Blue Hole death - a defence, sort of!.

[Finless]

In response to the "Death at the Blue Hole post":-

I anticipate some flak for this post so I will start by saying that I am as sorry as any of you to hear of a death of another diver, particularly as it happened whilst diving. And, of course, my sympathies go to the bereaved.

What I don't like is the "shouldn't be allowed" or "must be stopped" type of attitude that is prevalent in todays society in general when something goes wrong when someone is "pushing the limits". Life is dangerous and you will ALL die from it at one time or another.

In this instance, if someone has the qualifications to go Scuba Diving then what they choose to do when they dive is their affair (provided they put no one elses life at risk - beyond what was agreed beforehand or what is normal for diving). Should this diver have persuaded someone to accompany him on this dive? For all we know this person may have been on their 100th such dive to 100 mtrs.

Obviously, one would not be expecting a novice diver to make the decision to do such a dive to 100 mtrs and would hope that they would be persuaded of the error of their judgement.

Whilst I would question the logic behind attempting a bounce dive to 100 mtrs on a single 11 ltr cylinder, I, personally, would not question anyones right to do the dive, on air, should they wish to. When I first learned to dive I recollect my instructor informing me he had done a bounce dive to 100+ mtrs on air off Gozo. Any number of people will have done such dives over the years.

Would I do it? Maybe (but probably not). If I did, I would take more gas and have a drop cylinder (or two) on a down line. If I did it, would I go with a buddy? Unlikely, or, at least, only if they said "I want to do that" without my asking first.

Questions of "what about the family" are very sad BUT not ours to ask. That is down to the individual concerned.

Diving is risky. People die every year from doing it. Does that mean we should ban all diving below a depth of 10 mtrs say, or, even ban it altogether?

[Dr Stevil]

Totally agree Bryan, as was once explained to me by some philosophy geek, this is the very essence of existentialism, your life becoming more valuable to you the more you risk it.

[And]

Whilst I agree that your life is your own and all that, it is hard to believe the guy knew what he was actually risking, because if he did, he wouldn't have done it. 100 mtrs on a single AL80 results in a ppo2 of 2.31 and a consumption of 165 ltrs per minute with only 2200 litres available. Plus mandatory deco on that dive.

Yes, he has the right to dive, but surely the industry has a duty of care to make sure they know the risks they are taking.

In the meantime, sadly, the powers that be don't view the situation as we do, and as AndyP states, it might jeopardise other, eminently more sensible divers, doing the dives properly.


Andy

[Juz]

The only problems I have with it are:

1. Someone else has to collect the body

2. Most important. It potentially threatens me taking part in the thing I love as this foolish act could end in legislation to make diving less accessible.

I think this act was stupidity, and I would feel very pi55ed off if it affected my diving.

Juz

[Finless]

Originally Posted by And

Whilst I agree that your life is your own and all that, it is hard to believe the guy knew what he was actually risking, because if he did, he wouldn't have done it. 100 mtrs on a single AL80 results in a ppo2 of 2.31 and a consumption of 165 ltrs per minute with only 2200 litres available. Plus mandatory deco on that dive.

In principal I agree with you. I suspect the deco obligations would be pretty varied depending on what you use to calculate them. I have dived to 60 mrs on a single 12 ltr but only spent a minute or two there. His air consumption can not really be calculated in advance - for example, depending on his planned rate of ascent from the bounce he may well be exhaling all/most of the way. By my own stupid fault I have accidentally dived with a ppO2 of 3.2 for several minutes - I have no idea how much longer I would have lasted before ox toxing BUT I felt no ill effects up to that point.

Yes, he has the right to dive, but surely the industry has a duty of care to make sure they know the risks they are taking.

Yes, I would agree and would have thought, for their own security, the dive centre in question would have at least requested a written disclaimer from the diver in question. Of course, he may not have said anything to anyone and just "gone for it".

In the meantime, sadly, the powers that be don't view the situation as we do, and as AndyP states, it might jeopardise other, eminently more sensible divers, doing the dives properly.

Sad to say, that may be the official response. It should not be the case though. Were I "the authorities" I would make sure that the relevant dive centres warned ALL divers of the dangers and that all divers doing deep (below 50 mtrs) air dives need to leave a "blank cheque or credit card slip" as a recoverable deposit to pay for the recovery of their body in the event of their death.

[Andy Phillips]

Finless,


Sorry mate, but, s*d the diver, he has the right to do what he wants. It is not him but the people who are left behind to clear up the mess, both his family and the people in Dahab.

Decisions have to be based on something more than a selfish, "I'll do what I want to attitude". I have little or no time for people like this, nor for those who choose to support it.

Was that blunt enough.

Take care,

Andrew

[tom]

Originally Posted by Finless

Were I "the authorities" I would make sure that the relevant dive centres warned ALL divers of the dangers

Surely that's what basic diver training is for, not the responsibility of the dive centre?

[Finless]

Originally Posted by tom

Surely that's what basic diver training is for, not the responsibility of the dive centre?

I would have to agree with you in general but given the number of fatalaties at this particular location I suspect this needs to be classified as a special case.

[Finless]

Decisions have to be based on something more than a selfish, "I'll do what I want to attitude". I have little or no time for people like this, nor for those who choose to support it.

The "selfish act" concerned only involved danger for himself.

Most of us at some stage in our lives have indulged in selfish acts. As a couple of examples - have you ever driven over the speed limit? Have you ever driven after having an alcoholic drink? If you answer yes then weren't you being selfish?

Also, unless you are doing something for someone else or relating to survival, what other reason than a selfish one is there for doing anything.

Who decides what is right or acceptable or selfish? Will it be you that makes that decision. At what point do you draw the line?

Was that blunt enough.

Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am stupid. I'd already worked that out for myself.

Take care,

Thank you. Although I take it (from your opening sentence) that the good wish is withdrawn if I am doing something you consider unsafe or not acceptable?

[Robert]

Sorry, but I have no compassion whatsoever for any Russian divers.
Having attacked two of them on a recent Red Sea trip when they were harassing and trying to ride a young turtle, as far as I'm concerned the fewer Russian divers in the Red Sea the better.
Just my ha'pennorth.

Robert