I think that [-]GUE/UTD/[/-]All other Training Organizations recognize that when [-]entering a cave[/-] solo diving the untrained diver is put into an extremely unsafe situation. Untrained divers shouldnt [-]enter caves[/-] solo dive but they do
guess what those divers [-]entering the caves[/-] solo diving may make it out, a few will be so scared that they never try again, and a few will think they can do a little bit more; this effect results in a staggering amount of [-]cave[/-] solo diving related deaths. However having proper training allows people to enjoy [-]cave[/-] solo diving with the highest margin of safety possible, they (the Training organizations) are not stressing less safe diving practices but instead they advocate diving in the safest way possible.
Edited to illustrate a point.
I realize that George is revered, but his beliefs are slightly flawed and possibly misunderstood.
I agree. If the guy had taken diplomacy and communication lessons, then I think his opinions would have been much more widely lauded amongst the diving community. A lot of what he said at that time was just as beneficial for the community as the insights offered by people like Exley. However, Exley got praised, Irvine got (generally) scorned.
'DIR' was (initially) presented as a strict methodology... a 'dogma'. Exley presented 'principles'. In what he wrote, Exley was just as vehement in his opinions - but avoided being (mis)interpreted because he didn't deal with absolutes on a micro-management basis. He dealt with the generic 'big picture', wheras Irvine dealt with specifics - procedures and configurations.
I think we can all agree about the existence of 'strokes' - but our definition of a 'stroke' varies depending on whether we define them by what they
don't do, rather than by what they
do. It also matters whether our definition derives from an assessment of someones actual diving capacity... or whether it's simplistically based upon whether someone adheres to a methodology or dogma that we ourselves believe in.
A dogmatic evaluation says: "
You aren't doing it like this, therefore it is unsafe".
A principled evaluation says: "
You are doing this, but you aren't doing that. On that basis, you are unsafe".
Specifically, with regard to solo diving activities, the difference in approach can be illustrated by:
A dogmatic evaluation says:
"You must have team support to mitigate X, Y and Z risks".
A principled evaluations says: "
X, Y and Z risks exists. You must effectively mitigate those risks".
With respect to solo diving.... what matters? Does it matter if a diver adheres to a team diving doctrine - thus making any solo activity 'stroke-like'? Or does it matter more if a diver adheres to intelligent diving principles, ensuring that they have prepared for and reasonably mitigated any foreseeable risks?
"Saying solo diving is safe is a lie, avoiding entanglements doesnt make sense, you cant plan for everything,"
You can plan for everything
reasonably foreseeable. The dive community, as a body, does understand the risks and does have ways to mitigate risks.
This applies to any diving activity, not just solo. Cave diving has risks. Decompression has risks. Wreck penetration has risks. You can't plan for everything - but you can plan to mitigate
reasonable foreseeable risks.
"Entanglements cannot always be identified or even noticed, you get stuck then what?"
What would a GUE trained cave-diver do if they were entangled in a restriction, where their team couldn't assist them? Entanglements can be dealt with or they cannot. Appropriate training, practice and psychological control will resolve these issues in most circumstances. If they can't resolve the issue, then the issue obviously wasn't
reasonably foreseeable.
people have heart attacks>no buddy means you are dead.
Does that differ in a cave? Or on a staged decompression dive?
The risk of serious medical illness occurring during a scuba dive presents a significant and invariably fatal risk to
any scuba diver. Any step beyond shallow open-water diving complicates those risks. There are a multitude of factors which impact on survivability in this instance - being alone is just one of them. Depth, overhead, distance from professional medical care are others.
1. You shouldn't _________ because you might have a heart attack.
(a) Solo Dive.
(b) Cave Dive.
(c) Dive beyond 60ft.
(d) Dive in locations more than 20 minutes from a primary care medical facility.
(e) Get off the couch.
If you have a heart attack on a solo dive, then nobody will assist you. You will probably die, if incapacitated by that medical event. Likewise, being surrounded by the best diving team in the world won't mitigate the risks or repercussions of a heart attack, if you have that heart attack 800m into a cave system. It would just mean your body got recovered quicker.
Solo, cave, deco...whatever... the danger of heart attack is mitigated by being health conscious in your lifestyle, obtaining frequent medical check-ups... and being honest in your self-assessment of whether to conduct a dive or not.
Equipment Fails
Equipment failure can be mitigated as a risk. Effective training should deal with this. Equipment failure is a comparable risk to the solo diver, as it is to the diver in an overhead (hard or virtual) environment.
People abuse their know limits, thinking they can overcome obstacles
Diver mindset can be dealt with during effective training. Again, this is just as applicable to technical or cave diving, as it is to solo diving.
Exceeding, or not understanding, your limits in relation to the dives you undertake... is a
fundamental diving failure. It doesn't matter what diving activity that pertains to.. what matters is whether the diver has the training, skills, procedures, equipment and mindset to mitigate risks and
reasonably assure their safety.
Overall Solo Diving is Stupid, as you cannot address all of these problems
When viewed from the perspective of 'risks versus mitigation', the only risk mitigation technique that cannot be applied on solo dives is the concept of team/buddy support. The absence of one single factor, does not negate the presence of other factors. Providing that all reasonably foreseeable risks can be mitigated, I don't see how you can differentiate on the grounds of safety purely on the basis of
how risks are mitigated.
Team diving is an effective risk mitigation technique.
Equipment and gas redundancy is an effective risk mitigation technique.
Diving within your personal limits, based on effective self-assessment of capability versus demand, is an effective risk mitigation technique.
Maintaining a healthy lifestyle, getting medical checks frequently and not diving if you feel unwell is an effective risk mitigation technique.
Being properly equipped and trained to deal with entanglements is an effective risk mitigation technique.
Precision dive and gas planning is an effective risk mitigation technique.
...and so on and so on and so on....
The 'problems' you have highlighted primarily concern the
diver, not the
dive. They are all generic problems - irrespective of the dive environment or activity.
The 'solution' (team/buddy support) you are suggesting is one solitary risk mitigation technique. It's absence does not automatically dictate irresponsibility or a decrease in overall safety - providing that the diver concerned has actually sought to effectively mitigate the risks that they will be exposed to.
