Taking Responsibility for Complacency – A short rant…

jiseson · 22nd March 2008, 12:11

Might divers' strictly adhering to use of a checklist and it be taught that way help minimize some of these mishaps! I was taught to put your own gear on, don't talk to anyone during your checklist. When u are in a hurry on a rocking boat, or caught up in a jovial chat-people tend to miss things.

OceanOpportunity · 22nd March 2008, 12:51

Lots of good points have been made here, but I'd like to point out an underlying commonality that has yet to be addressed.

I think most are in agreeance that it is all too easy for someone that doesnt belong on a Rebreather to purchase and end up diving one (again, shame on the industry, IMO). Whether their mishaps and mistakes are complacency or ignorance is a topic that would go on indefinitely.

anyway, the issue I am seeing, especially when we start pointing fingers at mfgs vs instructors vs the diver, is that there is no consistency in knowledge base. We all know, to be 'certified' on unit A, you must be trained on unit A. This doesnt mean that you know much about rebreathers in general necessarily. Our training regimes are so unit specific, from bailout procedures, to use of BOVs or not, dewatering a unit, to where the cells should be, to OTS or BMCL is 'better', that we're losing site of the core fundamentals. Unfortunately, with each unit being so operationally specific, this is unavoidable and hence core knowledge has a tendency to evolve in its own camps. Further, the community goes to its peers for what is 'correct'. Well, its still so erly in the game that whose to say who is and isnt correct? We need to see more peer-reviewd published literature adn research on design, development, operations, and training methodologies.

In reailty, if one is highly educated on rebreathers in general, he/she should be able to pick up any unit out there and dive it with minimal instruction. This brings me back to a point I made on Rebreather World almost a year ago...where a rebreather is a rebreather is a rebreather. period. The only performance difference is scrubber duration, WOB, and electronics features. The rest (operational) could, and should be standardized between mfgs in my opinion. This would make cross-training easier, and allow the core rebreather knowledge to be engrained. picking your vehicle is then not dependent on which state you have earned your driver's license...volvo, chevy, ford...they all work the same and once you hold the ticket (mandated by a set of enforced regulations by industry), you can drive any of them

mempilot · 22nd March 2008, 13:01

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mike)

Is it only me that sees the irony of these comments in a post about being personally responsible?
Instead of advocating the passing of responsibility about whether you are good enough to dive to a third party (ie the instructor), how about keeping it yourself. Shouldn't we be doing dives we feel ready for, rather than paying a third party to make that decision for us?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Shopping for an instructor that has knowledge and experience so as to get the most out of the training vs going cheap and easy is the point I'm making. You grabbed just a piece of my post which parceled out like this takes it out of context.

Yes. We should be dives that we are ready for and not based on misplaced confidence. I never said nor implied otherwise. Paying a third party, the instructor, to make that decision for us.... well, that is exactly the type of critisism many divers need and never get. They often go beyond the boundries of capability set by their training agencies, instructors, and their own ability. A good instructor can instill the right attitude if it doesn't exist by sharing from their own experiences and others that they have trained. A newly vinted instructor can not.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mike)

Instruction is only part of the story - I have certainly learnt more outside of courses than I ever learnt within them. If a rational adult is able to determine for themselves that they are capable of diving a specific rebreather, why do they need to submit to an instructor to verify that? After all, as pretty well all the rebreather divers who have died took courses, there are a bunch of instructors out there who made the wrong decision on behalf of a student by passing them.

Exactly my point, Mike. Many instructors may have done a disservice to the trainee by passing them. Someone that dies from going beyond their capabilities was diving with a false sense of confidence and the wrong attitude. I suppose one can check the attitude during training, demonstrate the skills, and then go climb Mount Everst the next day. There is no way to stop the Darwin cog in that case. But, many 'rational' adults who are properly handled during training will make the decision to advance slowly.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mike)

Let's take full responsibility for our own actions, and not blame manufacturers, instructors, boat drivers or buddies. Perhaps in turn we will gain the freedom to do what we want?

I agree. Ultimately, it comes down to diver error. Why?

Didn't choose the proper training, and passed without a true proper understanding.
Didn't practice what was taught.
Didn't follow proper procedures.
Didn't react properly to an emergency.
Etc... Etc...

The only time when this diver error is possibly overriden is when:

The unit self-destructed, and no one could have saved the day.
The said diver was improperly trained to begin with, so the items listed above where being followed in what was thought to be a proper manner.

CharlieT · 22nd March 2008, 13:19

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mike)

So as a diver that is taking responsibility for yourself, which do you do? O2 deco at 6m or at 4m like IANTD told you?

Do you know why IANTD dropped to 4m? Do you understand the offgassing difference between O2 deco at 6m vs 4m? Was the change made for reasons that are relevant to you? Or have you just put responsibility for this decision in the hands of the hierarchy of a training agency who you have likely never met?

Mike

I don't know what this is about, nor does Martin Robson of Eau2 Technical Training. He has just told me he received his latest course standard and training email from IANTD y'day.

Yes, I do understand the difference in offgassing between 4m & 6m but in UK sea conditions 4m is usually considered too shallow for decompression anyway so that would override any alleged new recommendation from IANTD.

In order to avoid going off post, can someone PM me please with any more info on this new IANTD recommendation.

Drmike · 22nd March 2008, 13:26

Quote: (Originally Posted by mempilot)

I agree. Ultimately, it comes down to diver error. Why?

Didn't choose the proper training, and passed without a true proper understanding.
Didn't practice what was taught.
Didn't follow proper procedures.
Didn't react properly to an emergency.
Etc... Etc...

I think its far simpler than that.

Humans are not consistently reliable enough to safely dive current range of eccr rebreathers and never will be.

This is my belief 100%. Why?:-

The fact that deaths have occured across whole range of user group from very experienced, knowledgeable and capable to relatively new and inexp. divers suggests to me that robust training alone isnt the answer nor is better trainee screening. Better divers than me have done something human and died on these things.

So faced with human tendency to do something daft or not follow training what do we do if we want to min deaths? You will never change human nature (to make mistakes, to not follow training) so we should either accept the inevitable death rate, stop using rebreathers unless really needed or minimise the damage/result of an error by adding safety features to nulify common errors (wet switches, auto predive test sequence etc)

Complacency is human nature

mempilot · 22nd March 2008, 13:46

Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike)

So faced with human tendency to do something daft or not follow training what do we do if we want to min deaths? You will never change human nature (to make mistakes, to not follow training) so we should either accept the inevitable death rate, stop using rebreathers unless really needed or minimise the damage/result of an error by adding safety features to nulify common errors (wet switches, auto predive test sequence etc)

Complacency is human nature

Mike,

I agree with you. Let's break it down even further:

Recreational Diving:

Stop using rebreathers all together, unless needed for mission. ie photography

-or-

Implement fail safe dummy-proof units. ie Units akin to what Poseidon is doing with the Mk-6.

Technical Diving:

Accept the death rate in this smallest of niches
Implement better/safer units applicable to this niche

While most divers can do without a Rebreather on recreational dives, and someone dying on a RB doing a simple dive is truly tragic, I think underwater photographers and others that make a living off being able to get close to marine life or whatever it may be would still benefit from the use of a RB.

The problem is, this would have to be regulated in order to be enforced. I don't see that happening, and if it did, it would have greater impact on the industry as a whole. I for one, would rather not go down that path.

As for the safer units: I don't think there are too many Rebreather manufacturers out there that aren't working to improve their designs and materials to make them safer. Other, new manuf, have the benefit of a clean slate. These new safer units give a promise to the future but are unproven at this point. I hope they do make an impact on our sport. The others will be forced to wipe the slate clean and design a new unit, or perish from the competition.

By segregating out the deaths that happen on RBs to those that happen on dives where the Rebreather was really needed vs those that happen on dives where the RB was really not needed would paint a picture of apples to oranges. Maybe there is an acceptible death rate for apples, and no acceptable death rate for oranges. Zero deaths should always be the goal, but the attitudes and diligence between apples and oranges is probably significantly different enough to impact the ratio of deaths.

New safer units should be the goal of every manufacturer. I think it is. If it weren't, they would die the death of the dodo. Some are faster than others to implement new technologies or ideas that make their unit safer. Those that can't keep up will also perish, as this market isn't big enough for someone to run in fourth or fifth place for long.

If there is a manufacturer that isn't actively pursuing safety, then who are they? Let community judgement be their demise.

So, I agree with you on your points.

diverreb · 22nd March 2008, 13:48

In todays market rebreathers are what they are.... At present the market isn't large enough (read limited dollars available) to make rapid, continual, large scale safety improvements from their current states. If it were possible & reasonable, it would be happening. Rebreather manufacturers are in this to make a profit, not to spend countless dollars in search of fail-safe unit.

That being said I believe that there is a real opportunity to make better rebreather divers through improvements in training. The standards today are way too lax.

Back in the day I remember going through a Basic Scuba course with my ex-wife & a few friends. I had been diving for a while and they were all newbies. Their comments after taking the course were along the lines of "Boy, this is a great sport... we just learned that there are so many different ways to die!"

It was a NAUI course, back when they really taught you something in a basic course....

Anyway, my point is they came away with a healthy respect for what can happen if you screw up.

The reality of what can really happen when someone is complacent is lacking in todays training environment. It's glossed over in most courses. Yes we are taught "Complacency Kills", but it really needs to be driven home harder as do discussions on what can & will kill you in the world of rebreathers.

No one seems to want to scare new or perspective divers, might be bad for the industry..... BS scare the sh*t out of them!

For me Rebreather World has really opened my eyes. Sure you have to filter the BS from the good stuff, but there is a heck of a lot of information to be gleaned from this board. Some of the threads should be incorporated into training to further course discussions.

More time needs to be devoted to discussion in these courses. Perhaps more than four days is necessary to produce safe rebreather divers. Most of the courses encompass at most one day of theory & lecture. More is necessary. Maybe a few follow up classes after 20 or 30 hours on a unit....

Your thoughts????

Richie

Drmike · 22nd March 2008, 14:27

Quote: (Originally Posted by mempilot)

Stop using rebreathers all together, unless needed for mission. ie photography or deep/long overhead

SNIP

The problem is, this would have to be regulated in order to be enforced.

We should self regulate. We should actively discourage recreational divers or 'soft tech' divers from buying and using eccrs

Instructors should require convinving that student 'needs' an eccr before agreeing training

Im asked all the time by people for advice on getting an Rebreather and 9/10 I discourage them as they dont need one (they want, they dont need, and willing to ignore increased risk to satisfy their want)

Right tool for the job - period.

I dive OC when thats the right tool and I dive ECCR when that is. Same way I dont use a chainsaw to clip my toe nails then cry fowl when I slip and lop my foot off!

Brainx3 · 22nd March 2008, 14:37

Hi,

Dr.Mike, I disagree with you. If as what you say was implemented previously then more than half of us wouldn't have been able to dive CCR in the first place. Scaring people off is a bad policy for the entire dive industry. You need to encourage and enforce positive attitudes, safety regulations, diving standards. If following your logic then people shouldn't take airplanes to go for vacations or drive their cars unless they have to or need to. But then now we go into more difinitions and dilemmas about what the term "Need" apply for. Simplify the process, remove negativities, go forward by the rules.

Best Regards. Wael

Drmike · 22nd March 2008, 14:38

Quote: (Originally Posted by Brainx3)

If as what you say was implemented previously then more than half of us wouldn't have been able to dive CCR in the first place.

oh dear how sad never mind

Quote:

Simplify the process, remove negativities, go forward by the rules.

and live with the deaths

22nd March 2008, 12:11	#21 (permalink)
jiseson DSIX/O2PTIMA Current Rebreather/s: Optima Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: long island,ny Posts: 545	Re: Taking Responsibility for Complacency – A short rant… Might divers' strictly adhering to use of a checklist and it be taught that way help minimize some of these mishaps! I was taught to put your own gear on, don't talk to anyone during your checklist. When u are in a hurry on a rocking boat, or caught up in a jovial chat-people tend to miss things. __________________ *Jonathan D Iseson*
(Online)

22nd March 2008, 12:51	#22 (permalink)
OceanOpportunity for a world of water Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Dolphin Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Inspiration Classic Other CCR Dolphin Home Build Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Providence, RI USA Posts: 527	Re: Taking Responsibility for Complacency – A short rant… Lots of good points have been made here, but I'd like to point out an underlying commonality that has yet to be addressed. I think most are in agreeance that it is all too easy for someone that doesnt belong on a Rebreather to purchase and end up diving one (again, shame on the industry, IMO). Whether their mishaps and mistakes are complacency or ignorance is a topic that would go on indefinitely. anyway, the issue I am seeing, especially when we start pointing fingers at mfgs vs instructors vs the diver, is that there is no consistency in knowledge base. We all know, to be 'certified' on unit A, you must be trained on unit A. This doesnt mean that you know much about rebreathers in general necessarily. Our training regimes are so unit specific, from bailout procedures, to use of BOVs or not, dewatering a unit, to where the cells should be, to OTS or BMCL is 'better', that we're losing site of the core fundamentals. Unfortunately, with each unit being so operationally specific, this is unavoidable and hence core knowledge has a tendency to evolve in its own camps. Further, the community goes to its peers for what is 'correct'. Well, its still so erly in the game that whose to say who is and isnt correct? We need to see more peer-reviewd published literature adn research on design, development, operations, and training methodologies. In reailty, if one is highly educated on rebreathers in general, he/she should be able to pick up any unit out there and dive it with minimal instruction. This brings me back to a point I made on Rebreather World almost a year ago...where a rebreather is a rebreather is a rebreather. period. The only performance difference is scrubber duration, WOB, and electronics features. The rest (operational) could, and should be standardized between mfgs in my opinion. This would make cross-training easier, and allow the core rebreather knowledge to be engrained. picking your vehicle is then not dependent on which state you have earned your driver's license...volvo, chevy, ford...they all work the same and once you hold the ticket (mandated by a set of enforced regulations by industry), you can drive any of them __________________ Michael Lombardi Oceans of Opportunity www.oceanopportunity.com Elected Director, Society for Human Performance in Extreme Environments MN'07, The Explorers Club Project Manager, Diving a Dream Last edited by OceanOpportunity : 22nd March 2008 at 12:56.
(Offline)

22nd March 2008, 13:01	#23 (permalink)
mempilot What is this..terrafirma? Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Megalodon Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Ft. Lauderdale Posts: 1,269	Re: Taking Responsibility for Complacency – A short rant… Quote: (Originally Posted by Mike) Is it only me that sees the irony of these comments in a post about being personally responsible? Instead of advocating the passing of responsibility about whether you are good enough to dive to a third party (ie the instructor), how about keeping it yourself. Shouldn't we be doing dives we feel ready for, rather than paying a third party to make that decision for us? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Shopping for an instructor that has knowledge and experience so as to get the most out of the training vs going cheap and easy is the point I'm making. You grabbed just a piece of my post which parceled out like this takes it out of context. Yes. We should be dives that we are ready for and not based on misplaced confidence. I never said nor implied otherwise. Paying a third party, the instructor, to make that decision for us.... well, that is exactly the type of critisism many divers need and never get. They often go beyond the boundries of capability set by their training agencies, instructors, and their own ability. A good instructor can instill the right attitude if it doesn't exist by sharing from their own experiences and others that they have trained. A newly vinted instructor can not. Quote: (Originally Posted by Mike) Instruction is only part of the story - I have certainly learnt more outside of courses than I ever learnt within them. If a rational adult is able to determine for themselves that they are capable of diving a specific rebreather, why do they need to submit to an instructor to verify that? After all, as pretty well all the rebreather divers who have died took courses, there are a bunch of instructors out there who made the wrong decision on behalf of a student by passing them. Exactly my point, Mike. Many instructors may have done a disservice to the trainee by passing them. Someone that dies from going beyond their capabilities was diving with a false sense of confidence and the wrong attitude. I suppose one can check the attitude during training, demonstrate the skills, and then go climb Mount Everst the next day. There is no way to stop the Darwin cog in that case. But, many 'rational' adults who are properly handled during training will make the decision to advance slowly. Quote: (Originally Posted by Mike) Let's take full responsibility for our own actions, and not blame manufacturers, instructors, boat drivers or buddies. Perhaps in turn we will gain the freedom to do what we want? I agree. Ultimately, it comes down to diver error. Why? Didn't choose the proper training, and passed without a true proper understanding. Didn't practice what was taught. Didn't follow proper procedures. Didn't react properly to an emergency. Etc... Etc... The only time when this diver error is possibly overriden is when: The unit self-destructed, and no one could have saved the day. The said diver was improperly trained to begin with, so the items listed above where being followed in what was thought to be a proper manner. __________________ MEM "Da Pilot" Black holes are where God divided by zero. "If at first you don't succeed, don't dive silent." "Would you mind not shooting at the thermo-nuclear weapons." ~ Vic Deakins "Donkey's kill more people annually than plane crashes."
(Offline)

22nd March 2008, 13:19	#24 (permalink)
CharlieT Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London Posts: 449	Re: Taking Responsibility for Complacency – A short rant… Quote: (Originally Posted by Mike) So as a diver that is taking responsibility for yourself, which do you do? O2 deco at 6m or at 4m like IANTD told you? Do you know why IANTD dropped to 4m? Do you understand the offgassing difference between O2 deco at 6m vs 4m? Was the change made for reasons that are relevant to you? Or have you just put responsibility for this decision in the hands of the hierarchy of a training agency who you have likely never met? Mike I don't know what this is about, nor does Martin Robson of Eau2 Technical Training. He has just told me he received his latest course standard and training email from IANTD y'day. Yes, I do understand the difference in offgassing between 4m & 6m but in UK sea conditions 4m is usually considered too shallow for decompression anyway so that would override any alleged new recommendation from IANTD. In order to avoid going off post, can someone PM me please with any more info on this new IANTD recommendation.
(Offline)

22nd March 2008, 13:26	#25 (permalink)
Drmike Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Ouroboros Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,161	Re: Taking Responsibility for Complacency – A short rant… Quote: (Originally Posted by mempilot) I agree. Ultimately, it comes down to diver error. Why? Didn't choose the proper training, and passed without a true proper understanding. Didn't practice what was taught. Didn't follow proper procedures. Didn't react properly to an emergency. Etc... Etc... I think its far simpler than that. Humans are not consistently reliable enough to safely dive current range of eccr rebreathers and never will be. This is my belief 100%. Why?:- The fact that deaths have occured across whole range of user group from very experienced, knowledgeable and capable to relatively new and inexp. divers suggests to me that robust training alone isnt the answer nor is better trainee screening. Better divers than me have done something human and died on these things. So faced with human tendency to do something daft or not follow training what do we do if we want to min deaths? You will never change human nature (to make mistakes, to not follow training) so we should either accept the inevitable death rate, stop using rebreathers unless really needed or minimise the damage/result of an error by adding safety features to nulify common errors (wet switches, auto predive test sequence etc) Complacency is human nature __________________ Cave diving is a sport Wreck diving is a sport Diving in general is a sport 'Rebreather diving' is not a sport its the delusional obsession with a highly dangerous and often inappropriate piece of equipment Last edited by Drmike : 22nd March 2008 at 13:28.
(Offline)

22nd March 2008, 13:46	#26 (permalink)
mempilot What is this..terrafirma? Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Megalodon Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Ft. Lauderdale Posts: 1,269	Re: Taking Responsibility for Complacency – A short rant… Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike) So faced with human tendency to do something daft or not follow training what do we do if we want to min deaths? You will never change human nature (to make mistakes, to not follow training) so we should either accept the inevitable death rate, stop using rebreathers unless really needed or minimise the damage/result of an error by adding safety features to nulify common errors (wet switches, auto predive test sequence etc) Complacency is human nature Mike, I agree with you. Let's break it down even further: Recreational Diving: Stop using rebreathers all together, unless needed for mission. ie photography -or- Implement fail safe dummy-proof units. ie Units akin to what Poseidon is doing with the Mk-6. Technical Diving: Accept the death rate in this smallest of niches Implement better/safer units applicable to this niche While most divers can do without a Rebreather on recreational dives, and someone dying on a RB doing a simple dive is truly tragic, I think underwater photographers and others that make a living off being able to get close to marine life or whatever it may be would still benefit from the use of a RB. The problem is, this would have to be regulated in order to be enforced. I don't see that happening, and if it did, it would have greater impact on the industry as a whole. I for one, would rather not go down that path. As for the safer units: I don't think there are too many Rebreather manufacturers out there that aren't working to improve their designs and materials to make them safer. Other, new manuf, have the benefit of a clean slate. These new safer units give a promise to the future but are unproven at this point. I hope they do make an impact on our sport. The others will be forced to wipe the slate clean and design a new unit, or perish from the competition. By segregating out the deaths that happen on RBs to those that happen on dives where the Rebreather was really needed vs those that happen on dives where the RB was really not needed would paint a picture of apples to oranges. Maybe there is an acceptible death rate for apples, and no acceptable death rate for oranges. Zero deaths should always be the goal, but the attitudes and diligence between apples and oranges is probably significantly different enough to impact the ratio of deaths. New safer units should be the goal of every manufacturer. I think it is. If it weren't, they would die the death of the dodo. Some are faster than others to implement new technologies or ideas that make their unit safer. Those that can't keep up will also perish, as this market isn't big enough for someone to run in fourth or fifth place for long. If there is a manufacturer that isn't actively pursuing safety, then who are they? Let community judgement be their demise. So, I agree with you on your points. __________________ MEM "Da Pilot" Black holes are where God divided by zero. "If at first you don't succeed, don't dive silent." "Would you mind not shooting at the thermo-nuclear weapons." ~ Vic Deakins "Donkey's kill more people annually than plane crashes."
(Offline)

22nd March 2008, 13:48	#27 (permalink)
diverreb DE/MD/NJ Wreck Diver Current Rebreather/s: Optima Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Dover, DE Posts: 566	Re: Taking Responsibility for Complacency – A short rant… In todays market rebreathers are what they are.... At present the market isn't large enough (read limited dollars available) to make rapid, continual, large scale safety improvements from their current states. If it were possible & reasonable, it would be happening. Rebreather manufacturers are in this to make a profit, not to spend countless dollars in search of fail-safe unit. That being said I believe that there is a real opportunity to make better rebreather divers through improvements in training. The standards today are way too lax. Back in the day I remember going through a Basic Scuba course with my ex-wife & a few friends. I had been diving for a while and they were all newbies. Their comments after taking the course were along the lines of "Boy, this is a great sport... we just learned that there are so many different ways to die!" It was a NAUI course, back when they really taught you something in a basic course.... Anyway, my point is they came away with a healthy respect for what can happen if you screw up. The reality of what can really happen when someone is complacent is lacking in todays training environment. It's glossed over in most courses. Yes we are taught "Complacency Kills", but it really needs to be driven home harder as do discussions on what can & will kill you in the world of rebreathers. No one seems to want to scare new or perspective divers, might be bad for the industry..... BS scare the sh*t out of them! For me Rebreather World has really opened my eyes. Sure you have to filter the BS from the good stuff, but there is a heck of a lot of information to be gleaned from this board. Some of the threads should be incorporated into training to further course discussions. More time needs to be devoted to discussion in these courses. Perhaps more than four days is necessary to produce safe rebreather divers. Most of the courses encompass at most one day of theory & lecture. More is necessary. Maybe a few follow up classes after 20 or 30 hours on a unit.... Your thoughts???? Richie
(Offline)

22nd March 2008, 14:27	#28 (permalink)
Drmike Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Ouroboros Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,161	Re: Taking Responsibility for Complacency – A short rant… Quote: (Originally Posted by mempilot) Stop using rebreathers all together, unless needed for mission. ie photography or deep/long overhead SNIP The problem is, this would have to be regulated in order to be enforced. We should self regulate. We should actively discourage recreational divers or 'soft tech' divers from buying and using eccrs Instructors should require convinving that student 'needs' an eccr before agreeing training Im asked all the time by people for advice on getting an Rebreather and 9/10 I discourage them as they dont need one (they want, they dont need, and willing to ignore increased risk to satisfy their want) Right tool for the job - period. I dive OC when thats the right tool and I dive ECCR when that is. Same way I dont use a chainsaw to clip my toe nails then cry fowl when I slip and lop my foot off! __________________ Cave diving is a sport Wreck diving is a sport Diving in general is a sport 'Rebreather diving' is not a sport its the delusional obsession with a highly dangerous and often inappropriate piece of equipment Last edited by Drmike : 22nd March 2008 at 14:32.
(Offline)

22nd March 2008, 14:37	#29 (permalink)
Brainx3 Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Borås, Sweden Posts: 274	Re: Taking Responsibility for Complacency – A short rant… Hi, Dr.Mike, I disagree with you. If as what you say was implemented previously then more than half of us wouldn't have been able to dive CCR in the first place. Scaring people off is a bad policy for the entire dive industry. You need to encourage and enforce positive attitudes, safety regulations, diving standards. If following your logic then people shouldn't take airplanes to go for vacations or drive their cars unless they have to or need to. But then now we go into more difinitions and dilemmas about what the term "Need" apply for. Simplify the process, remove negativities, go forward by the rules. Best Regards. Wael __________________ The depth of life cannot be measured in Bars, nor can the sea of lies, that lies within. *I don't take crap for an answer...*
(Online)

22nd March 2008, 14:38	#30 (permalink)
Drmike Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Ouroboros Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,161	Re: Taking Responsibility for Complacency – A short rant… Quote: (Originally Posted by Brainx3) If as what you say was implemented previously then more than half of us wouldn't have been able to dive CCR in the first place. oh dear how sad never mind Quote: Simplify the process, remove negativities, go forward by the rules. and live with the deaths __________________ Cave diving is a sport Wreck diving is a sport Diving in general is a sport 'Rebreather diving' is not a sport its the delusional obsession with a highly dangerous and often inappropriate piece of equipment
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode