The normalization of dives to 100 meters and beyond

[ThatDogDontHunt]

Eagles Nest was a Cascade of mistakes that started before they entered the water. Support wouldn't have changed anything.

Maybe we can look at the concept of a support team from a different angle?

Things like space flight, test pilots and the deep french divers (video above? Or is some other recent thread) involved a very large "support team". The support team was not simply a passive role that people seem to consider the deep dive support divers to be. In these other activities the support team played a very active role well before the attempt was started. They helped define / refine procedures, discuss potential failure points, help decide risk mitigations, provided QA that process and procedures were being followed. An astronaut is simply 1 person in a very large team. They become the star, but they did not accomplish the goal by themselves. They could easily be replaced by a different astronaut.

These deep dives seem to ignore the need for a proper team? Think doctor deep...

Maybe utilizing a proper support team would have detected the Eagles Nest mistakes and stopped (or altered?) that dive?

Otherwise are these deep dives just Russian Roulette using scuba gear?

 

[cerich]

Eagles Nest was a Cascade of mistakes that started before they entered the water. Support wouldn't have changed anything.

Support "could" have said " bad plan" or could be enablers...seen both over the years.

Regardless, the margin to deal with crap at 100 m is thin and technology has made dives that go right easy.

 

[rjack321]

Eagles Nest was a Cascade of mistakes that started before they entered the water. Support wouldn't have changed anything.

Was there a thread with details I missed somewhere? All I remember is some of the recovery notes

 

[W W Meixner]

As part of a married couple (comparatively divers in begnin conditions so) I, on the one hand agree with your thought there.
Then on the other hand, my wive and I also i.e. travel in the same plane. Something likely vastly less risky than deep diving and vastly more convenient than making separate planes work, but yet also indicative of our willingness to compromise on things... And risks aside, we certainly are also vastly more out of control of our own destiny on a plane (or a boat...) than on a recreational dive, but we compromise... and probably are perceptive to compromising more as time goes on... ... Just as a thought... no immediate "morals" offered.

And remarking: Good topic @2airishuman !

S...

My wife and I travel in the same car/plane/ship...as you and your wife as well...

But...I'll bet you and your wife do not attempt ''recreational'' dives in the neighbourhood of 1000 ft deep...

When safety stats for successful 1000 ft deep dives reach that of commercial air travel...maybe we could both try it...not holding my breath...how about you...

My skinny chicken bones shudder at the thought of that kind of task loading...

Best...

Warren

 

[rjack321]

Five page now... just curious how many people commenting here have ever even dove a hypoxic gas (OC or dil) and have even been past 70 or 80m?

 

[Storker]

how many people commenting here have ever even dove a hypoxic gas (OC or dil) and have even been past 70 or 80m?

In what way is that relevant to generic opinions about risk analysis and risk evaluation?

 

[rjack321]

In what way is that relevant to generic opinions about risk analysis and risk evaluation?

This thread was an offshoot of the reported fatality in Michigan where divers with no understanding of hypoxic gases were commenting about doing CESAs - even though the deceased were on CCR... Having training and experience in the hypoxic depth range is relevant since there is no such thing as a "generic" risk evaluation. If an AOW diver was talking about doing a 70m dive we'd all be pointing out he "doesn't know what he doesn't know" right? So what makes that same diver qualified to chime in about what actually is "safe" in a thread like this?

 

[Storker]

If an AOW diver was talking about doing a 70m dive we'd all be pointing out he "doesn't know what he doesn't know" right? So what makes that same diver qualified to chime in about what actually is "safe" in a thread like this?

That's not a generic risk analysis issue and I think I can fully understand if you're peeved about that.

My question still stands unanswered, though.

 

[rjack321]

I work in risk assessment - for chemicals at contaminated sites in soil, water, fish, and to some extent air. I'm not qualified to discuss the risks associated with prescription drugs or airplanes or how many people die from air bags in cars. There's no such thing generic risk analysis.

100m dives have a specific set of issues which are in addition to those in 60m dives or 30m or 10m. You do have to dive through 10, 30, 60m to get to 100m afterall. If you have no training or experience for the factors which become relevant at 60m+ that's fine. But you're also not qualified to say what is "too much" of a risk when you have nothing but your gut feelings to contribute.

 

[AfterDark]

This thread was an offshoot of the reported fatality in Michigan where divers with no understanding of hypoxic gases were commenting about doing CESAs - even though the deceased were on CCR... Having training and experience in the hypoxic depth range is relevant since there is no such thing as a "generic" risk evaluation. If an AOW diver was talking about doing a 70m dive we'd all be pointing out he "doesn't know what he doesn't know" right? So what makes that same diver qualified to chime in about what actually is "safe" in a thread like this?

People don't know what they don't know. You and I and everyone on this thread have no idea what any one of us knows thru reading, study, conversations with others who are qualified, attending seminars on the subject. All we have to go on is a profile page. Common sense is common sense, IMO a good dose is as important as any qualification.

You may not be qualified to discuss other risk management professionally but, we all are free to discuss the subject of the thread on SB.