why enter a cave

[DevonDiver]

Really?

I would strongly disagree. There are in fact many more dangers in an overhead than in OW. So yes, it is definitely less-safe, even if you're properly trained.

And frankly, not knowing just puts one at a far greater disadvantage.

I think the critical difference is Risk versus Mitigated Risk.

There's a big bunch of things that can kill you in an overhead environment. There's also a big bunch of things that you can do to prepare yourself to nullify those risks, or prevent occurrences escalating to a fatal conclusion.

Properly trained and equipped, an overhead environment poses no more unmitigated risks than open water.

One issue that does differ between open-water and overhead environments is the concept of tolerance. An issue that presents itself in open water diving (assumed not to include the artificial overhead of decompression obligation) is ultimately for more survivable - mistakes can be made, but the likelihood of dying from that issue remains low. In contrast, an issue that arises in an overhead situation has little tolerance - a mistake and/or failure to resolve the issue is invariably fatal.

 

[AaronRiot]

I think the critical difference is Risk versus Mitigated Risk.

Me: "And frankly, not knowing just puts one at a far greater disadvantage." See we agree just a little different wording

There's a big bunch of things that can kill you in an overhead environment. There's also a big bunch of things that you can do to prepare yourself to nullify those risks, or prevent occurrences escalating to a fatal conclusion.

Properly trained and equipped, an overhead environment poses no more unmitigated risks than open water.

Again I agree, it's best to mitigate all your risks. That seems like a pretty obvious concept.

One issue that does differ between open-water and overhead environments is the concept of tolerance. An issue that presents itself in open water diving (assumed not to include the artificial overhead of decompression obligation) is ultimately for more survivable - mistakes can be made, but the likelihood of dying from that issue remains low. In contrast, an issue that arises in an overhead situation has little tolerance - a mistake and/or failure to resolve the issue is invariably fatal.

This is my point Even the best trained anything can make a mistake. Overhead you're likely done as you said, and OW maybe you'll make it up in one piece with a slap on the wrist. So, to equate trained OW diving to trained overhead diving seems ridiculous. To me at least. Because as you said, there are more risks to mitigate, and more things to go wrong.


Edit, adding this:

I really don't agree with that.

Read the accident reports. 99% of them have had one or more rules violated. These rules are as easy to follow and understand as "look both ways before crossing the street". The human element is what makes it dangerous, not the environment.

....the environment adds complexity does it not?

 

[DA Aquamaster]

Really?

I would strongly disagree. There are in fact many more dangers in an overhead than in OW. So yes, it is definitely less-safe, even if you're properly trained.

And frankly, not knowing just puts one at a far greater disadvantage.

That's not really the case. The risks are different, and there are more risks in cave diving, but a properly trained and prudent cave diver is redundantly equipped, carries a very large gas reserve, and is trained to deal with multiple emergencies - often simultaneously and in black out conditions. More importantly there is far greater stability and predictability in the environment, so the risks are more controllable and more predictable.

But you probably have to be a properly trained cave diver before you can understand that.

 

[DevonDiver]

Me: "And frankly, not knowing just puts one at a far greater disadvantage." See we agree just a little different wording

No, we don't. To split hairs, I don't believe that a fully trained and experienced cave diver is under any disadvantage in a cave environment. If risks are mitigated, then they are mitigated... they are inapplicable.

Again I agree, it's best to mitigate all your risks. That seems like a pretty obvious concept.

True, but some posts on this very thread serve to illustrate that obvious concepts are beyond some people...

Even the best trained anything can make a mistake. Overhead you're likely done as you said, and OW maybe you'll make it up in one piece with a slap on the wrist. So, to equate trained OW diving to trained overhead diving seems ridiculous. To me at least. Because as you said, there are more risks to mitigate, and more things to go wrong.

Protocols exist to guard against human errors. Precision dive planning, redundancy of equipment, team mentality etc etc. Those protocols are rarely seen in OW environments (except by those cave/overhead trained divers, when they enjoy an OW dive).

The fact that an Open Water environment is more forgiving of errors than an overhead environment, is only relevant as a comparison based upon the expected frequency and nature of errors made.

There is always a 'chain' of circumstances and errors that needs to exist before a dive becomes a terminal accident. In Open Water, that chain generally needs to be 3, or more, steps long. In an overhead/virtual overhead environment it can be 1 step long. These, again, are unmitigated factors.

In either environment, the mitigation of risks serves to lengthen the 'chain', creating more points of resolution.

A fully trained, experienced and equipped cave diver in overhead could have more chance of resolution, than a sloppy, ill-disciplined open water diver in the ocean.

....the environment adds complexity does it not?

The complexity of the environment is immaterial, if protocols exist and are followed. If an individual is disinclined to adhere to taught procedures and recommendations, then they will endanger themselves regardless of the environment in which they dive.

Training, equipment, procedures and protocols have to match the environment. Without doubt, diving in an overhead environment is a more complex and demanding task. It is necessary to be a more capable diver to match that. However, to consider the 'danger' of that environment, one has to also consider the factors available to safeguard the diver. In addition to procedures, protocols, equipment and training considerations, the simple fact that cave divers develop a distinct mentality. A much higher degree of focus and precision. A risk averse, meticulous approach.

For those unused to the diving at a high level, it is easy to misconstrue cave divers as risk-takers, wheras in fact they are, to an order of magnitude, far more risk averse than divers who operate at lower levels.

 

[TSandM]

That's a beautiful post, Andy!

The inherent risks of diving under an overhead are higher, so as Andy says, we train to mitigate them. What is going to kill you in a cave is not having enough gas to reach the exit, whether that's because you've lost gas or because you can't find the exit, so your stay in the cave is prolonged beyond what you planned for gas supply. Which is precisely why we drill gas planning (to a meticulous degree), air-sharing, and situational awareness (and marking protocols!) The biggest thing that kills untrained people in caves is a combination of destroying the visibility through poor technique, and having no grasp of navigational techniques. ALL trained cave divers have those skills, and virtually no open water divers have them.

 

[Cave Diver]

There is always a 'chain' of circumstances and errors that needs to exist before a dive becomes a terminal accident. In Open Water, that chain generally needs to be 3, or more, steps long. In an overhead/virtual overhead environment it can be 1 step long. These, again, are unmitigated factors.

In either environment, the mitigation of risks serves to lengthen the 'chain', creating more points of resolution.

Seems like a good lead in to revisit a previous thread: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/near-misses-lessons-learned/428916-why-do-accidents-happen.html

 

[fred3798]

No one has yet to really answer my question. I don't doubt peoples' right to do dumb things. I am not trying to impose rules. I am not questioning the value of training. I understand that people can choose to take risks. For myself, I take risks where I am satisfied that the risks are low or low enough to take to try to obtain the corresponding benefit. The more I value or need the benefit, the more risk I will take. I think most think like this. To protect our children, we will stand in front of bullets. To obtain a pretty view and a nice vacation, I am prepared to engage in non-compression scuba diving as I am content that the risks are quite low. I have yet to hear what people think they get from cave diving that justifies the added risk? What percentage of all scuba deaths are cave dives? I bet it's high. My simple question, is what is in there that is so worth it? I've seen lots of beautiful stalagmites and stalactites with air. Scuba diving exposes us to reefs, topical fish and sea life or fresh water environments and cool wrecks. What's in caves that's so different or important to justify the added risk?

 

[Superlyte27]

No one has yet to really answer my question. I don't doubt peoples' right to do dumb things. I am not trying to impose rules. I am not questioning the value of training. I understand that people can choose to take risks. For myself, I take risks where I am satisfied that the risks are low or low enough to take to try to obtain the corresponding benefit. The more I value or need the benefit, the more risk I will take. I think most think like this. To protect our children, we will stand in front of bullets. To obtain a pretty view and a nice vacation, I am prepared to engage in non-compression scuba diving as I am content that the risks are quite low. I have yet to hear what people think they get from cave diving that justifies the added risk? What percentage of all scuba deaths are cave dives? I bet it's high. My simple question, is what is in there that is so worth it? I've seen lots of beautiful stalagmites and stalactites with air. Scuba diving exposes us to reefs, topical fish and sea life or fresh water environments and cool wrecks. What's in caves that's so different or important to justify the added risk?

You haven't been paying attention. Your question has been answered. And no, the number of scuba fatalities are NOT mostly cave related. Look at the accident section. But, of those cave fatalities, the large majority of them are from the untrained. And you're missing the point...with proper training, it's riskier to drive to work than to cave dive.

 

[DevonDiver]

... I take risks where I am satisfied that the risks are low or low enough to take to try to obtain the corresponding benefit. The more I value or need the benefit, the more risk I will take. I think most think like this.

I am sure that they do think like that: Risk versus Reward.

However, the issue being presented in this thread is that without training it is impossible to comprehend the risks. Thus, any decision to enter an overhead environment, by a non-cave trained diver, is based upon a faulty risk versus reward calculation.

The issue of personal choice is relevant. The fact that a choice may be based upon incorrect assumptions is also valid.

I have yet to hear what people think they get from cave diving that justifies the added risk?

To reiterate what I, and others, have stated - if the risks are mitigated (through training, experience, protocols and equipment) then there is no 'added risk' that needs to be offset.

What percentage of all scuba deaths are cave dives? I bet it's high.

As a proportion of all scuba deaths/incidents: it is very low.

The only 'high percentage' is specifically of deaths in caves, where untrained divers form a significant majority.

My simple question, is what is in there that is so worth it? I've seen lots of beautiful stalagmites and stalactites with air. Scuba diving exposes us to reefs, topical fish and sea life or fresh water environments and cool wrecks. What's in caves that's so different or important to justify the added risk?

There is more to 'enjoyment' than just visual gratification. The act itself can be sufficient reward.

 

[Fish-R-Man]

No one has yet to really answer my question. I don't doubt peoples' right to do dumb things. I am not trying to impose rules. I am not questioning the value of training. I understand that people can choose to take risks. For myself, I take risks where I am satisfied that the risks are low or low enough to take to try to obtain the corresponding benefit. The more I value or need the benefit, the more risk I will take. I think most think like this. To protect our children, we will stand in front of bullets. To obtain a pretty view and a nice vacation, I am prepared to engage in non-compression scuba diving as I am content that the risks are quite low. I have yet to hear what people think they get from cave diving that justifies the added risk? What percentage of all scuba deaths are cave dives? I bet it's high. My simple question, is what is in there that is so worth it? I've seen lots of beautiful stalagmites and stalactites with air. Scuba diving exposes us to reefs, topical fish and sea life or fresh water environments and cool wrecks. What's in caves that's so different or important to justify the added risk?

I think that you have to ask that same question of any activity that has some added risk.

• Why drive a car when you can walk?
• Why fly in a plane when you can take a train?
• Why play football when you can watch it on TV?
• Why run a boat in white water when you can run it on a lake?
• Why commerical fish in the Bering Sea instead of selling insurance?
• Why cave dive when you can watch someone else do it on Youtube?

My personal view on cave diving is simple. I have been in dry caves before. They are pretty unique. The really interesting ones, you had to have a guide and were confined to walk a certain path or boardwalk. You could look up and see some of the structure. I would much rather have the skill to fly through them at any level I care to and stop and see everything that my time allows. I also like the challenge that the environment that your in provides and the training and discipline it requires to enter and depart that environment safely.

My goal at this point is to see the Fangorn Forest in Dan's cave up close and personal. The videos are great, but for me they just don't do it.....