A Word From The Wahs

In the "Call of The Wah Wah" by aquaCORPS managing editor Dean Mullaney, N11/Xplorers, we chronicled a series of extreme air dives that were led by the heads of two technical training agencies during a week-long instructor training seminar in the Bahamas, and that nearly resulted in the death of one instructor trainer.

The four-hundred-foot-plus dives were conducted on air (PO2=2.8+ !@##) using single aluminium 80 cf cylinders without back-up regulators or bail-out bottles, reportedly while technical training dives were being conducted from the boat, and clearly violated the consensus safety guidelines established by the technical diving community [See "Blueprint For Survival," N6/Computing, N12/Survivors].

Extreme air diving is NOT Technical Diving.

It is aquaCORPS's position that "Wah Wah diving" is extremely dangerous and represents the antithesis of the technical approach, i.e., IT IS NOT TECHNICAL DIVING. Furthermore, we believe that indivduals who aspire to leadership positions in the industry have a responsibility to set an example for others, particularly for those who are just entering the field. We question what kind of example is being set by these dives. Hallo?

In running the story, it was not aquaCORPS’s intention to malign specific individuals or a specific training agency. Rather, we felt it was our job to call the community's attention to behaviors, which in our opinion, jeopardize the credibility that the technical diving community has worked so hard to achieve, and worse, that will get divers killed.

How did the featured parties explain the call of the wah?

Here's what the two individuals who led the dives had to say.

No One Else Can

by Bret Gilliam

The last issue of aquaCORPS contained an article commenting on extreme deep diving on compressed air. Although the author's intent may have been noble, the factual circumstances of my involvement were unfortunately distorted and inaccurately reported.

First of all, I doubt if it is any surprise to anyone that I dive deep on air and other mixes. I've written three best-selling books on the subject , authored scores of magazine articles and lectured extensively all over the world on precisely this discipline. I've also been one of the most ardent proponents of modern extended range training that includes observation of responsible operational limits for oxygen and narcosis exposures to keep the great majority of divers within reasonable windows of risk. And the methods and standards of training that persons like Sheck Exley, Hal Watts, Tom Mount, and I developed over the last three decades have proved to be excellent guidelines for divers when combined with hands-on practical diving under the supervision of trained professionals.

But there is a big difference between training and what I may choose to do in my own personal diving. As a function of training, I never conduct any diving beyond the recognized general population exposures. For compressed air, this means a maximum of 220 f/68 m. In fact, both IANTD and TDI recommend keeping training at 200 f/61 m since this allows a certain factor for error should it be needed.

On the other hand, I make my living as a professional diver and photo-journalist. My clients have included the US Navy, various scientific groups, commercial companies, and a host of publishers for book and magazine projects. I also perform a variety of consulting and testing roles for equipment manufacturers and specialized support OEM's. Often my work involves extremely deep exposures and it's up to me to make the call on the best method of getting me and my cameras to a "job site." In many cases, I get the job because, quite literally, no one else can do it.

Often my work involves extremely deep exposures and it's up to me to make the call on the best method of getting me and my cameras to a "job site." In many cases, I get the job because, quite literally, no one else can do it.

I have to be a mobile swimmer and maintain the ability to handle cumbersome, bulky camera systems in extreme depths around subject matter that can include such diverse assignments as high speed military submarines, deep submersibles, sharks and whales. In many situations, compressed air allows me more flexibility in my gear package and a friendlier decompression than trimix. But what works for me, will not work for others and I am constantly afraid that less qualified and less experienced divers will attempt to dive beyond their abilities and hurt themselves.

That's why over the years in all my published works I have leaned in favor of more conservative exposures as a guideline for the average diver. It's not to say that I will apply those same limits to my professional work. And there lies the most important distinction in a lot of this discussion. I'm a professional who gets paid extremely well for taking risks as an observer or photographer who can chronicle the underwater world where only a handful can even dream of visiting. I've been contracted in a lot of situations to do dives where submersibles were unavailable or impractical. In other assignments, I've been able to get in the right situation with a still or movie camera where a sub or surface supplied diver would never be able to maneuver. And on other work with marine life, I've developed proprietary equipment and decompression profiles that no one else has.

Because boiled down to its essence, diving is simply a means of getting me to my work place. It's incidental to me how I get there and support myself if I don't get the work done that the client has paid for. And believe me, I've never had a contractor that was paying me several thousand dollars a day question my choice of diving gear if I came back with the results they wanted.

The facts are that in many scenarios I can function better with a very minimalist gear package since I have a rather extraordinary low air consumption rate. My adaptive reflex to deep air diving after some 25 years of experience allows me to work comfortably in depths that reduce most others to incapacitation. But I am quite at home deep and the best evidence of that is the images I bring back and the detailed observational reports I can accurately produce. That's what separates the professional who makes his living plying a hazardous trade from the weekend diver (no matter what his "technical" experience).

What I do outside the scope of training is my own personal decision and should not be held up to unreasonable scrutiny by critics. Because, to paraphrase Charles Barkely, "I'm not a role model" and I don't want to be.

The sensational article that was published in aquaCORPS' last issue was not something I intended to contribute to. I intended my remarks to be off the record and not for publication. Not because I had anything to hide but for fear that less qualified divers would seek to emulate dives by persons like myself or Joe Odom and get killed. We've already seen that happen and no matter how many times we tell people that reading a book or doing a few bounce dives is no substitute for full time involvement, a couple people disappear every year trying dives way beyond their ability. And that's the real tragedy.

Training works just fine within its limits. But I'm not about tell explorers like Jim Bowden or guys that want to dive the deepest wrecks that they can't pursue that calling. Because it's a personal decision that each diver makes for himself and it's nobody else's business. And the self-appointed soap box critics who hide behind anonymous quotes ought to stay in shallow end of the pool where they belong.

What works for me is individual. That's why I don't like diving deep with any but a handful of others. I can look after myself just fine but it really throws off my equilibrium to have to worry about another diver whom I just naturally expect to screw up. So please, leave me alone to do what I do. And I promise not to make fun of your day-glow wet suit or your wife's hairdo. Is it a deal?

Bret Gilliam is the president of Technical Diving International, editor of Scuba Times Advanced Diver Journal, and a freelance writer/photographer. He can be contacted @ f 207-442-9042.

Critics Don't Count

by Joe Odom

Each diver has a view of what is important to him or her, what represents a limit, and what represents a threat to their way of thinking or even their life. Any attempt to alter their thought process often results in conflict.

Where is the proof that a PO2 of 1.6 atm represents safety? Does crossing this line immediately mean that there will be a physiological change? Or, do a myriad of other factors enter into the complex human equation to determine if an oxygen convulsion will take place? It is simply convenient to establish a limit for fledgling divers so that they don’t become bored with huge volumes of conflicting data that belie the original intent of the limit. Interestingly, the USN Diving Manual describes incidents at oxygen pressures of just 1.3 atm [At least one commercial operators have logged oxtox hits below 1.6 atm&emdash;ed] . Will our technical divers be willing to give up the ground (depth) that they have so desired? Hardly.

The reality of deep air "spike" diving is such that the actual hazard is the nitrogen and not the oxygen. Numerous sources noted in a wide variety of medical texts and studies associated with hyperbaric exposures of oxygen frequently describe subjects being exposed to oxygen pressures well in excess of 2.0 atm and up to 3.7 plus atm.

Reliability of today’s equipment enters into the equation, as do the actual dive conditions. I have tried to think of any first stage failures I have experienced&emdash;can’t seem to remember any. The only one I personally witnessed was a cave student back in the early ’80s who insisted that his regs were the best made, he took great care of them, etc. They kinda let him down ’bout the Lips [A site at Ginnie Springs]. Seems he ignored the recall. Anyone who wants to contrive a scenario for failure can simply conjure one up, either based on actual possibilities or speculative ignorance. Since it’s made up, it’s easy to attack or defend depending on who shouts the loudest. Just some food for thought.

Strong sentiments sometimes get in the way of rational thought and may be further clouded by confusion over rules vs. recommendations. Once, as I stood on the fantail of a boat, saying farewell to a fellow diver [who died&emdash;ed.], I noted that the deep divers aboard nodded in agreement, while others just couldn’t understand why it had happened. It just did&emdash; the result of the choice of an individual who had a belief in his ability.

Anytime there is a statement, observation or new idea, fifty percent of the people are for it and fifty percent are against it. The problem is that the fifty percent against it are so darn loud!

Does a diver have the right to choose if he or she wants to "go deep?" I should hope so. Can extreme deep air diving be "safe?" I doubt it, for safe means without risk. The choice needs to be made in concert with the diver’s desires and goals balanced against the wishes of the immediate family. Maybe that is why so many explorers were single. I personally have no desire to establish the record for deep air diving. This is because I catch enough grief from my wife as it is, but I am truly happy at my own personal limits&emdash;which vary daily.

I don’t encourage anyone to do anything they don’t want to do or are not willing to work and study hard for. Many diving pontificators cannot read simple physics, chemistry, or biophysiology articles without missing the real point, and totally blow the entire work out of context. Others publish data or formulas with gross errors and total disregard to scientific reality. When Wes Skiles introduced me to structured cave diving, a significant amount of time was spent on the physiology of cave diving risk acceptance. It was widely know back then that all cave divers had a screw loose, we just had to figure a way to make sure it didn’t back all the way out! There was a practicality to the step by step technique of exploring one’s limits. Today many just want to pay their money and get the card in the "minimum time."

I have also noted that with any statement, observation, new idea, or old idea, fifty percent will say it’s showing off, fifty percent will say it’s the individual’s prerogative. The problem is that the fifty percent against it are so darn loud!

A cave and technical diving instructor trainer, Joe Odom is the current chairman of the National Speleological Society's Cave Diving Section. He can be reached @ f: 205-773-8515.