How great is the risk (in your perception)?
- Thread starter CAPTAIN SINBAD
- 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
LiteHedded
Contributor
- Messages
- 768
- Reaction score
- 2,164
Is this like a frat hazing or a blanket party?
LiteHedded
Contributor
PfcAJ
Contributor
I don't pretend to ever have been a brilliant technical diver. 70 - 80m was about my limit. Most of my technical diving was northern Europe.
For work and personal reasons, I have done very little deep mix diving in the last couple of years. My last mix trip was Northern Ireland and Malin Head.
I don't like dives where I can't carry my own gas (as I stated previously in the thread), I have practiced and done a few CCR dives with team bailout (as I also mentioned previously).
I switched to CCR from a gas logistics point of view, the limitations I had on OC was very much the gas I could carry (or was prepared to carry). Although bottom times are longer, again my dive limitations are what I can (or am prepared) to carry.
OC trips always suffered gas issues. I remember attending a presentation on one of the Britannic Expeditions (deeper than I'm happy to dive), Britannic 1997 run by Kevin Gurr
They had safety divers handing gas over at the stops. The O2 was stored in J cylinders on a RIB with whips and a trapeze. Chase boats with safety divers, and J's of O2.
Kevin was one of those who was adamant that you should only get in the water if you could get out on your own. He was also keen on strong disciplined dive teams, and sticking to the plan.
Even with these guide lines, he understood that some times, for some dives you would need a different approach. Britannic was one of these. Although it was a strong team that made it viable. Good planning and mitigation of risk as much as was practical. I got the impression that the Britannic exped' was the one that convinced him that OC had had its day and CCR was the way forward. The Sentinal was design with deep wreck diving in mind.
I don't knock people who don't like team bailout. As I have said, I don't really like being in a situation where I don't have enough independent bailout to get myself out on my own. Single cylinder diving does make me nervous, that said I have dived Malta and the Red Sea as a holiday diver using single cylinder, with no pony or stage.
I took a lot away from my technical training. Skill, Discipline, Practice, an open mind, flexibility, planning, learn from others, don't reinvent the wheel - refine it. What suits one individual may not work for another.
Cave diving has never appealed to me - the risk seems far to high, that said, I don't knock those who do it. I have some good friends who are/where heavily into cave diving. I have learnt a lot from them, but I don't pretend that I understand what is required to SAFELY cave dive.
When I started CCR diving, there was a small core of 'alpinist' CCR divers, i.e. no bailout. Again, for me the risk is far to high.
Team Bailout has a place, it is a mistake to associate it only with CCR diving. Like many techniques in CCR diving, it came from OC diving and has been adapted.
There are bailout CCR units. A friend of mine built a unit that was used quite successfully on a number of cave dives, both as a primary unit and as a bailout unit. The issue for me was the additional task loading.
Technical diving is a high(er) risk activity. The normal rules don't apply. Its about determining what level of risk you are prepared to accept. How you can mitigate risk, is it practical. If the risk is still to high, you don't do the dive. (Not to mention having the skill to actually do the dive - and complete the dive if it all goes wrong.)
For work and personal reasons, I have done very little deep mix diving in the last couple of years. My last mix trip was Northern Ireland and Malin Head.
I don't like dives where I can't carry my own gas (as I stated previously in the thread), I have practiced and done a few CCR dives with team bailout (as I also mentioned previously).
I switched to CCR from a gas logistics point of view, the limitations I had on OC was very much the gas I could carry (or was prepared to carry). Although bottom times are longer, again my dive limitations are what I can (or am prepared) to carry.
OC trips always suffered gas issues. I remember attending a presentation on one of the Britannic Expeditions (deeper than I'm happy to dive), Britannic 1997 run by Kevin Gurr
They had safety divers handing gas over at the stops. The O2 was stored in J cylinders on a RIB with whips and a trapeze. Chase boats with safety divers, and J's of O2.
Kevin was one of those who was adamant that you should only get in the water if you could get out on your own. He was also keen on strong disciplined dive teams, and sticking to the plan.
Even with these guide lines, he understood that some times, for some dives you would need a different approach. Britannic was one of these. Although it was a strong team that made it viable. Good planning and mitigation of risk as much as was practical. I got the impression that the Britannic exped' was the one that convinced him that OC had had its day and CCR was the way forward. The Sentinal was design with deep wreck diving in mind.
I don't knock people who don't like team bailout. As I have said, I don't really like being in a situation where I don't have enough independent bailout to get myself out on my own. Single cylinder diving does make me nervous, that said I have dived Malta and the Red Sea as a holiday diver using single cylinder, with no pony or stage.
I took a lot away from my technical training. Skill, Discipline, Practice, an open mind, flexibility, planning, learn from others, don't reinvent the wheel - refine it. What suits one individual may not work for another.
Cave diving has never appealed to me - the risk seems far to high, that said, I don't knock those who do it. I have some good friends who are/where heavily into cave diving. I have learnt a lot from them, but I don't pretend that I understand what is required to SAFELY cave dive.
When I started CCR diving, there was a small core of 'alpinist' CCR divers, i.e. no bailout. Again, for me the risk is far to high.
Team Bailout has a place, it is a mistake to associate it only with CCR diving. Like many techniques in CCR diving, it came from OC diving and has been adapted.
There are bailout CCR units. A friend of mine built a unit that was used quite successfully on a number of cave dives, both as a primary unit and as a bailout unit. The issue for me was the additional task loading.
Technical diving is a high(er) risk activity. The normal rules don't apply. Its about determining what level of risk you are prepared to accept. How you can mitigate risk, is it practical. If the risk is still to high, you don't do the dive. (Not to mention having the skill to actually do the dive - and complete the dive if it all goes wrong.)
Capt Jim Wyatt
Hanging at the 10 Foot Stop
Staff member
ScubaBoard Business Sponsor
Scuba Instructor
@PfcAJ has done the big dives, big cave dives, bigger than I have done. Bigger than most have done. I respect him for that, completely.
As I have previously stated, I do not use TBO - it’s just not my style.
I’ll say again, for possible penetration, I know lots of cave divers who use TBO that have decades of experience cave diving, pioneers of cave diving.
Calling them dumb simply shows me that @PfcAJ presribes to the methodology and philosophy he was taught and has no room for any other point of view, or methodology.
This rigidity does not surprise me given the agency who taught him.
When I became an NACD Cave Instructor in 1975 we taught the 1/2 + 200 rule. We dived it successfully leaving the caves with ample air reserve. We evolved that thinking and did away with that rule over time.
It worked fine when applied correctly.
I submit to you, once again that TBO works fine when applied correctly. If you choose not to use it, as I have then don’t use it. But do not ridicule those have used it for over a decade, when some of the protagonists were in grade school.
These postings should be discussions, and not pissing contests- that was and remains my intent for starting the thread to begin with.
I totally get it that several of you think TBO is not the way to go but dumping on those who do, does not make a good environment for enlightened discussion. I used the word dumping because this forum won’t let me use the word shitting. ( or maybe it will )
As I have previously stated, I do not use TBO - it’s just not my style.
I’ll say again, for possible penetration, I know lots of cave divers who use TBO that have decades of experience cave diving, pioneers of cave diving.
Calling them dumb simply shows me that @PfcAJ presribes to the methodology and philosophy he was taught and has no room for any other point of view, or methodology.
This rigidity does not surprise me given the agency who taught him.
When I became an NACD Cave Instructor in 1975 we taught the 1/2 + 200 rule. We dived it successfully leaving the caves with ample air reserve. We evolved that thinking and did away with that rule over time.
It worked fine when applied correctly.
I submit to you, once again that TBO works fine when applied correctly. If you choose not to use it, as I have then don’t use it. But do not ridicule those have used it for over a decade, when some of the protagonists were in grade school.
These postings should be discussions, and not pissing contests- that was and remains my intent for starting the thread to begin with.
I totally get it that several of you think TBO is not the way to go but dumping on those who do, does not make a good environment for enlightened discussion. I used the word dumping because this forum won’t let me use the word shitting. ( or maybe it will )
PfcAJ
Contributor
Doing something without incident does not mean it was safe.
Ps: @Capt Jim Wyatt fwiw, I have tech certs from NAUI, IANTD (two of em!), and NSS-CDS. Not as monolithic as you think.
Ps: @Capt Jim Wyatt fwiw, I have tech certs from NAUI, IANTD (two of em!), and NSS-CDS. Not as monolithic as you think.
By 1.5x-2x the gas to get out you really mean 2x, right? Start at 300 ft3, turn at 200 ft3, that's 2x to get out and diving to thirds.
Yeah, I know, semantics.
Allow my to interject my opinion.
Like diving 1/2 + 200 and "deep air", many people have successfully done dives utilizing team bailout techniques. Does that mean the practice is "safe"? I think the gray area is what we define as safe and our acceptable level of risk, versus the inconvenience of carrying an appropriate amount of gas to get out alive by yourself.
Would anyone advocate cave diving using 1/2 + 200 or to 180' on air in a cave today? Probably not. And in my opinion, just like diving 1/2 + 200 and deep air in caves, team bailout is an antiquated practice, especially in the type of complex dives that make using a CCR the preferred tool. While team bailout may be an acceptable strategy for swimming the big room circuit in Ginnie Springs (where ~40 cubic feet of gas may be sufficient to get even the person with the worst breathing rate home), it's inadequate for anything deep or long.
I believe everyone weighing in on this thread understands cascading failures and the impact they can have on a dive. A CCR failure coupled with a silt-out, entanglement, or buddy separation can appreciably delay an exit, all while consuming OC gas (because you baied out). A scrubber failure, resulting in CO2 breakthrough, can also cause a dramatic increase in respiration rate, resulting in a dramatic increase in consumption of precious gas.
Cascading failures on top of a CCR failure, or CO2 breakthrough, on a long or deep dive will likely minimize the chances of success of a team bailout strategy. Given that bringing additional gas is really not that burdensome, why would anyone prefer to bring an inadequate amount?
An additional problem that I see with team bailout is that it lends itself to "bare minimum" gas reserve planning and frequently, people are not completely honest with how much gas they need to get out when the fit hits the shan and so they dramatically underestimate how much gas is enough.
I'm attaching an article written by Andrew Ainslie on his personal experiences utilizing a "bare minimum" gas planning strategy. Although his dive wasn't one where team bailout was part of the strategy, there are striking similarities in the thought process between the advocates of a team bailout strategy and what Andrew used to choose his amount of gas.
Like diving 1/2 + 200 and "deep air", many people have successfully done dives utilizing team bailout techniques. Does that mean the practice is "safe"? I think the gray area is what we define as safe and our acceptable level of risk, versus the inconvenience of carrying an appropriate amount of gas to get out alive by yourself.
Would anyone advocate cave diving using 1/2 + 200 or to 180' on air in a cave today? Probably not. And in my opinion, just like diving 1/2 + 200 and deep air in caves, team bailout is an antiquated practice, especially in the type of complex dives that make using a CCR the preferred tool. While team bailout may be an acceptable strategy for swimming the big room circuit in Ginnie Springs (where ~40 cubic feet of gas may be sufficient to get even the person with the worst breathing rate home), it's inadequate for anything deep or long.
I believe everyone weighing in on this thread understands cascading failures and the impact they can have on a dive. A CCR failure coupled with a silt-out, entanglement, or buddy separation can appreciably delay an exit, all while consuming OC gas (because you baied out). A scrubber failure, resulting in CO2 breakthrough, can also cause a dramatic increase in respiration rate, resulting in a dramatic increase in consumption of precious gas.
Cascading failures on top of a CCR failure, or CO2 breakthrough, on a long or deep dive will likely minimize the chances of success of a team bailout strategy. Given that bringing additional gas is really not that burdensome, why would anyone prefer to bring an inadequate amount?
An additional problem that I see with team bailout is that it lends itself to "bare minimum" gas reserve planning and frequently, people are not completely honest with how much gas they need to get out when the fit hits the shan and so they dramatically underestimate how much gas is enough.
I'm attaching an article written by Andrew Ainslie on his personal experiences utilizing a "bare minimum" gas planning strategy. Although his dive wasn't one where team bailout was part of the strategy, there are striking similarities in the thought process between the advocates of a team bailout strategy and what Andrew used to choose his amount of gas.
Similar threads
