Article: Self Reliance and Tech Diving

[danvolker]

If we both have an hour+ deco obligation, our respective dive plans called for us to each carry our own deco gas/safety reserve but no more, and just before beginning the ascent you have a catastrophic failure that costs you your gas... how is it selfish for me to do the math in my head and tell you to follow your plan, rather than compromising my own? If you want to argue that it's irresponsible or morally wrong to set up such a dive plan in the first place (and I suspect you team divers would, given your gas planning approach), so be it. But nobody is having the rules of the dive sprung on them for the first time at the bottom.
'

I am reposting this sub-plot of the Chatterton Initiative, just to make sure all those just skimming through the posts really think about this aspect of the discussion--because it is pivotal....and I thank Dr Lecter for introducing this critical component....

And again, this falls within the greater category of Chatterton's assault on the core ideas of DIR and GUE.

Where the Chatterton arguement suggests " our respective dive plans called for us to each carry our own deco gas/safety reserve but no more"....., I would ask everyone to STOP and not just run with a useless hypothetical. This is NOT a direction of conversation that should be given enough merit for a discussion.

This pathway not only breaks all the major DIR rules, it breaks the common sense rule of thirds ( remember, we are talking about a virtual overhead) which preceeded DIR by many years, and it breaks common sense in general. Even a diver without cave or tech training, knows that in an overhead environment, that a sizable margin of extra gas must be left for unplanned issues or problems. This is common sense. A tech diver PLANNING to push their personal bottom time so far, that no extra gas whatever would be available for an emergecny--whether THEIR EMERGENCY, or a buddy emergency, was either trained negligently, has no training or mind for tech diving, or has become sloppy and complacent from too many dives where they were lucky enough to enjoy it without accidents.

This direction of dive planning needs to be seen for what it is...the worst kind of negligence, and not just from a DIR perspective.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

This pathway ... breaks the common sense rule of thirds ( remember, we are talking about a virtual overhead) which preceeded DIR by many years, and it breaks common sense in general.

Apparently, having exhausted petty personal attacks, you now feel the need to build elaborate strawmen in order to noisily knock them down. How, exactly, did you jump from what I actually said ("our own

deco gas/safety reserve but no more") to what you wanted me to have said ("diving in a manner unsafe for even a solo diver!")?

On most dives, a properly prepared solo diver's safety reserve (I can say last 1/3 if it makes you feel better/keeps you from spinning bull) of backgas and contingency volumes of deco gas will be more than enough to "assist" someone who swims up and signals share air. But you've all been very, very hazy about what "assisting" someone else means. Once you put them on your gas, how long, exactly, must you be prepared to keep them there?

If I've got 1/3 of my backgas and contingency deco gas, even at the very deepest part of a 150' relatively simple wreck penetration, then I've probably got more than enough to get a random diver who swims over begging for assistance all the way through a very aggressive ascent and on their way. The same thing may or may not be enough to to fix the same problem on a moderately longer or deeper plan. And if both divers have been at 240'+ for any sizable amount of time, it's a joke to suggest that 1/3 of back gas and contingency deco gas is/should be the same thing as rock bottom--enough for both divers to complete a safe ascent including all deco each needs.

You are smart enough and experienced enough to know that, but apparently too disingenuous to limit yourself to the facts. It's sort of amusing, though, like watching the rantings of a street preacher.​

 

[boulderjohn]

And again, this falls within the greater category of Chatterton's assault on the core ideas of DIR and GUE.
...

This direction of dive planning needs to be seen for what it is...the worst kind of negligence, and not just from a DIR perspective.

I really wish we could stop talking about GUE and DIR as if there is no one else talking about planning for catastrophic gas loss (etc.) .

I have no GUE training. I have training from 3 different tech agencies, including TDI. I have friends who instruct for 3 other tech agencies. I participated as an observer in an advanced trimix class for yet another. All teach roughly the same concepts, with variations, regarding gas planning.

Trying to make this about GUE/DIR is just a red herring that will take us off a valuable path of discussion.

 

[undrwater]

Perhaps it might be useful to discuss responses to a SPECIFIC dive (such as the one in the video Mr. Chatterton provided) rather than argue back and forth in a general way about approaches to diving.

I believe Mr. Chatterton stated that the Doria dive was one in which he felt a buddy would have been a hindrance in reaching his goal (the silverware room). From my untrained eye, it appeared that many of the areas were very tight and silty, and it looked as if multiple bodies would have exacerbated the issue. Would those who support the team dive approach have done that dive? If so, what would you have done to maintain the team dynamic?

 

[danvolker]

Perhaps it might be useful to discuss responses to a SPECIFIC dive (such as the one in the video Mr. Chatterton provided) rather than argue back and forth in a general way about approaches to diving.

I believe Mr. Chatterton stated that the Doria dive was one in which he felt a buddy would have been a hindrance in reaching his goal (the silverware room). From my untrained eye, it appeared that many of the areas were very tight and silty, and it looked as if multiple bodies would have exacerbated the issue. Would those who support the team dive approach have done that dive? If so, what would you have done to maintain the team dynamic?

If we were doing it today, we would not be crawling along the floor, silting as we went ( what was clearly happening in the video)--we would be hovering above floor, and not touching ceiling....Back in those days, wreck divers often had no sense of bouyancy and trim --in the sense of what is utilized today. The resulting issues in a high silt environment, with multiple silting divers, may well have caused Chatterton to desire only the silt that he was kicking up.

 

[undrwater]

If we were doing it today, we would not be crawling along the floor, silting as we went ( what was clearly happening in the video)--we would be hovering above floor, and not touching ceiling....Back in those days, wreck divers often had no sense of bouyancy and trim --in the sense of what is utilized today. The resulting issues in a high silt environment, with multiple silting divers, may well have caused Chatterton to desire only the silt that he was kicking up.

So you feel this is a dive you could complete successfully today with a team (3 divers?); and that the confines, conditions, and environment are not too restrictive for the team effort?

 

[tyrerubber]

When you start diving, you don't know anything, and you know it. When you learn a little, you think you know a lot, but you don't. When you actually learn something, it is that there is so very much you don't know. That is the time where you can think about diving deep.

Well said. I see this as the core statement of the whole conversation I have read to this point.

 

[danvolker]

So you feel this is a dive you could complete successfully today with a team (3 divers?); and that the confines, conditions, and environment are not too restrictive for the team effort?

I don't think you can tell this from the video. I think you would need to see it with a new better video, one that shows a diver in the passage way for perspective--or, you would do a recon dive where you would look in to the sub and then decide how much room there was, the entanglement hazzards, etc.
Either it could be done as a 2 man team, or it should not be done. I don't believe it should be a solo dive. Chatterton mentioned 3 deaths on the sub in the near timeline of when he was shooting the 1991 sub video. That is a ridiculously high accident rate. It certainly does not prove that solo is safer.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

"Either it could be done as a 2 man team, or it should not be done. I don't believe it should be a solo dive."

And that is your opinion and there's nothing wrong with it. Problem is some of us don't share it and in fact don't care. We have different approaches to the dives we will do and don't need or want your approval. I am not GUE. At one time I wanted to do some GUE training. And I hate to resort to stereotyping but you leave no option. Running into these kinds of attitudes because I choose to do solo dives. Solo tech dives, and solo dives with another solo diver. I also do pond inspections in zero vis where I'm using my hands to determine features, measure them, and without any surface support. None. Except the landowner who was on a walker.

And I see nothing wrong with that. That it isn't DIR doesn't concern me in the least. I'm a grown man capable of making my own informed decisions. That someone else doesn't care for them is too bad for them. And this is why I see no reason for me to ever think about taking any such training with such rigid and inflexible thinking that I may encounter. It doesn't agree with my views and values. Nor my sense of independence.

 

[pensacolaracer]

Let me start by saying I enjoy the author's writing and get where he's coming from...not my own approach, but hey...I dive with people I care about so we don't do plans that have insufficient built-in reserves.

Personally, I'd be afraid to ask to share a taxicab ride.

Bill,

Maybe I missed it, but can you point where John talked about him planning/executing dives with insufficient reserves?

On a side note, having been on a few dives (with different divers) who have went OOA on the bottom (granted these were not technical dives), I was rather pissed to put it lightly that they went OOA. They were relatively "newer" divers, so I told them that was their one shot at running out of air.. if they ever do it again, I would never dive with them again.

I have also had an expirenced diver (at least he liked to talk like he was) go out of air on a dive. He got back to the surface and that was the last time I ever dove with him. He certainly was not ever invited back on my boat.

In John's blog, my buddy was one of the divers on the boat John was referring to. I have more recreational and technical dives with this man than any other buddy I have ever had.... over 400.

One of our first dives together was on the Rodeo 25. I am going to tell this in hopes/knowing that he won't get pissed at me discussing this.

Three of us are on the bottom (130) and he comes tooling over with his backup reg freeflowing to beat the band. The third buddy takes the backup and stops the free flow.

We get to the surface and back on the boat. I proceed to tell XXXXX that if he ever pulls that **** again, he will swim back to shore... and it was his boat! He was well on his way to an OOA situation and was (at the time) perfectly ok with it.

He should have had the knowledge and situational awareness to fix his free flowing regulator. We certainly did not continue dives at those depths until he had the skills to handle that simple problem on his own.

On a deep tech dive, if you pull that kind of stunt and have enough fortune to make it back to the surface, you are going to have one hell of a nasty boat ride back in... if you are lucky enough to not have to swim back in.... so much in fact that you will not want to ever come back and dive with me.

And since my "freeflowinig" buddy will more than likely be reading this, I have to say his uncontrolled freeflowing reg days are a thing of the way distant past.