Another TrustMe dive experience

[TSandM]

I think you got a good wakeup call, and thanks for sharing it with others. I doubt there is anyone here who hasn't, at some time, done something that they eventually wished they hadn't, out of overconfidence or inaccurate risk assessment.

I would rather be a weenie and make all my calls in the conservative direction, than opt for, "hey, it will be fine," and discover it isn't.

 

[boulderjohn]

Operators who make exceptions to their rules should look to the Tina Watson case. The Mike Ball liveaboard required a checkout dive before letting diver do the Yongala wreck, but the Watson's convinced them it was not necessary because the husband was certified by NASDS at the Rescue Diver level. As most people know, Tina died on that dive, a result of her incapability of doing such a difficult dive on her first ocean experience, her first dive after OW certification Her husband proved to be absolutely incapable in his rescue attempt. The operator was fined heavily for failing to follow their own advertised policy. That fine did not bring Tina back to life.

 

[Tessunderwater]

I'm glad you guys made it out of that situation safely and learned an important lesson from it.
I agree with Jim Lapenta, the dangers of overhead are not emphasized enough in open water training. At my open water check outs we were basically shown the reaper sign and given a finger wag but never given any detail.
I finally got some detail when I started meeting more divers in the tech community. When I took my cavern class it opened up a whole new world ( and addiction) .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[t4e]

Sorry I'm not sure I get your point. How would me doing a checkout dive with the owner have changed the fact that a guide took three highly unqualified divers on an overhead dive, one where he knew there was copious amounts of silt? I was merely trying to point out that their concept of checking out divers is worse than useless, it actually creates a false expectation that the other divers will be half competent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

by your own admission in the OP you are not certified to be in overhead environments, how come you accuse the dive shop of taking only three highly unqualified divers in an overhead environment and not five, to include yourself and your wife?

what makes you qualified, just the dives you had in the past weeks, thankfully without incident?

 

[boulderjohn]

by your own admission in the OP you are not certified to be in overhead environments, how come you accuse the dive shop of taking only three highly unqualified divers in an overhead environment and not five, to include yourself and your wife?

what makes you qualified, just the dives you had in the past weeks, thankfully without incident?

I think this illustrates an important problem in how we think about overhead environments. We tell people that they aren't qualified to be in overhead environments without technical certification, and that is the rule. Period.

There is an arch on the wall at about 5 feet of depth outside of the Coral Princess in Cozumel. Highly unskilled snorkelers go through it all the time. It is an overhead environment. If a diver wants to go through it, is technical certification necessary?

Open water divers go through short swim throughs and lava tubes by the thousands all over the world every day. Divers go into small, one or two room wrecks that are wide open and easily entered and exited all over the world every day.

A rule that is so thoroughly ignored is not only worthless as a rule, it is worse than worthless. When divers ignore a rule like that in complete safety every day in those easy cases, they see the rule as ridiculous and ignore it completely. They are left with no sense of where to draw the line.

To give an example that has nothing to do with diving, in the Denver area about 15 years ago we had a multi-lane divided highway that was a major commuting road. The speed limit was 55 mph, and drivers absolutely ignored it. The department of transportation did a study and found that almost no one was obeying it, and the average speed was way above that limit. They did something surprising--they raised the speed limit to 65! Asked for an explanation, they said that studies show that when a rule is seen as ridiculously wrong, it is so completely disobeyed that it is worse than having no rule at all, because it gives no guidance. They said that studies showed that left with no speed limit, most drivers will instinctively drive at a safe speed, and if they see a speed limit as reasonable, they are more likely to obey it. It worked! After the speed limit was raised to a more appropriate speed, the average speed of drivers actually went down.

I think the same thing would be true if we had more reasonable guidelines for overhead environments, and, BTW, I'm working on it.

 

[Griffo]

by your own admission in the OP you are not certified to be in overhead environments, how come you accuse the dive shop of taking only three highly unqualified divers in an overhead environment and not five, to include yourself and your wife?

what makes you qualified, just the dives you had in the past weeks, thankfully without incident?

Sorry but where did I say that we were not overhead certified?

 

[DevonDiver]

Sorry but where did I say that we were not overhead certified?

Maybe you didn't update your profile here?

All I read there is a basic "SSI Wreck" course. If you want to count that as 'overhead certified', so be it.

How many overhead environment training dives (guideline deployment/redundant air) did you do to achieve this?

What emergency protocols (entanglement/lost line/lost buddy/air-sharing egress/zero viz etc) did you do to achieve this?

---------- Post added August 20th, 2013 at 12:14 PM ----------

I think this illustrates an important problem in how we think about overhead environments. We tell people that they aren't qualified to be in overhead environments without technical certification, and that is the rule. Period.

Do we? I always saw a clear differentiation between two levels of overhead environment (wreck or cave). That differentiation was primarily whether the divers remained in the light zone.

I've seen further classification based on linear distance from surface (40m/130ft), and whether the diver/s pass through restrictions (an area too small for two divers to pass through whilst sharing air side-by-side or piggy-back (no long hose used)).

What I've NOT seen is an intelligent guidance on variable light zone factors - for instance, how the light zone can disappear within seconds due to silt-out, leaving the diver immediately beyond their skill threshold for safe and assured egress.

I think the same thing would be true if we had more reasonable guidelines for overhead environments, and, BTW, I'm working on it.

I think there's room for a 'swim through' classification. This would help guide divers on realistically safe penetrations that didn't require guideline deployment, redundant air necessity or the need for specialist overhead training. It would also help prevent divers doing 'swim throughs' that were actually much more. Again, silt risk, ambient light, availability of exits and ease of immediate egress and ascent are critical factors in this.

I also classify penetrations beyond 'technical wreck'. That is primarily about the level of confined space passed through - particularly in respect to restrictions.

 

[Griffo]

I'm going to leave this thread as I'm just going to start to sound defensive which I don't mean to. So I won't respond apart from saying no, I don't consider the SSI course a proper wreck course - in fact it's a complete joke of a course. And yes I probably need to update my profile.

 

[themagni]

There is always another day to dive, assuming you come back from this one.

He who thumbs and swims away, lives to thumb another day.

---------- Post added August 20th, 2013 at 03:42 PM ----------

by your own admission in the OP you are not certified to be in overhead environments, how come you accuse the dive shop of taking only three highly unqualified divers in an overhead environment and not five, to include yourself and your wife?

what makes you qualified, just the dives you had in the past weeks, thankfully without incident?

Nobody knows what they don't know, and of course, what you don't know is what will likely get you injured or killed.

 

[DevonDiver]

by your own admission in the OP you are not certified to be in overhead environments, how come you accuse the dive shop of taking only three highly unqualified divers in an overhead environment and not five, to include yourself and your wife?

As I view it, being 'certified' to dive wrecks, but allowing yourself to be taken on a wreck penetration dive that breaks every cardinal rule taught on your wreck certification course is not evidence of "qualification".

qual·i·fi·ca·tion : Noun : A quality or accomplishment that makes someone suitable for a particular job or activity.

It just means you got a piece of plastic in your pocket, but carry on diving as you did before your course. THAT is not 'qualification'.