Treat every dive like a tech dive

[2airishuman]

This sentence makes me believe that the motivation for this thread was your "ditchable weights" thread.

What you IMO forget here is the probability factor in your risk analysis. How many rec divers have died from a rapid ascent? Which other risks do an (average) rec diver face? How common are those?

2air's homework on causes of serious rec diving accidents

In order of decreasing probability

1a. Divers with previously existing medical problems who knowingly accepted the risk of diving with those problems or who started or continued diving without seeking a reasonable amount of medical advice: coronary artery disease, asthma, diabetes, copd
1b. Divers who despite being prudent regarding medical fitness for diving nonetheless suffered medical problems that caused an accident
2. Inexperienced divers who were never comfortable in the water in the first place who, despite being safely on the surface with a perfectly functioning scuba kit and snorkel, manged to drown and sink.
3. The standard diving accident (see below)
4. Misjudging local conditions of weather, current, tide, and depth vs. ability, leading to accidents while entering or leaving the water
5. Accidents during inherently high risk dives beyond usual recreational limits
6. Trauma, with a wide variety of causative agents

The Standard Diving Accident (tm)

Any combination of equipment failure, panic, entanglement, navigation problems, current, minor impact or trauma, poor gas planning, and/or buddy separation, resulting in a cascading loss of control over the dive and culminating in an OOA emergency.

How do you mitigate those risks? Are any of those risk mitigations mutually exclusive? (hint: some of them may well be)

Books have been written. I personally put great emphasis on:

1. Basic skills gained through instruction and experience and maintained through practice
2. A safety oriented mindset. Think, ask questions, mentally rehearse responses, go through the drills without equipment while you're sitting in a comfy chair.
3. Actually understanding dive theory
4. Using a consistent kit, to the extent feasible given the varying nature of the dives you perform.
5. Using well maintained kit that is fit for purpose and chosen to mitigate risk
6. Cultivating a presence that allows early recognition of hazards.

No-one is saying that you shouldn't think about gas planning on a rec dive. On the contrary, there are several very experienced instructors here who recommend even rec divers to consider gas planning. And of course a rec diver should "focus their mind on solving problems in a way that allows a deliberate ascent", but the big difference between rec and tec is that if S really HTF, the rec diver can ascend directly to the surface without getting bent, while a tec diver runs a pretty big risk of massive DCS if they choose to do so. The major risks faced by the two different types of divers are not the same.

The point of this thread, and this reason I started it, is the contention that some safety topics and approaches are too advanced for serious discussion and consideration by anyone except tech divers. I don't believe that's true. I believe that the risks Standard Diving Accident (tm) can be mitigated in many ways. If there are three things that contributed to an accident then maybe mitigating just one of them is enough to change the outcome. If someone runs OOA while dealing with entanglement maybe better gas planning would be the easiest way to have prevented the problem. Or maybe a better knife or more consistent equipment placement. If someone panics because of a freeflow, better training, better maintenance, or more redundancy, pick one. Better yet, address all three -- I look to the tech divers because they're on the cutting edge, safety wise, and maybe there is some broader wisdom in what they do.

 

[Colliam7]

I think the OP has asked a good question. He is a relatively newer diver, and he is in learning mode, and I say, 'Good for him!' The first sentence in his post provides some potential insight into the genesis of his question:

Many a diving question I've pondered, not just here but in real life, has been shut down with some variation on "that only matters for tech dives." I'm struggling to understand the mindset.

It is unfortunate that, at times, reasonable questions are dismissed as somehow being ONLY related to tech diving, just as certain useful equipment configurations are dismissed as being suitable only for tec diving.

Putting aside the obvious differences between rec and tech with regard to depths, run times, gases used, and associated equipment requirements, why shouldn't every recreational dive be approached with at least some elements of the mindset that is generally considered to characterize competent technical divers. Put another way, why shouldn't: a) a diver approach every dive with the mindset that it might be necessary to finish it alone (as Tony Chaney suggested), even if that means nothing more than immediately terminating the dive and ascending to the surface in a safe, controlled manner, without a deco obligation; b) a diver be better prepared to handle underwater emergencies, be they equipment-related, or environmental (e.g. entanglement); c) a diver be disciplined enough to make a proper dive plan and stick to it, and properly equip themselves for every dive (which might mean something as simple as what Tobin suggested, if you don't need it, don't take it); d) a diver begin every dive assuming that certain things might go wrong and having reasonable contingency plans for dealing with such situations; e) a diver maintain proper physical fitness for diving; f) a diver accept responsibility for their own personal safety, rather than depending on a DM, or their buddy, or 'somebody else' (whomever that might be).

OK, maybe some of this sounds like additional lyrics for the Beach Boys song, 'Wouldn't It be Nice'. But, I wonder if perhaps this is the kind of question the OP is trying to get to.

Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have posts complaining about insta-buddies and same ocean buddies, because every diver understood what it meant to be a buddy / team player? Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have reports of injuries associated with OOA emergencies, because every diver planned for the contingency of an OOA situation, beginning with good gas management planning, and including not only access to their buddy, but the presence of appropriate redundant equipment when diving deeper than reasonable CESA depths, for example? Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't read posts about bad outcomes associated with 'trust me' dives? The list could go on.

We have periodic 'discussions' here on SB about solo diving courses and certifications. Some posters have been critical of PADI, in particular, for not using the term 'solo', and instead using 'self-reliant' in their course offering. I had concerns at first, as well. But, I am no longer bothered by the absence of the word 'solo', because the more I thought about it, the more I have come to think that 'self-reliant' is both a better term, and a more important concept. And, that broader concept of self-reliance is what I read into the OP's question.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

The goal of diving is to have fun.. NOT be as safe as possible. If you want to be safe, stay out of the water.. it is dangerous.

So the objective should be to have fun and be "safe". Well safe is a relative term. For me, I want to be comfortable that I am very likely to survive ANY (single) gear failure that might occur. If you are diving in 20 feet of water, 50 ft from the lake shore... I really don't need much gear to ensure that I will survive if my BC fails or my tank fails or my regulator hose explodes or my mask strap falls off, or my weight belt pops off etc,

If I am diving past recreational depths, and many miles from shore... well then I might need to implement different protocols and use different (or more) gear to allow me to survive a failure.

Generally, I don't worry about multiple, independent, simultaneous gear failures...those are too unlikely to worry about from my standpoint.

Carrying a bunch of extra crap on a dive that does not require it, does not improve safety and probably will not increase your comfort level or "fun".

The trick is to have enough gear and skills to "have fun" on any dive you choose... not prepare for a meteor strike.

 

[Subcooled]

So I am diving in 25 ft of water in the local quarry. I know that my NDL exceeds what I can do with my HP 100. My planning is pretty basic.

Basic as in:
1) decide or know the maximum depth in advance
2) know your maximum... no... minimum average surface-air consumption rate on dives like this
3) calculate gas consumption at max depth (or average - even harder)
4) What's the longest possible time at maximum (average) depth?
5) know your no-mandatory-decompression-stops limit this time (factor in age, shape, temperature, transient factors)
6) compare
7) decide to dive without a pony and without a dive computer as you would only need the SPG and not even that

Pretty basic

Your tech diving attitude will allow you to leave a lot of unneeded gear (snorkel, dive computer) at home and diving can get more fun. No need to watch that annoying little screen on your wrist. You can watch your ascent speed without gauges as you have learned how fast the small bubbles rise or how slow vs fast ascents at the 0..25 ft region feel.

Besides, planning is an interesting and enjoyable part of a dive. It's not just the goal but the trip that is enjoyable.

 

[Storker]

2air's homework on causes of serious rec diving accidents

If you want more study material for your homework, I can recommend BSAC's Annual Diving Incident Reports, "Common causes of open-circuit recreational diving fatalities" (Denoble, P.J., Caruso, J.L., Dear, G. de L., Pieper, C.F., and Vann, R.D., UHM 2008, Vol. 35, No. 6.), and "Annual Fatality Rates and Associated Risk Factors for Recreational Scuba Diving" (Denoble, P.J., Marroni, A., and Vann, R.D., DAN 2010 Recreational Diving Fatalities Workshop Proceedings).

The point of this thread, and this reason I started it, is the contention that some safety topics and approaches are too advanced for serious discussion and consideration by anyone except tech divers.

I might be a bit dense, but I've never heard that contention here. I'd appreciate a link for my enlightenment.

 

[2airishuman]

The goal of diving is to have fun.. NOT be as safe as possible. If you want to be safe, stay out of the water.. it is dangerous.

So the objective should be to have fun and be "safe". Well safe is a relative term. For me, I want to be comfortable that I am very likely to survive ANY (single) gear failure that might occur. If you are diving in 20 feet of water, 50 ft from the lake shore... I really don't need much gear to ensure that I will survive if my BC fails or my tank fails or my regulator hose explodes or my mask strap falls off, or my weight belt pops off etc,

If I am diving past recreational depths, and many miles from shore... well then I might need to implement different protocols and use different (or more) gear to allow me to survive a failure.

What's getting lost here is that many if not most dives fall somewhere in between, a dive to 60' along a wall is within recreational limits but has a different risk profile than 20' of water near shore.

Generally, I don't worry about multiple, independent, simultaneous gear failures...those are too unlikely to worry about from my standpoint.

Carrying a bunch of extra crap on a dive that does not require it, does not improve safety and probably will not increase your comfort level or "fun".

The trick is to have enough gear and skills to "have fun" on any dive you choose... not prepare for a meteor strike.

I agree with all that, and it still chaps my behind that reasonable discussions about exactly what constitutes "enough gear and skills" get shut down, by some instructors, as being relevant only to tech divers. Especially when the discussion itself is treated as inimical to safety because it somehow implies that the person asking the question is trying to push limits.

---------- Post added December 2nd, 2015 at 04:51 PM ----------

If you want more study material for your homework, I can recommend BSAC's Annual Diving Incident Reports, "Common causes of open-circuit recreational diving fatalities" (Denoble, P.J., Caruso, J.L., Dear, G. de L., Pieper, C.F., and Vann, R.D., UHM 2008, Vol. 35, No. 6.), and "Annual Fatality Rates and Associated Risk Factors for Recreational Scuba Diving" (Denoble, P.J., Marroni, A., and Vann, R.D., DAN 2010 Recreational Diving Fatalities Workshop Proceedings).

Thanks, I've read through two years of the BSAC reports, and may continue my reading based on your suggestions.

I might be a bit dense, but I've never heard that contention here. I'd appreciate a link for my enlightenment.

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...ditchable-weight-post7562460.html#post7562460

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...ditchable-weight-post7562463.html#post7562463

and third, at my LDS.

 

[CuzzA]

If I didn't know a thing about scuba diving and I read this thread I would come away with the idea that basic open water scuba diving classes don't teach you anything. Gas planning, what to do in an emergency, etc. Meanwhile every agency instructor goes (should go) over all of this. I may take some tech techniques or equipment configurations with me to open water rec diving, but I'm not bringing stage bottles on a 60 ft. open water tropical reef dive.

It's already been mentioned, but look up what the definition of tech diving is. You'll find overhead environment, deep or prolonged diving that requires decompression obligations having to be satisfied. Except for cave or wreck penetration diving most of what technical diving is "is extensive gas planning". Planning that far exceeds any recreational dive. And if you found yourself in a cave, wreck or with a deco obligation that you're not trained for, well then you're a pretty crappy diver.

 

[Navigator1242]

I personally believe that part of this proverb stems from the fact that many inexperienced divers are bad at judging how challenging the dive they are going to make will be compared to their current skill level. Thus they should meticulously prepare and plan to mitigate the risks involved in their dives. I don't think the meaning is actually to incorporate tech principles as a whole, but to screw into their heads basic concepts like double checking your gear yourself, understanding MOD's and doing some basic dive planning. This might feel like it's more "technical" as most vacation divers are used to dive guides holding their hands if things get scary and feeding them some chocolate if they feel cranky, as full service dive operations are prevalent in holiday destinations. Responsibility is the keyword here. Teaching a novice diver to take responsibility of their own diving and gear pushes them to learn more and forwards on the path of becoming a skilled diver. The more you force yourself to handle your own, the better you will become in doing it.

When novice divers learn to plan, they also learn how to adjust plans on the fly when things don't go as planned. I can mostly talk about cold and murky waters here in Finland, but I have some vacation diving experience in the tropics too. If I cut some corners and simplify a great deal, my dives in the tropics were all extremely easy when not diving in currents. I didn't actually have to plan that much, only take into account how long I approximately would stay down and watch my depths. This is the case for many people, it's deceptively easy to dive OWD -certification level reefs and if everything on the boat including planning is handled for them, there isn't much incentive to actively develop your skills. I only dive withing recreational limits for now, but my dives are usually in sub +10C (50F) water in a drysuit and visibility more often than not under 5 meters (16 feet). Below 10 meters (32 feet) there is hardly any light so most of my dives could be called night dives as lights are a must. Most quarries also have a lot of silt so proper finning techniques are required and bottom contacts are hazardous. It's cold, dark and disorienting - but technically within OW certification limits. Would I recommend dives like this to novice divers? No. I have taken some of less experienced friends with me a few times and they all have said that this feels like damn crazy technical diving, but they have also understood that their skill and more importantly psychological limits are set by easyish diving, and while doing dives like that they learn valuable lessons in importance of working gear, dive planning, signalling and keeping track of your buddies. One of my friends said that the actual process of setting up gear himself from packing it to the car and to the water, taking to account current weather and actually understanding why plans are made after diving in those kind of conditions felt for him like he learned more in a day than on the whole OWD course! So I atleast hope that he learned to take some responsibility and understand that diving should be taken seriously at all times, at least if your log still runs in under three digits.

 

[Storker]

The point of this thread, and this reason I started it, is the contention that some safety topics and approaches are too advanced for serious discussion and consideration by anyone except tech divers.

I might be a bit dense, but I've never heard that contention here. I'd appreciate a link for my enlightenment.

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...ditchable-weight-post7562460.html#post7562460

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...ditchable-weight-post7562463.html#post7562463

and third, at my LDS.

I may be denser than I thought, or it may be a language issue, but when the words are "If you cannot swim it up and you cannot take it off then you are doing something that does not belong in Basic SCUBA", I don't read them as "this is too advanced for serious discussion and consideration by anyone except tech divers".

I can't comment about your LDS.

 

[doctormike]

I agree with the OP.

In my opinion, "tech" is a mindset, an approach to diving where you think about your dive ahead of time, you foresee and plan for likely problems. Lots of the posters here are bringing up a straw man arguments about the specifics of gear, NDLs, etc... that's not the point.

I think that every diver should approach every dive with this mindset. The tech-rec distinction is a bit arbitrary - I'm certified to plan dives requiring staged decompression with a ceiling in an overhead environment, but not with trimix. Is a trimix diver more "tech" than me?

Whether it's a Caribbean reef at 25 feet or a wreck at 100 meters, a good "tech" approach to a dive is not a bad thing.