51 replies to this topic

[RichardB]

. . . violation of the NAUI Standards and Procedures by a course director.

Precisely which Standard/Procedure was violated?

A call to Randy at NAUI helped to clarify this. What a great and interesting guy! He even asked about the site and may be by to read the thread. According to him, the protocol is to abort the dive.

[ScubaDadMiami]

Precisely which Standard/Procedure was violated?

I don't have my S&P handy - it's 2200 miles away right now. But I'm guessing that somewhere around chapter one is a statement that says something about each diver having his/her own functioning SCUBA gear as a requirement for diving.

Maybe you could have a look and let me know... I've been wrong before, and will be happy to eat crow if this isn't the case. Perhaps there's a NAUI "tandem SCUBA" course that my course director failed to tell me about.




I don't want to further fan the flames on this topic, so I think I'll step away from it for a while. Again, I'm very glad that your dive was without further incident.

-d

I have no problem with you or anyone else expressing reservations about anything that somebody, including myself, does with which you don't agree. And, I am open to discussing it. I encourage your participation in these frank discussions.

However, to infer that someone is violating a Standard based only upon a gut feeling of yours is something that I would ask you not to do again in the future. This could damage the person to whom it is directed. This would not be right to do to somebody where there is no factual basis to make these types of allegations.

As it turns out, there are no Standards to the effect that you are stating. Secondly, this was not a student/instructor situation. This was a professionally certified divemaster or higher level team that was in a recreational dive situation and not in a teaching circumstance. Both members had the experience and competence to make this election.

The closest provisions (in relation to NAUI) that I can find that deal with these issues are covered in the NAUI Credo. Two provisions state: "Divers should not be totally dependent upon their equipemnt for their safety. NAUI members emphasize the skills of diving." "Proficiency in the skills of sharing air [or breathing gas] . . . is essential for diver safety." Carrying out gas sharing as was done here merely carries out these policies.

I am not telling anyone else here what to do in a given circumstance. This is for each to decide based upon experience and skill. I, for one, have no problem carrying out gas sharing in open water of 60 feet or less with the equipment that was available on that day and under those conditions. I am not saying that I would have told somebody to jump into the water under those conditions from the start. However, given the situation and the fact that we were already at depth, I felt comfortable practicing these skills rather than just aborting the dive at that second.

Edited by ScubaDadMiami, 03 June 2005 - 02:13 PM.

[ScubaDadMiami]

. . . violation of the NAUI Standards and Procedures by a course director.

Precisely which Standard/Procedure was violated?

A call to Randy at NAUI helped to clarify this. What a great and interesting guy! He even asked about the site and may be by to read the thread. According to him, the protocol is to abort the dive.

A "protocol" is not a Standard. It is also a protocol to turn on the tank before entering the water. However, this is not a Standard.

[RichardB]

. . . violation of the NAUI Standards and Procedures by a course director.

Precisely which Standard/Procedure was violated?

A call to Randy at NAUI helped to clarify this. What a great and interesting guy! He even asked about the site and may be by to read the thread. According to him, the protocol is to abort the dive.

A "protocol" is not a Standard. It is also a protocol to turn on the tank before entering the water. However, this is not a Standard.

Okay, I stand corrected. You broke protocol.

But doesn't protocol also mean "Code of behavior, Procedure, Set of rules, Practice, Methods, Etiquette, etc and etc." In this refrence, protocol is best defined as A code of correct conduct: safety protocols;

Come on Howard, it was a bad decision. Call your friends at NAUI and ask them for clairification.

[ScubaDadMiami]

. . . violation of the NAUI Standards and Procedures by a course director.

Precisely which Standard/Procedure was violated?

A call to Randy at NAUI helped to clarify this. What a great and interesting guy! He even asked about the site and may be by to read the thread. According to him, the protocol is to abort the dive.

A "protocol" is not a Standard. It is also a protocol to turn on the tank before entering the water. However, this is not a Standard.

Okay, I stand corrected. You broke protocol.

But doesn't protocol also mean "Code of behavior, Procedure, Set of rules, Practice, Methods, Etiquette, etc and etc." In this refrence, protocol is best defined as A code of correct conduct: safety protocols;

Come on Howard, it was a bad decision. Call your friends at NAUI and ask them for clairification.

A protocol is not in fact a rule. It is only a custom, but it does not mean it is the only way to govern oneself in a given situation. It is merely "an" accepted and familiar way of action.

To go another way is not necessarily right or wrong.

I am comfortable with my decision and actions in the circumstances. I am not about to go back and forth here on the definition of protocol or much else. It is only when the word Standards got introduced that I felt it was something to comment about.

[David Evans]

Richard, in this respect, he's correct. The Standards and Procedures I referred to isn't a manual for how to dive. It's a set of standards for instruction. I still believe that the S&P states that each diver must have their own functional scuba gear, but will have to double-check that later.

However, since he wasn't acting as an instructor, and the S&P is a guideline for instructional standards, I was incorrect in my statement that he'd violated a part of the S&P.

So, I apologize for my statement that you violated NAUI Standards and Procedures. Clearly this was an incorrect statement.


-david

Edited by David Evans, 03 June 2005 - 02:50 PM.

[RichardB]

Richard, in this respect, he's correct.  The Standards and Procedures I referred to isn't a manual for how to dive.  It's a set of standards for instruction.  I still believe that the S&P states that each diver must have their own functional scuba gear, but will have to double-check that later.

However, since he wasn't acting as an instructor, and the S&P is a guideline for instructional standards, I was incorrect in my statement that he'd violated a part of the S&P. 

So, I apologize for my statement that you violated NAUI Standards and Procedures.  Clearly this was an incorrect statement.

Instead, I should have said ". . . violation of NAUI Safety Protocols by a course director. "

Again, my apologies.

-david

David, thanks for helping make that clear. We certainly wouldn't want to make an incorrect statement. My apologies as well. As a prior military officer I understand how confusing it can be when one compares protocols to standards and should have known better. Obviously I also made a mistake and again offer my apologies. As an example of the difference between the two, in the military it is standard practice for us to dismiss those that fail to follow protocol.

Edited by RichardB, 03 June 2005 - 02:59 PM.

[Marvel]

Thank you all for an interesting discussion, gentlemen & ladies (gentle reminder here). Please bear in mind that trolling is not allowed on this site & this is fast disintegrating into a troll fest. Should this continue, I will have no other recourse but to close the thread.

[ScubaDadMiami]

It's all good, my friends. Meanwhile, it is after 5:00 on Friday, and I still don't have my dive plans finalized for this weekend.

Let's jump!

[RichardB]

It's all good, my friends. Meanwhile, it is after 5:00 on Friday, and I still don't have my dive plans finalized for this weekend.

Let's jump!

Now that I can agree with! Lets go!

[RichardB]

To all...in retrospect I made a poor choice and I've learned a great deal from it.

Thank you, Kamala

Kamala,

Thanks! In the heat of the posts I missed this. We all make poor judgment choices from time to time. (Even me...have you read my posts today?, LOL). Recognizing them and making corrections is not only the proper thing to do, but it's also respectful and admirable.

Thank you

RB

[intotheblue]

[QUOTE][quote name='Warthog' date='Jun 3 2005, 01:19 PM'][QUOTE]QUOTE (David Evans @ Jun 3 2005, 11:51 AM)
but every course I've ever taken says if there's an equipment failure the dive is over...end of story. Which I think is where most ppl have issue.

Having said that, I've been at 70' with a free-flowing reg (just small bubbles)...which I should have known better, but I didn't get to dive all weekend, etc., etc. And that is how we get ourselves in to trouble.

I was also inside the 'big' cavern at Ginnie Springs when my HP hose blew. I lost 2000 PSI in the time it took to swim from the grate to the exit (less than a minute). Having experienced that, I can't imagine wanting to continue a dive in the ocean.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


Ditto... one diver gas failure, end of dive. I've done practice emergency ascents from greater than 90 feet but don't know many that have even tried it from deeper than 20 feet other than at their o/w checkout (although I encouraged my students to practice this occasionally after their certification). Maybe YOU are capable, wearing doubles..., Steel 120's at that, in open water... with a gas failure yourself, of performing an emergency ascent with another out of air diver.... but are THEY capable? I take it you were wearing a dry suit and had alternate inflation system? An instructor and student died off Ft. Lauderdale just before my Trimix O/W dives were completed there when they were not able to get back to the surface.

Well, this is a dead issue to me... I don't think this is going to do anything but cause a "rift". I agree to strongly disagree with the decision that was made on that dive, and support Kamala in her wise review of choices made on that dive. Protocol or standards... wisdom is wisdom, gained from your own experience or that of others. Ignorance is not knowing better... Knowing better and chosing to do the wrong thing... well that is no longer ignorance...

No flaming intended, but less knowledgeable divers need to learn how to handle these situations correctly.

Good follow, Warthog...

Being one old, and formerly bold diver...

ITB...

[intotheblue]

Thank you all for an interesting discussion, gentlemen & ladies (gentle reminder here). Please bear in mind that trolling is not allowed on this site & this is fast disintegrating into a troll fest. Should this continue, I will have no other recourse but to close the thread.

No trolling intended here Marvel... but this thread has about covered it's usefullness. Thanks for allowing this discussion, even if there's disagreement involved. Heck, even families have disagreements.... it don't mean we don't "love" each other...

ITB...

[Genesis]

I don't see it here guys.

Look, there is nothing - and I do mean nothing - wrong with starting a dive with less than a full cylinder. I do it all the time and so do many others. It is perfectly safe.

The issue is not and never will be the pressure, nor the percentage of total capacity, in a cylinder at the start of a dive. The issue is simply and entirely comprised of whether or not each diver has sufficient gas for the planned dive, including any contingency requirements (e.g. providing their buddy, if any, with gas)

On virtually every recreational trip I do I start my second dive with less than full cylinders. Why? I dive doubles. I use one set of doubles for two dives. This is in no way unsafe, nor improper.

I have on many occasions taken a "big single" and likewise done two dives. I breathe less than most of the folks on a charter boat; I can take one HP120 where most guys use two AL80s and come back from the second dive with over 1000 psi in the can where they've exhausted both of their "AL"s.

There is absolutely nothing - and I do mean nothing - wrong with the starting dive protocol that ScubaDad and WW exhibited on this dive. At all.

Now, where I will take exception is that I will not go inside a wreck (or cave) without FULLY redundant equipment on my person. But that is a PERSONAL decision. I broke that rule when I was a newer diver, but I won't do it now. However, before anyone goes after Kamala for this, be aware that EVERY SINGLE CAVE DIVING AGENCY not only advocates but tries to FORCE every student diver to break this rule at the Intro level, by insisting on the use of a single cylinder with an "H" valve! You're one O-ring or valve stem failure away from a very bad day...

Second, once her equipment failed, they regrouped and exited the wreck. At that point they were no longer in an overhead - they were OUTSIDE in open water, where a free ascent was quite possible. They were in a no-stop situation in less than 60' of water. Anyone who cannot manage an ascent in such a situation has no business being in the water, especially with a buddy. Further, EITHER OF THEM could have gone on the O2 at 20' that SD had without incident, so there was REALLY only a 40' ascent that had to be made.

To those who say that continuing the airshare was "unwise" once outside, I call BS. The most likely failure on a reg is in the FIRST stage, resulting in a freeflow. Second stages rarely actually fail to deliver gas. Each diver had one first and one second stage, and Kamala was on a 7' hose with decent freedom of movement. Either diver could have made a free ascent from that depth, as they were under no-stop time limits, and further, they had another source of gas (the O2) that was breathable at 20'.

In cave training you are expected to perform an airshare on an entire exit from a point of maximum or nearly so penetration. This is in a REAL hard overhead, where if you screw the pooch you DO NOT have the choice of a free ascent. You can garp about an "instroketer" being there to give you gas if needed, but I retort that his gear can fail too, and so can his brain.

I do not find anything particularly troublesome about the protocol used here. I personally will not go inside a wreck without doubles on my back or SOME form of independant bailout (a goodly sized pony, say 40cf, and a big single is ok too, but only for no-stop) but that's MY call and I'm not the scuba police. The overhead part of the dive was terminated when the equipment failure occurred, and the rest of the dive was performed in an environment where both a CESA AND a tertiary gas source (breathable at 20') was available.

Unorthodox? Ok. Radically unsafe to the point that people call for someone's head? No way.

SD and WW, come dive with me any time. On my boat. I've no problem with any of this. You both know how to find me, and my Hatt is fueled and ready to rock and roll. Bring both the dubs and scooter SD; both are welcome aboard (so is the deco gas)

Edited by Genesis, 05 June 2005 - 11:08 AM.

[peterbj7]

I'm mostly with Genesis and SDM on this. All I think they (Kamala & SDM) did wrong was (up front) not to have sufficient back-up gear so it became necessary to play tunes on a regulator with the consequent disaster, and (after the emergency was over) not to appreciate the example they were apparently perceived as setting in their otherwise acceptable decision to continue the dive gas-sharing.

In absolute terms, given their (stated) levels of experience I don't think they did anything that was dangerous or even bad practice. With the right buddy I would have done the same.

Does raise an interesting and important issue, though. When we are actually teaching or guiding we know what the rules are and we follow them scrupulously. I long ago learned the truth of "monkey see, monkey do". But when we are fun diving around other less experienced people do we owe them this duty of care? I think the answer is "yes, sometimes" - whether this was one of those cases I can't be sure from what I've read. Can I guess that as SDM and Kamala intended from the outset to penetrate the wreck that they were confident that no-one would simply follow them?

On one dive from a boat of recreational divers, all of whom should have been following their guides, I found myself being followed by someone I didn't know. I guessed (correctly, as it turned out) that he had mistaken me for someone else. Many peoples' vision underwater is quite poor. As soon as I realised I aborted my intended dive which would have been way too deep for him (it was already), and buddied up with him for a pleasant recreational dive. I'm much more careful nowadays and ensure no-one inappropriate can follow me.

I do hope that people can stand back from this and see it from the participants' points of view. It will be a shame if people drop out of SD because of it. I haven't yet had the opportunity of joining in on an SD event, but the discussion board is far and away the best I've come across.