Sharm Individual World Champs - Info & Updates

[glennv]

And just to get specific on Wolles remark. Has there ever been a recorded blackout below 20 meters in a competition or training for that matter ? (besides the no-limit and spearfishing cases, which are different sports altogether)
Since i think if we change the system we should do this based on experiences and facts not on guesses.

Also what will then (lets say the deepest ever blackout was 20 meters) be the comparative times in getting a person up from 20 meters with different attachement point assuming the same counterbalance system.

With this data we could get a better idea if we need to change something and how against what costs (e.g. more complex or less comfortable for the diver)

[jome]

The risk of deep bo is small. But the probability increases as there are more and deeper events. Inevitably, the probability inches closer and closer to 1. It will happen one day, that is in my mind an absolute certainity. I sure as hell would not like to be the organizer that day if I felt that "shortcuts" had been made in the safety.

When you walk down the street, it is your responsibility. But if you dive in an organized event, it is not your, but the organizers responsibility. Any reasonable organizer will then make sure that they've made everything in theri power to prepare for the worst.

Safety has nothing to do with the abilities of the athlete - in safety, you always assume the worst. It has everything to do with the abilities of the organization. From an organizational point of view, Herbert diving to 30m is just as hazardous as a complete newbie. The limits of performance in organized mass events have to be from the responsiveness of the organization. How deep and how quick can they respond, what can they do. It's of course different if you're training by your self or organizing and individual attempt, but for a competition of this magnitude you have to assume the athletes can mess up in unimaginable ways.

Safety is not castrating the sport - it is enabling it for those that don't have an imminent death wish.

[glennv]

Jome,

I have to agree with you. Very clear point. !
You indeed have to assume the worst case scenarion, that on some competition a crazy death wished freediver is going to announce 60 meters CNF with a personal best of 20, blacking out close to the plate. I was looking more from the athelete points of view, but you have to approach this from the organisers point of view, since there lies the resposibility for the safety system. So if they say wear a straight jacket with 20 lanyards (10 in front 10 in the back) attached you can either do it or just not go to the comp because you feel it sits in the way of you doing your best or it decreases your personal (sense of) safety .
I like exagerating to make things clear for myself

But for our own data it makes still sense to have the "real world, responsible freediving" data collected, so we can maybe adjust our own safety systems during trainings etc. In a ideal world they should be the same, but I could also imagine that the system that works for you and you feel perfectly comfortable freaks out some other freedivers increasing therefore their risk of accidents. I could imagine my own stresslevel beeing 10000x higher if I would dive into a deep dark lake with my back to the line to 40+ CNF, therefore using up much more of my precious oxygen and blacking out long before the surface comes in sight . Therefore I would never attend a competition where such a system is used. Since in the end me as an athlete couldnt care less where lies the responsibility as long as it meets my personal standards. I just want to dive the best way I can with a system that at the same time ensures my feeling of safety and my actual safety. Since the first influences the latter a lot.
I personally have already skipped certain pool competitions (and i know of several others) because I did not like the safety standards there. If I don't feel 100% safe I don't dive.

[jome]

Thank you for revealing the blind spot in my (perhaps a little too emotional, just read a certain book and am a little touchy about "macho" diving) logic. Of course safety has to do with the athlete also if the safety systems are so imposing that the athlete looses control of the performance.

The ideal solution is there somewhere in between. Sometimes the athlete has to adapt a little, like placing the lanyard differently, other times the organizer must meet the athletes half way, like you say, 20 lanyards would do more harm than good, even if it gives the organization total control over the situation.

On the topic it self - maybe both approaches should be tested. Ie do some lifts with guys attached from the waist (unfortunately there is no sensible way to simulate it with a totally unconcious person), do some dives with the harness, do some dives with back against rope. Whichever is the best can be then selected, or if all are good, allow all.

For me personally, the "breakaway" system sounds best. So you would have tha lanyard attached on you back for example and then "routed" to your waist via a weak piece of elastic or something that holds together in normal scenarios, but will break if the lift system is applied.

[glennv]

I like the idea of a breakaway system but would need lots of testing for it to be reliable. I can see one possible problem. Current.
I remember my training dives in Cyprus , where the current was so strong that people where like leaves blowing in the wind on the ropes attached (luckyly) to their lanyards. The forces would probably activate the breakaway system and then you would be flipped with your back to the rope trying to kick up backwards in an awkward angle. Sounds scary.
Of course with that type of current you shouldnt dive, but still deep current can mess up your day big time this way. But i think its worth investigating the possibilities.

[trux]

I believe that fixing the lanyard close to the neck is a very bad and very dangerous idea. I can imagine it can get tangled around the neck rather easily, so by actuating the counterweight you will actually strangulate and kill the freediver instead of rescuing him. If I could, I would definitely vote strongly against it. Although I am for the lanyard, I consider this specific solution for much worse than no lanyard at all. Simply unacceptable. Also from the legal point of the organizer, it is certainly better being prosecuted for not having strong enough security rules, than because of a homicide.

[CEngelbrecht]

Originally Posted by glennv

And just to get specific on Wolles remark. Has there ever been a recorded blackout below 20 meters in a competition or training for that matter ?

Nordic Deep '06 saw one last year at I think 21 or 24 meters, the story can be read about here. They do happen.
There was also the Italian incident in Hurghada World Champs warmup, I think that was pretty deep, too (correct me if I'm wrong).

Chris Engelbrecht, Copenhagen

[cebaztian]

Let us remember that one of the lanyards MOST important function is to limit the "search area" in case of an accident. The safety freedivers can do most of the work, specially in CNF.
Its not important to get a victim up with rocket speed. Specially not if that can lead to bad side-effects. BO victims are VERY good att holding their breath.

Sebastian

[Will]

Some further points:
1 - whether the lanyard is attached to the chest or the waist the freediver's face will be presented to water resistance. No increase in safety is gained, unless the lanyard attaches to a point on the back (which presents all sorts of dangers of its own that have been mentioned)

2 - When we think of 'whether the lanyard would get in the way' we normally only consider the downstroke, however in the arm recovery the hands normally follow the line of the body up across the chest, and it would be easy for the lanyard to end up on the wrong side of one hand, causing instant entanglement. Sure you can train to adapt to it, but there will still be a much greater possibility of this occuring, and occasioning a serious incident than the possibility of a BO >20m requiring counterweight activation.

3 - a chest harness would be difficult/impossible to release quickly: either you need several buckles or you need to shrug the harness (like a bra) off your shoulders. Either way, for a freediver underwater, especially if narced, it does not count as a quick release, meaning the only remaining quick release is the carabiner on the line, which can be notoriously hard to find and operate underwater. I have heard of many freedivers getting their lanyard tangled on the bottom plate or jammed on the line, and in every case they have detached their wriststrap/belt rather than the carabiner.

As it stands I believe making chest harnesses compulsory would actually add ulterior risk without removing any of the risks it attempts to address.

[Kars]

Hi folks intresting discussion again.

I also happen to like Simo's break away proposal. A beltfixed D-ring on the back, lanyard going arround the waist, kept in the front of the belt by two small elastics.

Has anyone tested it?

keep it up,

Kars

[efattah]

At the 2003 CAFA national competition I did two consecutive safety rescues, BO @ -17m and BO @ -24m...

However, for deep water accidents, blackout is not the only problem. As more athletes flood their sinuses for either equalizing or dive reflex, there is a risk of drowning, especially at the turn around.

Recently I started diving without a nose clip, for much improved dive reflex. I used this method last week at the CAFA regional competition. I did an FRC dive to -57m with fluid goggles and no nose clip. The biggest risk is the turn around where I un-pinch my nose and get water in my sinuses (while I grab the tag). Loss of control of the epiglottis for even an instant can lead to drowning. I warned the safety divers that the biggest risk on my dive was not a BO at the end, but drowning on the bottom.

I think that the speed of the recovery ascent is not as important as the timing of the activation of the system. If the system is activated just seconds after the diver has a problem, then even a slow rate of ascent is acceptable. The problem with the 'blind' counterballast system is the extremely long delay from having a problem, to activation of the system. Suddenly the problem is urgent and a fast ascent is necessary. Perhaps rather than changing the lanyard we should change the method to detect a problem, so the system can be activated earlier.

[Jorg]

Originally Posted by efattah

The biggest risk is the turn around where I un-pinch my nose and get water in my sinuses (while I grab the tag). Loss of control of the epiglottis for even an instant can lead to drowning. I warned the safety divers that the biggest risk on my dive was not a BO at the end, but drowning on the bottom.

This is a sincere question, why would you ever want to dive in such a way? I'm completely astonished how you describe the risk you are willing to take. Maybe I am missing something?

[Walrus]

I used to take my noseclip off near the bottom doing 60m dives, it's really not that bad, never got any water in my lungs that way, perhaps a little in my sinuses. Think would be worse when upside down but for me would only let water in my sinuses. Maybe it depends on the person, I don't think I could do it by accident, I would actually have to consciously try to inhale water to risk getting any in my lungs ?


Cheers,
Wal

[jome]

Originally Posted by efattah

At the 2003 CAFA national competition I did two consecutive safety rescues, BO @ -17m and BO @ -24m...

Perhaps rather than changing the lanyard we should change the method to detect a problem, so the system can be activated earlier.

Wouldn't a live feed camera at the bottom do the trick? We've had that in most our competitions and seems to work ok. The rest of the way a sonar or scuba divers could relay the info what's going on.

There should be no "blind spot" during the performance.

So my lame Murat imitation would be:
1. The safeness of an event is not determined by the athletes abilities, but the organizations
2. The organization must be aware of the divers state throughout the performance to be able to make decisions of recovery
3. Recovery is defined as "the diver can be brought up from any depth at least as fast as he would be returning on a successful dive"
4. If 2 or 3 is violated or not perfect, diving cannot be considered safe

From that you could formulate the safety system for each occasion. For example if the visibility is 20+ and the depth is 20m and your buddy is able to recover you from there - no need for descent lines or what ever. But if the depth goes beyond the capability of the safety freediver you need some added complexity. Anyway, just a silly mind game.

[rxcnc2]

I think -and several seem to think the same- that the lanyard
is a nice system for keeping the freediver close to
the line, but when it comes to actually pulling him/her up
it has some disadvantage or another, regardless where you fix it.

How about an entirely different system? My five euro cents' worth
are for a lift dish. Imagine some kind of convex satellite dish, made
however of mesh wire and not filled, perhaps 4meters in diameter.
The diver would still have a lanyard, attached to the wrist or
belt depending on CW or CNF.
The lift dish would precede the diver by a few meters. Being essentially
transparent, it would not obstruct the view below and perhaps even
give some sense of confidence and also direction. The dish would have
a weighted cylinder below its vertex to keep it attached to the line and
to facilitate descent. It would be suspended by two (or more?) strong
cables at its edges. A videocam with feed to the surface should be
installed (video cord along one of the cables). These cables would
be part of a counterballast system.
At a decision by the safety diver or by the surface judge, the dish
would start to rise and "scoop up" gently the diver, whatever
his/her position. It would then rise to the surface, bringing
the diver much like in an elevator. The force that raises the diver
would be applied uniformly from below, and not at a single point from
above as for the lanyard/counterweight.

I know it's a bit more complex/expensive, but for important competitions
should be affordable and divers would not need to change their training
dives.

The hard point is how to make the dish go down at the same speed as
the diver, at least always a couple of meters deeper than the diver,
withouth any control from the diver. (A fixed ballast would not do,
since each diver has a different descent speed). Maybe safety divers
at intermediate depths would have to be alert not to be "scooped up"
as well, but one assumes they were not the ones with BO

Maybe this is silly, but other can think of more intelligent
non-lanyard based solutions.

Andrea