negative again, given the rate at which you can vent air from a drysuit. Or are you suggesting that both divers ascend at the same rate, no matter what?

Bjorn

 

[vkalia]

I think the arguments are an artifact of (PADI) OW training. It doesn't really provide enough information on decompression to allow a diver to make informed decisions on safety stops, instead substituting a couple of rules of thumb.

That is not accurate. Nowhere in the OW curriculum (and not to be wet blanket, but it aint just PADI, btw) does it say that you have to do a safety stop at all times.

The material clearly states that a safety stop is recommended for additional safety --> which is fine. It also clearly indicates that the safety stop is mandatory (a rather unfortunate turn of phrase, but I think most of us can figure out what they mean) when you get to within 3PGs of the NDL.

The fact that it is taught as "always do it" is one of those things that seems to have become ingrained somehow, like "mask on forehead = panic" and stuff like that.

Vandit