sled diving within AIDA

[mystiach]

Imagine if there were no impediment to installing jet engines on Formula One racecars. Those who could afford them would win every race, or more likely than not die trying.

Actually, that is why there are major restrictions on F1 engines. As technology improved, over time, they put more and more powerful engines in the cars. Eventually they got so powerful the accident/fatality rate became untenable, and they finally put down restrictions.

 

[Mullins]

Since the term 'athletic' has been questioned, it might be worth defining how I/we are using it. We aren't talking about aesthetics or age. Instead we're talking about the capacity of a human body to get something done under its own power, specifically with regards to strength, speed or (as in the case of freediving) endurance. Just as long distance runners can be scrawny little sods and weightlifters beer-gut toting fatties, freedivers can excel in an 'athletic' physical parameter without looking that impressive. Imagine how deep the NLT record would have to be before it became a true breathhold test! Over 1000m if the 5m/s estimate holds up. As the new Trygons sled demonstrates and as Eric has speculated, the future of NLT is all about isolating the diver from the environment and focusing the human aspect of the performance even more narrowly on EQ and pressure tolerance.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

About Adel's dive:

The way I understand the details, he was likely detached from the sled going up at 55-60 meters, according to the safety freediver, when there was a peculiar 'jerk' at the line.
That leaves a lot of questions about the cause. Was Adel with vertigo and in panic from a ruptured ear drum and detached himself form the lanyard at his waist? Or was he taken by a shark or something, and would that be powerful enough to detach him from the lanyard? That jerk in the line puzzles me tremendously.

 

[Jouskari]

About Adel's dive:

The way I understand the details, he was likely detached from the sled going up at 55-60 meters, according to the safety freediver, when there was a peculiar 'jerk' at the line.
That leaves a lot of questions about the cause. Was Adel with vertigo and in panic from a ruptured ear drum and detached himself form the lanyard at his waist? Or was he taken by a shark or something, and would that be powerful enough to detach him from the lanyard? That jerk in the line puzzles me tremendously.

Thing is that without any solid data from the dive it is impossible to establish the actual cause or sequence of events in Adels dive. However I would rule out sharks as far as possible. Especially when Adels relatives and friends are able to read this forums. Wild speculations really don´t help anyone.

 

[fcallagy]

Guys as was said before please try as much as possible to keep the discussion on topic and not go into specific cases which may cause pain for other members. This is an important thread to keep open and hopefully we dont need to take further action.

 

[Erik]

Especially when Adels relatives and friends are able to read this forums. Wild speculations really don´t help anyone.

Well said. A little empathy goes a long way.
Cheers,
Erik

 

[Walrus]

Hi Ben,
yes I agree my VWT dive was probably not very well thought out. Regarding touching the plate then coming up, I went down with the bottom plate so there wasn’t “anything there” as a reference. This combined with very bad narcosis, and no light on the bottom plate apart from the glow rope itself meant I was pretty much blind. I didn’t know I was “at the bottom” so to speak.

On the plus side I using Will’s simple and effective counter balance system which I believe has much less chance for failure compared to more complicated sled setups. Before the dive someone also suggest that we remove the bottom plate and camera arm because of the huge drag, this I refused and think that Kimmo agreed with me because I wanted to make sure I could still use my normal lanyard and not worry about getting tangled.
I also had 2 or 3 very good safety divers, cheers Ben

P.S. I’m happy for VWT to be removed, but perhaps another option is to only allow head first dives on a normal competition counter balance systems. It would considerably reduce the depths of less experienced divers. Also you could then argue that the safety would be much more comparable too CWT/FIM. It’s how Enzo and Mayol used to do it back in the day.

 

[Kars]

Didn't you set any dive alarms?

I use both alarms on my D3, setting it at depth and at the (expected) dive half-time.

 

[Walrus]

Hi Kars,
yes I had Alarms but the deepest I could set them to was 100m, so for a 111m constant weight dive it's not really an issue. You also see the bottom plate coming up and there was a light on it, so fairly obvious even if you are narked. Not so with the VWT dive. I did hear the 100m alarm go off but didn't really know when I arived. Narcosis effects your sense of time, so when I reached the surface and checked that I had reached 121m I said to Will I may have spent 5-10 seconds on bottom. :blackeye

It was in no way planned and looking back at it pretty dangerous, the safety divers were nearly about to release the counter balance so that still would covered me in any case. Also the rope was set/fixed at 121m and think I expecting a sudden obvious jolt which didn't happen or I didn't feel it. :blackeye

Cheers,
Wal

 

[Will]

An update

The investigation by the AIDA-designated committee didn't return anything other than speculation on possible causes for Adel's demise. This speculation somehow filled the role of the conclusions that everyone expected. The AIDA Board release states:

In regards to this issue; The Board has asked Grant Graves to update the current AIDA Sled Diving Guidelines, with assistance from one or two other divers highly knowledgeable with sled diving, in the next month, if possible. Items to be considered include proper use of lanyard, use of video camera on diver during the entire dive, and the four levels of responsibility.
​

Some points:

1. If the AIDA board was serious about analysis and revision of the guidelines, it would hire an independent safety systems analyst, not AIDA judges and "divers highly knowledgeable with sled diving," who are exactly the ones that have so far being making all the mistakes...
Apparently there was significant financial outlay from AIDA in the search for Adel's body, so there is a budget available for professional consultation in these matters.

2. A lanyard does not make sled diving safe. If we are seeing black outs repeatedly below 40m (Yasemin, Adel, Anna in the last year) then the cause of those blackouts is what needs to be addressed, not a last ditch safety system that can only really guarantee a body (maybe alive). It's like Toyota saying, "we're aware that there's a problem with the Corolla, and we ask that anyone who drives one ensures their seat belt is firmly fastened."

3. Video cameras can do no more than document an accident, and the "four levels of responsibility" is safety terminology that has so far proved insufficient in sled diving.​

It would be imprudent to suggest that anything has been done that might affect the prolific rate of sled diving incidents and fatalities (evidenced by the most recent near-death accident at Only One in Sharm).
As such, I believe a referendum is still required. The minimum number of supporting AIDA nationals required to call a special assembly has almost been reached, so we encourage any AIDA member who has an opinion about this issue (either for or against) to let their voices be heard by their AIDA national.

 

[Kimmo]

Thank you Will again for you important comments. I try to remain in the facts only so I will try to comment shortly these excellent points you stated:

1. If the AIDA board was serious about analysis and revision of the guidelines, it would hire an independent safety systems analyst, not AIDA judges and "divers highly knowledgeable with sled diving," who are exactly the ones that have so far being making all the mistakes...
Apparently there was significant financial outlay from AIDA in the search for Adel's body, so there is a budget available for professional consultation in these matters.

Even this search arrangement was top important to arrange, I do not have, neither Aida Board has, a rights to use Aida money without Aida Assembly permit. This fact is explained further in Aida Statutes which can be found at Aida website.
After the accident I consulted mr. Mikko Simola from Loxus technologies (LOXUS Technologies Oy) immediately about the possibilities to arrange a deep water search in Santorini. This company has a serious references from successfully underwater searching projects. After Mikko checked the situation from Greece side he was capable to offer a search with heavy duty ROV containing side sonar scanner for 20k euros (most of these costs came from Greece side). I delivered all this information with all the details and offer with the references to Alex Boulting, Adel´s business partner, to be delivered forward. I also prepared to discuss with Board and Aida Assembly to cover least some parts of that search budged from Aida side. Meanwhile some Greece company made an underwater search with heavy duty ROV without success. If I have understood it right, those costs were covered by UAE government. Although that search and extra funding arrangement for the another serious underwater search were not successful.

2. A lanyard does not make sled diving safe. If we are seeing black outs repeatedly below 40m (Yasemin, Adel, Anna in the last year) then the cause of those blackouts is what needs to be addressed, not a last ditch safety system that can only really guarantee a body (maybe alive). It's like Toyota saying, "we're aware that there's a problem with the Corolla, and we ask that anyone who drives one ensures their seat belt is firmly fastened."

After the recent accidents and incidents it may be time to think about the possibility if there may be also something seriously wrong in our own attitude towards freediving safety. Last fatal accident happened in a shallow pool if I have not understood it wrong.
Lanyard might be just one tool for making these safety best practices little better. I understand Will´s personal opinion about safety lanyard (Diver on a leash? | DeeperBlue.com) and I would be quite sure that with his skills he might be quite safe. Although as there are thousands of freedivers doing these activities around the globe I´m afraid that all of them might not be that safe. It is also important to remember that for the top level athletes, who are the role models for many beginners, this kind of comments means also responsibility, what would be good to think about too.

3. Video cameras can do no more than document an accident, and the "four levels of responsibility" is safety terminology that has so far proved insufficient in sled diving.

I do not know yet if video cams in all the sledge dives would be possible to implement everywhere but I´m sure that if there would be video material available from Adel´s accident for example, we would know what really happened in that accident and we would be capable to focus on fixing problems what caused that accident.
I´m also sure that if we would be capable to implement this "four levels of responsibility" in Aida International, then our dives would be more safe. This "4 levels of responsibility" means that: freediver carries his/her responsibility, event organizer carries their responsibility, national Aida carries their responsibility as does the Aida International. In reality Aida international may not have that much power to prevent "stupid" dives in the events. But the event organizer, who is the next level from the freediver, has this power. National level has some power over the organizers when Aida international has power over the nationals. So what I try to say is that the "closer levels" has some "tools" against possible misbehaviors. So this responsibility belongs for all the freedivers, not only to Aida Board or Aida international who just creates some "stupid" rules somewhere.

br,

- Kimmo Lahtinen
AIDA, president

 

[Will]

Hey Kimmo,
Thanks for elucidating and for providing more background information on what the AIDA board has been doing.

1. I only heard a rumour about contributing funding to the search - perhaps 'apparently' wasn't a vague enough word to denote this. I think it's proper that there was a thorough search and that AIDA did everything it could to assist, but without funding the search itself (which would imply a liability that I don't think should exist).

2. Whether the last fatal freediving accident occurred in a shallow pool is still speculation (I know what you are referring to, but some are saying there was evidence he was only swimming).
The lanyard debate is a different topic, but my statement that 'lanyards don't make sled-diving safe' is still relevant, in the same way that seat belts don't make faulty cars safe. Perhaps a little safer, but the relative risk is, in my opinion, still far from acceptable.

3. Video footage would always be preferable, but I don't believe it would affect the stream of incidents. My reasons for thinking this are:
- so far it seems no two sled diving incidents have been equal, and if they all have different causes then it will be a long process of continued accidents and subsequent analysis before we could start to provide against all eventualities.
- many sled accidents that involve problems internal to the freediver (e.g. the most recent July 11 incident) wouldn't be clarified by video footage.

 

[Rik]

I like the idea to have an professional consultant(s) for freediving accidents, however we have to keep in mind that such an function doesn’t exist within diving at all. Even DAN and the Technical Diving Agency’s don’t have an NTSB-like system that assists in evaluating accidents and incidents and give advice to minimize recurrence of the accident.

Currently, most analyses in technical diving are done by the divers directly connected to the case. Sometimes, rapports are established by the local coast guard or law enforcement which might choose to hire an consultant. An exception to this might be accidents that affect commercial diving where organizations like the HSE might choose to conduct an research which can be required by law (OSHA and such).

As to whom should be regarded as an professional, capable of heading such an research, we have to admit that in freediving, most knowledgeable professionals will be connected to AIDA in one or another way. At the same time, to my knowledge, none of the current professionals have expertise in risk assessment nor forensic medicine, which should be required in such an board due the nature of the accidents.

The second question is in which circumstances this NTSB-like board should reach out and give advice. Like Bill wrote some posts ago, most accidents do not happen during AIDA sanctioned events. At the same time, the current uncertainties around the death of Patrick Musimu is suggestive that such an board might have been helpful to elicited the case. An established independent international safety board committee could concentrate experience and could therefore be more helpful then establishing an independent committee for each accident that would occur. Of course, this committee should act separately from Law Enforcement and the freediving agencies en should NOT be part of any criminal investigation.

This might be an topic that should be discussed between CMAS, AIDA en perhaps even SSI.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

A (perhaps harsh) comment by Fred Buyle:
Hecatomb…ok, but what’s next?

 

[Simos]

Slight divergence but related to comments about safety: obviously noone denies that diving with a buddy is a very important message.

In my opinion an equally important message that should be promoted a lot more by all of us is diving well within someone's limits. The best way to do this is to start treating blackouts and sambas as real ACCIDENTS, even when a buddy is around and it doesn't lead to any harm.

Imagine if you were in a pool or in the sea watching scuba divers train and every few sessions you saw someone black out because they run out of air and their buddy having to basically save them. I am sure you would conclude that scuba diving is pretty dangerous and you wouldn't be wrong!

Unfortunately in competitive freediving, where everyone is trying to push their limits there are always a few BOs which does send the wrong message to everyone else. (both freedivers but also the non-freedivers, I have experienced this first hand more than once).

IF AIDA and clubs treated BOs as something really serious then everyone would be diving a bit differently and more safely. Eg if someone has a BO at a competition, they're disqualified from the whole competition and perhaps even from taking part in other Freediving comps for a period of time.

Similarly at a club level, if someone has a samba/bo at training, apart from discussing what went wrong it could also lead to not taking part in a training for a couple of weeks.

Of course, I know the above will NEVER be done by AIDA - I am not naive to believe that it will. But I hope that at least some more thought/effort can be made to educate all of us on this.

PS easy for me to say as I don't take part in any high-level competitions or aspire to break any records but unfortunately I think it's hard to differentiate competitive freediving from recreational so perhaps the attitude to safety should be consistent for both. Just some thoughts...

 

[Kars]

Simos, I agree a buddy, that is able and pays attention, is the needed for safety, perhaps the best safety in some situations. However I don't like most of the stated proposals because they are like Pavlovian punishments. If I were to use any external motivation, I much rather choose to reward safe behaviour, works 10x better you see.
Continuing on the internal motivation of divers to enjoy their sport in a safe way. I think if any diver with an education would sit down for a moment (Stop, think, act), they would for sure be able to spell out enough hazards. But at times the internal motivation just isn't strong enough, or people are just too lazy or tired to think and organise, or their ratio is overruled by passion or need.
Also for many water and diving is like a healing treatment for dealing with a life full of stress and worries. Exclusion, limitations, punishment, austrysism won't take away the needs, in fact may only amplify them. From my own experience, in a local city they've installed fingerprint scanning to enter pool facilities. Valuing my privacy I won't be able to use those pools. I'll go somewhere else. When that's not possible in the near future I'll dive the local lakes, even alone if nobody is around to share the water with. Yes I dive then very conservatively, but still no buddy. If I would have the cash I would have a FRV, but I don't. Still freediving is my medicine for dealing with this often crazy world.

 

[osusim]

IF AIDA and clubs treated BOs as something really serious then everyone would be diving a bit differently and more safely. Eg if someone has a BO at a competition, they're disqualified from the whole competition and perhaps even from taking part in other Freediving comps for a period of time.

This is off-topic to the sled discussion. Join CMAS and have fun alone from us.

 

[Simos]

This is off-topic to the sled discussion. Join CMAS and have fun alone from us.

Fair point, it is a bit off-topic indeed - but not as much as you might think. As far as I saw from this discussion, there are two main points of why NLT should be removed:

1. Not being a true 'freediving' discipline in that it's not athletic

2. Safety concerns and the related implications these and accidents have for the image and progression of freediving

I don't think there is much anyone can do about #1 - it's just a question of opinion and how each of us would like to see freediving evolving.

So safety, attitude towards responsible diving, gradual progression and all things mentioned are what can be done about #2. A lot has been discussed on safety systems and how to retrieve a diver if there is a problem so I was making the simple point that it would be also worthwhile for AIDA to question whether enough is done to minimise problems in the first place.

Kars - I don't like my proposal either I agree that motivation and reward is better if a method can be found.

 

[Walrus]

From Simos

Eg if someone has a BO at a competition, they're disqualified from the whole competition and perhaps even from taking part in other Freediving comps.

Hi Simos,
I thought I would reply to your previous comment with some 1st hand experience. Your assumption is based on people pushing to the edge of their limits is when they are most likely to blackout. While this is true in a lot of cases I had 2 blackouts when attempting conservative comp dives that were 5m below a PB. The 1st was back in 2004 and the 2nd was this year so I wouldn’t say I’m some one that constantly pushes the boundaries or an irresponsible diver. They were just bad dives where things went wrong, technique was sloppy etc.
It does effect your confidence a lot specially if it’s a dive you have done easily in training. After a day of rest in both cases I came back and did some very good performances, PB’s and the second time diving even deeper totally clean. If I was banned from the comp, or from freediving for a while I probably would have quit, or if not had totally lost all confidence and compete very badly.

There have been cases where a Ban has been put in place, but these were from very bad blackouts needing mouth to mouth resus, and the divers weren't acting responsibly.

Cheers,
Wal

 

[efattah]

The recent accident on July 11 would have been prevented if the on-site judges had enforced the depth pre-requisite rule. I am not certain how they were able to circumvent the rule, since it is clearly explained in the official rules for record attempts.