Safe Diving?

[Chris H]

We all talk about it, but what do you consider a "Safe" dive?  Is making it back to the boat enough?  Rule of thirds?  Enough gas for you AND your buddy to surface safely?  Do you start to ascend when it gets hard to breathe and have to pull the lever on the J-Valve?  Do you know what your SAC rate is?  Do you know what SAC rate means?

I have seen reports on other sites of dives to the WB Allen (165’) and other "non-recreational" dives on a single 80, most likely filled with air.    Personally, I think that is far from a safe dive, and an OOA is almost immanent.  How is a dive like this planned? If the fertilizer hits the ventilating system how are you getting back to the boat, your home, and your family?  The only thing a single aluminum 80 should be for on a dive like this is 50% for deco gas, and the Luxfers ride better than a Catalina.

[scubert]

you forgot to ask about "spare air"  ;D

Seriously though,
I think there are a LOT of divers who aren't aware of their SAC rates, or even have a just a general idea of how fast they burn gas at a given depth (that's why I have a pressure gauge, so I can see how much air I have left!?!)  So they end up surprised when they check the gauge at 100' after 20 minutes they are shocked at how much of their 80 they've burnt off already, and since they haven't been paying attention to their computer they are just about ready to go into deco, panic ensues....  .  There can be few other explainations for SO many reports of OOA problems in rec diving.

[matt t.]

I guess a "safe" dive IS different for everyone. As we progress in our diving and diving education the meaning of "safe" may or may not change. I've seen some questionable stuff on the local area "rec" charters by experienced divers, like free ascents (no lift bags, just kick for the surface 150 yds off of the boat  ???) by guys that got "lost" on a 70 ft dive, lots of "solo" diving right after a dive plan was agreed upon (not regular buddies), camera men that are "super silters", and the list goes on. It seems that a lot of divers just don't get "IT". I'd have to say that "AWARENESS" is a key ingredient in safe diving. It doesn't matter how deep you are or what you're diving on, you need to pay attention to your buddy, monitor your time, depth, air pressure, and position in the water on every dive (in short follow the "PLAN"). It also doesn't hurt to know how to get back the the ascent/descent line ;D. Like they used to tell us in boot camp "perfect practice makes perfect". I and my buddies are FAR from perfect, but we're out there trying every dive. Just my $.02. Take it for what it's worth .

[schultz]

I'm going to have to side with matt t. on this one. Safety is a relative term based on an individual's comfort level for risk. As such the basic argument here is the ability to make a judgment call on what one considers a risk. A life insurance sales person will certainly say SCUBA diving is a severe risk, and as a result raise your premium. On the other hand, a freediver might call us a bunch of wimps for carrying our air supply with us.

I also think making a 165 foot dive on a single 80 may sound like a risk, but is dependent on the circumstances, the conditions, and the abilities of the diver. 165 foot dive in cold water and limited vis is certainly riskier than a 165 foot dive in warm water and 100 foot vis, but that doesn't mean both can't and haven't been done. Much like not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle has and is repeatedly done.

I'd wager that long ago, the progenitors of tech divers, at some point made such single tank dives. As divers developing the methods and equipment we use today, they were usually pushing the limits of their equipment, and themselves. In all probability the idea of running doubles wasn't for safety's sake, but simply so that they could stay down longer. Likewise the idea of having two regs wasn't one of redundancy, but from a lack of either a Benjamin manifold or an isolator valve.

And even though knowing your SAC is part of a solution, I would argue that BMI should also be a factor as well. I have seen far too many tech divers out there that really should consider losing a few pounds in the interest of their own safety.

As far as planning such a dive - think like Tigger... just bounce  ;D

[ethanb]

To be honest, this isn't a topic I've really thought through a lot (except for what "100 safe cave dives" means when applying for Abe Davis), but a big part of a "safe diving" for me is, at all times, being more than a single mistake or failure away from death or injury.   I think the "awareness" aspect that Matt mentioned is also really important.

[matt t.]

I like that .

[Omicron]

I like that .
[/quote]

I like that as well

For me, a safe dive is a dive that is done according to the plan without problems. 

I know my SAC, my SPG is just a backup to my brain (as is my computer and/or tables).  A safe dive for me is one that I dove as planned and had fun on...as well as stuck to "safe" limits (thirds, etc....). 

Of course...that isn't to say I haven't enjoyed "unsafe" dives   I've had more than one dive in shallow water where I surfaced sucking a tank dry after having bc inflation wars