Thoughts on ice diving

[DA Aquamaster]

During my initial training in ice diving in the mid 80's a great deal of effort was made to ensure the diver could find his way back to the hole. Snow was removed from the ice in a sunburst pattern away from the hole, a harness and locking carabiner was used to secure the line to the diver and the other end was held by the tender and then further secured with a ice screw set back from the hole in the event the tender dropped the line. We also had only one diver in the water at a time with another diver standing by on the edge of the hole.

However during a more recent ice dive with both a PADI instructor and a public safety diver/instructor running things, there were substantial differences. Dives were made with both one and two divers were in the water at once and the lines were not secured to the ice, just held by the tenders. The tenders, with two divers in the water, also on ocassion had to cross over each other to keep the lines tangle free (which I suspect was the reason for not securing the lines to the ice). It seemed to me that the potential existed for a slip and fall accident where the line could be dropped and disappear through the hole. I was not impressed and the thought that my wife was holding my line while deciding whether she preferred me or my life insurance made me feel somewhat less secure than with the line secured to an ice screw.

How does everyone else do it in various regions and under various training agency standards?

Also, my thoughts on the subject now are that while a tender, line and harness made a lot of sense with a single regulator prone to freezing up and no redundant air source, it makes much less sense now with an adequate redundant air source (either a large pony or stage bottle or a set of doubles, although getting out of a hole in the ice with doubles does not seem appealing without a platform and ladder.)

In my opinion, treating an ice dive like any other wreck or cave penetration would seem to be just as safe. My thoughts are that you could secure a shot line with an anchor and perhaps a strobe on one end and secure it with an ice screw on the other end and then have the diver(s) run a reel from the shot line during the dive. It would remove the tender from the equation and you would lose the ability to have someone drag you back to the hole, but it would extend the range the diver could get from the hole while reducing the entanglement hazard.

Any thoughts?

 

[Derek S]

the thought that my wife was holding my line while deciding whether she preferred me or my life insurance made me feel somewhat less secure than with the line secured to an ice screw.

Isn't that what it's really all about?

Boy am I glad my wife is not a diver and has no desire to be anywhere near the water.

 

[AntiStroke]

In my opinion, treating an ice dive like any other wreck or cave penetration would seem to be just as safe. My thoughts are that you could secure a shot line with an anchor and perhaps a strobe on one end and secure it with an ice screw on the other end and then have the diver(s) run a reel from the shot line during the dive. It would remove the tender from the equation and you would lose the ability to have someone drag you back to the hole, but it would extend the range the diver could get from the hole while reducing the entanglement hazard.

Any thoughts?

I'm definately with you on this one, unless you come up on a soft patch the ice will be as hard as any other overhead that you are likely to come across. They drive loaded trucks over the Ice Highways in Alaska and Northern Canada. Would you enter a wreck with you buddy sitting outside holding your wreck reel. Maybe it is some of my Solo tendancies coming out but always plan for everybody else to make a mess of it. Secure your line so you can always find the way out.

 

[SDAnderson]

Catching a plane to Florida is usually faster and less aggravation than mounting an ice diving expedition.

I'm not a big fan of ice diving, in large part because the process seems to supplant the diving as the raison d'etre. A brightly colored heavy line is a must so that you can pull it free from the ice or at least follow it if it freezes in place. A tender is needed to keep the hole free of ice, to help keep the lines from fouling and to assist divers exiting the water. There is a lot of experience behind wreck/cave protocols, however, that would seem to put the lie to the need for some of the almost paranoid safety-conciousness that suffuses ice diving.

Diving safely is always the first priority but enough is also always enough. I was on an organized ice dive a few years ago and, as we sat on the benches gearing up to hop in, I realized that the accumulated mass of people and equipment sitting in a tight circle around this angular hole in the ice had to weigh considerably more than a ton. Sometimes safety means lean and mean and leave the unnecessary accoutrements at home.

KISS applies to ice diving, or at least it should. As far as letting my wife tend my line, I love her dearly but it will be a cold day in...oh, wait...uh, oh.

 

[MikeFerrara]

We've always had 2 divers under the ice at a time but we don't run 2 seperate lines. Our lines are set up as a "Y".

Fastening the line to the ice or truck or something is a good idea. I use a plastic milk crate to hold the coil of line and the free end comming out the bottom of the crate gets tied to a concrete block. While it might be possible for it to somehow end up in the water it'll drop streight down under the hole. I have a second identical setup for the "safety divers".

I don't have any problem doing an ice dive like a cave dive...of course you should probably be cave trained first. I hate diving on a leash especially a short 100 or 130 footer.

I usually wear my doubles when I ice dive...well for that matter I usually wear double when doing any kind of diving.

 

[do it easy]

I just took the Ice Diver course, and I am getting a PADI cert, but it was taught how DA Aquamaster described it. I think the instructors wanted to go above and beyond the standards - PADI and liability.

For the training dives, there are two divers in the water- student and instructor- on seperate lines, attached to the ice. There was also a safety diver on standby on a third line, longer than the other two and also attached to the ice. After the training, it would be one diver in and one on standby.

I think that I would prefer the shot line/reel. I wasn't fond of being tethered to a tender that kept yanking the line to see if I was OK. The one danger might be if the diver got cold rapidly and passed out from hypothermia, but a buddy team might help this.

 

[Dave1w]

I have been involved with the new BSAC ice diving course, running currently in Germany/Austria. This was developed using a lot of experience from the guys in this area who do it all the time.

Diving in buddy pairs, on a single line (read rope strong enough to pull a truck) with line between the divers, either a continuation of the life line or a separate line.
On the surface, we use 2 ice screws set in a line away from the hole. 2 people on the surface, 2 in the water. The line is both tied round, and karabinered to the diver. Do the wheel in the snow as well.

Everyone seems to use single tanks with h valves/y-valves, with a 2nd stage and buoyancy off each, (avoiding overloading a single regulator by inflating and breathing or two divers breathing off it.) Not too heavy on the ice, and you don't need huge amounts of air under water.

The trick is getting back to the hole, so the rope really does make sense. If you don't get back to the hole, you are probably not coming back. (These are alpine lakes where you have no chance of cutting your way through the ice from underneath)

This is the basic course, the advanced is twinsets and a bloody long way from the hole.

I suppose there are lots of ways you can do it, but this is (should be) foolproof, and covers the risks I think.

Dave

During my initial training in ice diving in the mid 80's a great deal of effort was made to ensure the diver could find his way back to the hole. Snow was removed from the ice in a sunburst pattern away from the hole, a harness and locking carabiner was used to secure the line to the diver and the other end was held by the tender and then further secured with a ice screw set back from the hole in the event the tender dropped the line. We also had only one diver in the water at a time with another diver standing by on the edge of the hole.

However during a more recent ice dive with both a PADI instructor and a public safety diver/instructor running things, there were substantial differences. Dives were made with both one and two divers were in the water at once and the lines were not secured to the ice, just held by the tenders. The tenders, with two divers in the water, also on ocassion had to cross over each other to keep the lines tangle free (which I suspect was the reason for not securing the lines to the ice). It seemed to me that the potential existed for a slip and fall accident where the line could be dropped and disappear through the hole. I was not impressed and the thought that my wife was holding my line while deciding whether she preferred me or my life insurance made me feel somewhat less secure than with the line secured to an ice screw.

How does everyone else do it in various regions and under various training agency standards?

Also, my thoughts on the subject now are that while a tender, line and harness made a lot of sense with a single regulator prone to freezing up and no redundant air source, it makes much less sense now with an adequate redundant air source (either a large pony or stage bottle or a set of doubles, although getting out of a hole in the ice with doubles does not seem appealing without a platform and ladder.)

In my opinion, treating an ice dive like any other wreck or cave penetration would seem to be just as safe. My thoughts are that you could secure a shot line with an anchor and perhaps a strobe on one end and secure it with an ice screw on the other end and then have the diver(s) run a reel from the shot line during the dive. It would remove the tender from the equation and you would lose the ability to have someone drag you back to the hole, but it would extend the range the diver could get from the hole while reducing the entanglement hazard.

Any thoughts?

 

[bcsean]

I took a padi course last spring, and we were diving, 2 at a time, plus a instructor.

"A" diver is on a rope that is screwed in at surface with a tender keeping an eye on it and signalling.

"B" diver is tethered to "A" diver with a seperate line about 6-8' long

Instructor is on their own 6-8' line that is on a carribeaner sliding up and down the main line.

Rescue diver is sitting on surface waiting and is also on a line with a backup tender waiting beside.

We never got very far from hole, and having numerous free flows due to equipment not up to ice diving standards, there were no major issues. All in single tanks, but never more then 150' from hole. We'd just thumb dive, head back to hole dump hot water on first stage, and dunk second stage, and we're good to go again.

 

[LtJohnBFD]

Ice Diving is all about who you are, where you dive, and what set of rules apply to those answers... for most Public Safety Divers operating under the public safety or FD umbrella, you will have to answer to either OSHA or BLS and their interpretation of NFPA 1670 Standards if something goes wrong. I admit it errs way over on the side of extra safety, but if you follow those saftey protocols in the 1670 Standard, as a supervisor or dive command officer, you are most likely to be covered if an offical investigation should be launched due to an accident or injury.
Do I agree with all of the Standard's requirements, not necessarily, but I love my job, my family, and want to go home after its all said and done, rather than to jail; and most importantly, I want all my co-workers and friends to go home when the dive is over! Therefore, the Protocols of the Standard are applied unless they create an overriding Safety Issue.
In Maine for most ice dives we operate with 1 diver in and 1 out as rescue/back up diver, tended on life lines which is managed by tenders but anchored to the ice, and the rescue diver is tethered to a line which is 50 feet longer thsn the 1st diver's life line.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

Ice Diving is all about who you are, where you dive, and what set of rules apply to those answers... for most Public Safety Divers operating under the public safety or FD umbrella, you will have to answer to either OSHA or BLS and their interpretation of NFPA 1670 Standards if something goes wrong.

I completely understand standards and beaurocracy. For example in the late 80's making a dive to inspect the grates on the intake structure of a hydro electric dam for the Corps of Engineers required that a J-Valve be used, which by then was a requirement that was at least 10 years past its prime. But for the same dive, the geniuses in charge saw no need at all to close the adjacent gates as there was no rule requiring it. These were 14 foot tunnels moving an impressive amount of water for the world's second largest earthen fill dam. And short of an absolute refusal to dive until it was done, they were not inclined to do it as could potentially disrupt their power production, appparently far more so than the minor problems caused by a diver getting permanently stuck on the intake screens, or even better, explosively decompressing in addition to getting ground up in the wicket gates at the wrong end of one of the adjacent tunnels.

So my question is not so much what the requirements are, as ice diving standards are by no means new, but whether the standards could and should perhaps be re-thought in light of current trends in redundant equipment, wreck and cave techniques, etc. - much like the Corps' J-valve requirement.

For example a thread in one of the Canadian club forums described diving a wreck under the ice 800 feet from an existing hole next to a vessel moored for the winter using essentially cave/wreck divng techniques.