The Wisdom? of Split Dives Discussion

[berndo]

This is the part I don't understand

When a shop or operator has one boat you can't have one for the deep wreck and one for the shallow.
How could a shop just have another boat?

 

[Vicko]

This is the part I don't understand

Not everyone has money to hire a private boat, and not every boat has enough customers to justify doing just a tec dive.
And plenty of tec rebreather dives are done in the middle of nowhere, in a cave, out of cell service with the only surface support coming from a spouse 100 km away who knows you are supposed to come out around 10ish in the morning, but will wait until noon before calling for help.


I'm not arguing it's a smart way of doing things, I'm sure the victim would have had a better chance of surviving with a boat waiting for him.

 

[doctormike]

When a shop or operator has one boat you can't have one for the deep wreck and one for the shallow.
How could a shop just have another boat?

Dunno. Another operator. Another day.

I mean, your boats go out during the week and go out throughout the whole year, from what I recall, since the weather is nice year round and since it's a dive travel destination. So you must have a LOT of days to hit a limited number of wrecks.

Here, we have a short dive season, the boats primarily go out on the weekends, and we get a lot of blowouts. So we have significantly fewer opportunities to do a wreck dive (and a lot more wrecks).

Doesn't seem to be as big a problem at this end of the coast...

 

[Seaweed Doc]

How is a split drop any less safe than a a shore dive? Especially if you have a surface swim. If you had a 15 min surface swim out, you have more than a 15 min surface swim in to shore towing a casualty. How many shore divers have the emergency gear (AED, O2, etc.) that is available on a boat. Once you are on shore, you can call for help, but it will take a while to get there, even if you are near civilization.

People routinely dive without surface support. Why should it be mandated for boat dives? If you want it, you can pay extra for it. Otherwise, accept it the way you accept all the other risks of the dives you choose to do.

Having a heart attack 30 min from your boat is safer than having a heart attack 30 min back in a cave. At least you have access to the surface while waiting for the boat.

The answer to this involves a lot of "it depends." So let's go with a "typical" shore dive.

Where I've done most of my shore dives, there may not be an AED or even emergency oxygen on shore (I carry the latter routinely, and a lot of dive sites are near facilities with AED's). However, in most situations paramedics are 5 minutes away. Yes, not true everywhere, but the shore will generally offer more rapid access to emergency services than a boat dive.

I wouldn't call it a split drop if the groups of divers are relatively close together. But 1,900' is an awfully long swim. Most divers I know balk at a 1,500' swim from shore. So yes, it might be a long swim in but in the OP it's longer than most divers will swim from shore.

 

[doctormike]

I'm not sure how we got on the topic of shore dives.

The most common emergency in which a diver surfaces alive but in need of urgent attention is not a shockable arrhythmia or a myocardial infarction. It's DCS.

Pretty uncommon on shore dives.

Deep technical ocean dives? DCS is a bit more common. So maybe surface support is a bit more important.

 

[berndo]

Doesn't seem to be as big a problem at this end of the coast...

I live in a cold area with seasonal wreck diving too. The guys who run trips are usually people with money that do it as a side gig and because they want to. As far as I can't tell, you can't really pay-off a boat and all the expenses with these weekend trips during the summer.

The people in dive destinations usually need to make a living from it and it costs a lot of money to keep a boat in the water and running.
I'm sure if an operator could fill his boat with only rec divers or only rebreather divers on a constant basis, they would.... or get a second boat if they could fill it.

 

[scubadada]

I'm not sure how we got on the topic of shore dives.

The most common emergency in which a diver surfaces alive but in need of urgent attention is not a shockable arrhythmia or a myocardial infarction. It's DCS.

Pretty uncommon on shore dives.

Deep technical ocean dives? DCS is a bit more common. So maybe surface support is a bit more important.

I'm not at all sure what is the most common emergency when a diver is able to gain the surface, DCS, AGE, medical emergency, water inhalation . Regardless, prompt, appropriate treatment would probably improve the outcome.

 

[L13]

All diving has risks, and those risks vary with the type of diving. Many divers try to minimize those risks by optimizing the conditions of the dive

There is no practical way to have serious surface support for a shore dive. I mean, I guess you could have a portable chamber and a helicopter on standby, but given the fact that most shore dives are in about 20 feet of water, you are probably less likely to have a significant dive injury there than on a wreck in 200 FSW in a shipping channel.

Maybe most, but when I was in Guam we did wreck dives below 90' that were more practical as shore dives than boat dives. There is at least one wreck in Guam below 150' that is more practical as a shore dive than a boat dive.

But so far, it seems like the primary reason that it's OK to do a deep technical dive with no dive platform immediately available is that it's a better business model. But please (not being snarky), correct me if I'm wrong.

Better business model, as in it keeps them in business so you can get a boat to do the dive at a price you are willing to pay. I'm sure that if the technical divers paid enough to charter the entire boat, they would have been happy not to do a split drop.

 

[L13]

I'm not sure how we got on the topic of shore dives.

It was just one example of not having immediate access to surface support that isn't call "stupid". Cave diving was another example. Solo diving would be a third example.

A conscious decision to dive without immediate surface support for logistical reasons is not "stupid" in one case, but no big deal in the other. "Stupid" is taking a large unjustified risk, or not paying a small logistical price to significantly reduce risk.

I'm objecting to the disproportionate reaction to this risk compared to similar risks.

The most common emergency in which a diver surfaces alive but in need of urgent attention is not a shockable arrhythmia or a myocardial infarction. It's DCS.

Pretty uncommon on shore dives.

Deep technical ocean dives? DCS is a bit more common. So maybe surface support is a bit more important.

The primary treatment for DCS is O2, the tech divers probably have that on hand. Secondary treatment is re-compression. That is a long way away, even if the boat was there.

Drop dead without surface support is probably cardiac.

 

[L13]

I have had discussions with Joe about how stupid this practice was, and he agreed. Which is why it hurts to say that on the day in question, Joe personally requested the split drop from the captain of the dive vessel.

I think "stupid" is too strong a word. A risk benefit analysis was done, if only in his head, and he decided that in this case it was worth the risk.

I am not saying that the outcome would have been any different had the dive boat been directly on site.

In which case his analysis may still have been correct. But even if it wasn't, I still think "stupid" is too strong a word.