Unqualified Divers in Caves--especially ones like Eagles Nest

[cerich]

Question, has the message of cave diving of don't enter the overhead unless trained become diluted due to our inconsistencies. We are saying don't enter EN because it is overhead and a difficult site. But, we say it is okay to enter Ginnie cavern, Vortex cavern, even Blue Grotto. We are okay with cenote tours, and when a cenote guide takes people into the cave zone with the occasional accident, when don't lash out as much. How can we project ourselves to the community as the experts in cave diving and the overhead, when we our message is inconsistent. There is no such thing as a safe cavern, be it EN or Ginnie,because there is no direct ascent to the surface, and the fatalities at all the aforementioned places prove it. So to answer the question, do individuals or shops knowingly take unqualified divers into cave? Hell yes, and our message to them has become very inconsistent.

because yes

 

[tbone1004]

Question, has the message of cave diving of don't enter the overhead unless trained become diluted due to our inconsistencies. We are saying don't enter EN because it is overhead and a difficult site. But, we say it is okay to enter Ginnie cavern, Vortex cavern, even Blue Grotto. We are okay with cenote tours, and when a cenote guide takes people into the cave zone with the occasional accident, when don't lash out as much. How can we project ourselves to the community as the experts in cave diving and the overhead, when we our message is inconsistent. There is no such thing as a safe cavern, be it EN or Ginnie,because there is no direct ascent to the surface, and the fatalities at all the aforementioned places prove it. So to answer the question, do individuals or shops knowingly take unqualified divers into cave? Hell yes, and our message to them has become very inconsistent.

yes

 

[RandomGuy1]

From a non-caver's perspective, I absolutely agree that very clear line of "don't enter the overhead" does get watered down by places like Ginnie and Blue Grotto. I have dove both and plan on eventually doing cavern / cave because I enjoyed the dives there. I KNOW that I am not overhead trained, and did it anyway after seeing so many video's and seeing people go in there with just basic OW equipment. Normalization of deviance indeed.

 

[kensuf]

From a non-caver's perspective, I absolutely agree that very clear line of "don't enter the overhead" does get watered down by places like Ginnie and Blue Grotto. I have dove both and plan on eventually doing cavern / cave because I enjoyed the dives there. I KNOW that I am not overhead trained, and did it anyway after seeing so many video's and seeing people go in there with just basic OW equipment. Normalization of deviance indeed.

Serious question for you.

If there was a sign that said something to the effect of:

"THIS IS AN ADVANCED CAVE DIVING SITE. IF YOU ARE NOT CERTIFIED AS A CAVE DIVER, YOU SHOULD NOT BE HERE. IF YOU ARE A STUDENT AND YOU ARE NOT A FULL CAVE DIVER YOUR INSTRUCTOR IS IN VIOLATION OF THE TRAINING STANDARDS FOR THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES:

AGENCY A - 1-800-800-1234
AGENCY B - 1-888-888-1234
etc..

PLEASE NOTIFY THE AGENCY"

Would that have an impact?

 

[Neilwood]

That's just it. Sooooo many have dove the Ball Room, Blue Grotto, Devil's Den and even Buford Sink without incident, that when we start screaming about the dangers inherent in them we simply sound silly. Why would we want to sound silly? You aren't going to get any of these sites to cut their financial throats and start restricting access either. Perhaps it would be smarter and more doable to accept these exceptions and identify them as such.
A better idea would be to develop an online registry of caves and sinks. Describe the limits for each... OW to here... cavern to here... Only full cave past this point... etc. Take the guess work and the "limit creep" out of these caves. Look at the "do not go further" sign in Blue Spring (Orange City). How many divers don't respect it because it's not really dangerous until you get to the 80 ft depth. We come across as being nannies with limits like that.

Speaking as someone who is not overhead trained in any way but would a system of ratings such as in climbing work? Someone would have to lead and designate the sites though (with the possibility of a site being multiple grades depending on how far you go).

Only issue (as they have as well) is a huge number of different systems that rank things differently.

Something like:
1) OW
2) Cavern clear view of sunlight
3) Cave

Add additional levels to those basics to take account of additional issues:
a) good solid base so virtually no chance of silt out
b) loose silt that may cause minor issues if kicked up
c) very loose silt that will cause blackout conditions but disperses/settle quickly
d) as above but will take a long time to disperse/settle

Add another layer if you want to describe restrictions etc:
1) No restrictions or restrictions that can be done side by side for air share
2) Restrictions that can be done single file but with only enough room for in line air share
3) Restrictions that can only be done single file but are tight and require planning/ gear configuration to suit (ie sidemount)
4) Restrictions that are very difficult and may require gear removal to allow passage.

Using that system it becomes easier to rate a particular place:
An easy ocean swimthrough might be deemed as a 1a1
A cave system such as Eagles nest might be 1a1 at the bowl at the top, 2b2 at the neck and 3d4 at further points.

Just a thought and would probably need a fair bit of work to refine it but would potentially be better than a free for all as it seems to be atm with different agencies deciding on different policies.

 

[kensuf]

Just a thought and would probably need a fair bit of work to refine it but would potentially be better than a free for all as it seems to be atm with different agencies deciding on different policies.

This has been discussed before many times. Unfortunately, sites can change based on conditions -- little river may be a "category 1" dive on one day (low flow, good visibility), a "category 3" dive on another day (high flow, moderate visibility), and a "category 5" dive on another dive (siphon, tannic water). And who would be the person rating the system?

 

[RandomGuy1]

Serious question for you.

If there was a sign that said something to the effect of:

"THIS IS AN ADVANCED CAVE DIVING SITE. IF YOU ARE NOT CERTIFIED AS A CAVE DIVER, YOU SHOULD NOT BE HERE. IF YOU ARE A STUDENT AND YOU ARE NOT A FULL CAVE DIVER YOUR INSTRUCTOR IS IN VIOLATION OF THE TRAINING STANDARDS FOR THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES:

AGENCY A - 1-800-800-1234
AGENCY B - 1-888-888-1234
etc..

PLEASE NOTIFY THE AGENCY"

Would that have an impact?

I would have stopped dead in my tracks with a sign like that.

 

[kelemvor]

From a non-caver's perspective, I absolutely agree that very clear line of "don't enter the overhead" does get watered down by places like Ginnie and Blue Grotto. I have dove both and plan on eventually doing cavern / cave because I enjoyed the dives there. I KNOW that I am not overhead trained, and did it anyway after seeing so many video's and seeing people go in there with just basic OW equipment. Normalization of deviance indeed.

You even see freedivers in the ballroom at Ginnie. Ginnie does have rules about the other caves at their location. They enforce their rules by... wait for it.. putting a guard by the entrance to check divers for lights (or cave bracelets). It's not an infallible system, but the Ginnie fatalities that I can recall in the past few years involved actual cave divers - so it seems effective to me. Similar deal at blue grotto. They manage who can get into the cave, let OW divers into what they decide is a cavern, and afaik have a roughly equal safety record.

If EN's owner cannot afford to or otherwise will not physically secure the site maybe they should reconsider selling it to someone who wants to do the needful.

Obviously my opinion here is not popular here. But seriously folks, even if all 184 (source: List of diver certification organizations - Wikipedia ) certification agencies miraculously agreed on this subject. Do you really think that would do the trick? I don't. People break rules, it must be human nature. I don't know anybody that doesn't break some rule or law sometime.

 

[CuzzA]

Serious question for you.

If there was a sign that said something to the effect of:

"THIS IS AN ADVANCED CAVE DIVING SITE. IF YOU ARE NOT CERTIFIED AS A CAVE DIVER, YOU SHOULD NOT BE HERE. IF YOU ARE A STUDENT AND YOU ARE NOT A FULL CAVE DIVER YOUR INSTRUCTOR IS IN VIOLATION OF THE TRAINING STANDARDS FOR THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES:

AGENCY A - 1-800-800-1234
AGENCY B - 1-888-888-1234
etc..

PLEASE NOTIFY THE AGENCY"

Would that have an impact?

I think it would. Now you have some teeth from both a media and agency consequences standpoint.

When the media publishes the story and they have a picture of the unqualified diver who died and right next to it a picture of that sign, it is quite clear the unqualified diver bears the blame for his/her death, not the cave. When an instructor takes students there and a student dies or the instructor is reported, that is a clear violation and now the public, media and dive community can force and put pressure on the agency to act and hand out punishment.

I also like the use of the agency logos. I know this sounds silly cause we're talking about an inanimate object that is a sign, but as a student, instructor or any diver walking up to that sign and I read that and then see "my" agency's logo on there, there's no question that I am in violation.

I'll use the no trespassing law for example. On my property if I don't have a no trespassing sign and someone trespasses, I first have to give them a verbal warning. After the verbal warning, if they do it again then they are trespassing and breaking the law. If I have a sign that says "no trespassing", that is their warning. If they trespass then they are breaking the law.

This works because the law backs the sign. In the case of a Eagles Nest sign, the sign is the warning backed by mutually agreed standards.

 

[RandomGuy1]

Serious question for you.

If there was a sign that said something to the effect of:

"THIS IS AN ADVANCED CAVE DIVING SITE. IF YOU ARE NOT CERTIFIED AS A CAVE DIVER, YOU SHOULD NOT BE HERE. IF YOU ARE A STUDENT AND YOU ARE NOT A FULL CAVE DIVER YOUR INSTRUCTOR IS IN VIOLATION OF THE TRAINING STANDARDS FOR THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES:

AGENCY A - 1-800-800-1234
AGENCY B - 1-888-888-1234
etc..

PLEASE NOTIFY THE AGENCY"

Would that have an impact?

Actually here is an idea as well. Include on the sign that the agency will refund the cost of you class if you report your instructor. That way folks won't be wary of losing money if they report. The agency could then re-coup their money via a fine against the instructor prior to issuing any more certs.