DumpsterDiver emergency ascent from 180'

[tbone1004]

@2airishuman try an AL40 at some point. There is a reason we use them as deco bottles regardless of the size of deco we have and it is because of how effortless they can be carried. Even when an AL30 may be more appropriate due to gas planning or something even smaller, we just grab the 40 because of how easily they carry. Same with why we use AL80's for stages even though LP72's are better in terms of size:weight:capacity on land, the al80's handle better in the water so we use them. Same reason no one uses al63's or 50's. You go straight to an al40, and if that isn't big enough, straight to an al80 *unless you were lucky enough to be able to grab a bunch of the AL72's when they were available that are even nicer*

 

[CuzzA]

He wasn't freediving, so freediving standards don't apply. When you are at 100' with 4 ATA of gas pressure in your lungs, the standards for freediving are completely irrelevant.



Your point is valid and that is why I was careful to say that MY judgment of the situation would be that it is normalization of deviance, based on MY training. But, the question is not really whether he deviated from the standards of MY training. The question is whether he deviated from the standards of his own training. It is my SPECULATION that he has not had training that would support doing the specific things that he was doing. But, if I am wrong, then I would revise my opinion on whether his dive represented normalization of deviance.

Characterization of normalization of deviance by giving an example where on one dive you did something significantly deviant and then decided it was okay and kept doing it after that does not really paint the full picture, I don't think. I think normalization of deviance is often much more subtle than that. It is something that accretes over a period of time. Today, you are certified to dive to 130'. Tomorrow, you dive to 131' and you are fine. The next day, you go to 132' and are fine. You continue to build on this until one day you are diving to 160', with the same tanks and gas supply that you were using at 130' and you've done it so much without incident that it becomes the new normal. You gradually build up this feeling that you've done something so much, advancing your boundaries in tiny little increments, and never had a problem that you genuinely start to believe that the new normal is just as safe as the boundary you started with.

You could argue that you started with a safety margin of X% at 130'. As you incrementally build up to diving to 160', your safety margin decreases, but your skill and experience increase to make up for it, so that you are still just as safe. However that thought does not, in my opinion, adequately reflect a couple of inescapable facts. One, if you're 30' deeper, it WILL take longer to get to the surface once you being your ascent. And, two, nobody is invulnerable to narcosis, and narcosis is not 100% predictable (as far as I know). What works for you 100 times might not work on attempt # 101. A HP seat blowout on the day you happen to get unusually narced and you're at 160' with an AL13 pony is a day that might not end very well for you. Or maybe the surprise stress of the blowout turns out to be the tipping point into narcosis that you weren't really experiencing up to that point. Even DD cannot say with certainty that that is not going to happen. And we know that depth, stress, and exertion are all factors that CAN contribute to narcosis.

I think there is a reason that so many experts cite normalization of deviance as a major factor in scuba accidents. Like I said earlier, I am not saying DD is bad or trying to criticize him. I'm just saying that this example seems, to ME, to be a pretty clear case of normalization of deviance. No judgment from me on him as a person or diver.

I AM now curious whether DD will continue to do the exact same dives (i.e. that deep, still with only a 13 for a pony). Did he take this as a wakeup call? Or as confirmation that what he's been doing is just fine?

Blowing an HP seat is not that unusual, from what I understand. If that (one and only problem) happened to me and I survived with so little air left, I would probably be making new plans to give myself more margin in the future. If I had two problems, or one problem with complicating factors, and I survived with such a thin margin, I might (MAYBE) feel like my dive planning had been acceptable. But, one (not unusual) problem that happened with pretty much ideal (for me) timing (i.e. very early in the dive), and no complicating factors that arose to slow me down at all, and I still only hit the surface with a tiny amount of air left, would make me feel like I needed to change my planning in the future. But, I am still pretty new at all this....

I think we pretty much agree.

 

[victorzamora]

I'm OK with that point of view although I do not share it. My 40cf cylinders are HP steel and I have never dived with an AL40, so perhaps they are easier to carry for whatever reason. I have an HP11 and an AL19 that I use for some solo dives, and twinsets I use for others. I don't find that the HP11 or AL19 are particularly difficult to carry or mount, but it is necessary to leave enough slack in the top bolt snap that it can be handled readily. One of these days I'm going to experiment with using bungee material for the top bolt snap attachment to try to get easy handling combined with better trim.

Yeah, an AL40 and a steel 45/50 (not familiar with 40s) are VERY different tanks. AL40s full have floaty tails. They're so light and floaty in the water that you really don't notice they're there. Dramatically different from any steel I've ever dove. I've carried AL19s and AL30s and quite a few others....but none of them float or behave like an AL40. I have dove LP45s and LP50s (not familiar with steel 40s

 

[Diver0001]

You guys know he's aware of this thread, I think it's obvious since you can't see the video, and yet ScubaBoard is allowing the disparaging remarks about him, which I think is fine, he's a big boy and can take it, except he's not getting the ability to answer questions and defend himself or who knows, maybe he'll agree with everyone.

speaking as a moderator
Moderators do not thought police people's posts on Scubaboard. The TOS is about rules of the engagement in order to keep the board respectful, not about freedom of speech. If someone has something to say about an ex member then that may be crude in some cases but that's their own responsibility provided the TOS is being followed. If other boards limit your freedom of speech and you're happy with that, then that's fine too. We do not make moderating policy for other boards. That's their own responsibility. If you like their policy better than ours then that's also fine. We will not censure that opinion.

Moderators cannot discuss this case. We respect users' privacy, even the privacy of ex users, and we cannot and will not go into it. If all we have left to discuss is whether or not DD should be un-banned then this thread has run its course.

in my personal opinion
Speaking as a user I would personally much rather see people continue to discuss the safety aspects that arise from watching the video. DD has a long history of questionable practices and has been involved in a relatively large number of "incidents" over the years, even one that I can remember that involved his child. If this example serves to make clear to other, more safety conscious divers, what NOT to do then I believe that the contribution of this thread to the community is positive.

R..

 

[mcpowell]

If two people are on the boat, and they are waiting on the single diver to surface and a few minutes into the dive a large quantity of bubble start hitting the surface, shouldn't that raise a bit of an alarm? I'm not sure I could sit topside while thinking my friend could be drowning from lack of air below. If I had some scuba gear topside, I think I would suit up and at least follow some bubbles down to see if my buddy needed some assistance.

 

[boulderjohn]

@stuartv , I view Normalization of Deviance as having little to do with standards written by ONE training agency (Hell even the training agencies can't agree on many aspects of diving) on best practices of solo diving, and one agency's standards can't be applied universally to every diver, where the majority have never even been trained by that organization.

You should provide a list of the agencies for whom it is normal to be diving to 180 feet on air with one cylinder and a 13 cubic foot pony bottle while having no technical gear and no technical training. That way you can demonstrate that there is no deviance involved in this dive.

 

[2airishuman]

You are doing an admirable job of representing him.

Thank you. It is a point of pride with me that I am able to explain points of view that I do not share.

It seems pretty clear that someone has access to him and can ask him questions if they see fit. If he didn't want this discussed here he shouldn't have agreed to allowed access to the video to have it posted.

To be clear, I do not have "access" to DD and have not corresponded with him, at all, regarding this incident, or the video, beyond posting a comment on YouTube stating that I was glad he was safe. I did not ask for, or receive, permission, or encouragement, to post his video. It is a public video on YouTube. I thought it could lead to insightful discussion, and it has.

Having a near miss and a thread discussing it hardly negates the reasons for his ban.

Indeed. I doubt if he and the moderators could recover a relationship of mutual respect and forbearance.

 

[2airishuman]

You should provide a list of the agencies for whom it is normal to be diving to 180 feet on air with one cylinder and a 13 cubic foot pony bottle while having no technical gear and no technical training. That way you can demonstrate that there is no deviance involved in this dive.

While I understand what you are saying, not all standards violations are related to normalization of deviance.

I don't want to put words in DD's mouth so I'll use my own diving as an example.

I dive solo. I have dived solo since shortly after receiving my PADI OWD certification, and have made approximately 100 solo dives since then. This isn't "normal" for the agency that set the standards for my training. It isn't something I started doing casually or without research or consideration. I found as much literature as I could on solo diving, spoke with other dives, learned everything I could about the benefits and drawbacks of buddy diving, and came to the conclusion that in my particular situation it made sense to disregard this specific limitation that I was taught. I learned certain theoretical matters on paper, and through practice topside, such as more thorough gas planning. Then I made a careful, considered series of dives to practice and refine solo diving skills and emergency procedures. I continue to practice these skills periodically, and continue to make solo dives within certain self-imposed limitations.

That may be foolish, it certainly disregards tradition and rules, but it is not normalization of deviance. Normalization of deviance, in contrast, is the human tendency to think, without other supporting evidence, that a risky behavior is safe simply because nothing untoward had happened when the risky behavior was conducted in the past.

 

[dmaziuk]

You should provide a list of the agencies for whom it is normal to be diving to 180 feet on air with one cylinder and a 13 cubic foot pony bottle while having no technical gear and no technical training. That way you can demonstrate that there is no deviance involved in this dive.

Which part? If you're refrerring to 60-ish metres on air, I'm sure you remember this one: Instagram post by Татьяна • Oct 26, 2016 at 8:44am UTC

Also I believe CMAS 3 star and BSAC advanced comes close on depth limits.

 

[2airishuman]

I have been posting stuff on the internet for about 35 years and have served in variously-named leadership roles (host, moderator, admin, etc.) on a wide variety of public forums, boards, wikis, groups, and mailing lists.

One of the constants, throughout this time, is that I have never seen someone who has been banned for more than a trivial period return to become a valuable, long-term contributor. Usually they just disappear. The ones who return at all are usually sufficiently upset about the ban itself, and sufficiently upset at those decisionmakers who supported it, that they end up in long-running disagreements that conclude with their permanent departure from the site.