Scuba Forum / General / May 2004
Snuba - Bad Idea
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Chris Wolf - 12 May 2004 18:13 GMT Having seen, firsthand, the "training" offered to Snuba divers, and also having read what the Snuba proponents and dealers have to say about it, it's pretty obvious to me that these people are operating in the same mindset as the people who operate the Space Shuttle:
"We haven't killed anyone lately, so it must be safe."
I'm a certified scuba diver, ultralight pilot, paraglider pilot (powered and unpowered), and skydiver. So I've gone through a lot of training courses over the years. It's always the same. If you want to get trained in a day, and then take your chances, there are dealers and trainers who will oblige you. Their position is summed up by a sign I once saw in a Baskin-Robbins ice cream store: "There is nothing that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little cheaper, and people who consider price only, are this man's lawful prey."
All of these quasi-scuba operations (Snuba, BOB, Seawalking, etc., are based on the same idea that we can give people a quick explanation of the fundamentals (clear your ears and don't hold your breath), don't warn them about the potential dangers, don't train them to handle emergencies, and then just hope that everything goes okay. And most of the time, it does. But that's not being safe. That's playing Russian Roulette.
When my buddy received his Snuba "training," he was told how to clear his ears, and not to hold his breath while ascending. However he was never told what would happen if he failed to clear his ears, or held his breath while ascending. I suspect this is very typical of most Snuba "training." Give the customer just enough information to keep him alive (hopefully), but don't inform him of the very real risks he's taking.
Needless to say, this is a very dishonest way to do business.
I don't believe in government-mandated safety regulations. If some idiot wants to buy a scuba rig, and go scuba diving without any training, that should be his right. That's how things should work in a free country. And if someone wants to take an hour of training, and then go scuba diving, that should also be his right. People have the right to risk their own lives (but not the lives of others).
However anyone who offers scuba diving to the public, but fails to warn them of the potential dangers, and fails to provide proper training for dealing with emergencies, ought to be fully liable in a court of law when something goes wrong.
When I was taught scuba diving, we had to be able to handle underwater emergencies such as loss of air, flooded mask, dropped regulator, etc. I remember one exercise where we had to sit on the bottom of the pool, in the deep end, remove our tank, turn off the air supply, and then make a free ascent to the surface. Then from the surface we had to dive back down to our tank on the bottom of the pool, turn on the air supply, replace the regulator, and redon the tank.
The idea is to be trained to handle the likely emergencies one is liable to encounter underwater. Someone who hasn't received this training, isn't qualified to be breathing compressed air underwater. At least with any reasonable degree of safety.
All of the quasi-scuba proponents are attempting to evade the simple laws of physics when it comes to breathing compressed air underwater. They are trying to pretend that this isn't a dangerous activity, and that any civilian off the street can do it, safely, with only a few minutes of training. And that just ain't so.
Basically, what all these quasi-scuba proponents have done, is to drop all emergency training, and pretend there is no risk. This really brings in the suckers, who have no idea of the risks they are exposing themselves too. I doubt if any of these Snuba customers even know what an air embolism is.
It's like those "swimming with the dolphins" tourist attractions that claim to be perfectly safe. They don't tell you that this is a wild animal that can suddenly turn dangerous.
But what really ticks me off are those scuba dive shops and operators who offer things like Snuba, "on the side." For example, the guy who runs the Snuba franchise in Key Largo doesn't have a boat or a building. He runs his Snuba operation out of his van. So he partners up with the Silent World dive center on Key Largo. Silent World supplies the basic equipment (masks, flippers, wet suits), provides space on their dive boat, and promotes Snuba diving. (There is a big Snuba poster on the wall of the Silent World dive shop.)
Now the people at Silent World have to be aware of the danger they are exposing Snuba divers to, but they elect to do it anyway. I consider them equally guilty of endangering the lives of their customers. In the future, I will refuse to patronize any dive shop that offers any of these quasi-scuba activities.
Scuba diving is too dangerous to be treated as just another tourist activity, like jetskiing, or snorkeling, or parasailing. It's not something that you can do safely, after just an hour of training. And taking the tank off the diver's back, and floating it on the surface, doesn't suddenly make it safe.
I'm an ultralight pilot, and I can teach someone the basics of flying an ultralight aircraft in just a couple of hours. He'll even be able to take off and land. But he won't know what to do, in an emergency, if he encounters bad weather, or has his engine suddenly quit, or hits some bad turbulence. It's the same case with Snuba diving.
Before I went to Key Largo, I did a web search on "Snuba danger" and "Snuba problem," just to see what was being said. I found nothing at all. If I had not been a trained scuba diver, I would have not known of the potential dangers.
I'm going to change that. I'm going to set up a web page, warning people about the dangers of things like Snuba diving, BOB, etc. At least then they'll have a chance of learning the facts before taking the risks.
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
Larry Anta - 12 May 2004 18:28 GMT [...]
> When I was taught scuba diving, we had to be able to handle underwater > emergencies such as loss of air, flooded mask, dropped regulator, etc. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > our tank on the bottom of the pool, turn on the air supply, replace the > regulator, and redon the tank. [...]
Hmm. I wonder if this is still the practice? After all, one slip up (student forgets to exhale for 3 or 4 feet) and it could be game over. Maybe better (from a liability perspective) to drill it into students but not actually practice it. Just my 2 cents.
Chris Wolf - 12 May 2004 19:21 GMT >[...] >> When I was taught scuba diving, we had to be able to handle underwater [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> regulator, and redon the tank. >[...]
>Hmm. I wonder if this is still the practice? After all, one slip up >(student forgets to exhale for 3 or 4 feet) and it could be game over. >Maybe better (from a liability perspective) to drill it into students but >not actually practice it. Just my 2 cents. Probably safer, in these litigious times, to skip the actual practice. However I remember how this particular exercise really boosted my confidence level. I knew that if I ever ran out of air, underwater, or if my equipment ever failed, I really could do a free ascent, and reach the surface safely. I think exercises like this help to give the student the confidence he needs, to avoid panicking, if he's ever faced with the real thing.
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
George Cathcart - 12 May 2004 19:21 GMT This was a drill when I certified four years ago, and it's still the drill in that instructor's class today. I think all the NAUI instructors around here do it, though not all require you to turn off the air before leaving the bottom. It's a combination of doff and don and emergency swimming ascent.
To protect against a student not exhaling, the instructor does two things. One, the ascent is on an angle, not straight up, so that the actual rate of ascent is slowed. Two, a teaching assistant swims up with the student, with one hand on an elbow and the other cocked in a fist to ram into the student's solar plexus if he stops exhaling at all. I've seen that happen once.
The drill is very valuable in its own right, and I think it has a valuable side benefit, too. When I did it, after exhaling all the way on a slow ascent to the surface, I still felt like I had plenty of air in my lungs. Which, of course, I did. And then I really understood Boyle's Law.
gc
>[...] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Walter Willis - 12 May 2004 19:38 GMT I remember in my PADI certification dives we did the emergancy ascent, though it was with the gear on, air turned off, reg in mouth. And yes, having a lung full of air when reaching the surface really helps to understand Boyle's law.
Walter Willis
This was a drill when I certified four years ago, and it's still the drill in that instructor's class today. I think all the NAUI instructors around here do it, though not all require you to turn off the air before leaving the bottom. It's a combination of doff and don and emergency swimming ascent.
To protect against a student not exhaling, the instructor does two things. One, the ascent is on an angle, not straight up, so that the actual rate of ascent is slowed. Two, a teaching assistant swims up with the student, with one hand on an elbow and the other cocked in a fist to ram into the student's solar plexus if he stops exhaling at all. I've seen that happen once.
The drill is very valuable in its own right, and I think it has a valuable side benefit, too. When I did it, after exhaling all the way on a slow ascent to the surface, I still felt like I had plenty of air in my lungs. Which, of course, I did. And then I really understood Boyle's Law.
gc
Dillon Pyron - 13 May 2004 04:22 GMT >I remember in my PADI certification dives we did the emergancy ascent, >though it was with the gear on, air turned off, reg in mouth. And yes, >having a lung full of air when reaching the surface really helps to >understand Boyle's law. I've never taught it with air off. However, if they don't exhale properly, or if they take a breath, it's down and let's do it again
I don't think turning the air off is in the standards. Of course, there are some steps that are no longer required that I still do. I have them buddy breath on the bottom. And we do ascents both on octo and ESA. I want to teach confidence
>Walter Willis > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >gc
 Signature dillon
When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark and the horse's name was Bob.
Chris Wolf - 12 May 2004 21:54 GMT >This was a drill when I certified four years ago, and it's still the >drill in that instructor's class today. I think all the NAUI instructors [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >ram into the student's solar plexus if he stops exhaling at all. I've >seen that happen once. As I recall, my instructor did that too (at least on my very first attempt). He also slugged one female diver, to knock the air out of her, when she panicked while sitting on the bottom of the swimming pool in swallow water, breathing from a scuba tank, when she tried to stand up while holding her breath.
>The drill is very valuable in its own right, and I think it has a >valuable side benefit, too. When I did it, after exhaling all the way on >a slow ascent to the surface, I still felt like I had plenty of air in >my lungs. Which, of course, I did. And then I really understood Boyle's >Law. Amen!
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
R Benner - 12 May 2004 19:04 GMT > I'm going to change that. I'm going to set up a web page, warning people > about the dangers of things like Snuba diving, BOB, etc. At least then > they'll have a chance of learning the facts before taking the risks. > > Chris Wolf > cwolf41@comcast.net Good idea.
mike gray - 12 May 2004 21:22 GMT > Scuba diving is too dangerous to be treated as just another tourist > activity, like jetskiing, or snorkeling, or parasailing. It's not > something that you can do safely, after just an hour of training. Actually, scuba is an extraordinarily safe activity and early divers did so with no training at all.
Scuba only became "dangerous" in the past decade or so, and the reasons have nothing to do with risk of injury or death.
One reason is the explosion of training agencies and professional instructors who make their living by making the learning of scuba skills seem much more difficult - and scary - than it actually is.
Another reason is the advent of store-bought high cost gear. Why do you need all that crap at such an outrageous prices? Because it's "life support" gear the hucksters cry. It's "dangerous" to dive without all that pricey stuff.
A third, and very big, reason is the ego trip. Now that we're divers, we really don't want the little kids to think it's not a horrifyingly difficult thing to learn and do. Yes indeedy, son, I had to jump into 500 fathoms through the ice during a hurricane with nothing but a deep breath and make my own equipment from shipwrecks on the bottom while my instructor and several man-eating sharks harassed me!
I have nothing against training. Even a full hour if the student is a bit thick. But the danger of scuba is grossly overstated and rants like yers only attract thick-headed thrill seekers who, when they find out what a pussy sport it really is, compensate with Chicken Little raving about how "dangerous" it is. Lions and tigers and sharks and embolisms, oh my!
When LePrieur first started promoting sport diving back in the 1930s, he put all sorts of folks, including toddlers, in scuba. Without BCs. Without SPGs. Without spare air. Without automatic regulators. Without ditch and don drills. And without a single incident!
Today, we're such a bunch of wusses that four dozen divers a year die of heart attacks, scared to death by the dangers of scuba.
Relax, have fun, you'll live longer.
Larry Anta - 12 May 2004 21:43 GMT [...]
> When LePrieur first started promoting sport diving back in the 1930s, he > put all sorts of folks, including toddlers, in scuba. Without BCs. > Without SPGs. Without spare air. Without automatic regulators. Without > ditch and don drills. And without a single incident!
> Today, we're such a bunch of wusses that four dozen divers a year die of > heart attacks, scared to death by the dangers of scuba. Interesting perspective. I wonder, though, if it might not be more easily explained by considering that there are a lot more SCUBA divers diving today than 70 years ago. Anyone have any *per capita* numbers they'd like to share? I can't believe that SCUBA has really gotten more hazardous.
> Relax, have fun, you'll live longer. Or you'll at least die with a smile on your face.
Chris Wolf - 12 May 2004 22:09 GMT >>Chris Wolf wrote: >> >> Scuba diving is too dangerous to be treated as just another tourist >> activity, like jetskiing, or snorkeling, or parasailing. It's not >> something that you can do safely, after just an hour of training.
>Actually, scuba is an extraordinarily safe activity and early divers did >so with no training at all. And many of them died because they had no understanding of the physics involved.
There is nothing "extraordinarily safe" about an activity where the participant can rupture a lung by holding his breath during an ascent of less than five feet.
Scuba, like most sports, can be quite safe if one gets the proper training. If one does not get the proper training, then it's about as safe as self-taught skydiving.
>Scuba only became "dangerous" in the past decade or so, and the reasons >have nothing to do with risk of injury or death. Uh-huh.
>One reason is the explosion of training agencies and professional >instructors who make their living by making the learning of scuba skills >seem much more difficult - and scary - than it actually is. Uh-huh.
>Another reason is the advent of store-bought high cost gear. Why do you >need all that crap at such an outrageous prices? Because it's "life >support" gear the hucksters cry. It's "dangerous" to dive without all >that pricey stuff. Uh-huh.
>A third, and very big, reason is the ego trip. Now that we're divers, we >really don't want the little kids to think it's not a horrifyingly >difficult thing to learn and do. Yes indeedy, son, I had to jump into >500 fathoms through the ice during a hurricane with nothing but a deep >breath and make my own equipment from shipwrecks on the bottom while my >instructor and several man-eating sharks harassed me! Uh-huh.
>I have nothing against training. Even a full hour if the student is a >bit thick. Is this guy for real?
>But the danger of scuba is grossly overstated and rants like >yers only attract thick-headed thrill seekers who, when they find out >what a pussy sport it really is, compensate with Chicken Little raving >about how "dangerous" it is. Lions and tigers and sharks and embolisms, >oh my! Son, how would you like to learn to fly an ultralight airplane? I can teach you to land and take off in about an hour, and the rest you can teach yourself while you're flying. Whatdya say?
>When LePrieur first started promoting sport diving back in the 1930s, he > put all sorts of folks, including toddlers, in scuba. Without BCs. >Without SPGs. Without spare air. Without automatic regulators. Without >ditch and don drills. And without a single incident! Which only goes to show that the sport is very safe as long as everything goes according to plan. But once in a while, things don't go according to plan, and you're faced with an emergency situation, and that's when all that "useless" training suddenly comes in play. Then we see the difference between a trained diver, remaining calm and staying alive, and an untrained diver who panics and dies.
>Today, we're such a bunch of wusses that four dozen divers a year die of >heart attacks, scared to death by the dangers of scuba. Didn't I see you on the show "Jackass"?
>Relax, have fun, you'll live longer. I always wondered where the Snuba industry found people with the necessary intellectual equipment and sense of risk assessment to franchise and promote their products. Now I know.
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
Kimber - 12 May 2004 23:32 GMT > Scuba, like most sports, can be quite safe if one gets the proper training. > If one does not get the proper training, then it's about as safe as > self-taught skydiving. As a licensed skydiver and certified scuba diver - I disagree. Untrained skydiving is much more unsafe than untrained scuba. I am not saying that scuba is without risks. But in general the percentage of injuries and deaths due to poor training are minimal in scuba.
Although the invention of AAD's has lowered the incidence of people dying with no canopy - poor training especially under canopy has raised the incidence of injuries and deaths.
You can make way many more errors in scuba and come out without injury than you can in skydiving. There is really no comparison.
Kimber
Scott - 12 May 2004 23:36 GMT > > Scuba, like most sports, can be quite safe if one gets the proper > training. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You can make way many more errors in scuba and come out without injury than > you can in skydiving. There is really no comparison. Gravity always works.
mike gray - 13 May 2004 03:01 GMT > Gravity always works. But buoyancy is a sometimes sort of thing.
Grumman-581 - 13 May 2004 03:51 GMT > Gravity always works. As I always told my daughter whenever she fell down, "Gravity sucks"... For some reason, her mother thought I was an uncompassionate SOB... What, me? Nawh... <evil-grin>
Dillon Pyron - 13 May 2004 04:32 GMT >> > Scuba, like most sports, can be quite safe if one gets the proper >> training. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Gravity always works. One thing scuba and skydiving have in common:
When you run out of air, the fun stops.
 Signature dillon
When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark and the horse's name was Bob.
Steve - 13 May 2004 05:50 GMT > When you run out of air, the fun stops. When you run out of air while scuba diving you still have a minute or so to solve your problems. Are you suggesting that learning isn't fun?
 Signature Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
Lee Bell - 14 May 2004 02:44 GMT in message news:68Doc.62866$Nn4.15724799@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > When you run out of air, the fun stops. > > When you run out of air while scuba diving you still have a minute or so to solve > your problems. Are you suggesting that learning isn't fun? Having been there, I'm not suggesting, I'm outright say it isn't.
Lee
Nitespark - 13 May 2004 11:44 GMT > One thing scuba and skydiving have in common: > > When you run out of air, the fun stops. Sounds like a good sig line to me.
 Signature One lawyer can steal more than a hundred men with guns.
Dillon Pyron - 13 May 2004 18:25 GMT >> One thing scuba and skydiving have in common: >> >> When you run out of air, the fun stops. > >Sounds like a good sig line to me. I think that's where I saw it, not sure. I don't think that I actually had the creativeness to come up with it.
 Signature dillon
When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark and the horse's name was Bob.
Kimber - 13 May 2004 11:31 GMT > > You can make way many more errors in scuba and come out without injury > than > > you can in skydiving. There is really no comparison. > > Gravity always works. That's a fact!
Kimber
Chris Wolf - 13 May 2004 00:17 GMT >> Scuba, like most sports, can be quite safe if one gets the proper >>training. >> If one does not get the proper training, then it's about as safe as >> self-taught skydiving.
>As a licensed skydiver and certified scuba diver - I disagree. Untrained >skydiving is much more unsafe than untrained scuba. I am not saying that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You can make way many more errors in scuba and come out without injury than >you can in skydiving. There is really no comparison. I'm also a certified scuba diver, and I have about 150 skydiving jumps in my log book, including two malfunctions that required me to cut away and use my reserve.
What I said, comparing self-taught scuba with self-taught skydiving, was a figure of speech, and not meant to be taken literally. My point is that both sports are dangerous without proper training, but quite safe with proper training.
If you want to argue that self-taught skydiving is much more dangerous than self-taught scuba, that's fine with me. I've seen poorly trained people die in both sports.
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
Kimber - 13 May 2004 00:30 GMT > I'm also a certified scuba diver, and I have about 150 skydiving jumps in > my log book, including two malfunctions that required me to cut away and > use my reserve. Yeah and your point is? -- BTDT - got my Raven Save t-shirt.
> What I said, comparing self-taught scuba with self-taught skydiving, was a > figure of speech, and not meant to be taken literally. My point is that > both sports are dangerous without proper training, but quite safe with > proper training. SCUBA is much safer even without proper training.
> If you want to argue that self-taught skydiving is much more dangerous than > self-taught scuba, that's fine with me. I've seen poorly trained people > die in both sports. As have I.
Kimber
Chris Wolf - 13 May 2004 03:20 GMT >> I'm also a certified scuba diver, and I have about 150 skydiving jumps in >> my log book, including two malfunctions that required me to cut away and >> use my reserve.
>Yeah and your point is? -- BTDT - got my Raven Save t-shirt. You stated your opinion as a "certified scuba diver and licensed sky diver." I just thought I'd let you know that my opinion is based on the same set of credentials.
>> What I said, comparing self-taught scuba with self-taught skydiving, was a >> figure of speech, and not meant to be taken literally. My point is that >> both sports are dangerous without proper training, but quite safe with >> proper training.
>SCUBA is much safer even without proper training. That's like saying that one stick of dynamite is much safer than five sticks.
When the context is untrained participants, it's rather meaningless to talk about the safety of one sport versus another. The context of "safety" presupposes that one has been properly trained in the sport. But if you're just risking your life, with no training, then it's meaningless to talk about "safety." One might as well claim that it's "safer" to play Russian Roulette with only one bullet, rather than with two.
If you want to claim that an untrained scuba diver is less likely to get killed than an untrained skydiver, I won't object. But it has nothing to do with safety.
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
Grumman-581 - 13 May 2004 04:10 GMT > One might as well claim that it's "safer" to play Russian > Roulette with only one bullet, rather than with two. Well, it depends upon the pistol... It's less safe to play Russian Roulette with 2 rounds in a revolver, but it probably doesn't make much of a difference in a semi-auto pistol... <evil-grin>
Chris Wolf - 13 May 2004 05:07 GMT >> One might as well claim that it's "safer" to play Russian >> Roulette with only one bullet, rather than with two.
>Well, it depends upon the pistol... It's less safe to play Russian Roulette >with 2 rounds in a revolver, but it probably doesn't make much of a >difference in a semi-auto pistol... <evil-grin> Playing Russian Roulette with an autopistol is okay as long as you always let the other guy go first. ;-)
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
Dillon Pyron - 13 May 2004 05:53 GMT >> One might as well claim that it's "safer" to play Russian >> Roulette with only one bullet, rather than with two. > >Well, it depends upon the pistol... It's less safe to play Russian Roulette >with 2 rounds in a revolver, but it probably doesn't make much of a >difference in a semi-auto pistol... <evil-grin> I knew we'd make it to guns :-)
 Signature dillon
When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark and the horse's name was Bob.
Kimber - 13 May 2004 11:32 GMT > > One might as well claim that it's "safer" to play Russian > > Roulette with only one bullet, rather than with two. > > Well, it depends upon the pistol... It's less safe to play Russian Roulette > with 2 rounds in a revolver, but it probably doesn't make much of a > difference in a semi-auto pistol... <evil-grin> (-: You really gotta hang out here more often!
Kimber
Grumman-581 - 17 May 2004 05:03 GMT > (-: You really gotta hang out here more often! New job over in New Orleans is taking up all my newsgroup time... You really don't want to know how backlogged I am on reading the rec.scuba postings... I'll reply to some old stuff when I get a chance to see if I can irritate Greg... <grin>
Kimber - 25 May 2004 00:43 GMT > > (-: You really gotta hang out here more often!
> New job over in New Orleans is taking up all my newsgroup time... You really > don't want to know how backlogged I am on reading the rec.scuba postings... I hear ya - I am currently 1047 messages behind and close to clicking the "catch up" button to start over.
Kimber
Grumman-581 - 25 May 2004 07:18 GMT > I hear ya - I am currently 1047 messages behind and close to clicking the > "catch up" button to start over. Awh, but then we wouldn't get to listen to Greg complain when we post a reply to a message that is over a month old... <obnoxious-grin>
Greg Mossman - 26 May 2004 06:49 GMT > > (-: You really gotta hang out here more often! > > New job over in New Orleans is taking up all my newsgroup time... You really > don't want to know how backlogged I am on reading the rec.scuba postings... > I'll reply to some old stuff when I get a chance to see if I can irritate > Greg... <grin> Irritate who?
Nitespark - 13 May 2004 11:43 GMT >>One might as well claim that it's "safer" to play Russian >>Roulette with only one bullet, rather than with two. > > Well, it depends upon the pistol... It's less safe to play Russian Roulette > with 2 rounds in a revolver, but it probably doesn't make much of a > difference in a semi-auto pistol... <evil-grin> I KNEW this thread would morph into guns.....I KNEW it!!!!
 Signature One lawyer can steal more than a hundred men with guns.
Grumman-581 - 17 May 2004 05:07 GMT > I KNEW this thread would morph into guns.....I KNEW it!!!! Of course! I'm just setting it on the proper course that it should have been on from the start...
Steve - 13 May 2004 06:11 GMT > When the context is untrained participants, it's rather meaningless to talk > about the safety of one sport versus another. The context of "safety" > presupposes that one has been properly trained in the sport. But if you're > just risking your life, with no training, then it's meaningless to talk > about "safety."
> If you want to claim that an untrained scuba diver is less likely to get > killed than an untrained skydiver, I won't object. But it has nothing to > do with safety. Of course it does. Some activities are inherently more dangerous than others. The second you start a skydive your life is in grave danger until you take the proper steps to solve the very real problem you already have, for which you have perhaps 70 seconds. The second you start a scuba dive you're generally quite safe until you screw up. As for proper training, roughly one out of every thousand properly trained USPA skydivers died last year. What percentage of PADI 3 day wonders do you suppose died?
 Signature Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
Kimber - 13 May 2004 11:46 GMT "Steve" <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message news:PrDoc.62869
> > If you want to claim that an untrained scuba diver is less likely to get > > killed than an untrained skydiver, I won't object. But it has nothing to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > steps to solve the very real problem you already have, for which you have perhaps 70 > seconds. The second you start a scuba dive you're generally quite safe until you Absolutely.
> screw up. As for proper training, roughly one out of every thousand properly trained > USPA skydivers died last year. What percentage of PADI 3 day wonders do you suppose died? That seems a like a pretty high number. Where did you get that statistic?
Kimber
Steve - 14 May 2004 06:23 GMT >> roughly one out of every thousand properly trained >>USPA skydivers died last year. > > That seems a like a pretty high number. Where did you get that statistic? From the USPA. Not that they'd state it in such plain terms, though. For the last several years there have been roughly 30 to 35 US skydiving fatalities each year, and the USPA has a membership in the low to mid 30 thousands. The part that I can't account for with a high degree of accuracy is how many jumpers there are who aren't USPA members and presumably there are some non-members among the dead. As a practical matter it isn't especially convenient to be a US jumper and not be a USPA member, so I've taken the liberty of assuming that non-USPA jumpers are a substantial minority. The one in a thousand figure also fits well with the figure of 1 fatality for every 110,000 jumps that I've seen someplace. If students who haven't yet joined USPA and regular jumpers who aren't members represent 25% of the fatalities, the figure would be about 1 of every 1333. Depending on your level of risk tolerance, I think it's reasonable to agree that the figure is pretty high. As near as I can tell from available data skydiving rougly doubles your chances of an accidental death. On the upside, your chances of a natural death are around 1 in 90 in any given year. At least that's the upside of you're a skydiver or go scuba diving with inadequate training.
 Signature Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
Chris Wolf - 13 May 2004 19:34 GMT >>Chris Wolf wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> killed than an untrained skydiver, I won't object. But it has nothing to >> do with safety.
>Of course it does. Some activities are inherently more dangerous than others. Exactly. But that's not the same as saying that some activities are safer than others. Two very different things. Safety is not determined simply by comparing the inherent dangers.
>The >second you start a skydive your life is in grave danger until you take the proper >steps to solve the very real problem you already have, for which you have perhaps 70 >seconds. The second you start a scuba dive you're generally quite safe until you >screw up. As for proper training, roughly one out of every thousand properly trained >USPA skydivers died last year. What percentage of PADI 3 day wonders do you suppose died? No, you're confusing risk with safety. "Inherent risk" is not the same thing as "safety." The level of risk in any activity is inherent, due to the nature of the sport. Which is why I would agree that cave diving is much more risky than open water diving. Or that untrained skydiving is more dangerous than untrained scuba diving. But the concept of "safety" refers to the reduction of risk that is achieved by applying human intervention to the activity (i.e. training).
If you look at what I originally wrote, I said that untrained scuba diving is about as safe as untrained skydiving. Note that I did not say that untrained scuba diving is as dangerous as untrained skydiving, because that is not a true statement. I was trying to make a point, using a figure of speech. I could just as easily have said that untrained scuba diving is about as safe as riding on grizzly bears. It's not a statement meant to be taken literally, and analyzed with statistics.
My point is that if you don't get the proper training, then both scuba diving and skydiving are both unsafe. By definition. Any time you engage in a potentially hazardous sport, without proper training, it's unsafe. Period. And it's meaningless to talk about which untrained sport is "more unsafe."
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
Steve - 14 May 2004 06:04 GMT >>Of course it does. Some activities are inherently more dangerous than others. > > Exactly. But that's not the same as saying that some activities are safer > than others. Of course it is. If activity A is inherently more dangerous than activity B, then activity B is inherently safer than activity A. They're opposite sides of the same coin.
> Safety is not determined simply by comparing the inherent dangers. Of course not. There are other factors, but the inherent danger of an activity is directly related to it's safety.
>>The >>second you start a skydive your life is in grave danger until you take the proper [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, you're confusing risk with safety. I agree that one of us is confused on the issue.
> "Inherent risk" is not the same > thing as "safety." The level of risk in any activity is inherent, due to > the nature of the sport. Which is why I would agree that cave diving is > much more risky than open water diving. Thus making OW diving the safer of the two.
> Or that untrained skydiving is > more dangerous than untrained scuba diving. But the concept of "safety" > refers to the reduction of risk that is achieved by applying human > intervention to the activity (i.e. training). Training is but one part of safety. No amount of training is going to make cave diving or skydiving as safe as OW diving because the inherent risks mke them less safe.
> If you look at what I originally wrote, I said that untrained scuba diving > is about as safe as untrained skydiving. Note that I did not say that > untrained scuba diving is as dangerous as untrained skydiving, because that > is not a true statement. Of course it's not true. Untrained scuba diving is far safer than untrained skydiving. The first statement is also untrue, which is why several people have disagreed with you. The level of risk that leaves something "safe" is debateable, but there is no question that it would be safer for a person with no training to go scuba diving than to go skydiving. For the sake of argument I'll stipulate that neither is safe, but to say that one is "about as safe" as the other is incorrect.
> I was trying to make a point, using a figure of > speech. I could just as easily have said that untrained scuba diving is > about as safe as riding on grizzly bears. You would just as easily have ben wrong.
>It's not a statement meant to be taken literally, and analyzed with statistics. My mistake. I thought you had a point you were trying to make.
> Any time you engage > in a potentially hazardous sport, without proper training, it's unsafe. No, engaging in a potentially hazardous sport without proper training is risky. Every activity that exists is potentially risky, but by reasonable definitions of "safe" you can engage in most of them with no training and have an excellent chance of emerging unscathed. Even with plenty of the ones that are at the higher end of the risk scale, skydiving and cave diving being among the exceptions.
 Signature Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
Chris Wolf - 14 May 2004 20:08 GMT >>>Somebody else wrote: >>>Of course it does. Some activities are inherently more dangerous than others.
>>Chris Wolf wrote: >> Exactly. But that's not the same as saying that some activities are safer >> than others.
>Of course it is. If activity A is inherently more dangerous than activity B, then >activity B is inherently safer than activity A. They're opposite sides of the same coin. Nope. Not at all. You're using the term "safety" as a measure of "inherent danger," and that's not the correct usage. We have two different terms because they mean two different things. I'll try to make the difference clear with an example. First, a couple of definitions:
"Inherent danger" refers to the level of risk, due to the nature of the activity. This is why we say that cave diving has a much higher level of risk, or has a greater inherent danger, than open water diving.
"Safety" is that human activity applied to an activity to eliminate, control, or reduce the level of risk. Cave diving has a very large inherent danger, but there are several things we can do to lower the level of risk.
Suppose you decide to play Russian Roulette. Two different guns are available. One gun has one bullet in the chamber, and the other gun has two bullets in the chamber. Would it make any sense to say that the gun with only one bullet is "safer" than the other gun? Obviously not. No matter which gun you select to play Russian Roulette, there is nothing you can do to eliminate, control, or reduce the level of risk involved. It would be correct to say that the single-bullet gun is less risky, or less dangerous than the two-bullet gun, simply based on the number of bullets in the gun. But to say that it is "safer" is to use the term incorrectly.
Granted, many people do use the terms "danger" and "safety" interchangeably (and incorrectly). Just as people incorrectly talk about a criminal defendant being found "innocent" by the jury, when they really mean he was found "not guilty." (There is no such verdict as "innocent.")
>> Safety is not determined simply by comparing the inherent dangers.
>Of course not. There are other factors, but the inherent danger of an activity is >directly related to it's safety. That depends on whether or not the inherent danger can be controlled with safety precautions. Safety can used to control the inherent danger of an activity, but the inherent danger of an activity has nothing to do with its final degree of safety. If there is still a large degree of inherent danger, even after all relevant safety procedures have been taken, we still don't call it safe. Which is why no one ever calls cave diving "safe." On the other hand, if the safety procedures reduce the inherent danger to a very low level (like flying a plane), then we generally refer to the activity as "safe."
Hurling a metal tube through the air at hundreds of miles per hour, while filled with hundreds of men, women, and children, has a very large degree of inherent danger. (Just put an untrained passenger at the controls, and you'll see why.) But is this huge, inherent danger, directly related to the safety of airline flying? Of course not. By putting a trained pilot at the controls, we reduce the inherent danger to the point where it is virtually eliminated, and the activity is made very safe.
"Inherent danger" is what you have BEFORE the training. "Safety" is what you have AFTER the training.
And this why the two concepts refer to different things, and may not be used interchangeably.
>> If you look at what I originally wrote, I said that untrained scuba diving >> is about as safe as untrained skydiving. Note that I did not say that >> untrained scuba diving is as dangerous as untrained skydiving, because that >> is not a true statement.
>Of course it's not true. Untrained scuba diving is far safer than untrained >skydiving. You still don't get it. It is meaningless to talk about degrees of safety when no training is involved. One can only talk about degrees of risk. Untrained scuba diving is riskier than untrained skydiving, but the degree of safety doesn't even enter the picture.
I'll grant that you're less likely to kill yourself, attempting untrained scuba diving, but that doesn't make it safer than untrained skydiving.
>The first statement is also untrue, which is why several people have >disagreed with you. The first statement was a figure of speech, not a statement of fact, which apparently is beyond the level of understanding of some of the people on this list. I'll try to remember than in the future.
>The level of risk that leaves something "safe" is debateable, but >there is no question that it would be safer for a person with no training to go scuba >diving than to go skydiving. For the sake of argument I'll stipulate that neither is >safe, but to say that one is "about as safe" as the other is incorrect. Unless one is using the comparison as a figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally. The point I was originally trying to make is that one would have to be totally nuts to engage in untrained scuba diving. It's as crazy as engaging in untrained sky diving.
I thought it was obvious that I was using a figure of speech, since the whole of idea of "safety" in untrained scuba diving, or untrained sky diving, was meaningless in the first place.
>> I was trying to make a point, using a figure of >> speech. I could just as easily have said that untrained scuba diving is >> about as safe as riding on grizzly bears.
>You would just as easily have ben wrong. Figures of speech are never wrong, since they are not statements of fact. My mistake was in assuming that everyone in my audience understood a figure of speech.
Here's a hint to help you understand. When I bob the surface, after a dive, and exclaim that "The water is ice-cold," I don't expect you to put a thermometer in the water and exclaim, "He's wrong! The water is only 40 degrees!"
>>It's not a statement meant to be taken literally, and analyzed with statistics.
>My mistake. I thought you had a point you were trying to make. I was trying to make a point. By using a figure of speech. But now that I understand the audience better, I won't make that mistake again.
>> Any time you engage >> in a potentially hazardous sport, without proper training, it's unsafe.
>No, engaging in a potentially hazardous sport without proper training is risky. Every >activity that exists is potentially risky, but by reasonable definitions of "safe" >you can engage in most of them with no training and have an excellent chance of >emerging unscathed. But that does not make them safe. Personal safety is not determined by statistics. For example, driving without a seatbelt is not safe, even though your chances of being killed or injured, without a seatbelt, are quite low.
If you don't get the proper training, then you aren't safe, even if your changes of being killed, while untrained, are only one in a million.
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
mike gray - 15 May 2004 02:44 GMT > "Inherent danger" is what you have BEFORE the training. > "Safety" is what you have AFTER the training. Sure, now I get it.
For example, race cars are inherently dangerous, but trained racers are safe.
I wonder why the majority of race sanctioning bodies require no training.
Kimber - 16 May 2004 00:29 GMT > If you look at what I originally wrote, I said that untrained scuba diving > is about as safe as untrained skydiving. Note that I did not say that Which is incorrect. Untrained scuba diving is much safer than untrained skydiving.
Kimber
Chris Wolf - 16 May 2004 02:35 GMT >> If you look at what I originally wrote, I said that untrained scuba diving >> is about as safe as untrained skydiving. Note that I did not say that > >Which is incorrect. Untrained scuba diving is much safer than untrained >skydiving. Try to understand this, Moron. NEITHER ONE IS SAFE! What I said was a figure of speech, used to make the point that NEITHER ONE IS SAFE!
It is absurd to claim that untrained scuba diving is much safer than untrained skydiving, since safety is entirely absent in both activities, owing to the lack of training.
A case can be made the untrained skydiving probably carries a greater inherent risk than untrained scuba diving, but that has nothing to do with safety.
Which is a point that Kimber the Moron will never grasp.
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
Dennis \(Icarus\) - 16 May 2004 04:03 GMT > >> If you look at what I originally wrote, I said that untrained scuba diving > >> is about as safe as untrained skydiving. Note that I did not say that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Try to understand this, Moron. NEITHER ONE IS SAFE! What I said was a > figure of speech, used to make the point that NEITHER ONE IS SAFE! Chris, What she said was "safer". untrained scuba is safer than untrained skydiving. Get it? Ex: Foo decides after watching a video on skydiving to give it a shot. Foo packs the chute, straps it on & goes whoops - Foo's tumbling - how does Foo get out ot this agai....splat.
Bar, meanwhile, watches a video on scuba. Gives it a shot. has a nice, 45 minute dive down to 40 ft on a reef. Bar keeps breathing.
> It is absurd to claim that untrained scuba diving is much safer than > untrained skydiving, since safety is entirely absent in both activities, > owing to the lack of training. What were you saying about "risk" again? How does one embolize? Holding oes breath right? keep breathing, don't close off your airway.
The next risk - running out of air. See this number on the gauge? When it gets to this point, surface.
The next risk - bends. Ascend at 30 fpm, and make sure you come up before the no-deco limit.
> A case can be made the untrained skydiving probably carries a greater > inherent risk than untrained scuba diving, but that has nothing to do with > safety. Sure it does. If an action carries less risk, it is safer (note, safer, SAFER!) than an action that has more risk. Probabilities & all that.
Dennis
> Which is a point that Kimber the Moron will never grasp. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- Kimber - 13 May 2004 11:42 GMT > >SCUBA is much safer even without proper training. > > That's like saying that one stick of dynamite is much safer than five > sticks. Not at all. Most people even with the shoddiest of training come back the majority of the time unscathed in SCUBA. The people who do resort courses with what can only be called an overview of info - have a better sucess rate of coming back unharmed than the general population of certified divers. Why is that? SCUBA is not inherantly dangerous. Yes things can go wrong, but generally they don't. People get certified and once every year/couple of years etc go diving while on vacation. No big deal. They throw on some tanks and go look at the fishies and rarely is there an injury. I know people who are completely stupid and do deep dives on single 80s with air using only a computer. They too tend to come back alive. If this sport was so inherantly dangerous - we would see HUGE numbers of injuries and deaths - and these are just not supported by the numbers produced by DAN.
> If you want to claim that an untrained scuba diver is less likely to get > killed than an untrained skydiver, I won't object. But it has nothing to > do with safety. It absolutely has to do with the inherent risks. They are much higher in skydiving than scuba.
Kimber
Chris Wolf - 13 May 2004 19:37 GMT >> >SCUBA is much safer even without proper training. >> >> That's like saying that one stick of dynamite is much safer than five >> sticks.
>Not at all. Most people even with the shoddiest of training come back the >majority of the time unscathed in SCUBA. The people who do resort courses >with what can only be called an overview of info - have a better sucess rate >of coming back unharmed than the general population of certified divers. >Why is that? SCUBA is not inherantly dangerous. Sorry, but anyone who thinks that breathing compressed air, underwater, is not inherently dangerous, is just plain stupid.
>Yes things can go wrong, >but generally they don't. People get certified and once every year/couple [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >so inherantly dangerous - we would see HUGE numbers of injuries and deaths - >and these are just not supported by the numbers produced by DAN. You sound like my father who has driven a car for sixty years, without wearing a seatbelt, and cites his record as proof that driving without seat belts is not risky.
>> If you want to claim that an untrained scuba diver is less likely to get >> killed than an untrained skydiver, I won't object. But it has nothing to >> do with safety.
>It absolutely has to do with the inherent risks. They are much higher in >skydiving than scuba. Yes, the inherent risks are much higher in skydiving that in scuba diving. But that has nothing to do with the safety of the two sports. If you engage in either sport, without proper training, then it is not safe. Period. If you get the proper training, then it's safe. Period.
You really need to learn the difference between "inherent risk" and "safety." They are not the same.
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
Steve - 14 May 2004 06:14 GMT > Sorry, but anyone who thinks that breathing compressed air, underwater, is > not inherently dangerous, is just plain stupid.
> You sound like my father who has driven a car for sixty years, without > wearing a seatbelt, and cites his record as proof that driving without seat > belts is not risky. One of us is confusing risk and danger. Driving without a seatbelt is more risky than driving with one, but since you're relatively unlikely to be in a significant accident in the first place, it's not particularly dangerous to not wear a seatbelt. Diving is the same. There are inherent risks, but they aren't significant enough to make diving particularly dangerous.
> Yes, the inherent risks are much higher in skydiving that in scuba diving. > But that has nothing to do with the safety of the two sports. If you > engage in either sport, without proper training, then it is not safe. Then cite some proof to back up your claim. Every year plenty of untrained people borrow a friend's extra dive gear and go out and have a perfectly good time without getting injured. Until you can show us the bodies we're just going to have to conclude that diving is fairly safe even without training. If you'd started diving as long ago as you started jumping you'd be walking proof.
 Signature Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
Lee Bell - 14 May 2004 11:39 GMT > > You sound like my father who has driven a car for sixty years, without > > wearing a seatbelt, and cites his record as proof that driving without seat > > belts is not risky.
> One of us is confusing risk and danger. Driving without a seatbelt is more risky than > driving with one, but since you're relatively unlikely to be in a significant > accident in the first place, it's not particularly dangerous to not wear a seatbelt. You can't have the risk without the danger. The terms are not synonymous, but they're not as different as you suggest. It's dangerous to drive. It's more dangerous to drive without a seatbelt. It's risky to drive. It's more risky to drive without a seatbelt. See any incorrect statements? See any difference in the meanings? Me neither.
> Diving is the same. There are inherent risks, but they aren't significant enough to > make diving particularly dangerous. Bullshit. Diving is inherently dangerous. The fact that you can mitigate those dangers by training, equipment selection and maintenance does not remove the danger. It only controls it.
> > Yes, the inherent risks are much higher in skydiving that in scuba diving. > > But that has nothing to do with the safety of the two sports. If you > > engage in either sport, without proper training, then it is not safe. Hmmm, I'm not sure I'm all that ready to admit that sky diving risks are much higher. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the primary risk in skydiving is that, for one reason or another, the parachute won't function properly. It could be poor maintenance, it could be improper configuration or it could be sky diver incometence or panic. The primary risk in diving is that the equipment won't work properly. It could be poor maintenance, it could be improper configuratoin or it could be diver incometence or panic. The results are pretty much the same. OK, so the odds of living through a sky diving accident are not as good as the odds of living through a diving accident, but people have lived, and not lived, as a result of both. I wonder how the odds stack up if you include permanent injury in your risk statistics.
> Then cite some proof to back up your claim. Every year plenty of untrained people > borrow a friend's extra dive gear and go out and have a perfectly good time without > getting injured. Until you can show us the bodies we're just going to have to > conclude that diving is fairly safe even without training. If you'd started diving as > long ago as you started jumping you'd be walking proof. You may assume that, but until you figure out how somebody can hold their breath while ascending, a very natural thing to do without training, or exhale and then clear a flooded regulator without being taught what the purge button does, I'll continue to think that at least some training is essential to safe diving . . . and safe sky diving. After all, in sky diving, all I have to know is where the release is, right?
Lee
Kimber - 16 May 2004 00:38 GMT "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message news:xl1pc.9156
> > > But that has nothing to do with the safety of the two sports. If you > > > engage in either sport, without proper training, then it is not safe. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > could be poor maintenance, it could be improper configuration or it could be > sky diver incometence or panic. In this case I must correct you. More people are actually dying under completely perfectly functioning canopies than due to malfunctions. There is a unit called an AAD which will deploy your reserve canopy if you blow through a specified altitude at a specified rate of speed. The biggest reason people are dying in skydiving these days are due to landing errors.
> purge button does, I'll continue to think that at least some training is > essential to safe diving . . . and safe sky diving. After all, in sky > diving, all I have to know is where the release is, right? No - proper body position is also key to getting a canopy open above your head which isn't a tangled mess. If you have a main malfunction and don't get rid of your mail before deploying your reserve - you can have a bigger problem now of your reserve canopy wrapping up in the main and making your landing a major problem. Then again with a good canopy over your head - you now have to safely land the thing.
Kimber
 Signature Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes it is the quiet voice at the end of the day that says I'll try again tomorrow.
Lee Bell - 16 May 2004 02:37 GMT > If you have a main malfunction and don't > get rid of your mail before deploying your reserve - you can have a bigger > problem now of your reserve canopy wrapping up in the main and making your > landing a major problem. Then again with a good canopy over your head - you > now have to safely land the thing. If you have a main malfunction in Scuba and untrained, you'd better hope you're damned shallow.
Lee
Kimber - 25 May 2004 00:44 GMT > > If you have a main malfunction and don't > > get rid of your mail before deploying your reserve - you can have a bigger [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If you have a main malfunction in Scuba and untrained, you'd better hope > you're damned shallow. I don't disagree a bit with you here Lee.
Kimber
Grumman-581 - 17 May 2004 13:13 GMT > The biggest reason people are dying in skydiving these > days are due to landing errors. Isn't forgetting to deploy your chute a "landing error"? Basically, people don't die during the fall, they die upon "landing"... That sudden stop at the end rather sucks... <snicker>
dazed and confuzed - 18 May 2004 00:33 GMT >>The biggest reason people are dying in skydiving these >>days are due to landing errors. > > Isn't forgetting to deploy your chute a "landing error"? Basically, people > don't die during the fall, they die upon "landing"... That sudden stop at > the end rather sucks... <snicker> deceleration trauma.
 Signature the most committed always win
Chris Wolf - 14 May 2004 20:25 GMT >>Chris Wolf wrote: >> >> You sound like my father who has driven a car for sixty years, without >> wearing a seatbelt, and cites his record as proof that driving without seat >> belts is not risky.
>One of us is confusing risk and danger. Driving without a seatbelt is more risky than >driving with one, but since you're relatively unlikely to be in a significant >accident in the first place, it's not particularly dangerous to not wear a seatbelt. >Diving is the same. There are inherent risks, but they aren't significant enough to >make diving particularly dangerous. You are dead wrong. One does not declare an activity to be "safe" merely because the odds of being killed are very low. By your logic, if I was playing Russian Roulette with a pistol holding a million rounds of ammunition, I would be "safe" because my odds of being killed would only be one in a million.
This is why safety is not a measure of the inherent risk.
You're confusing safety with statistics. Something is considered to be "safe" when all reasonable safety precautions have been taken to reduce the likelihood of death or injury to a very low level.
This is why driving without a seatbelt may not be particularly dangerous (statistically speaking) but it's very unsafe.
>> Yes, the inherent risks are much higher in skydiving that in scuba diving. >> But that has nothing to do with the safety of the two sports. If you >> engage in either sport, without proper training, then it is not safe.
>Then cite some proof to back up your claim. No proof is necessary. I merely have to point out that you can easily be killed, in either sport, if you engage in it without proper training. That's makes either sport unsafe, without proper training. Period. We don't even have to look at the statistics.
>Every year plenty of untrained people >borrow a friend's extra dive gear and go out and have a perfectly good time without >getting injured. That doesn't make them safe. A lot of people drive around without seat belts, and never get hurt, but that doesn't make them safe, either.
>Until you can show us the bodies we're just going to have to >conclude that diving is fairly safe even without training. No the risk of death or injury, even without training, is fairly low. But that doesn't make it safe.
This is why safety is not directly related to the inherent risk of the sport.
You really need to learn the correct definition of "safety." It isn't just a measure of the inherent risk.
>If you'd started diving as >long ago as you started jumping you'd be walking proof. Actually I learned to dive before I learned to jump.
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
mike gray - 15 May 2004 03:22 GMT > No proof is necessary. I merely have to point out that you can easily be > killed, in either sport, if you engage in it without proper training. > That's makes either sport unsafe, without proper training. Period. We > don't even have to look at the statistics. And that's where yer wrong. It is extremely difficult to kill oneself on scuba, and it is more difficult for an untrained person to do so.
Training is the process of doing an end-around understanding.
Anyone assembling a scuba rig and getting it under water without the benefit of an instructor will learn everything the instructor knows and a bunch more.
In the days before scuba instruction, ya got yer AN-6004-1 Diluter-Demand Regulator and a tank down at the surplus store, then spent many evenings at the kitchen table coating the paper diaphragm with several thin coats of rubber cement to waterproof it.
By the time ya got it in the water, ya knew all about compressors, tanks, regulators, water pressure differentials, and embolism. The lack of handholding instructors and warrantees on gear put the responsibilities squarely with the one doing the dive.
The idea that an instructor will make you safe is total unadulterated hogwash. An instructor is a convenient store and dispenser of knowledge for those too f.cking lazy to figure it out for themselves. And that's all an instructor is.
If you are lucky enough to get a ten-gallon instructor, you might get a gallon of knowledge of the subject. If you are so unfortunate as to get a two quart instructor, you'd better bust yer a.s to get all two quarts.
But what you ain't ever on God's green earth gonna get from an instructor is safe.
Grumman-581 - 17 May 2004 12:48 GMT > That doesn't make them safe. A lot of people drive around without seat > belts, and never get hurt, but that doesn't make them safe, either. It's not driving without a seat belt that is unsafe -- it's having a wreck without one... <grin>
Kimber - 16 May 2004 00:32 GMT > >of coming back unharmed than the general population of certified divers. > >Why is that? SCUBA is not inherantly dangerous. > > Sorry, but anyone who thinks that breathing compressed air, underwater, is > not inherently dangerous, is just plain stupid. You come off as an alamrmist who must make out how your hobbies are so dangerous as to show off what large balls you must have to be out there doing them. Risking your life while diving the depths on compressed air - fighting off the sharks and other things out to eat you in the big bad ocean.
Kimber
Chris Wolf - 16 May 2004 02:55 GMT >> Sorry, but anyone who thinks that breathing compressed air, underwater, is >> not inherently dangerous, is just plain stupid.
>You come off as an alamrmist who must make out how your hobbies are so >dangerous as to show off what large balls you must have to be out there >doing them. Risking your life while diving the depths on compressed air - >fighting off the sharks and other things out to eat you in the big bad >ocean. Save the pyschobabble for someone who needs it. Such as yourself.
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
Grumman-581 - 17 May 2004 05:06 GMT > It absolutely has to do with the inherent risks. They are much higher in > skydiving than scuba. Skydiving tends to be more unforgiving of mistakes... Basically -- "Gravity Sucks"...
mike gray - 13 May 2004 03:02 GMT > I'm also a certified scuba diver, and I have about 150 skydiving jumps in > my log book, including two malfunctions that required me to cut away and > use my reserve. Two in 150? Maybe yer not macho, just real accident-prone.
Chris Wolf - 13 May 2004 03:34 GMT >>Chris Wolf wrote: >> >> I'm also a certified scuba diver, and I have about 150 skydiving jumps in >> my log book, including two malfunctions that required me to cut away and >> use my reserve.
>Two in 150? Maybe yer not macho, just real accident-prone. No, both accidents happened in jumps 25-35, and started right after I started jumping a Russian ParaCommander. Which made my jumpmaster very suspicious. He contacted the manufacturer of the canopy and found out that a pilot of 200 pounds (which is what I weighed) was too heavy for that particular canopy. A pilot that heavy had a tendency to cause the canopy to malfunction, and streamer. So I switched to a regular ParaCommander, and had no further problems.
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
Steve - 13 May 2004 06:04 GMT > No, both accidents happened in jumps 25-35, and started right after I > started jumping a Russian ParaCommander. Which made my jumpmaster very > suspicious. He contacted the manufacturer of the canopy and found out that > a pilot of 200 pounds (which is what I weighed) was too heavy for that > particular canopy. So you went out and jumped a rig without verifying that it was a suitable rig for *you*. You call that properly trained?
 Signature Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
Chris Wolf - 13 May 2004 20:35 GMT >>Chris Wolf wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> a pilot of 200 pounds (which is what I weighed) was too heavy for that >> particular canopy.
>So you went out and jumped a rig without verifying that it was a suitable rig for >*you*. You call that properly trained? Yes, because the factory had not yet notified the customers about the new weight restriction. They had only recently figured it out. I wasn't the only one it was happening to.
Before we called the factory, the official word was that the canopy was safe for someone of my weight.
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
Kimber - 13 May 2004 11:45 GMT > No, both accidents happened in jumps 25-35, and started right after I > started jumping a Russian ParaCommander. Which made my jumpmaster very Paracommander and you have 150 jumps? So either you rarely jump or you are no longer a current skydiver. Most people who are active skydivers who jumped Paracommanders have in excess of thousands of jumps over many years.
> suspicious. He contacted the manufacturer of the canopy and found out that > a pilot of 200 pounds (which is what I weighed) was too heavy for that > particular canopy. A pilot that heavy had a tendency to cause the canopy > to malfunction, and streamer. So I switched to a regular ParaCommander, > and had no further problems So you were jumping a canopy that you did not know the specs for. That is priceless.
Kimber
Chris Wolf - 13 May 2004 20:36 GMT >> No, both accidents happened in jumps 25-35, and started right after I >> started jumping a Russian ParaCommander. Which made my jumpmaster very
>Paracommander and you have 150 jumps? So either you rarely jump or you are >no longer a current skydiver. Most people who are active skydivers who >jumped Paracommanders have in excess of thousands of jumps over many years. I went on to jump a Stratostar, and then a Paraplane, which were both square canopies. I really enjoyed the square canopies, but after 150 jumps, I started getting bored with skydiving. It was just too much work for too little time in the air. So I took up fixed wing flying. Currently I'm part owner of a Cessna Cardinal. I've also flown unpowered paragliders, but that also turned out to be too much work for too little reward (I hate walking up hills). I switched to powered paragliding, where you fly a paraglider while wearing a engine and propeller on your back. That was a lot more fun, but I got tired of running around on the ground with an eighty pound engine on my back, on hot summer days. So I switched to a powered parachute, which has wheels, and I'm currently having a ton of fun flying it.
I've written a book about what it's like to fly a powered paraglider. It's called _Running Into The Sky_, and you can read all about it, and buy it, at www.jeffcomp.com.
>> suspicious. He contacted the manufacturer of the canopy and found out >>that >> a pilot of 200 pounds (which is what I weighed) was too heavy for that >> particular canopy. A pilot that heavy had a tendency to cause the canopy >> to malfunction, and streamer. So I switched to a regular ParaCommander, >> and had no further problems
>So you were jumping a canopy that you did not know the specs for. That is >priceless. Sorry, wrong again. I knew the specs for the canopy. But it turned out the specs were wrong. When we finally called the factory, we learned that the manufacturer had just changed the specs, and had reduced the recommended weight load for that particular canopy. The factory hadn't yet notified the customers.
Next time try getting all the facts before jumping to conclusions.
Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
Dan Nafe - 13 May 2004 23:41 GMT [snip]
> Currently I'm part owner of a Cessna Cardinal. [snip]
> I've also flown unpowered paragliders.... Same thing.
Bonanza-Dan
Grumman-581 - 17 May 2004 05:09 GMT > So you were jumping a canopy that you did not know the specs for. That is > priceless. Awh, hell... What's so difficult about it? It's not like you're going to get stuck up there after jumping out of the plane...
mike gray - 13 May 2004 14:29 GMT >>>Chris Wolf wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to malfunction, and streamer. So I switched to a regular ParaCommander, > and had no further problems. I guess in your case it really is better to have an instructor and extensive training.
Personally, and knowing nothing about skydiving, the very first thing I would have asked was, "Will this thing really keep me from going swishploink?" After the first incident I would have quadruple-checked. And my sources of least confidence would have been the manufacturer and the instructor.
Chris Wolf - 13 May 2004 21:31 GMT >>Chris Wolf wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> to malfunction, and streamer. So I switched to a regular ParaCommander, >> and had no further problems.
>I guess in your case it really is better to have an instructor and >extensive training. That's certainly the way I prefer it. It has kept me alive through various sports and activities over the years. Of course some people don't want to bother with instructors or training, and I have no problem with that. I love watching Darwin in action. I actually like such people. They provide me with a great deal of free entertainment on such shows as "I'm Still Alive," and "World's Most Dangerous Stunts Caught On Videotape," and "Jackass."
>Personally, and knowing nothing about skydiving, the very first thing I >would have asked wa |
|