Diver dies in Manatee Springs

[helodriver87]

That's in agreement with @Caveeagle. But not with my understanding.



That's in agreement with my understanding.

I dug out my book: TDI Diving in Overhead Environments, 2013, page 103:



The procedure continues, but never mentions verifying the exit before beginning. It does mention returning the opposite way to retrieve previously-installed equipment. But never verifying the exit.

Again, this was in the context of a number of people reacting that attempting to do Catfish to Mainspring as a traverse without verifying the exit was an obviously-standards-breaking thing to do. I think it is dangerous, but not because of the traverse or breaking rules, but because of the flow and restriction. But that's not the argument others are making, and to highlight that, several people have used the example of Devil's Ear to Eye as another commonly-done but obviously-standards-breaking thing to do.

It seems that to TDI, that is *not* a standards-breaking thing. Is it a violation of some other standard besides TDI?

I appreciate the discussion here. It's given me the opportunity to go back and verify my understanding, as well as the original source material. I'm comfortable with the rules as I've learned them. I'm not trying to change anyone else's mind. It does seem to me that the *traverse* portion of their dive did *not* break the standards as I was taught them. I am curious to know if there is an organization for whom this would have been a standards violation.

(For the rest of it: wedging yourself into a tiny restriction with massive flow behind you... That seems like a clear "no way" to me. But cave diving is a clear "no way" to 99.9% of human population, so using our own sense of right and wrong here probably isn't very meaningful...)

Edited to add: this is, to me, *not* a meaningless discussion. Normalization of deviance makes it so that when you break rules, you tend to break rules more. By having a more specific rule (verify the exit when you have to violate gas rules), you break rules less, and you deviate from them less. It's no different than telling a child "Stove Hot!" even when the stove is off. You're just setting them up to ignore the rules... I'm trying to avoid that for myself, too!

So the flow is a major consideration here. You have to reserve more gas for exit when diving a siphon. How much gas depends on the strength of the siphon. A siphon like downstream catfish is incredibly significant from a gas planning perspective. There's no cut and dry rule for how much to set aside. It's a judgement call. Now, given what's known about how this incident played out, no amount of gas reserve would've been enough once the diver got jammed by the flow. What would've been helpful is looking at the entrance and attempting it before using it as a blind exit. Regarding the ginnie eye/ear stuff, it's close enough to the door to be a simple traverse in all but the most extreme situations. Plus, most of us have seen both entrances both directions dozens of times.

 

[Caveeagle]

But that’s not what is stated here:


@Caveeagle states that doing the ear/eye in one dive is “breaking a rule”. In my understanding of my training, with sufficient gas (and for the ear/eye “sufficient” is pretty small), a single-dive traverse of the ear/eye would not be breaking a rule.

I don’t mind breaking a rule — when I fully understand the rule and why I’m breaking it. But I hate the idea of breaking a rule because I simply don’t know better.

If your only concern was gas management then the idea of a simple traverse within 1/3rds would be fine. But verification of a safe exit is also about being able to navigate the passage. Sure if there was a sudden blockage when exiting the eye, you could almost certainly turn around. But what if you got stuck? Also there are quite a few Sidemount, and no mount passages in Ginnie, and even some little know places In other sites. A diver In BM could easily get into trouble trying to skate through some “simple” traverses if think: “I’m ok as long as I stay within thirds”.

And since @helodriver87 brought up the Godzilla circuit.. you can’t count on lines being unchanged. You could be running a “simple circuit” and if you have not really set up the dive you could get confused by a line change, or broken line.

 

[helodriver87]

If your only concern was gas management then the idea of a simple traverse within 1/3rds would be fine. But verification of a safe exit is also about being able to navigate the passage. Sure if there was a sudden blockage when exiting the eye, you could almost certainly turn around. But what if you got stuck? Also there are quite a few Sidemount, and no mount passages in Ginnie, and even some little know places In other sites. A diver In BM could easily get into trouble trying to skate through some “simple” traverses if think: “I’m ok as long as I stay within thirds”.

And since @helodriver87 brought up the Godzilla circuit.. you can’t count on lines being unchanged. You could be running a “simple circuit” and if you have not really set up the dive you could get confused by a line change, or broken line.

Those are all potential issues on a linear penetration as well. It's no different on a traverse. If you do the dive and go all the way before hitting turn, it's a simple traverse/circuit by definition. There's no setup required because you'd just complete the thing anyways if you tried. That's all I was trying to clarify.

 

[Carl_F]

Those are all potential issues on a linear penetration as well. It's no different on a traverse. If you do the dive and go all the way before hitting turn, it's a simple traverse/circuit by definition. There's no setup required because you'd just complete the thing anyways if you tried. That's all I was trying to clarify.

IMO, treating the cave diving rules in the singular, or in isolation of other rules, is where the problem resides. In this case this would be a simple traverse/circuit. But it's also a siphon. And it's also a restriction. Applying one rule in isolation of the others will (and in this case likely has) result in adverse consequences.

Applying this to linear penetration, a similar risk mitigation would apply if attempting to navigate through a significant restriction in the direction of the flow.

I wonder if the team would have attempted this same navigation if it wasn't also a potential exit.

 

[helodriver87]

IMO, treating the cave diving rules in the singular, or in isolation of other rules, is where the problem resides. In this case this would be a simple traverse/circuit. But it's also a siphon. And it's also a restriction. Applying one rule in isolation of the others will (and in this case likely has) result in adverse consequences.

Applying this to linear penetration, a similar risk mitigation would apply if attempting to navigate through a significant restriction in the direction of the flow.

I wonder if the team would have attempted this same navigation if it wasn't also a potential exit.

That was kind of where this discussion originated. The siphoning flow and significant restriction at the end makes this a complex traverse requiring verification and setup. The gas rule discussion arose from a question someone else had about always doing setups for every traverse, which obviously isn't always necessary. How many times have we popped up in Olsen or Telford sink in the course of a dive? That's an unproven traverse and obviously fine, so I was drawing a distinction between simple and complex. You have to use some common sense when applying the rules though, which is unfortunately where this team went wrong.

 

[Frontpointer1000]

I don’t mind breaking a rule — when I fully understand the rule and why I’m breaking it. But I hate the idea of breaking a rule because I simply don’t know better.

Just wanted to emphasize this.

It’s tattoo-worthy.

It’s even a RULE to live by.

 

[The Chairman]

A siphon requires fourths or less if you're going to do it in one go. There's nothing down there worth dying for so why even tempt the fates? The real problem here was time. They didn't take the time to go through a traditional traverse protocol. We all get in a hurry and that's where we almost always fail. I might bend the rules in Peacock, but I know it very well. No, not in Madison. Until I've done a particular traverse, I'm going by the book.