Treat every dive like a tech dive

[TONY CHANEY]

Very good post and I totally agree. My buddy and I have a true and very useful thought: "Never do a dive that you are not willing to do solo." I have seen so many divers to include instructors cut too many corners because "it is just a quarry dive." Treating every dive like a tech. dive does not mean to bring all of your equipment. It really means to think like a tech diver. Questions like: do i have the proper mix, enough gas, proper equipment and is it functioning properly, how is my buddy, how about the dive plan, etc, etc. I does not take much time and most of the situations are done in your head and no need to go to great degrees of questions and answers. i.e. every time I dive with a new dive buddy, I just ask a simple question: "Mind if I look at your kit?" I have never been told no. What I am doing is seeing where my OOA reg is located, where the backup lights are etc. If there is a question of concern, hell we talk about it. I have even changed my kit around because the buddy had a better idea. In this day and age we are diving totally different that those in the past. We now have teams of SM, BM and RB's in the same team dive. Just my thoughts.

 

[2airishuman]

I disagree with the seat belt analogy. I don't think anyone is suggesting skipping any of the basics that are considered good practice for rec dives, which I would say is the equivalent of the basic good practice of seat belts. But I don't think a 5 point harness is necessary when I run to the grocery store. Safer in theory, maybe, but meaningfully so? No, and more of a nuisance than it's worth. Certainly one should never be sloppy, and learning more is always good, but there's a continuum here.

Well, it's just an analogy.

Driving and diving each have risks. However you might choose to measure those risks, I think it's clear that diving has greater risks, and I wonder whether the diving/instructing community could perhaps do a better job of encouraging use of the equipment and mindset that is presently associated with tech diving.

I'm old enough to remember when there were people who thought that the 3 point seat/shoulder belt harness was overkill for anything but racing. There's more tradition and less science behind our chosen safety practices (or the lack of them) than we might think.

Some people argue that while the chances of getting bent on Nitrox may be less, the risk is already so low it's not statistically meaningful, so one shouldn't really consider Nitrox to increase safety. I think the same applies to looking at the pretty fishies at 60 - perhaps going whole hog (no pun intended) would reduce risk a tiny bit statistically, but I don't know that it's meaningful.

Two different things here. Nitrox has its own risks as well as non-safety-related shortcomings and benefits which complicate the analysis.

As for going whole "hog," well, I don't know the statistics and don't presume to have the experience to offer a definitive answer. On the other hand there are accidents and near-miss narratives where a reader might conclude that a tech-oriented rig or tech-oriented mindset would have made a difference.

 

[cool_hardware52]

Many a diving question I've pondered, not just here but in real life, has been shut down with some variation on "that only matters for tech dives." I'm struggling to understand the mindset. To me it's like getting in your car and leaving your seatbelt off because the weather's nice and you're not driving fast.

Most of the equipment, training, and practices that make a cave or deco dive safer is going to improve safety for looking at the pretty fishies at 60 feet. The risk of a rapid ascent from "recreational depths" is not zero. Why not think about gas planning, and carry a second primary regulator, and focus your mind on solving problems in a way that allows a deliberate ascent?

Any dive can turn into a solo dive. Any dive can turn into a tech dive (no immediate access to the surface because of entanglement or the needs of a buddy). Many dives, e.g. wall dives, can turn into deco dives, with just a momentary loss of buoyancy control.

In other activities that have inherent hazards, the norm is to expose people to information and training that is beyond the boundaries of what they can do without qualified supervision, while still reinforcing the boundaries.

What defines a "Tech Dive?" (Besides the liability release paperwork being to thick to fold? )

For me, and many others, that line is the availability of the surface as an air source, i.e. no real over head, no virtual or deco obligation overhead.

That makes the planning and execution of recreational dives, where the surface is close by and the risks of direct ascent are small quite different from a tech dive where you have to solve your problems under water.

Carrying all the gear you need to solve your problems underwater when it is not required doesn't make you safer. Less is often more.

"If you don't need it don't take it, if you do need it take two" is commonly repeated, but you have to look hard at both ends of that statement.

Do you really need it?

Where is your backup? Might be on your teammate, might be the surface etc.

Tobin

 

[tlj3071]

... quite different from a tech dive where you have to solve your problems under water...

Tobin

I find that I have to argue that even an OW diver SHOULD be prepared to solve ALL problems - other than no air - UW. Does this means that this is always possible? No, but the mindset is the same.

 

[cool_hardware52]

I find that I have to argue that even an OW diver SHOULD be prepared to solve ALL problems - other than no air - UW. Does this means that this is always possible? No, but the mindset is the same.

For starters OOA is really the only emergency that needs to be solve *right now* that alone separates Rec from Tec

But are you seriously suggesting that a Rec diver should remain under if they

1) Are cold? a 90+ minute hang can change your idea about exposure protection

2) Lose their mask? Do you carry a BU mask on rec dives?

3) Suffer any other equipment failure?

Why, exactly?

 

[tlj3071]

What I am suggesting is having the mindset that you should try to solve problems except OOA under water instead of first resorting to bailing out to the surface. I've seen a number of [probably poorly trained] OW divers who get their mask flooded or their reg kicked out of their mouth and their first thought (apparently) was to bolt for the surface. Yes, being cold is not something that can be handled U/W, nor a complete loss of the mask. Equipment failures? Depends on the failure. Loss of a computer shouldn't be a problem if you have planned the dive and still have a watch (which you obviously remembered to set properly upon entering the water).

 

[Damselfish]

What I am suggesting is having the mindset that you should try to solve problems except OOA under water instead of first resorting to bailing out to the surface.

But that has nothing to do with tech diving, or shouldn't. When I did OW (granted a rather long time ago) that's certainly how I was taught. Does this just come back to complaining that basic OW training isn't what it should be, or used to be?

And what's this about not solving OOA underwater? What happened to your buddy (or the nearest muggable diver? Or the pony you decided to dive with because you don't have a reliable buddy, which plenty of rec divers seem to do.

 

[Storker]

The risk of a rapid ascent from "recreational depths" is not zero.

This sentence makes me believe that the motivation for this thread was your "ditchable weights" thread.

What you IMO forget here is the probability factor in your risk analysis. How many rec divers have died from a rapid ascent? Which other risks do an (average) rec diver face? How common are those? How do you mitigate those risks? Are any of those risk mitigations mutually exclusive? (hint: some of them may well be)

Why not think about gas planning, and carry a second primary regulator, and focus your mind on solving problems in a way that allows a deliberate ascent?

No-one is saying that you shouldn't think about gas planning on a rec dive. On the contrary, there are several very experienced instructors here who recommend even rec divers to consider gas planning. And of course a rec diver should "focus their mind on solving problems in a way that allows a deliberate ascent", but the big difference between rec and tec is that if S really HTF, the rec diver can ascend directly to the surface without getting bent, while a tec diver runs a pretty big risk of massive DCS if they choose to do so. The major risks faced by the two different types of divers are not the same.

And to your second point: a second primary is only relevant if you have two tank outlets. Which means doubles, a pony, a Y valve or an H valve. If you believe that's necessary, knock yourself out. There is, however, a reason that Y valves and H valves are rather uncommon for single tank rec diving. (hint: they don't address the major risk factors in rec diving, and their impact on diver safety is pretty negligible)

 

[muzikbiz22]

Well, it's just an analogy.

Driving and diving each have risks. However you might choose to measure those risks, I think it's clear that diving has greater risks, and I wonder whether the diving/instructing community could perhaps do a better job of encouraging use of the equipment and mindset that is presently associated with tech diving.

I'm old enough to remember when there were people who thought that the 3 point seat/shoulder belt harness was overkill for anything but racing. There's more tradition and less science behind our chosen safety practices (or the lack of them) than we might think.



Two different things here. Nitrox has its own risks as well as non-safety-related shortcomings and benefits which complicate the analysis.

As for going whole "hog," well, I don't know the statistics and don't presume to have the experience to offer a definitive answer. On the other hand there are accidents and near-miss narratives where a reader might conclude that a tech-oriented rig or tech-oriented mindset would have made a difference.

Every single thing on this planet, HAS RISKS. I think you are "over-assessing". I'm not sure why your thought is that a "tech rig or tech oriented mindset could make a difference". ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN TO ANYBODY AT ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, ANY PLACE. Not to mention, vending machines, skateboards, cars, PEOPLE, co-workers, deer, televisions and "ones self" are far more dangerous than scuba diving. Get trained properly for whatever level, maintain your own best regimen and HAVE FUN DIVING !!!!

 

[divad]

Stop capitalizing!!!