The Wisdom? of Split Dives Discussion

[L13]

I have had discussions with Joe about how stupid this practice was, and he agreed. Which is why it hurts to say that on the day in question, Joe personally requested the split drop from the captain of the dive vessel.

I think "stupid" is too strong a word. A risk benefit analysis was done, if only in his head, and he decided that in this case it was worth the risk.

I am not saying that the outcome would have been any different had the dive boat been directly on site.

In which case his analysis may still have been correct. But even if it wasn't, I still think "stupid" is too strong a word.

 

[doctormike]

It was just one example of not having immediate access to surface support that isn't call "stupid". Cave diving was another example. Solo diving would be a third example.

I understand that the word "stupid" seems to be your main objection. I do think that you should consider the context. I read that post as a criticism of not having surface support immediately available on a deep technical ocean dive. Not as a criticism of ANY sort of diving without surface support.

Choosing not to have surface support for a deep ocean technical dive seems to be primarily a financial decision. It's a calculated risk, and the decision is made among these divers that the remote chance of needing immediate surface support isn't enough of a consideration to make paying for it worthwhile.

I'm not saying that needs to be outlawed or anything. I personally wouldn't do it, but if these divers (including the deceased) were OK with that tradeoff, that's up to them. The coast guard has all sorts of safety standards for charter boats that absolutely increase the cost of diving. This clearly isn't one of them.

 

[doctormike]

The primary treatment for DCS is O2, the tech divers probably have that on hand.

Sure, you surface a bent diver, you don't need a boat. You can give them O2 while you are floating around in a shipping lane, it's just as easy.

Secondary treatment is re-compression. That is a long way away, even if the boat was there.

It's a lot closer when you are on the deck of a dive boat with a radio. We have seen that a number of times... I have a friend who is here today because of that.

 

[tarponchik]

Whenever I see a "Split drop" being done I see the first group of divers hurrying not to inconvenience the others or even worse being hurried by the others.
Still do it all the time, even though the risks vs reward is not even close.

I've never seen anything like this. If group 1 is in a rush that's only because they are anxious to get underwater. As a rule, people are thinking only of themselves and are seldom concerned with the wishes of others. On the other hand, they are too polite to rush someone and prefer to avoid confrontations.

 

[tarponchik]

Regarding shore dives, I consider them safer than any boat dive, split or not, at least in the DCS respect, because in the end of a shore dive ascending slowly comes naturally. You do not have to come up straight and control your ascend rate, most often you just follow a gentle slope uphill. I can also spend long time in the shallows and degas. And many shore dives, Florida especially, are so shallow that DCS is not even a concern.

 

[L13]

...it's just as easy.

You seem full of sarcasm and overreaction. I said nothing about "easy". Calm down. Step back.

Think about all the times you have made a calculated risk. Was this calculated risk really beyond the pale, compared to the riskiest of your calculated risks? Does it really deserve the name calling? Or, is it maybe just a risk you aren't willing to take.

 

[doctormike]

You seem full of sarcasm and overreaction. I said nothing about "easy". Calm down. Step back.

Think about all the times you have made a calculated risk. Was this calculated risk really beyond the pale, compared to the riskiest of your calculated risks? Does it really deserve the name calling? Or, is it maybe just a risk you aren't willing to take.

Dude. No one is name calling. I'm perfectly calm. I'm enjoying ScubaBoard again because i can't dive right now, and this is an interesting discussion. No need for gaslighting.

We make calculated risks all the time. This discussion is about the calculation.

Specifically, the calculated risk of doing a deep technical dive without topside support. You (and presumably a lot of Florida divers) think that's OK. So maybe I'm wrong...

 

[L13]

You (and presumably a lot of Florida divers) think that's OK. So maybe I'm wrong...

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say I thought it was OK. I just think it isn't outside the normal range, or at least not very far out, and doesn't deserve the label "stupid". To be honest, it would have made me uncomfortable. But, I'm not proud to say, I probably would have gone along with it anyway.

 

[aue-mike]

I think "stupid" is too strong a word. A risk benefit analysis was done, if only in his head, and he decided that in this case it was worth the risk.


In which case his analysis may still have been correct. But even if it wasn't, I still think "stupid" is too strong a word.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I really don't care if you disagree with my verbiage. Having dived with Joe for 20+ years, from a wide variety of cave dives to 400' deep wreck dives 150 nm offshore, I am gutted that he passed away on a wreck less than 2 nm offshore that can be easily visited on a dedicated technical diving trip...a trip where perhaps, just perhaps, the outcome may have been different if a quicker response was possible had the boat been on station. So when it comes to risk assessment in light of all the other adventures we conducted, yes, I stand by my assessment the practice of split drops is stupid.

 

[doctormike]

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say I thought it was OK. I just think it isn't outside the normal range, or at least not very far out, and doesn't deserve the label "stupid". To be honest, it would have made me uncomfortable. But, I'm not proud to say, I probably would have gone along with it anyway.

I guess we are down to semantics here. I didn't call it stupid.

I think a good definition of "OK" would be "within the normal range"...!

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot.