Where, When and How 2006 FYI

[z3r0c00l]

What is also interesting is that dives below 100ft, generally the domain of advanced and techincal divers accounted for 24% of deaths, while deaths in the recreational ranges accounted for 76%.

But recreational divers are far far far more than 76% of the divers, and sub 100 ft dives are far far far fewer than 24%. Even without the numbers it is clear that dives below 100 ft are much more likely to result in death. If we take out the bad divers going below 100 ft, will the numbers change or even reverse? Maybe... But it might still be (and with numbers we could tell to some extent) that deeper dives are just more dangerous, despite the common rationalization that you are equally at risk at any depth.

 

[PerroneFord]

But recreational divers are far far far more than 76% of the divers, and sub 100 ft dives are far far far fewer than 24%. Even without the numbers it is clear that dives below 100 ft are much more likely to result in death. If we take out the bad divers going below 100 ft, will the numbers change or even reverse? Maybe... But it might still be (and with numbers we could tell to some extent) that deeper dives are just more dangerous, despite the common rationalization that you are equally at risk at any depth.

While I have no evidence to support it, I would bet real money that of the deaths that occured on dives below 100ft, the great majority are from people not qualified to be there.

 

[TSandM]

Well, and that raises the issue of what kind of training or experience one should have to be diving below 100 feet. Certainly some gas management information is pertinent, and some facility with emergency procedures (eg. an air-sharing, controlled ascent), and some competency with solving issues underwater (clearing or removing and replacing a flooded mask at depth, for example). What class teaches those things?

I guess what hits me, over and over again, is how many accidents and incidents are directly related to what appears to be complacency. And it isn't reserved to less experienced divers, either. One of the things I've taken away from reading many incident reports is a determination NOT to let myself become complacent or lazy in my diving. What scares me is that I suspect some of the people who died felt the same way.

 

[Colliam7]

But it might still be ... that deeper dives are just more dangerous, despite the common rationalization that you are equally at risk at any depth.

Agreed. I wonder how common that rationalization actually is. There are risks that are independent of depth. You can have a cardiac event at 40 ft or 140 ft. There are also depth associated risks (e.g. narcosis). Risk is like economics - with fixed risks and (depth) variable risks. I tend to agree with PerroneFord. The deeper the dive, the greater narcosis potential, the darker, the colder, the faster the air consumption, etc, etc. And absence of, or inadequate, training in the environment can be a contributing factor. The human factor in that case is going to depth in the first place without appropriate training.

 

[z3r0c00l]

I think snorkeling all the time helps keep me grounded. 60 feet still feels deep.

 

[Tigerman]

Agreed. I wonder how common that rationalization actually is. There are risks that are independent of depth. You can have a cardiac event at 40 ft or 140 ft. There are also depth associated risks (e.g. narcosis). Risk is like economics - with fixed risks and (depth) variable risks. I tend to agree with PerroneFord. The deeper the dive, the greater narcosis potential, the darker, the colder, the faster the air consumption, etc, etc. And absence of, or inadequate, training in the environment can be a contributing factor. The human factor in that case is going to depth in the first place without appropriate training.

I think the misconception that the risk is equal regardless of depth is generally held by the people who have no formal training for going below 60 feet? It SHOULD be rather obvious that at depth where you can perform a CESA and has a lower actual air consumption, you have more time and options to deal with for example entanglement, freeflows, out og gas (which you shouldnt be to begin with) and so on..

 

[z3r0c00l]

No I see that misconception here - with tech divers who often do decomp. and go below 100 feet. They resent the feeling that their diving is far more dangerous, and often say that most deaths happen in shallow water. In training we get all of the doom and gloom of below 60 feet being hard or impossible to survive!

 

[PerroneFord]

In training we get all of the doom and gloom of below 60 feet being hard or impossible to survive!

Is this the same training that teaches divers how to rush to the surface when they run out of air? The same training that teaches divers how to dive to 130ft on a single tank? The same training that offers "Be on the boat with 500psi" as their gas management plan? The same training that certifies divers as OW ready when they swim more with their hands than their fins? The same training that calls doing a fin pivot, buoyancy control?

Yea, ok. I could see how highly trained divers venturing below 100ft wearing redundant tranks, with solid buddies, would be more dangerous... Sure.

 

[Tigerman]

Is this the same training that teaches divers how to rush to the surface when they run out of air? The same training that teaches divers how to dive to 130ft on a single tank? The same training that offers "Be on the boat with 500psi" as their gas management plan? The same training that certifies divers as OW ready when they swim more with their hands than their fins? The same training that calls doing a fin pivot, buoyancy control?

Yea, ok. I could see how highly trained divers venturing below 100ft wearing redundant tranks, with solid buddies, would be more dangerous... Sure.

Last time I checked, my OW training was not teaching me to go to 130ft whatsoever, it did NOT teach you to rush to the surface if youre out of air, but get to an alternative air source which is supposed to be located on your buddy unless you carry one yourself.

The deep dive specialty thats part of AOWD however teach you to go below 60 feet and teach gas management and other topics around doing deeper dives, but then again, the popular opinion about that course around here seem to be that its a waste of time..

Interesting how people claim that OW is not thorough enough while the specialties that DOES cover topics more in depth (although arguably need to be improved) is a waste of time to attend...

 

[PerroneFord]

Last time I checked, my OW training was not teaching me to go to 130ft whatsoever, it did NOT teach you to rush to the surface if youre out of air, but get to an alternative air source which is supposed to be located on your buddy unless you carry one yourself.

My open water class did not limit us to 60ft. We were given tables to 130ft, and our card didn't say we had a limit. Our instructor did implore us to be cautious and not do deep diving until we had built up experience. This 60ft stuff until you spend the money on AOW is a new thing.

You didn't learn CESA in your OW course? Yes you should go to your buddy for gas, assuming they are somewhere closer than the same ocean.

The deep dive specialty thats part of AOWD however teach you to go below 60 feet and teach gas management and other topics around doing deeper dives, but then again, the popular opinion about that course around here seem to be that its a waste of time..

What gas management is included in AOW?? First I've heard of it. As for popular opinion, mine have never been popular, and you won't find me saying courses are a waste of time in general.

Interesting how people claim that OW is not thorough enough while the specialties that DOES cover topics more in depth (although arguably need to be improved) is a waste of time to attend...

Show me where I've said they are a waste of time...