DAN missed the boat ...

[MXGratefulDiver]

I was just reading an article in the latest Alert Diver magazine called "Dire Consequences". It describes a diver who got bent due to his response to a free-flowing regulator. To excerpt the article, for those who haven't read it ...

The diver made a slow descent to 100 feet (30 meters). After about eight minutes at depth, he experienced a free-flowing primary regulator. Unable to signal his buddy, he was forced to make a faster-than-expected ascent in limited visibility (10-20 feet/3-6 meters).

At about the 15-foot (4.5 meter) mark his regulator stopped free-flowing, and he was able to make a three-minute safety stop. He surfaced with 500 psi (34 bar), of air in his tank after a total bottom time of 13 minutes.

The diver rested at the surface for about 10 minutes, then he descended back to 50 feet (15 meters) to alert his buddy of the problem he had with his regulator. At this point, the diver ran out of air and made a rapid ascent to the surface. To the best of his recollection, his dive time for the second immersion was between two and five minutes.

The article goes on to describe the DCI symptoms and treatment.

When Mr. Dovenbarger got to the accident analysis, he had this to say ...

What could this diver have done to prevent decompression illness? Depth and rapid ascents are a bad combination. Remaining topside after the first dive would have reduced the diver's total nitrogen exposure, and he would not have experienced the rapid ascent. He should have checked his tank pressure before going back into the water.

What about a redundant, independent air source? The limiting factor for most planned dives is the amount of air available in the tank. For the unexpected event like a free-flow, a secondary alternative source of air to breathe is a good option.

Nowhere does Mr. Dovenbarger mention what really caused this accident ... poor buddy skills, failure to follow basic safety protocols, and really, REALLY bad decision making.

His solution? Buy a pony bottle.



DAN ... like all the major training agencies ... promotes buddy diving as a major factor in safe diving. And yet ... like all the major training agencies ... they fail to teach people how to BE a dive buddy.

So here's my take on what caused this accident ... and it was, as usual, more than one thing ... and not the obvious one.

First error ... when this diver had a regulator failure at 100 feet, he was "unable to signal his buddy". That simply should not happen. The whole point of diving with a buddy is so that if one of you has a failure, the other is there to respond and assist in either fixing the problem or making a safe ascent. If he was unable to signal his buddy, then he didn't HAVE a buddy ... he just had another diver in the water with him at approximately the same time and location.

Second error ... his buddy failed to follow the basic protocol we all learn in OW class for diver separation ... which is to spend one minute looking, then make a safe ascent to the surface. So why, after a 2-minute ascent, 3-minute safety stop, and 10-minute surface interval, did the the buddy fail to surface? Which leads to ...

Third error ... the diver decided to go back down and look for his buddy ... with 500 psi of air! Mr. Dovenbarger notes that the diver should have checked his tank pressure before going back into the water. WRONG! The diver should not have gone back underwater. That's the message DAN should be delivering here. The diver obviously knew how much air he surfaced with ... he reported it was 500 psi. He simply should not have considered going back down at that point ... especially alone.

These are violations of things we are SUPPOSED to learn in basic Open Water class ... safety protocols that DAN purportedly supports and promotes. So why no mention of them in the analysis of this accident?

They seem to me to be the reason why this accident occurred ... and I am disappointed that a magazine like Alert Diver failed to even mention that this accident ... like most ... occurred because the divers exercised poor skills and even poorer decision-making.

Sorry ... "buy a pony bottle" just doesn't cut it. DAN should know better ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[on_two_wheels]

I agree with most points but find it ironic on this forum. I was amazed at how many balked at the use of tank bangers. Without audible signals, it's not easy to signal a buddy. Such a device may have made signaling easier.

As for the suggestion of a pony bottle, I think the motive was redundancy. You don't always know your buddy. I just dove with fisheater and had only met him an hour before our first dive. Did I know how he would perform underwater or in an emergency? Of course not. Were there moments that I could not have signaled him in an emergency? Yep. However, at least we discussed separation, signals, weight releases, etc first.

I agree with the second error you mention. If he just stayed topside the first time, all would be well.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

I pretty much agree with DAN. If the guy had a pony bottle it might well have mitigated a number of stupid errors. As long as recreational dive training is so superficial, it will be very hard for anyone to convince me that the average recreatioanal diver should be placing his trust on a buddy rather than a pony bottle.

Going down the second time really was incredibly stupid, but some might attribute that tactical error as an OVER DEPENDENCE on the buddy system... Maybe the guy was too worried about his buddy?

 

[jagfish]

Great post, Bob.
I'll be using this one as reading for this week's training to highlight buddy skills...

 

[sambolino44]

I remember having a vague sense of unease when I read the article, but none of the things you mentioned stood out enough for me to latch onto. Now that you point them out, I agree totally.

How often do we read or hear something that just isn't right, but we just let it pass?

Now that you mention it, I'm a little disappointed in Joel's analysis of the incident.

Most people don't realize how close you have to be to your buddy for the buddy system to work. Real close. You can go without a breath for a while if you have full lungs, but you don't find out you're out of gas until you've breathed out all your air. You can't swim nearly as far with empty lungs. Then you have to get their attention and make the switch.

And for that guy to go back down! Why!

Every time I read one of these stories I wonder, what's the buddy's take on this? And at this point I'm real curious as to what Joel would say in response to your post.

 

[UnderSeaBumbleBee]

Great post NW. You hit the nail right on the head. Your posts always bring us back to simple core principles of which we all need to be reminded. Especially noobs like me.

 

[TwoBitTxn]

I was similarly amazed at the article and response. I figure they will hear it on this one, and they should.

 

[Bismark]

I was just reading an article in the latest Alert Diver magazine called "Dire Consequences". It describes a diver who got bent due to his response to a free-flowing regulator. To excerpt the article, for those who haven't read it ...



The article goes on to describe the DCI symptoms and treatment.

When Mr. Dovenbarger got to the accident analysis, he had this to say ...





Nowhere does Mr. Dovenbarger mention what really caused this accident ... poor buddy skills, failure to follow basic safety protocols, and really, REALLY bad decision making.

His solution? Buy a pony bottle.



DAN ... like all the major training agencies ... promotes buddy diving as a major factor in safe diving. And yet ... like all the major training agencies ... they fail to teach people how to BE a dive buddy.

So here's my take on what caused this accident ... and it was, as usual, more than one thing ... and not the obvious one.

First error ... when this diver had a regulator failure at 100 feet, he was "unable to signal his buddy". That simply should not happen. The whole point of diving with a buddy is so that if one of you has a failure, the other is there to respond and assist in either fixing the problem or making a safe ascent. If he was unable to signal his buddy, then he didn't HAVE a buddy ... he just had another diver in the water with him at approximately the same time and location.

Second error ... his buddy failed to follow the basic protocol we all learn in OW class for diver separation ... which is to spend one minute looking, then make a safe ascent to the surface. So why, after a 2-minute ascent, 3-minute safety stop, and 10-minute surface interval, did the the buddy fail to surface? Which leads to ...

Third error ... the diver decided to go back down and look for his buddy ... with 500 psi of air! Mr. Dovenbarger notes that the diver should have checked his tank pressure before going back into the water. WRONG! The diver should not have gone back underwater. That's the message DAN should be delivering here. The diver obviously knew how much air he surfaced with ... he reported it was 500 psi. He simply should not have considered going back down at that point ... especially alone.

These are violations of things we are SUPPOSED to learn in basic Open Water class ... safety protocols that DAN purportedly supports and promotes. So why no mention of them in the analysis of this accident?

They seem to me to be the reason why this accident occurred ... and I am disappointed that a magazine like Alert Diver failed to even mention that this accident ... like most ... occurred because the divers exercised poor skills and even poorer decision-making.

Sorry ... "buy a pony bottle" just doesn't cut it. DAN should know better ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Pretty much exactly as Bob said......

 

[fl-diver]

It seems that a lot could have been done to prevent this accident. The diver actually had to go out of his way to get hurt in this case. (getting back in the water) Given the lack of a working octo or a pony bottle, it seems that the initial "emergency" was dealt with pretty well. I may have done 5 minutes at 15fsw to be safe.
I can't believe guy was so worried about his buddy that he jumped after his buddy was diving solo for 15 minutes or so.
Obviously the buddy wasn't too concerned or he would have surfaced.
Unfortunately this is just another example of how the buddy system can fail. If this guy went swimming around looking for his supposed backup air supply (his buddy) instead of going up, we would probably not know the story because he would have drowned.
I'll stick with my octo and pony bottle for emergencies.
I do like to have a buddy as a backup and to enjoy the sites with.

 

[seaducer]

I agree with most points but find it ironic on this forum. I was amazed at how many balked at the use of tank bangers. Without audible signals, it's not easy to signal a buddy. Such a device may have made signaling easier.

I don't think tank bangers are the answer. If you are buddy diving you don't need them. You have protocols, you practice drills, you are aware of your buddy's position and demeaner in the water. They should never be out of your sight for more than a few seconds. In most cases you are close enough to touch them without swimming to them. If they are much farther than that, if you need a tank banger, you are not buddy diving. You are simply diving with someone else.

At that point you need to be totally self sufficient. Redundant air and the ability to plan and execute a dive on your own.

That's my opinion, but I think it is a good take on things.

The diver in this article wasn't buddy diving by my definition, and neither was the other diver. That didn't stand out to me to much, as I more or less rely only on myself when diving anyway ( I dive with some great divers, and we can all be great buddies when the dive calls for it, but most time we are simply enjoying our dive in the company of others, and we can self rescue if trouble arises) I was impressed with the divers decision to make a safety stop, but that flew out the window when he decided to go back down.

He is lucky to be alive.