why enter a cave

[Them]

I've highlighted the key word in my post you referred to since you apparently missed the implication of that on your first read.

I didn't miss the implication. I politely ignored your faux pas.

 

[Fish-R-Man]

A poignant point. If any trend is identifiable, it is that increased awareness leads to increased caution. That is a very telling correlation.

I had been diving O/W for many years before I entered my first cavern In Mexico. It just happened to be Dos Ojos. The first time in a cavern, I enjoyed playing follow the leader and never really put any effort into what I call "what if" scenarios. I do that here on the boat I work on all the time. What if the engine fails. What if we have flooding. What if we loose all electrical power.... That thought process helps me to understand and plan for what I need to do in an emergency before it happens.

By the second or third time in a cavern, the familier sights allowed me to really start to think about what type of environment we were actually diving in. The "what if" scenario started. What if my reg fails, what if my light fails, what if my wife has a problem. I then realized, things could go rapidly south when you are in these systems. For me, that is where the learning process began. Just the simple thought process of what I would do in each possible situation I could think of reduced some of the risk. I already had a plan, not only for myself, but possible for others in the group as well.

My first day of cave training was an eye opener. The main thing I came away from the first day with is, how little I knew about the environment I had been diving in and how little I was prepared to deal with a problem if it came up. This type of training is one that allows you to learn how little you actually know. The more I have learned, the more I realize how much more there is to learn. For any skilled O/W diver that enters this environment, if they would take the time to really look and understand what can possibly happen if a problem came up, I think they would have a different opinion on this subject.

 

[kotik]

I didn't miss the implication. I politely ignored your faux pas.

It's good to see someone fresh out of OW class getting such an early start at being an expert, and taking the trouble to re-think universally agreed upon standards and recommendations in light of commercial realities...

 

[Phreatic Fanatic]

It's good to see someone fresh out of OW class getting such an early start at being an expert, and taking the trouble to re-think universally agreed upon standards and recommendations in light of commercial realities...

C'mon Eric, don't you know that on the internet, one can be an expert and have strong opinions of subjects for which they have ZERO actual experience?

 

[ianr33]

I think you could argue that dive operators doing cave tours for OW divers are motivated by profits, and as such probably push the limits of OW divers in overhead environments.

I don't think (hope) any operators are doing CAVE tours for OW divers.
They are doing CAVERN tours. There is a difference.
Lets make sure we are all taking about the same thing.

(Cavern needs to have daylight visible,limits on depth and penetration distance, no restrictions and so on. )

 

[Them]

Caveat: I am not a cave qualified diver.

It would be erroneous to assume that the difference between an Open Water diver and a Cave diver was merely a matter of 'time served' and courses taken.

Let's try this again.

I said: Seems like the only real consensus is that people who enter conditions they are not prepared for (equipment, training, mental/physical state, et cetera) face a higher mortality rate than those entering the same conditions with preparation.

I'm not sure how you got from that to "time served and courses taken. "

I am reading this in the assumption that what you are saying is that 'a viewpoint might carry more or less authority on the board, due to the relative experience and training of the diver who holds that view'.

Actually it was a prediction that some people would read my dive count, assume, "low dives equals wrong", and disagree with whatever I said whether it was pro or con their position. As you did.

It is especially poignant when the views of a lesser experienced/qualified person directly contradict those established by informed consensus, statistical research and many thousands of cumulative years of diving experience.

D'oh.

Let me try this again.

I said: Seems like the only real consensus is that people who enter conditions they are not prepared for (equipment, training, mental/physical state, et cetera) face a higher mortality rate than those entering the same conditions with preparation.

How on earth did you take that as a contradicting statistical research or many millions of hours of combined life experience? You can't get there from what I said. My statement was a generalization inclusive of your truth, because cave diving is not unique in the influence of preparation on mortality. Try flying an airplane without any preparation and see how long you live.

As for the rest, you are arguing with the wrong person. I don't have a bird in that fight. I don't know which party is right, but i do know that your side has attacked me for having an open mind and observing that there are different views. That's an interesting approach to getting your message out.

It's good to see someone fresh out of OW class getting such an early start at being an expert, and taking the trouble to re-think universally agreed upon standards and recommendations in light of commercial realities...

If the "universally agreed upon" standards you imply exist were crafted only by excluding opinions that disagree with those standards, regardless of their background, they aren't really universally agreed upon, are they? I don't need to have an opinion of my own to recognize that consensus by exclusion is false.

Doesn't make the standards wrong of course, and I never said they were. However, a group claiming something they don't really have will cause people to question their credibility, which is not good if they are expressing a legitimate safety message.

 

[kotik]

If the "universally agreed upon" standards you imply exist were crafted only by excluding opinions that disagree with those standards, regardless of their background, they aren't really universally agreed upon, are they? I don't need to have an opinion of my own to recognize that consensus by exclusion is false.

Doesn't make the standards wrong of course, and I never said they were. However, a group claiming something they don't really have will cause people to question their credibility, which is not good if they are expressing a legitimate safety message.

Would you prefer a qualification?

Among those who have geared up and gone in to retrieve the body of someone who previously thought that training really wasn't needed just for the extent of what they planned, you will find an absolute 100% universal consensus that training was in fact required, contrary to the uninformed opinion of the deceased. Among established training agencies whose policies have stood the test of time and peer review, there is consensus.

Among those who don't really know much about it, there may be a contingent who disagrees. Most of these have a commercial motivation for bucking the trend, not quite sure what the motivation is for you and RonFrank. I guess you can always find some ijit to argue a point for you no matter what the point is, but in this case if you want to shop for the ones who'll say that all this business about training is a bunch of baloney, you might want to hurry and get them on record before their next dive.

 

[Them]

Kotik, who are you talking to? You seem to be responding to points that I not only have never made, but personally strongly disagree with, as though you think I made them.

 

[kotik]

Kotik, who are you talking to? You seem to be responding to points that I not only have never made, but personally strongly disagree with, as though you think I made them.

Okay, here is my stance: there is consensus. Anyone who is remotely qualified to advise about the subject will tell you that the personal judgement expressed previously of "okay to go in just a little without training" is the start of more accident reports than "once upon a time" is the start of fairy tales. If you, Them, are going to insist that there's no consensus because one or two unqualified voices chime in, then in your world there's never going to be consensus about anything, including the color of the sky you mentioned. It's obvious that you'll always be able to find someone to dissent about whether training's required, since we keep on getting stories like what have happened a couple of times the last two weeks. If that's who you point to to support the case that there really isn't consensus, then I say you should bow out and admit that you're just being argumentative.

 

[Them]

Okay, here is my stance: there is consensus. Anyone who is remotely qualified to advise about the subject will tell you that the personal judgement expressed previously of "okay to go in just a little without training" is the start of more accident reports than "once upon a time" is the start of fairy tales. If you, Them, are going to insist that there's no consensus because one or two unqualified voices chime in, then in your world there's never going to be consensus about anything, including the color of the sky you mentioned. It's obvious that you'll always be able to find someone to dissent about whether training's required, since we keep on getting stories like what have happened a couple of times the last two weeks. If that's who you point to to support the case that there really isn't consensus, then I say you should bow out and admit that you're just being argumentative.

LOL - I was actually being agreeable, not argumentative. It's you that seems bound and determined to argue.

I have another question now though, not related to your post.

- - - - - - - -

On land what usually happens is Timmy falls down the well (ok, mine shaft), Timmy's family sues everyone even remotely associated with the well, and someone along the way says, "don't want to go through that again," and fills the well with rocks. Does something similar happen with these under water caves? How many have been filled (covered with grates, whatever)?

If they don't get covered, what's the argument? After all, it seems like they are what's known as an Attractive Nuisance.