George P. Wentland wrote in article
<8tnn1.55$pr5.177065@ne*.at*.be*.ne*>...

>This is one persons opinion.
>    Tech diving has its risks which each of us accepts to pursue our hobby
>or our livelihood. To push a line further into a cave system or to learn a
>new skill such as deep diving. We would all be safer if we did not persue
>these things, but we want to experience what others have not so we take
what
>we consider to be an acceptable risk. This is a conscious decision and all
>tech diving organizations make the dangers of tech diving known to their
>students in there teachings and liability releases.

George,
Your post was well thought out from the perspective of status quo. I won't
slam you since I think you did a good job of intelligently stating your
case, but  I do think you are seeing this from the wrong "side"....the staus
quo side.
 And yes, technical diving involves pushing your self to a more optimal
performance than is required in recreational diving, and those who are not
physically up to this, or who are trained incorrectly to attain this goal,
stand at far greater risk than do those who have trained hard to be the best
tech diver they can be.


>    The tech deaths that have recently occurred are unfortunate and I do
>feel for the families and friends associated with these individuals. The
>instructors may or may not have been negligent in the training of these
>individuals and if they are found negligent, should face the repercussions.

Easy George,
In the case of Mcknulty, the facts have been in a LONG time. WE KNOW he
acted negligently.  The idea of waiting longer for Mount or someone else to
"officially" determine this negligence,  is enough to make me want to puke.
Among the problems present inactivity has raised, is the showcasing of a
"pattern of denial"  by IANTD, and Tom Mount. This consistent denial of
catastrophic dangers within his standards, places more new students at
extreme risk. Risk moderated by good training and procedure is one thing.
Risk multiplied by catastrophically incorrect procedures, incorrect
training, and a cowardly buddy or instructor, is something else again---it
is a risk no one should be faced with or accept. As his current direction
shows he is pushing for them to do more deco --- to the point of doing more
deco for your deco, and endangering the diver with far more unnecessary
weight from larger more negative tanks,  IANTD is clearly demonstrating a
perfect example of their failings----they see diver deaths, and improperly
diagnose the solution, then the solution they implement potentially
represents far greater risks than they started with. This is a classic
difference between the Doing it Right style of diving, and what Mount or
Gilliam represent.


>I feel that the organizations of IANTD & TDI have set up reasonable
training
>programs to advance the sport of diving. Indeed they have advanced this
>sport as proven by the founding members of the new GUE.
>    GUE whether or not they have a better idea is to be seen. It is a new
>organization whose founding fathers are skilled and maybe a little lucky to
>still be alive. There goal is to push a line further back into a cave
system
>or go a little deeper next time. A risky undertaking that will sooner or
>later take its toll and when it does, will it be their instructors fault?

The founding members of GUE took greater risks in the early days of cave and
tech diving, but they continually looked for smarter and better ways to make
the dives they do safer.  This is what created the Doing it Right style of
diving, which, since implemented by the WKPP and George Irvine ( its
director) 4 years ago, has been responsible for zero deaths, even after tens
of thousands of dives to depths and exposures far beyond what other tech
divers do----but the others, following Mount or Gilliam based examples, are
dropping like flies. The difference is in the ability to learn from
mistakes, and to correct proceedure and gear configuration, to develop the
human part of the gear to an elite level of fitness.... these are all
central to GUE, and these elements have largely escaped IANTD and TDI.


>The fault of GUE? Or their own for making the conscious decision to go
where
>few have gone before. I may be wrong and if I am, I will stand in line to
>join any organization that sanctions Tech diving that will declare that
they
>will make the cutting edge of this sport we love perfectly safe.
>    Technical Diving is a risk taking endeavor. GUE, IANTD or TDI can and
do
>provide information to the individual diver to help reduce this risk.
>However this risk is real and eventually will take its toll on IANTD, TDI
or
>GUE as these organizations sanction the cutting edge of sport diving.

Because GUE will have much better standards, and be far more exclusive,
accident levels will never coincide with those of IANTD or TDI.   Imagine
the efficiency of a top SEAL Team.  Now imagine next year, anyone can be a
SEAL, and the new instructor trainer for them is a used car dealer with
limited experience in combat beyond car sales.  Do you think we will look at
identical mortality rates as we look at the efficient SEAL Team in a combat
situation, and then compare with the MOTLEY Crew in combat?

A tech training agency MUST screen bad candidates OUT of tech diving.  This
will SAVE their lives.
The Doing it Right style of diving must be implemented, and the students
must exemplify they have adopted it perfectly.
The instructor / trainers who teach must be the Best of the Best, and they
can NEVER attempt high volume sales of students into classes-----if a class
has to form,  and if it MUST wait until its minimum complement is reached to
begin,  no drop in screening standards to facillitate the class can be
allowed.
Constant evaluation of instructors must always occur, both by students and
Agency instructor evaluators who sign up for classes periodically. Fitness
levels of instructors must be rigorously enforced, based on VO2 max testing
each year, or earlier if it is reported that any instructor has suddenly
gained significant body weight. GUE certified divers must take the fitness
issue to heart, and have themselves tested if they gain significant bodyfat
some time after certification-----and this will also be a buddy
responsibility to recognize this requirement.

Real changes will occur in mortality rates with the GUE standards, over the
lack of good standards for present TDI and  IANTD.
GUE won't be able to say it will never have a death, but it should expect
Mount's people or Gilliams people to die at least with 5 to  ten times more
frequency  than GUE's people. While GUE people will be a smaller group, they
will do more dives,  more challenging exploration dives, and this will
exagerate the differences even more between agencies. I have no doubt
insurance carriers wil see this in the next two years, and the insurance
rates, even insurability itself, will drastically reflect these differences.
Regards,
Dan




--
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]