|
Posted by seahunt on June 23, 2006 at 15:21:48:
Y'all know how much I like my theorizing, well I have a new system to rate sport dives by. It's off the wall, but based on
what I think Ken meant and really, it's how I dive, moment by moment.
If I understand Ken's analysis of accidents correctly, problems seem to become a problem as they add up. One problem doesn't seem to get you. It's when another problem happens at the same time.
I've always thought that that was the situation, so when diving, I ask myself my status at any given time. Normally, nothing is wrong.
If something does go wrong, even something minor, I look at it as an emergency situation and respond to the problem. I may
decide to ignore it, but I know what is dangerous to me and if one thing has gone wrong, things have changed. The danger of
the dive has gone way up. I also think the likelyhood of something else going wrong has risen.
So I am proposing that a dive be evaluated according to the inherent hazard of the dive, diver status, dive conditions,
etc. Then a judgement is based on what is wrong, within that context.
For example, if I were deep or at Osborn and one thing goes wrong (mask mis-adjusted, tank fell out of backpack, I feel
uncomfortable, etc) then if it cannot be immediatly fixed, the dive is called right then before something else goes wrong.
If I am in good conditions at 60 feet, I may ignore two things that have gone wrong, but a third one and I may decide it is
time to go. It may be one importnat thing and I go.
On one of my shallow bug dives, I may ignore almost anything short of a moray bite... and last time that happened I kept
diving. Anyway, I don't know how practical that can be put into laws to follow, but it does address what (I think came from) Ken's
analysis suggests. Worry about what is going wrong, not as much what might go wrong. Some things can be prevented and we do
that. Some things cannot be prevented or expected and correctly dealing with those correctly are what keep us alive. Enjoy the diving, seahunt
|
