In the last blog I talked about Hogarthian equipment configurations. It is one thing knowing what a Hogarthian configuration is, quite another to adopt it into your diving philosophy and equipment configuration. What I like about Hogarthian is that most of the hard thinking has already been done! You are being handed a solution that not only has been thoroughly thought out, but has been a decade or more in the testing.
My biggest issue with Hogarthian is that it takes away a certain degree of personal responsibility … all that thinking has been done for you. This can lead to blind adoption and a false sense of security. What do I mean ? Well blindly adopting anything (be it a philosophy or an equipment configuration) will only get you so far. Sooner or later you will come up against something that the designer had not thought about or considered. It is at that point that the system has the potential to fail spectacularly. Having said that, there are not many situations that would fall into this ‘new’ category, especially if your technical diving is within agency limits and well explored dive sites. The problem comes in when you decide to do something that has never been done before.
Key to any successful exploration is the ability to assess the individual risks of the situation you are trying to ‘conquer’. When new risks are identified the entire process of planning a dive needs to come under review and if required, adapted to ensure that every probable risk is mitigated. For me, that means adapting my equipment configuration and that often takes me away from pure Hogarthian. It needs to be said that if you are new to technical diving Hogarthian will get you far and you will probably never need to contemplate changes. However, there is still a school of older, hard core divers who are set in their ways and believe that their way of diving is the best. Which is ok, every diver has the right to choose for themselves (after all the person who pays the price when it all goes wrong is that diver ) however many of these older divers have some influence over the next generation. As a result many old school ideas are still alive and well, when they possible should not be.
My personal equipment configuration was designed to do one thing - gett me to 200 meters or deeper. It was not something that I arrived at on the actual expeditiaon, but rather was prepared years before. This meant that every dive I did was a build up for that elusive deepest dive. The configuration I chose mitigates my biggest fear and risk, namely running out of gas and to that end I quickly (as soon as they became available) moved to an isolation manifold. However, I do not dive my manifold open, nor do I dive with a single spg or both dv’s coming over my right shoulder.
My choices were made to accomplish 4 things:
1) Safeguard at least one half of my gas supply,
2) Enable quick identification of the gas supply that is at risk (left or right cylinder),
3) Limit my immediate task loading and ensure that I am able to retain buoyancy and line control and
4) Ensure that I always know how much gas I have left so that I have the option of a more aggressive survival strategy.
I am not trying to prevent gas loss, but protect what I have and there is the big difference. I am also managing another huge risk, a bottomless, fast descent which is a characteristic of a deep bounce at Boesmansgat. This is the world’s 3rd largest water filled cave and when you do dives deeper than 60 meters you have 200 meters of black water beneath you. Your only connection to light and home is the shot line, that hangs in the middle of this vast black expanse. If you come off that line there is a very, very good chance that you will not find the entrance again.
When I plan these bounces I visualise what will happen in say the even of a catastrophic gas failure. I am descending the shotline… fast. I hear a flood of bubbles. I can’t let go of the line, so have to first gain control (slow or stop), then identify the side that is causing the problem (left or right). If I am close to my target depth the situation is even more critical because I can not afford to go deeper than planned without throwing my decompression out and creating a possible situation later on that I will not survive.
As I have my dv’s over each shoulder, should the problem be with an SPG or power inlator or second stage locating the source of the problem is fast and requires little thought. I like little thought, because initially a large portion of my concentration is busy maintaining control and keeping myself safe. Once I have worked out what the problem is and have control, I can shut the appropriate valve down and assess the damage. At no time have I lost control or lost more than one side of my twin set. I still have buoyancy and I am still on the line. At the most I have sacrificed one half of my gas, and I have already planned to lose that so I have plenty in reserve.
Now the counter arguments to this strategy are that it should not take me more than 30 seconds to isolate. But that is a lot of air you lose, out of both cylinders when deep, possibly everything. In any other situation I agree and in fact when I do normal technical dives I tend to relax and dive my manifold open because when something goes wrong I can immediately focus on the problem without complicating the situation. However, when something goes wrong on a deep bounce there are a whole lot of things that have to come before I can safely get to isolating. And all the while I am losing precious gas.
They also say that diving closed manifold adds to my task loading because I have to change dv’s regularly in order to ensure that each cylinder has more or less the same amount of gas in it (if you dive single cylinders with no balancing of pressure open yourself to the risk of breathing one cylinder down to reserve and then losing the full cylinder, which means that you have no gas. If the pressures were balanced then you would have had at least half of the gas you needed).
I do not agree that the task loading is a significant enough risk to avoid and have been changing dv’s for over ten years so it is no longer something I have to think about. I also plan for dv changing as well as to not change dv’s in the last 50 meters of a deep bounce (accepting the risk of a single cylinder having a significant difference in pressure from the other).
I already know that it will take me time to get to the point of isolation just based on the dive I am doing, add to that the time it took to identify the problem and even if you could isolate in 30seconds, you could be closer to a minute in getting that manifold closed. Every second is precious, a minute… that is both my back mounts. That is if I can actually get to isolating and am not in the middle of a task loading crisis (events never happen one at a time). The longer I delay the less air I have. My back mounts inflate my wings, no gas means I now have another issue, I have to hook up my wings to an alternative inflation source, all the while hanging from a line I can not loose. When my manifold is closed there is no stress, at the most I am going to lose one cylinder and I have planned to get out after that.
I doubt that I will ever be able to rationalize or practice my fears away and fully trust the pure Hogarthian configuration. My diving career has taught me to take responsibility for myself and to accept all the consequences of a dive. That means I need to have thought it all the way through, challenged all the standard ways of going about things and then assessed the risks for myself. I have no intention of re-inventing the wheel, but I want options. I have also found that in many cases people do not understand the motivation behind a decision. Why dive with an open manifold. By making it my business to understand the why I give myself the option of making changes and it is that ability that enables me to solve problems that other divers on standard configurations have been deemed impossible. It is not an approach for everyone… but it does have its advantages.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
What is a Hogarthian Equipment Configuration ?
The term “Hogarthian diver” generally refers to the minimalist diving style devised by William Hogarth Main who believed that if a piece of equipment isn’t needed, it’s a liability so don’t take it. As a result, Hogarthian divers strive to “eliminate the unnecessary while configuring the necessary in the most streamlined manner possible”.
Each piece of equipment is chosen not only in relation to the need if fulfills, but also with regard to how it ‘fits in’ with other equipment elements. As a result the diver creates a harmonious system that functions cohesively. Any decision to change one aspect of your configuration must take into consideration the entire system and normally adversely affects the workings of another aspect.
Within South Africa, the community is divided with older divers still relying on independent twin sets, short dv hoses and helmet mounted lights. Most have adopted the standard technical wing and backplate configuration (although just the other day we saw a diver doing a 100 meters with two independents strapped together with ratchet straps and a standard bc). This often results in a configuration more like a Christmas tree, with hose routing willy nilly and additional features like valve cages adding extra snagging risk. Short hoses are non-buddy friendly in event of an emergency (and you certainly would not want to exit through a restriction on one) and helmet mounted lights tend to do little for improving visibility in the water whilst at the same time blinding fellow divers.
Now compare all that to a Hogarthian configuration, which (with only the addition of an drysuit inflation bottle and a pee valve) set the world cave-diving penetration record of 4.3 kilometres at WKPP). Admittedly Nuno Gomes is one of the more famous strokes (non DIR/ Hogarthian divers) and he holds the depth records for both sea and cave, but anyway!
HOGARTHIAN KEY CONCEPTS :
- To reduce unnecessary energy consumption which will increase gas consumption. This limits the divers range and introduces a higher decompression risk
- To create a clean configuration that is snag resistant and drag free (see energy consumption)
- Reduce drag (no weight belt, limit bc inflation at depth) (see energy consumption)
- Reduce unnecessary task loading (see energy consumption)
- Your buddy always knows where everything is, which simplifies emergency situations and improves survivability.
BC CONFIGURATION
The concept : to create a streamlined, clean configuration with a clear and webbing that is tight and close to the body with no projections or dangling straps.
This is accomplished by : a standard twin set, with a single wing and back plate. Webbing is continuous (reduces the risk of buckles failing). Three D-rings (one at each shoulder and one at the left hip, held in place with weight retainers) provide the means to attach ‘stuff’ with a fourth small D-ring far back on the crotch strap for cave reels and lift bags.
WEIGHTS & SUITS
The concept : to avoid the addition of a weight belt. This reduces effort as a result of increased drag, improves comfort and reduces the chance of problems in event of an accidental release.
The diver relies on the weight of the steel twin set and back plate no weight belt is required and if it is, a long lead weight is bolted to the backplate between the tanks. Only trimlam drysuits are allowed so that additional weight is not required. This removes the need to over inflate the wing at depth (as a result in buoyancy shifts due to neoprene compression). Your dry suit pocket stores everything that is not clipped to your harness (i.e. cylinders, back up lights, reels and smb’s).
GAS SUPPLY
The concept : to reduce task loading, minimize the risk of air loss and reduce snagging risk.
Twin cylinders are connected via an isolation manifold that is always dived open and so allows access to both cylinders whilst enabling the diver to manage malfunctions. As the tanks are dived open, the multi tasking associated with swopping dv’s is eliminated as is the risk of uneven gas consumption.
Two dv’s are carried - the primary from the right cylinder (and over the right shoulder). This feeds a second stage on a 2 m hose as well as a power inflator. The back up dv comes from the left cylinder (over the right shoulder) and feeds a second stage on a normal length hose as well as the drysuit and an spg (contents gauge). It is held beneath the chin by surgical tubing. The spg is clipped off to the left hip D-ring.
The primary rig is breathed on the dive and donated in an emergency. The hose is stowed down the side of the right tank (behind the wing) then at the waist, brought forward, passing between the body and the bottom of the light canister, then proceeding diagonally up across the chest, over the left shoulder, around the back of the neck and the into the mouth. A clip on the hose next to the regulator allows it to be 'parked' it on the right shoulder D-ring when not in use.
LIGHTS
The concept : to reduce drag, optimise light and eliminate blind buddy syndrome
A single primary light is carried with the standard two redundant back up lights (both stowed on the harness strap). The primary light is a canister type that is attached to the right waist strap, as far back as it will go (preferablyup against the backplate) to reduce drag. The waist buckle of the harness pulls tight against the light canister – securing not only the waist strap but also the canister.
STAGE CYLINDERS
Cylinders are clipped off between the D-rings at lefthip and left shoulder.
That in a nut shell is what Hogarthian is all about! In my next post I will look why I have not dived this system and what still feels odd to me. But then again, I have been diving for a while and change does not come that easy :)
Each piece of equipment is chosen not only in relation to the need if fulfills, but also with regard to how it ‘fits in’ with other equipment elements. As a result the diver creates a harmonious system that functions cohesively. Any decision to change one aspect of your configuration must take into consideration the entire system and normally adversely affects the workings of another aspect.
Within South Africa, the community is divided with older divers still relying on independent twin sets, short dv hoses and helmet mounted lights. Most have adopted the standard technical wing and backplate configuration (although just the other day we saw a diver doing a 100 meters with two independents strapped together with ratchet straps and a standard bc). This often results in a configuration more like a Christmas tree, with hose routing willy nilly and additional features like valve cages adding extra snagging risk. Short hoses are non-buddy friendly in event of an emergency (and you certainly would not want to exit through a restriction on one) and helmet mounted lights tend to do little for improving visibility in the water whilst at the same time blinding fellow divers.
Now compare all that to a Hogarthian configuration, which (with only the addition of an drysuit inflation bottle and a pee valve) set the world cave-diving penetration record of 4.3 kilometres at WKPP). Admittedly Nuno Gomes is one of the more famous strokes (non DIR/ Hogarthian divers) and he holds the depth records for both sea and cave, but anyway!
HOGARTHIAN KEY CONCEPTS :
- To reduce unnecessary energy consumption which will increase gas consumption. This limits the divers range and introduces a higher decompression risk
- To create a clean configuration that is snag resistant and drag free (see energy consumption)
- Reduce drag (no weight belt, limit bc inflation at depth) (see energy consumption)
- Reduce unnecessary task loading (see energy consumption)
- Your buddy always knows where everything is, which simplifies emergency situations and improves survivability.
BC CONFIGURATION
The concept : to create a streamlined, clean configuration with a clear and webbing that is tight and close to the body with no projections or dangling straps.
This is accomplished by : a standard twin set, with a single wing and back plate. Webbing is continuous (reduces the risk of buckles failing). Three D-rings (one at each shoulder and one at the left hip, held in place with weight retainers) provide the means to attach ‘stuff’ with a fourth small D-ring far back on the crotch strap for cave reels and lift bags.
WEIGHTS & SUITS
The concept : to avoid the addition of a weight belt. This reduces effort as a result of increased drag, improves comfort and reduces the chance of problems in event of an accidental release.
The diver relies on the weight of the steel twin set and back plate no weight belt is required and if it is, a long lead weight is bolted to the backplate between the tanks. Only trimlam drysuits are allowed so that additional weight is not required. This removes the need to over inflate the wing at depth (as a result in buoyancy shifts due to neoprene compression). Your dry suit pocket stores everything that is not clipped to your harness (i.e. cylinders, back up lights, reels and smb’s).
GAS SUPPLY
The concept : to reduce task loading, minimize the risk of air loss and reduce snagging risk.
Twin cylinders are connected via an isolation manifold that is always dived open and so allows access to both cylinders whilst enabling the diver to manage malfunctions. As the tanks are dived open, the multi tasking associated with swopping dv’s is eliminated as is the risk of uneven gas consumption.
Two dv’s are carried - the primary from the right cylinder (and over the right shoulder). This feeds a second stage on a 2 m hose as well as a power inflator. The back up dv comes from the left cylinder (over the right shoulder) and feeds a second stage on a normal length hose as well as the drysuit and an spg (contents gauge). It is held beneath the chin by surgical tubing. The spg is clipped off to the left hip D-ring.
The primary rig is breathed on the dive and donated in an emergency. The hose is stowed down the side of the right tank (behind the wing) then at the waist, brought forward, passing between the body and the bottom of the light canister, then proceeding diagonally up across the chest, over the left shoulder, around the back of the neck and the into the mouth. A clip on the hose next to the regulator allows it to be 'parked' it on the right shoulder D-ring when not in use.
LIGHTS
The concept : to reduce drag, optimise light and eliminate blind buddy syndrome
A single primary light is carried with the standard two redundant back up lights (both stowed on the harness strap). The primary light is a canister type that is attached to the right waist strap, as far back as it will go (preferablyup against the backplate) to reduce drag. The waist buckle of the harness pulls tight against the light canister – securing not only the waist strap but also the canister.
STAGE CYLINDERS
Cylinders are clipped off between the D-rings at lefthip and left shoulder.
That in a nut shell is what Hogarthian is all about! In my next post I will look why I have not dived this system and what still feels odd to me. But then again, I have been diving for a while and change does not come that easy :)
Monday, February 11, 2008
Solo vs Buddy or should it be Self Reliance ?
One of my favourite topics is that of solo diving and like most things in diving, there are strong advocates for and against. Before I jump right in let me explain how I define solo diving… being in the water alone, with no other diver or buddy. If something goes wrong on a solo dive (even if it is out of your control) the only person who can get you out of the dive is yourself. With a buddy (the argument goes), when something goes wrong there is someone who can help out and so your chances of survival are improved.
I have always been a strong supporter of solo diving simply because I believe solo diving forces an individual to take full responsibility for their dive. Because on a solo dive when something goes wrong you only have yourself to blame, you tend to be a whole lot more thorough with your planning and preparation and because you are paying more attention you are a far safer diver. In fact, I would argue that diving solo makes you a far more competent diver.
Now you may think that as an advanced or experienced diver you plan properly and take nothing for granted… but I would like you to think about that for a second. Sport diving ingrains in the diver a belief that their buddy will get them out of trouble. As a sport diver you are never alone, nor are you ever fully responsible for the consequences of a dive. Now, if you believe that there is always someone to help you, how thorough is your preparation really going to be ? It is human nature to be slightly sloppy, after all, it does not matter if there is someone there to save the day! And if things go wrong there is also some-one else to blame and take responsibility. With the buddy system it is far to easy to assume that your buddy has thought of everything and knows what to do. Which means you both get into the water unprepared.
The facts are that no single individual is omnipotent (and your buddy certainly isn’t). In fact, there is a good chance that his ability in an emergency is nowhere near your own. Perhaps it is not a good thing, but when it comes to my live I do not trust other people underwater. My thinking goes like this - should I die (or get badly injured) would it be valid to blame my buddy (or instructor or Dive Master) and say that it was not my fault but theirs because they did not plan properly or were not capable ? No! It would not because there was something I could have done but neglected to do because I was lazy and preferred to make it someone else’s responsibility. At the end of the day it is my life and I am the one that should accept responsibility for that life. Besides, you can never tell who will step up and manage a real life crisis. Invariably the person you expect to save you, is the one that crumbles under pressure.
The irony is that whilst I consider myself to be a solo diver, most of the time (and especially on extreme dives) I am not actually alone in the water. On my 220 meter world record dive I was alone for a little over 15 minutes before meeting up with my deep support divers at 120 meters. From then on (5 and a half hours) there was always some-one in the water with me. Not that they did much (I rarely ask for assistance). It is however comforting to know that should I need it, they are there to lend a hand.
You can argue (and quite effectively I might add), that if no single individual is omnipotent, then neither are you as a solo diver. Which is were I think the argument for pure solo diving starts to fall apart. I have had the experience of being stuck at 152 meters in a tunnel, a location that my nearest support diver could not reach. My fin caught on the guideline and I was not able to get reach my foot to get myself unstuck. This was probably the first time on a dive that I was able to justify the existence of a buddy. He would have been easily able to sort the problem out. I almost did not make it out and only did by leaving my fin behind.
This experience and that of Dave Shaw (who also got stuck on line although that was not deemed to be the ultimate cause of his death and was rather believed to be the final straw) has made me question whether or not there is a middle way, neither pure solo nor pure buddy. The thing that I fight for in solo diving is the personal acceptance of responsibility and the fact that each diver has no-one else to blame. This self reliance and self responsibility forces individuals to pay more attention and be more meticulous and seems to only arrive when all other options are exhausted and you are diving alone underwater. In theory it should be possible to arrive at the same result within the buddy system. After all, we dive with full redundancy in everything but the one thing that counts, our minds….and that is what a buddy provides (thanks to Dr Jack Meintjies for this phrase).
No matter how you look at it solo diving will always remain highly dangerous. It is not something that can be taught, being more a lifestyle than a predefined course. But, what we can teach is Self Reliance and that for me is the perfect compromise. I retain all the benefits of solo diving confer with all the benefits of being with a competent buddy. Yes, there are still situations where having a second diver increases the risks (diving deeper than 150 meters is one of them), but for day to day dives incorporating the self responsibility and self reliance into your buddy system will radically improve your safety underwater (and remember, most accidents happen shallower than 50 meters…so you everyday sport dive has a much higher risk than our extreme dives)
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Thank Heaven for Support Divers
A successful deep dive (be it to 100 meters or to 300 meters) revolves around three things; the ability of the deep diver, the thoroughness of the dive plan and the effectiveness of the support. The role of the support team is often neglected (even by experienced divers who instead choose to rely soley on their own abilities to get themselves out of the water when things go wrong). Now I am a strong advocate for solo diving BUT having said that, I also believe strongly in stacking the cards on your side. On any dive (never mind an extreme dive) things can go wrong that are simply beyond your control. It does not matter how thorough your dive plan is or experienced you are as a diver, you can not control everything. It is then that an efficient and reliable support team can mean the difference between life and death. Whilst I prefer to do my deep push solo, the actual time I spend alone in the water is as little as possible, with my first deep support diver meeting me from 100 meters (deeper if I can find qualified divers). This is a strategy I picked up from Nuno Gomes, and indeed, the use of support divers is one that other highly successful deep teams such as WKKP use.
If you are still unconvinced, let me tell you the tale of two highly experienced deep divers, Dave Shaw and Don Shirley. Until their last dive (the ill-fated recovery of Deon Dreyer from 272 meters) they believed in no support, preferring to rely on their own skills underwater. It would be fair to say that they did not believe there was anything of value that a support diver could add. Their choice to add a support team to the attempted body recovery was a combination of logistics (the divers were there to get the body out) and pressure from the police and other professional support teams. One of my strongest impressions as surface marshall on that dive was that we were there more for window dressing than any real belief that we could make a difference. Yet, when Don suffered his near lethal ICDS hit (inner ear bend) at 50 meters it was the support divers who made the difference and ensured that he made it to the surface. Most of the divers who were there strongly believe that Don would not have made it back by himself. It was the support divers who put him onto the right deco gas (he had bailed from his rebreather onto the wrong mix) and made sure he was doing the right deco stops. They were also making sure he remained upright and on the line. It took hours before his nausea subsided and whilst he was always conscious, his ability to write and respond straight after the hit were seriously impaired. Don’s description of how seriously impaired his abilities were was chilling the next day. His focus was on just the next breathe! And it was one that required all his willpower and attention.
Not every extreme diver relies so heavily on its support divers. When things go according to plan their job is mundane, fetching additional weights to the diver, getting him gas and arriving with warm drinks. Boredom and cold are the support divers enemies. Until things go wrong.
The first question I ask someone who is keen to support is this, “Are you prepared to leave me behind, knowing I will die ? Are you prepared to be on the surface when I do not come back ? ” Most support divers never think of how they will feel if things go wrong, especially if they are there at the time. The truth is that there is little they can do, especially if the diver is unconscious and not breathing. If the deep diver gives up or if it is simply not meant to be, the only thing a support diver can do is get the deep diver to the surface where (hopefully) professional medical support is waiting.
Decision making is simple, you avoid what will definitely kill the diver (leaving an unconscious diver who is not breathing in the water at 40m will definitely kill him, bringing him to the surface and skipping all his deco just probably will kill him and probably, no matter how small a chance, is worth fighting for). If the diver is still breathing, then the support divers job is to do his dive for him. His chances of survival increase for every minute of the deco that he is able to do, and that is the chance that the support diver gives.
The role of support is one that comes with a large amount of responsibility. As a support diver, you need to understand the dive your deep diver is doing. You need to know what his gases are, when he is changing and you need to have discussed with the entire team what action is expected of you if things go wrong. And as a support diver you need to know that all that is expected of you is your best, nothing more. At the end of the day your deep diver’s life is not in your hands, but in his and dare I say it, God’s.
If you are still unconvinced, let me tell you the tale of two highly experienced deep divers, Dave Shaw and Don Shirley. Until their last dive (the ill-fated recovery of Deon Dreyer from 272 meters) they believed in no support, preferring to rely on their own skills underwater. It would be fair to say that they did not believe there was anything of value that a support diver could add. Their choice to add a support team to the attempted body recovery was a combination of logistics (the divers were there to get the body out) and pressure from the police and other professional support teams. One of my strongest impressions as surface marshall on that dive was that we were there more for window dressing than any real belief that we could make a difference. Yet, when Don suffered his near lethal ICDS hit (inner ear bend) at 50 meters it was the support divers who made the difference and ensured that he made it to the surface. Most of the divers who were there strongly believe that Don would not have made it back by himself. It was the support divers who put him onto the right deco gas (he had bailed from his rebreather onto the wrong mix) and made sure he was doing the right deco stops. They were also making sure he remained upright and on the line. It took hours before his nausea subsided and whilst he was always conscious, his ability to write and respond straight after the hit were seriously impaired. Don’s description of how seriously impaired his abilities were was chilling the next day. His focus was on just the next breathe! And it was one that required all his willpower and attention.
Not every extreme diver relies so heavily on its support divers. When things go according to plan their job is mundane, fetching additional weights to the diver, getting him gas and arriving with warm drinks. Boredom and cold are the support divers enemies. Until things go wrong.
The first question I ask someone who is keen to support is this, “Are you prepared to leave me behind, knowing I will die ? Are you prepared to be on the surface when I do not come back ? ” Most support divers never think of how they will feel if things go wrong, especially if they are there at the time. The truth is that there is little they can do, especially if the diver is unconscious and not breathing. If the deep diver gives up or if it is simply not meant to be, the only thing a support diver can do is get the deep diver to the surface where (hopefully) professional medical support is waiting.
Decision making is simple, you avoid what will definitely kill the diver (leaving an unconscious diver who is not breathing in the water at 40m will definitely kill him, bringing him to the surface and skipping all his deco just probably will kill him and probably, no matter how small a chance, is worth fighting for). If the diver is still breathing, then the support divers job is to do his dive for him. His chances of survival increase for every minute of the deco that he is able to do, and that is the chance that the support diver gives.
The role of support is one that comes with a large amount of responsibility. As a support diver, you need to understand the dive your deep diver is doing. You need to know what his gases are, when he is changing and you need to have discussed with the entire team what action is expected of you if things go wrong. And as a support diver you need to know that all that is expected of you is your best, nothing more. At the end of the day your deep diver’s life is not in your hands, but in his and dare I say it, God’s.
Monday, January 28, 2008
The VR3 vs the new X1 (aka Picking a Helium Computer)
Want a VR3 but can’t afford one ?
There are a number of items that seem to be permanent fixtures on any technical diver’s wish list… a dry suit (because 3 hrs in the water is a long, long time and hypothermia is still not a fun way to spend an afternoon), a rebreather (come on, you can admit to wanting one, even if you currently think all rebreather divers are elitist because they can stay down for longer and do less deco) and of course, a Helium computer.
Up until the arrival of the VR3 if you wanted to dive Helium you had to do it the old fashioned way - with tables you cut on land using something like GAP or V-planner. This meant that you had little flexibility in the water, especially if something went wrong. Now I guess I need to confess up front that I sometimes fall into the category of old fashioned and suspicious of ‘new;’ things when it comes to some aspects of diving. I had heard about VR3’s but did not really see why I should drop 17k on one. Especially as I would need two (in case one did some unplanned load shedding (South African joke… we are going through power cuts thanks to the lack of planning by our national electricity provider)). I did not need a fancy computer that did all that for me underwater. I already had a decompression program and as all deep diving needs up front planning, what was the point ? Dynamically diving helium just seemed like a recipe for disaster. I could see diver's willy nilly doing 2 hour dives just on their computers and running out of gas having not done any up front planning.
Then I went as surface marshall on Dave Shaw’s dive and was blown away by the sheer power and flexibility of the VR3. Every diver had one, and thanks to those elegant little devices, I was able to leverage every spare minute out of every spare diver I had. I needed to. When Dave did not return all the deep support divers overstayed waiting for him (thanks to their VR3’s (and their rebreathers, but once again, that is a different story)). When Don Shirley blew his electronics at 127 meters and did his emergency ascent, followed by a near lethal ICDS hit (long explanation short, an inner ear bend) the day really fell apart. Out of 8 support divers I had 6 that had been to 100 meters and deeper, leaving me with two divers who had not started their dives and now had to manage continuous support for at least 4 hours (which was how long it would take to get one of the other guys out of the water and some surface interval time). Oh, and they had to do the first three hours of this in the 30 meter to 50 meter zone. Suddenly the idea of a VR3 was not so silly. I bought one.
And boy has it changed the way I dive. The decision to dive helium as opposed to air has always been one I have left to deep dives (deeper than 65 meters). And because of the inconvenience of having to bend my normal computer, cost, planning etc the number of deep dives I used to do was minimal. These days (thanks also to a rebreather which makes the cost of helium affordable as I hardly use any on a dive) my VR3 means I get to dive more. I need another one in fact, if it was not for the price.
As a technical dive school Liquid Edge firmly believes in two things. 1) Removing limits (Score one for the VR3) and 2), Finding and providing dive gear at affordable prices. Which is where VR3 loses out. If you were to ask local shops for a price on a VR3 you should expect an answer of around 17k for a ‘fully loaded’ (rebreather, helium capable) VR3. If you balked at that (which I certainly did) and started to do some internet research you would find that divers warehouse in the UK (http://www.diverswarehouse.co.uk/) will sell you the same item for £749 (excl UK VAT). Now, even at the pound exchange rate (R14,3 on a good day), shipping (add £70) and Vat on this side (14%) you are looking at R13,400. That is way more reasonable than 17k.
But we wanted to know if their was an alternative and guess what we found ? A brand new Helium computer that is looks like it out classes VR3 in all aspects, not the least of which is price. The Liquivision X1 (http://www.liquivision.ca/)
Here is a quick product comparison:
X1:
- Downloadable (VR3 - Add £80)
- Depth Rating 350 m (VR3 - 150m)
- Tested to 450m
- Sealed unit (VR3 not)
- Uses either Gap or Vplanner (VR3 uses decoplanner)
- Tap Switches with x, y axis (VR3 is push buttons)
- Rechargeable Battery (40 hr life) (VR3, user replace'able)
- Upgradeable from internet (VR3 - not)
- Price R13k (VR3 R14.7k)
(Please note prices above are based on R7.40 to the $ and R14.3 to the £)
Finally, some choices! I have mine on order and will certainly tell you guys all about it when it gets here.
There are a number of items that seem to be permanent fixtures on any technical diver’s wish list… a dry suit (because 3 hrs in the water is a long, long time and hypothermia is still not a fun way to spend an afternoon), a rebreather (come on, you can admit to wanting one, even if you currently think all rebreather divers are elitist because they can stay down for longer and do less deco) and of course, a Helium computer.
Up until the arrival of the VR3 if you wanted to dive Helium you had to do it the old fashioned way - with tables you cut on land using something like GAP or V-planner. This meant that you had little flexibility in the water, especially if something went wrong. Now I guess I need to confess up front that I sometimes fall into the category of old fashioned and suspicious of ‘new;’ things when it comes to some aspects of diving. I had heard about VR3’s but did not really see why I should drop 17k on one. Especially as I would need two (in case one did some unplanned load shedding (South African joke… we are going through power cuts thanks to the lack of planning by our national electricity provider)). I did not need a fancy computer that did all that for me underwater. I already had a decompression program and as all deep diving needs up front planning, what was the point ? Dynamically diving helium just seemed like a recipe for disaster. I could see diver's willy nilly doing 2 hour dives just on their computers and running out of gas having not done any up front planning.
Then I went as surface marshall on Dave Shaw’s dive and was blown away by the sheer power and flexibility of the VR3. Every diver had one, and thanks to those elegant little devices, I was able to leverage every spare minute out of every spare diver I had. I needed to. When Dave did not return all the deep support divers overstayed waiting for him (thanks to their VR3’s (and their rebreathers, but once again, that is a different story)). When Don Shirley blew his electronics at 127 meters and did his emergency ascent, followed by a near lethal ICDS hit (long explanation short, an inner ear bend) the day really fell apart. Out of 8 support divers I had 6 that had been to 100 meters and deeper, leaving me with two divers who had not started their dives and now had to manage continuous support for at least 4 hours (which was how long it would take to get one of the other guys out of the water and some surface interval time). Oh, and they had to do the first three hours of this in the 30 meter to 50 meter zone. Suddenly the idea of a VR3 was not so silly. I bought one.
And boy has it changed the way I dive. The decision to dive helium as opposed to air has always been one I have left to deep dives (deeper than 65 meters). And because of the inconvenience of having to bend my normal computer, cost, planning etc the number of deep dives I used to do was minimal. These days (thanks also to a rebreather which makes the cost of helium affordable as I hardly use any on a dive) my VR3 means I get to dive more. I need another one in fact, if it was not for the price.
As a technical dive school Liquid Edge firmly believes in two things. 1) Removing limits (Score one for the VR3) and 2), Finding and providing dive gear at affordable prices. Which is where VR3 loses out. If you were to ask local shops for a price on a VR3 you should expect an answer of around 17k for a ‘fully loaded’ (rebreather, helium capable) VR3. If you balked at that (which I certainly did) and started to do some internet research you would find that divers warehouse in the UK (http://www.diverswarehouse.co.uk/) will sell you the same item for £749 (excl UK VAT). Now, even at the pound exchange rate (R14,3 on a good day), shipping (add £70) and Vat on this side (14%) you are looking at R13,400. That is way more reasonable than 17k.
But we wanted to know if their was an alternative and guess what we found ? A brand new Helium computer that is looks like it out classes VR3 in all aspects, not the least of which is price. The Liquivision X1 (http://www.liquivision.ca/)
Here is a quick product comparison:
X1:
- Downloadable (VR3 - Add £80)
- Depth Rating 350 m (VR3 - 150m)
- Tested to 450m
- Sealed unit (VR3 not)
- Uses either Gap or Vplanner (VR3 uses decoplanner)
- Tap Switches with x, y axis (VR3 is push buttons)
- Rechargeable Battery (40 hr life) (VR3, user replace'able)
- Upgradeable from internet (VR3 - not)
- Price R13k (VR3 R14.7k)
(Please note prices above are based on R7.40 to the $ and R14.3 to the £)
Finally, some choices! I have mine on order and will certainly tell you guys all about it when it gets here.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Myth of the Deep Bounce (How Easy is Soap on the Rope ?)
As you may (or may not) know, I hold the woman’s world record for the deepest dive (221 meters, set at Boesmansgat in the Northern Cape). The one thing that I did not expect after achieving this were the mixed reactions I received from fellow divers.
There are definitely two camps, those that are fascinated and excited and those that do their utmost to minimise the achievement. From that camp has come the term ‘soap on a rope’ which is meant to indicate that there is nothing very special about doing a deep bounce and that anyone can do so. If you were a real deep diver and explorer you would be swimming off the line and spending time at depth, or so the argument goes.
Which started me thinking, “Is a deep bounce dive a cop out or is it something to be proud of ?”
The existing deep records require that a diver to descend (normally as fast as they dare) to their designated depth, spend a minute or less (to make sure depth gauges record the depth achieved) and then return. The actual exposure to depth is measured in minutes, if not seconds. And I guess the uninformed can be forgiven for taking the dive at face value and declaring that it is hardly difficult. Yet if one looks at the survival rate of the divers who have attempted this so-called ‘simple’ dive, a different story emerges.
Firstly the number of divers who have made it below 250 meters is limited. I count only 5 who can justify their claims (through a combination of gauges and tags retrieved). They are Nuno Gomes (the current world record holder for depth and deepest cave), John Bennett (the first man to break 300 meters), Sheck Exley (father of deep cave diving and original record holder), Jim Bowden and rebreather diver Dave Shaw. Of these every one had issues, ranging from serious inner ear bends, minor elbow bends and inner ear problems.
Every one of these divers was after one thing, finding out how to get deeper and back. None attempted to swim at depth. None at least until Dave Shaw. Dave was an Australian rebreather diver who I met on my world record dive expedition. He was planning to try for 300 meters (a new cave record) a couple of days after my dive. Instead he found the body of Deon Dryer. His plan saw him descend down the shotline to the bottom of Boesmans (about 260 meters) and then swim off to find depth. The dive required only a short swim at depth and while he was successful the first time, he never made it back to the main shotline on his second dive.
Admittedly these divers were pushing the edge of what is known, so how much safer are bounces in the 200 to 250 meter range ? One of South Africa’s more experienced instructors Don Shirley can attest to the effects of a simple and easy soap on the rope that went wrong. When supporting Dave Shaw he descended to 227 meters (according to his VR3’s) and barely made it back alive... and that was a dive not much deeper than my soap on the rope record.
None of which supports the argument that ‘anyone’ can bounce depth and survive now does it ? After all, these are some of the most experienced, accomplished divers in the world and their track record tells a completely different story.
So what is stopping deep explorers from spending time in the sub 250 meter zone ? And what makes bounce dives so deadly, even though their execution seems to be so relatively simple ?
The first problem is gas. As open circuit divers you only have so much gas to take with you which means that a couple of minutes is really all the time you have at depth (the deeper you are the more gas you use on a single breath and the more gas you need to get there, never mind build in safety in case something goes wrong).
The second problem is that tables are not designed for either depth or swimming. On a bounce you can keep your heart rate low and so minimize your absorption of helium and nitrogen. However, when you swim you change the absorption characteristics of your body… taking in more than the tables are expecting. We get around that by building in fat, an extra minute at depth that you have no intention of spending, plenty of deep stops of at least 2 minutes). But still, the resulting deco profile is an educated guess. The only way you know if it will work is by doing the dive.
Which leaves us with the one problem that has not been solved, accurate decompression profiles that predictably and repetitively eliminate bends. Right now a simple bounce is just impossible to predict and whilst spending time ‘exploring’ sub 200 meters is every diver’s ambition, it adds a whole new level of complexity to an already complex equation. Don’t get me wrong, I love complexity. I love problems that are deemed impossible. For me that just means that someone has not thought about it the right way… and maybe I can.
So are deep bounces minor dives that any diver can tackle ? No! Deep bounce dives are hard! To that the divers who have been there can attest! It does not matter if you spend seconds or minutes, the physical and mental challenges remain! Next time you hear a diver making light of these dives take a second. It is easy to belittle another’s achievements. Indeed, it seems to be a norm in society and not restricted to deep diving.
Aha, you are saying. ‘Of course she is going to say that, she is one of the people who get belittled!”
Let me tell you a secret. What I have gained from my world record is not recognition, fame or glory. Those may (and probably were) reasons that got me started, but they are not strong enough motivators to keep you going when everything goes wrong. It is not enough to be able to dive, you have to find support divers and money and equipment. You have to learn how to dive deep, safely and there are no courses out there to teach you and even fewer experienced mentors willing to take you under their wing.
I may have started out wanting a world record to prove something to the world but what I found out was that I was actually proving something to myself. The journey to a world record is highly personal and very, very internal. The value I attach to my record has nothing to do with your opinion of it (or me as a result). Thanks to this one relentless desire of mine I found out who I could be.
I also learnt that limits are choices and that the only limits that exist for me are the one’s I believe in. There will always be people trapped in a world defined by limits and they will always be the people who belittle other’s accomplishments, and there will always be people who want something enough to go ahead and do it, in spite of what the world around them thinks. It does not really matter if the limit you are pushing is the world’s or your own. Is the personal challenge any easier for people who climb Mt Everest today ? Even with modern technology and sherpa’s many do not make it.
I think Nelson Mandela put it best, ‘And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.” So next time you hear a story that makes less of an achievement, take a minute… and put what you are hearing into perspective.
There are definitely two camps, those that are fascinated and excited and those that do their utmost to minimise the achievement. From that camp has come the term ‘soap on a rope’ which is meant to indicate that there is nothing very special about doing a deep bounce and that anyone can do so. If you were a real deep diver and explorer you would be swimming off the line and spending time at depth, or so the argument goes.
Which started me thinking, “Is a deep bounce dive a cop out or is it something to be proud of ?”
The existing deep records require that a diver to descend (normally as fast as they dare) to their designated depth, spend a minute or less (to make sure depth gauges record the depth achieved) and then return. The actual exposure to depth is measured in minutes, if not seconds. And I guess the uninformed can be forgiven for taking the dive at face value and declaring that it is hardly difficult. Yet if one looks at the survival rate of the divers who have attempted this so-called ‘simple’ dive, a different story emerges.
Firstly the number of divers who have made it below 250 meters is limited. I count only 5 who can justify their claims (through a combination of gauges and tags retrieved). They are Nuno Gomes (the current world record holder for depth and deepest cave), John Bennett (the first man to break 300 meters), Sheck Exley (father of deep cave diving and original record holder), Jim Bowden and rebreather diver Dave Shaw. Of these every one had issues, ranging from serious inner ear bends, minor elbow bends and inner ear problems.
Every one of these divers was after one thing, finding out how to get deeper and back. None attempted to swim at depth. None at least until Dave Shaw. Dave was an Australian rebreather diver who I met on my world record dive expedition. He was planning to try for 300 meters (a new cave record) a couple of days after my dive. Instead he found the body of Deon Dryer. His plan saw him descend down the shotline to the bottom of Boesmans (about 260 meters) and then swim off to find depth. The dive required only a short swim at depth and while he was successful the first time, he never made it back to the main shotline on his second dive.
Admittedly these divers were pushing the edge of what is known, so how much safer are bounces in the 200 to 250 meter range ? One of South Africa’s more experienced instructors Don Shirley can attest to the effects of a simple and easy soap on the rope that went wrong. When supporting Dave Shaw he descended to 227 meters (according to his VR3’s) and barely made it back alive... and that was a dive not much deeper than my soap on the rope record.
None of which supports the argument that ‘anyone’ can bounce depth and survive now does it ? After all, these are some of the most experienced, accomplished divers in the world and their track record tells a completely different story.
So what is stopping deep explorers from spending time in the sub 250 meter zone ? And what makes bounce dives so deadly, even though their execution seems to be so relatively simple ?
The first problem is gas. As open circuit divers you only have so much gas to take with you which means that a couple of minutes is really all the time you have at depth (the deeper you are the more gas you use on a single breath and the more gas you need to get there, never mind build in safety in case something goes wrong).
The second problem is that tables are not designed for either depth or swimming. On a bounce you can keep your heart rate low and so minimize your absorption of helium and nitrogen. However, when you swim you change the absorption characteristics of your body… taking in more than the tables are expecting. We get around that by building in fat, an extra minute at depth that you have no intention of spending, plenty of deep stops of at least 2 minutes). But still, the resulting deco profile is an educated guess. The only way you know if it will work is by doing the dive.
Which leaves us with the one problem that has not been solved, accurate decompression profiles that predictably and repetitively eliminate bends. Right now a simple bounce is just impossible to predict and whilst spending time ‘exploring’ sub 200 meters is every diver’s ambition, it adds a whole new level of complexity to an already complex equation. Don’t get me wrong, I love complexity. I love problems that are deemed impossible. For me that just means that someone has not thought about it the right way… and maybe I can.
So are deep bounces minor dives that any diver can tackle ? No! Deep bounce dives are hard! To that the divers who have been there can attest! It does not matter if you spend seconds or minutes, the physical and mental challenges remain! Next time you hear a diver making light of these dives take a second. It is easy to belittle another’s achievements. Indeed, it seems to be a norm in society and not restricted to deep diving.
Aha, you are saying. ‘Of course she is going to say that, she is one of the people who get belittled!”
Let me tell you a secret. What I have gained from my world record is not recognition, fame or glory. Those may (and probably were) reasons that got me started, but they are not strong enough motivators to keep you going when everything goes wrong. It is not enough to be able to dive, you have to find support divers and money and equipment. You have to learn how to dive deep, safely and there are no courses out there to teach you and even fewer experienced mentors willing to take you under their wing.
I may have started out wanting a world record to prove something to the world but what I found out was that I was actually proving something to myself. The journey to a world record is highly personal and very, very internal. The value I attach to my record has nothing to do with your opinion of it (or me as a result). Thanks to this one relentless desire of mine I found out who I could be.
I also learnt that limits are choices and that the only limits that exist for me are the one’s I believe in. There will always be people trapped in a world defined by limits and they will always be the people who belittle other’s accomplishments, and there will always be people who want something enough to go ahead and do it, in spite of what the world around them thinks. It does not really matter if the limit you are pushing is the world’s or your own. Is the personal challenge any easier for people who climb Mt Everest today ? Even with modern technology and sherpa’s many do not make it.
I think Nelson Mandela put it best, ‘And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.” So next time you hear a story that makes less of an achievement, take a minute… and put what you are hearing into perspective.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Advanced Nitrox - Necessity or Luxury ?
As a normal sport diver your limits are 40 meters, no decompression diving (NDL), which gets you to most places and on most dives. The only thing is, at that depth you are at the limits of air and even on nitrox, can not spend much more than 8 minutes exploring. Now I don’t know about you, but no reef is worth the price and effort for 8 minutes, make that 25 minutes and we are starting to talk business. Which is exactly what you could be doing if you were able to do decompression.
These days most divers have a Nitrox certificate, so most of you already know what a difference nitrox and reduced END’s (equivalent narcotic depths) make to the quality of a dive - not only do you get to stay for longer before hitting NDL limits, but you physically feel better after the dive. Advanced Nitrox is a logical next step. For some it smacks too much of technical diving, which is in turn associated with danger, risk, complication and money. However, investing in an Advanced Nitrox course is not as pricy as you may think. Nor is it a choice you should only be making if you are thinking about becoming a deep or cave diver.
This a course that improves your skills and safety underwater without unnecessarily increasing your risk or requiring a hefty bank loan and spans of heavy, complicated gear. Interstingly, this course is not considered technical by the agency’s, and is classified as a ‘sport’ course.
Lets take a look at the gear requirements. You can use your existing sport set up (single cylinder and jacket bc) with one addition, an H-valve that allows you to attach two dv’s to your cylinder. You will also learn how to manage one extra cylinder for decompression. Easy, simple and very, very do’able. Or you can be more adventurous and replace your jacket bc with a wing and backplate (you can still use single cylinders). A lot of people in fact prefer this configuration as the backplate and harness system is clean, with no added bulk in front of you and lots of space to clip things. The cost ? Around R2,7 k for a Frog wing and backplate.
The course itself normally takes 4 days. At the end of it, you will know how to safely do decompression dives and manage your gas ensuring that you have more than enough to do your bottom time and your decompression and manage if something goes wrong with your buddy. I should mention at this point that as a CMAS diver, I started off on my open water one course learning decompression so for me it is completely odd for divers to have to get out of the water in order to avoid decompression. With the arrival of deco computers divers often make the mistake of thinking that they do not need a course to teach them how to do deco dives, their computers will do it all for them. But, did you know that divers still bend on computers ? And what happens when your battery goes flat, mid dive ? Do you understand how important the stops are and how much flexibility you have in maintaining your depth for those ? Do not get me wrong, decompression diving is not excessively dangerous, not at sport depths. Especially if you have had training.
There is one other important aspect of the training that is perhaps even more important than removing the no decompression limit. This course ensures that you recognize and face the real risks of diving and then ensures that by the time you are finished you have practiced managing those so many times that you can easily and quickly get yourself to safety.
This shift from a buddy to self rescue is fundamental and as far as I am concerned the biggest benefit. It worries me how easily divers place their lives in the hands of instructors and or buddies, with no proof that either are capable of managing a catastrophe underwater. And the thing about situations underwater is that you have very little time to get it sorted. How you react is critical! The calmer you are, the more practiced you are in the skills, the better your chances of making it back to the surface. Personally, I do not allow myself the luxury of having someone to blame when something goes wrong underwater (and if you dive long enough, it is always when, not if something goes wrong). It is my life and I take full responsibility for it. Besides, it is a false sense of security to have some one to blame and hardly does you (or your family) any good when you are dead, because your buddy did not come to the rescue.
Personally, I hate limits! Especially artificial ones (which the NDL certainly are). Besides, there are all those reefs out there with no other divers on them, just waiting to be explored. That is how the Coelocanth was discovered…by a diver just exploring where others did not go.
These days most divers have a Nitrox certificate, so most of you already know what a difference nitrox and reduced END’s (equivalent narcotic depths) make to the quality of a dive - not only do you get to stay for longer before hitting NDL limits, but you physically feel better after the dive. Advanced Nitrox is a logical next step. For some it smacks too much of technical diving, which is in turn associated with danger, risk, complication and money. However, investing in an Advanced Nitrox course is not as pricy as you may think. Nor is it a choice you should only be making if you are thinking about becoming a deep or cave diver.
This a course that improves your skills and safety underwater without unnecessarily increasing your risk or requiring a hefty bank loan and spans of heavy, complicated gear. Interstingly, this course is not considered technical by the agency’s, and is classified as a ‘sport’ course.
Lets take a look at the gear requirements. You can use your existing sport set up (single cylinder and jacket bc) with one addition, an H-valve that allows you to attach two dv’s to your cylinder. You will also learn how to manage one extra cylinder for decompression. Easy, simple and very, very do’able. Or you can be more adventurous and replace your jacket bc with a wing and backplate (you can still use single cylinders). A lot of people in fact prefer this configuration as the backplate and harness system is clean, with no added bulk in front of you and lots of space to clip things. The cost ? Around R2,7 k for a Frog wing and backplate.
The course itself normally takes 4 days. At the end of it, you will know how to safely do decompression dives and manage your gas ensuring that you have more than enough to do your bottom time and your decompression and manage if something goes wrong with your buddy. I should mention at this point that as a CMAS diver, I started off on my open water one course learning decompression so for me it is completely odd for divers to have to get out of the water in order to avoid decompression. With the arrival of deco computers divers often make the mistake of thinking that they do not need a course to teach them how to do deco dives, their computers will do it all for them. But, did you know that divers still bend on computers ? And what happens when your battery goes flat, mid dive ? Do you understand how important the stops are and how much flexibility you have in maintaining your depth for those ? Do not get me wrong, decompression diving is not excessively dangerous, not at sport depths. Especially if you have had training.
There is one other important aspect of the training that is perhaps even more important than removing the no decompression limit. This course ensures that you recognize and face the real risks of diving and then ensures that by the time you are finished you have practiced managing those so many times that you can easily and quickly get yourself to safety.
This shift from a buddy to self rescue is fundamental and as far as I am concerned the biggest benefit. It worries me how easily divers place their lives in the hands of instructors and or buddies, with no proof that either are capable of managing a catastrophe underwater. And the thing about situations underwater is that you have very little time to get it sorted. How you react is critical! The calmer you are, the more practiced you are in the skills, the better your chances of making it back to the surface. Personally, I do not allow myself the luxury of having someone to blame when something goes wrong underwater (and if you dive long enough, it is always when, not if something goes wrong). It is my life and I take full responsibility for it. Besides, it is a false sense of security to have some one to blame and hardly does you (or your family) any good when you are dead, because your buddy did not come to the rescue.
Personally, I hate limits! Especially artificial ones (which the NDL certainly are). Besides, there are all those reefs out there with no other divers on them, just waiting to be explored. That is how the Coelocanth was discovered…by a diver just exploring where others did not go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
