If you let them actually run the unit then you have to deal with all of this: Raft -- in an ideal world and all that, but it's a rabbit hole once you start down that path.
Ginnie Springs diver missing - Florida
- Thread starter DandyDon
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
If you let them actually run the unit then you have to deal with all of this: Raft -- in an ideal world and all that, but it's a rabbit hole once you start down that path.
- Messages
- 20,561
- Reaction score
- 14,938
- # of dives
- I'm a Fish!
agreed. The way the unit is designed is that the first "side" that is turned on is "master" and the other side automatically becomes slave. Either way though, I just wanted to point out that there is no true "Redundancy" in any of the DiveCAN or analog rebreathers since they are all sharing analog connections. The Liberty only talks to the other side digitally which is a big improvement.
The BIGGEST thing on the Liberty though and is one of the biggest reasons that I use it instead of a Shearwater on my mCCR is that you can manually vote out sensors. It can do it automatically but it asks you to confirm. Shearwater doesn't.
Never heard of the Scubapro MK7 "honker"?
I was reading through this thread and thinking about how best to formulate my comment about the (lack) of proper investigations of many dive accidents.
Then I came across this scientific paper which spills out exactly my thoughts:
'As a result, some have quit cave diving all together and those who did not quit do not wish to speak about it. So much so, that all of our continuous and persistent requests to speak about the accident to those that were present in the cave and cavern fell on deaf ears. This unfortunate (but understandable) situation results from the fact that the agencies associated with cave diving (e.g., NSS-CDS, the National Speological Society-Cave Diving section, and the NACD, the National Association of Cave Divers) are self-regulated, so that there is no means to force individuals to speak about this, or any other case. To put things in perspective, it is appropriate to point out here that there are other branches of society, such as the military and the police, which regularly encounter similar, if not more tragic, events and, yet, cannot choose to avoid speaking about the issues. These branches are, of course, not self-regulated but rather are regulated by the corresponding governing agencies. As a result, accidents are more rigorously investigated, no participant can avoid speaking about a case and, consequently, there is probably a much better understanding of accidents and how to avoid them.'
(Doron Nof and Nathan Paldor, 'The Cave Resonator and the Parker Turner Cave Collapse Problem' [2010] Safety Science 607. Available at http://www.swiss-cave-diving.ch/PDF-dateien/Cave-Resonator-Collapse.pdf )
The question is: do we really want to be regulated by a governing agency?
Then I came across this scientific paper which spills out exactly my thoughts:
'As a result, some have quit cave diving all together and those who did not quit do not wish to speak about it. So much so, that all of our continuous and persistent requests to speak about the accident to those that were present in the cave and cavern fell on deaf ears. This unfortunate (but understandable) situation results from the fact that the agencies associated with cave diving (e.g., NSS-CDS, the National Speological Society-Cave Diving section, and the NACD, the National Association of Cave Divers) are self-regulated, so that there is no means to force individuals to speak about this, or any other case. To put things in perspective, it is appropriate to point out here that there are other branches of society, such as the military and the police, which regularly encounter similar, if not more tragic, events and, yet, cannot choose to avoid speaking about the issues. These branches are, of course, not self-regulated but rather are regulated by the corresponding governing agencies. As a result, accidents are more rigorously investigated, no participant can avoid speaking about a case and, consequently, there is probably a much better understanding of accidents and how to avoid them.'
(Doron Nof and Nathan Paldor, 'The Cave Resonator and the Parker Turner Cave Collapse Problem' [2010] Safety Science 607. Available at http://www.swiss-cave-diving.ch/PDF-dateien/Cave-Resonator-Collapse.pdf )
The question is: do we really want to be regulated by a governing agency?
Of course not, but the question is ill-posed. It is a balance, and needs to be expressed as such.
So better would be:
"Do we prefer to stay self-regulated and have no useful reports on accidents, or is it better to have outside regulation, and thus get accident reports?"
Some will say, "self-regulated but WITH accident reports." But haven't we demonstrated, over and over, that this is not going to happen?
Well, couple of things. First, when I wrote 'the dive is aborted', I mean just that. You stop going 'out' and head for home. Assuming the plan was for deep cave penetration, then appropriate bailout plans would need to be in place, but coming home should not be an issue with a good plan.
As for the topaz, if the failure was the ground cable (as stated) in the wire to the secondary, only the secondary would be dead. The solenoid would still fire, the PO2 would still be maintained, and the HUD would still work. I would not be happy that the secondary was gone, but I could still come home - even from a mile in a cave (were I a cave diver).
The author misses a huge difference between those two groupings. When the police or military report on an incident, it was an incident which they organized, planned, and executed.
If I were to have a cave diving incident, none of the 3 agencies from which I have certifications would have had anything to do with the organizing, planning, and execution of the dive. How could they report on something they had nothing to do with?
MichaelMc
Working toward Cenotes
Expanding on tbone's comment. When the military has an incident and possibly loses people, the event occurred within a rather large organization. The military wants to learn from mistakes and not lose more people and so has developed an institutional safety and incident culture of finding out why something happened. It also has the authority internally to compel all involved to cooperate with such investigations.
Edit: I don't know the extent of punishment for noncooperation or subversion of investigations, but they would not be good.
You bring up some good points and this article sort of addresses them but misses the mark a bit in why certain agencies have more "transparency", IMO. Having been in the military where a portion of my job was to investigate parachuting accidents, and now being a police officer whose job is, at least in part, to investigate officer involved shootings, uses of force, major accidents, etc. there are forces at work that aren't there in a private group. Both the military and police services are held accountable by the pubic in which they serve. The public pays for these services and enlists each to act on their behalf. In addition, both are focused on preventing accidents/incidents which harm their members or the public unnecessarily. It seems the diving community might want to consider demanding that the various groups and agencies that they pay dues to require an investigation or at least disclosure of some of the things occurring during these incidents and informing their members so they can make informed decisions about their diving, etc.
Apparently my last post did not get through to you.
There is normally no agency in charge of a dive that has an incident. The only exception is with training exercises, in which case the agencies do perform an investigation, and if the instructor involved is disciplined, that is made public, ad least by PADI. For any other diver, the "dues" they pay are essentially magazine subscriptions.
Please answer this question:
I was certified nearly a quarter century ago. Since then I have amassed a pile of certification cards from 5 different agencies. For cave diving, I have certifications from 3 different agencies. I have not taken a class in 5 years. Let's say I head out to Ginnie Springs and do a solo dive on which I die. I did not notify anyone in any agency that I was planning to do a dive; there is, in fact, no avenue for doing so. I did not file a dive plan with any agency; there is, in fact, no avenue for doing so. No agency ordered me to do that dive.
Which of those 5 agencies should be responsible for investigating my death and producing a report?
Similar threads
