Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
In the case of the "Sea Elite Wings", which is what we believe Divers
Supply sold this student ( until we hear otherwise from them, or until The
WKPP teams find the body of Elkins--the student, with the equipment as
evidence)..., this is a "Divers Supply manufactured set up----they have it
manufactured for them, to sell it as one of their own products, they are
advertised as able to lift any amount of tanks and weights ( see the online
store -- www.diversupply.com I think) .
As a tech diver for over a decade, my concern is with the process of how a
diver can walk into a store ( like a Divers Supply) , see some "Become a
Tech Diver" type ads posted, and sign up. Unlike recreational diving, tech
diving is not an area where a large body of "public knowledge" exists.
Newcomers to tech diving can NOT ask around, and become well informed on
what is safe procedure for tech diving----they can get far too many
opinions which are based on ignorance, and insufficient experience.
In recreational diving, people can ask a NAUI instructor opinion, and then
ask a PADI instructor opinion, and get two "fairly" similar accounts on most
issues. This is NOT the case in tech diving. Yes there ARE some good tech
instructors. But I personally believe there are a very large number of very
unsafe tech diving instructors---people unqualified to teach tech diving by
their own understanding, by their physical condition, by their macho
attitudes, and by their very style of teaching.....And this same group I'm
nervous about, also represents a source for tech diving certification for
student candidates, who SHOULD NEVER be allowed to tech dive.
I've already jumped up and down about the BLATANT STUPIDITY of giving a
tech certification to badly out of shape divers with poor VO2 max ( poor gas
exchange within their body) or without screening out persons with a
PFO----the present lack of adequate physical screening IS GOING to KILL many
more people if things don't get changed---by whatever process may invoke
change. Training agencies MUST adress this or should face huge lawsuits if
not criminal proceedings.
The other area which becomes necessary, as dive shops like Divers Supply
move tech diving into a potentially mass marketed, income stream, is a
battery of psychological tests----most critical being task loading in a
simulated life and death emergency. Exactly how to do this is an area for
some discussion, but this must be included if tech diving is to be opened up
to the masses.
In the old days ( 10 years ago is the old days for tech ) , few people were
doing this, and the ones who did were the very strong divers who had huge
experience, and most of whom had already experienced many severe dangers in
their past diving careers, and had handled this capably each time. The
"gene pool" of tech divers then, compared to the potential "gene pool" of
tech divers today and tomorrow, has been dangerously degraded by a flood of
mass marketing and very little screening...If we don't screen now, Darwinian
selection will handle this for us. And sadly, some of the really good tech
divers may end up dead, as a result of their attempting to save the unfit
ones who should not be down there with them----as in the case of Det. John
Claypool, who was good, but found himself in a situation where he realized
2 divers would die without his help, and found himself compelled to go to
their aid in a near impossible situation.
With the technology which exists today, the masses can not tech dive. A
tech diver needs an elite level cardiovascular system, they need bullet
proof reflexes in a life and death situation---they need to be able to think
clearly and decisively when their own life is at severe risk----and they
need to have this as something they have experienced prior to deep diving,
on numerous occasions.
If the media suddenly glamorized rock climbing, some "outfitters" might
sell expensive climbing gear to people who should never climb---but the
problems are far more obvious in climbing, and the people who are physically
and mentally not prepared for climbing, would be much more aware of their
own unsuitability to rock climbing---whereas with tech diving, the dangers
are much less apparent, and perhaps considerably greater for those who are
unfit for tech diving.
So what if we start with fit diver. He/she has been medically screened and
passed a VO2 Max test.
Once they are at this starting point, the tech diver needs the right
instruction-----they NEED to know ALL the "whys" about everything in tech
diving----unlikely with the "military" type of training which has the "drill
instructor" barking, "Do this, Do that...." and with the student generally
afraid to ask why, for fear of instructor hostility. And this instructor
has to be someone who is actually a good tech diver, and who
conscientiously follows intelligent procedures in planning a tech dive.
Examples of this behavior would include the automatic inclusion of a safety
diver and a float ball on any tech dive. There are few instructors who
really qualify on all points here---far fewer than are certified to teach
tech diving.
The bad tech instructors will kill more students. They will tell the student
what gear they should buy----the student has NO ONE else to trust here, so
they will buy unsafe gear matches, like bondage wings and 4 steel tanks with
a wetsuit. I see the store this instructor teaches tech out of, as an
"accomplice" in the sale of dangerously matched equipment. <As a note here
on the WPB tragedy, on each of the last 3 recovery dive missions WKPP teems
have been on so far, the temperature on the bottom was 63 degrees
farenheight----the heavy wet suit the instructor had suggested ( or
allowed --either way, responsibility was the instructor's) for the student,
would have had the thermal protection of a lycra suit at 250 feet----if you
have ever dived in 63 degree water with just a bathing suit, or with a lycra
suit, you know that your ability to contract your muscles decreases
drastically after about 2 minutes. Inability to kick his way off the bottom
by muscle failure may have contributed to the panic which caused this
student diver to blow through his entire air supply so fast. Tech diving in
WPB should require a dry suit. There are days when the 250 ft reef would be
warm enough for lycra in a 25 minute exposure, but the hour or more of deco
will have most divers very uncomfortable by the mid point of deco-----What
this means is, yes, tech dives CAN be done here in a wet suit, if the bottom
temp is not too cold. Its poor planning, but it CAN be done...Sometimes the
wet suit will work for the thermal conditions---when it does NOT, the dive
MUST be aborted, immediately-----is this a smart way to plan a dive ??? NO!
Is the buoyancy characteristics of the heavy wet suit a smart
option???NO----any time you have a 30 pound buoyancy change, it creates far
too many problems, and convoluted solutions. Clearly the intelligent
solution is the dry suit.>
Vince and Phil both represent an excellent resource for the issue we are now
faced with. With tech diving in its present form, it is all too similar to
having an airline hiring pilots that will cut corners and crash frequently.
Some may not know how to fly through storms, some may not know how to file a
flight plan, some may help to encourage selection of unsafe aircraft. They
should not be allowed to fly and kill more passengers!
A pervasive threat to human life now exists in the current method of tech
diving instruction. Stores, instructors, and training agencies are all party
to this threat, in the instances where a shop has a tech instructor who
should NOT be teaching tech diving---in many cases should not even BE a tech
diver. If both Vince and Phil could apply themselves to this issue, they
may come up with some powerful means to prevent stores from killing divers
with bad instructors, and unsafe equipment for the particular type of diving
the equipment is being purchased for.
"Caveat Emptor" can not be applied reasonably, when the store is totally
responsible for teaching what is "safe" for technical diving, and then makes
incorrect decisions about what is "safe"for the intended dive use....i.e.,
Wetsuits at 63 degree and 250 feet deep; 4 pressed steel tanks matched to
bondage style wings and a wet suit; or with regulator set ups that don't
lend themselves to gas sharing in an emergency, etc.
Sow how about it, Phil and Vince....how about working together on this
thread!!! Its not technical diving that is killing people---an 80 man team
like WKPP ,with tens of thousands of dives at 300 foot depths, many much
more than a mile into cave systems--- and zero accidents, will attest to the
fact that the right divers, the right gear, and the right proceedure can be
very safe...Technical diving CAN be very safe if done correctly.........its
poor instructors and poor proceedures, and foolish notions of personal
preference in gear selection, and all the other things we've already brought
up, that will kill people. Someone needs to fix things. How about showing us
how you guys would prevent more deaths.
Regards,
Dan Volker
--
Dan Volker
South Florida Dive Journal
http://www.sfdj.com/
The Internet magazine for u/w photography and mpeg video
H NED Huntzinger <{rm_to_reply}hummer@we*.ne*> wrote in article
<34C9FA02.3A55@we*.ne*>...
>> Philip B. Malter wrote:
>> >
>> > representation without being ludicrous on its face,e.g.:"All other
>> > representations to the contrary notwithstanding this equipment is not
>> > sold or represented to be safe for any purpose".
>> > phil
>
>
>FWIW, it does seem ironic that it was within the last month that
>Philip was suggesting that we "thank our lawyers" that so-called
>'dangerous' equipment will never make it out into the hands
>of the public.
>
>
>Clemens Nijhof wrote:
>>
>> In this instance DS acted only as an agent (re-seller) of these
>> wings. IF DS has sold them knowing they were defective or
>> inappropriate for this sort of diving it seems to me they are going
>> to have a problem here. OTOH the manufacturer might have been
>> pushing these wings for this purpose without knowing what the
>> ultimate results could be, or maybe they did know but were ignorant
>> over it. In the latter situation DS possible could not have known
>> about certain dangers until some accident happens. ( or many divers
>> have complained about it)
>
>
>There are finite options as to who could have been responsible
>for what - speculatively, the case would probably list DS, the
>Agency and the BC Manufacturer as co-defendants and one issue
>will be the bondage wings, for which the Defense's position
>will probably be that they were somehow misused. Success of
>that arguement will rotate around the question of if the
>product was unusually predisposed to such misuse and/or if
>it was the training that was at fault for failing to overcome
>this design weakness. I'd expect the defense to point out that
>the product has been used 'safely' many times before by others,
>so it was the failing of the individuals in this case and
>along these lines, I do see the possibility for there to
>be room for reasonable doubt to let them off the hook
>(unfortunately)...and unless the diving community votes
>with their wallets to put this product out of existance,
>it will still be around 'next time'.
>
>
>-hh
--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]