Diver missing - Pelham, Alabama

[tstormdiver]

Was the deceased "practicing in the OW for a much more complex technical deep, or cave, or perhaps even a deep cave dive" or was he just using his rebreather simply because he wanted to dive it for the fun of it?

What is wrong with that? Isn't one of the main & most basic objectives of diving, to enjoy some aspect of it? Or have the Puritans taken the sport over? Not saying that there shouldn't be seriousness about it also, ......... But if one is not enjoying it, they shouldn't be doing it.

 

[gianaameri]

What is wrong with that? Isn't one of the main & most basic objectives of diving, to enjoy some aspect of it? Or have the Puritans taken the sport over? Not saying that there shouldn't be seriousness about it also, ......... But if one is not enjoying it, they shouldn't be doing it.

For the sake of the discussion and to learn something from the incident, I raised the issue that given the inherent risks of rebreather diving (unable to self-rescue, unconsciousness, and drowning), it may be better to leave this tool when it is actually needed (i.e. where there are some logistical benefits such as in deep diving or long cave penetration), rather than when it is merely wanted (i.e. just for the fun of it, where OC could be just as fun).

Some say it should still be used for the purpose of training and practice (and there is no question that one needs to train and practice shallow to start...) and I said it should also be used for a shake-down dive (i.e. shallow/limited penetration...) just before a more demanding dive or series of demanding dives (i.e. deep diving or long cave penetration).

So here we are, none-the-wiser as to why a trained and experienced rebreather diver sadly lost his life in a not so demanding dive.

 

[MalibuJerry]

The statement that the probabilities are independent is ludicrous. It assumes that there is some random process imbedded in the rebreather which causes failure without warning. No such roulette wheel exists. With any highly technical piece of equipment, extensive experience breeds complacency. Those that don't guard against it have an increasing chance of an accident with every dive (non-independent probabilities) as complacency, whether in rock climbing, sky diving, or decompression diving leads to mistakes that are too frequently fatal. When you add to that the fact that rebreathers are expensive and therefore the age of the user is higher than the age of the average diver you get more medical events confounding the accident statistics.

Rebreathers are not a crap shoot and to think so just leads to more complacency and more tragedies. They are a technical tool that requires discipline and thought to use safely on a consistent basis.

 

[gianaameri]

The statement that the probabilities are independent is ludicrous. It assumes that there is some random process imbedded in the rebreather which causes failure without warning. No such roulette wheel exists. With any highly technical piece of equipment, extensive experience breeds complacency. Those that don't guard against it have an increasing chance of an accident with every dive (non-independent probabilities) as complacency, whether in rock climbing, sky diving, or decompression diving leads to mistakes that are too frequently fatal. When you add to that the fact that rebreathers are expensive and therefore the age of the user is higher than the age of the average diver you get more medical events confounding the accident statistics.

Rebreathers are not a crap shoot and to think so just leads to more complacency and more tragedies. They are a technical tool that requires discipline and thought to use safely on a consistent basis.

You seem to suggest risk increases with time and experience (i.e. practice).

Can we settle mid-way with "risk does not decrease over time and with experience."

 

[PfcAJ]

What is wrong with that? Isn't one of the main & most basic objectives of diving, to enjoy some aspect of it? Or have the Puritans taken the sport over? Not saying that there shouldn't be seriousness about it also, ......... But if one is not enjoying it, they shouldn't be doing it.

The argument would be that the idea is to enjoy diving. How you get there should be secondary, especially when you start to introduce something that's quite a bit more complex and has insidious failure modes when compared to OC.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

The argument would be that the idea is to enjoy diving. How you get there should be secondary, especially when you start to introduce something that's quite a bit more complex and has insidious failure modes when compared to OC.

Then why aren't you on a surface-supplied and tended FFM, or snorkling, for any and all non-overhead dives? Both are safer than OC, and both get you in the water. Whether you enjoy the complications, expenses, and/or limits imposed by those relative to OC is, apparently, irrelevant.

 

[Max Speed]

"Insidious failure modes"

I like that LOL. I think I had a few race bikes like that. It couldn't have been me...

 

[Dr. Lecter]

"Insidious failure modes"

I like that LOL. I think I had a few race bikes like that. It couldn't have been me...

Do you have a better term for a failure that, when it occurs, reduces your odds of survival to zero absent you taking some corrective action(s) while also giving you no indication that anything about the unit or what you're breathing has changed?

Granted that the diver is probably the source of the error that caused the failure in the first place, but that doesn't make it any more obvious that the failure has occured.

 

[gianaameri]

Then why aren't you on a surface-supplied and tended FFM, or snorkling, for any and all non-overhead dives? Both are safer than OC, and both get you in the water. Whether you enjoy the complications, expenses, and/or limits imposed by those relative to OC is, apparently, irrelevant.

OC is both cheaper and safer and less complex than CCR (while surface-supplied and tended FFM is not cheaper and less complex than OC).

There is no argument in favour of CCR for dives up to 30 - 40 meters (I'd say even 50 meters, but there the argument begins to get blurry).

OC is superior in every respect (if you want redundancy and extra safety and even more fun and better trim and stability and the excitement of learning something new at a fraction of the cost go sidemount, rather than CCR).

Sidemount with a good buddy in Open Water (for not at work scubabout dives) I get a feeling is not significantly more dangerous than surface-supplied and tended FFM (Air or N to 30 - 40 meters).

 

[Dr. Lecter]

OC is both cheaper and safer and less complex than CCR (while surface-supplied and tended FFM is not cheaper and less complex than OC).

There is no argument in favour of CCR for dives up to 30 - 40 meters (I'd say even 50 meters, but there the argument begins to get blurry).

OC is superior in every respect (if you want redundancy and extra safety and even more fun and better trim and stability and the excitement of learning something new at a fraction of the cost go sidemount, rather than CCR).

Sidemount with a good buddy in Open Water (for not at work scubabout dives) I get a feeling is not significantly more dangerous than surface-supplied and tended FFM (Air or N to 30 - 40 meters).

My favorite kind of ignorance: blustering ignorance. Keep yakking, kiddo.