A cave dive is considered any dive that takes place under a naturally occurring rock ceiling. Cave diving has been considered one of the most extreme and hazardous forms of diving, but it doesn’t have to be if you get proper training and follow the rules. There are two forms of cave diving: cavern diving and full cave diving.
by Andreas W. Matthes
Cave diving in Romania is something not offered all the time and when friend, Underwater cave cinematographer and photographer Wes Skiles of Karst Production was asking me some years back during a NSS-CDS cave diving convention in Lake City, Florida if I like to go cave diving in Romania naturally I was curious and it turned out to be quite a cave diving experience indeed.
The Diver vs. Murphy’s Law
by Jeff Petersen
Hogarthian diving is generally considered a specific “configuration style ” of back mount cave diving and there are numerous articles out there on the specifics of the Hogarthian configuration. Instead, this article is more about the psychological underpinnings and guiding principals of Hogarthian diving. The Hogarthian mindset and its concepts can be applied to the various forms of cave diving (and other types of diving).
With the plethora of articles expounding on proper hose lengths, regulator locations, and fittings, such a focus on the gear configurations isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Instruction on the specifics of gear configuration does allow the adopter to immediately leverage the “lessons learned” by so many others in the past. However, this focus on the mechanics of gear set-up can often be at the expense of not giving students a sense of the underlying motivation behind the configuration. A little appreciation of the Hogarthian psyche allows students to tailor their configuration according to their specific diving needs.
In a subsequent posting, I’ll put together a primer on the specifics of the back mount configuration for those unfamiliar to Hogarthian Style.
The Hogarthian emphasis on both safety and efficiency – with near equal importance – is why this method of gear placement does more than any other configuration “style” to generate synergies that minimize risk and maximize efficiency simultaneously.
The Hogarthian mindset is fundamentally about risk management. This mindset was borne from an exploration-intensive environment. And since exploration dives are intrinsically more risky, all other elements of the dive needed to be managed appropriately to minimize the risk.
The following summarizes the Hogarthian goals and strategies (rather than the specific gear configuration that results from the concepts). From the goal statements, the mindset evolves and then, in turn, this leads to the conceptual tools that the Hogarthian mind utilizes to realize the goals.
* Maximize your safety – For those without chemical imbalances, this is the number one goal – for the obvious reasons.
* Maximize your efficiency – While technically a secondary goal, this is a very close second. Since cave dives tend to be very goal-oriented (e.g. “we need to make it 3,000 feet into the tunnel to look for a side tunnel”), the ability to make it with the least risk and effort allows greater success and safety. More diver efficiency makes a dive safer; all things equal, the more efficient you can be, the less likely you are to create riskier situations. And if you do, the efficiency gives you more resources (e.g. lower air consumption) to manage a problem in the most expedient manner.
Mindset of a Hogarthian diver
* Treat all dives seriously – whether large or small, familiar or new cave, complacency can be a killer
* Constantly seek to refine – not re-invent – your gear
* Dive Team/buddy mental synchronicity – dive with like-minded divers
* Minimalism – less is better (up to a point)
– Idiot-proofing – making sure you can use the equipment as easily as possible under any conditions
– Bullet-proofing – elimination of unnecessary failure points
* Consistency of gear set-up (with a critical eye for constant re-assessment for improvement)
* Self-sufficiency – don’t be dependent on your dive team to save you; they should be an additional asset, not a crutch
The number one goal is safety, but we all know that we can’t engage in underwater activities with absolute safety. Since there will always be some degree of risk, the name of the game is risk management. In other words, what is (or what should be) your level of acceptable risk? Based on personal observations of divers, there is clearly a wide range of individual thresholds for acceptable risk. Unfortunately, many display an objectively high level of acceptable risk (based on their behavior), while their perception is quite to the contrary; they think they have a very low level of risk.
Dissecting risk… and your gear
Let’s break down the idea of risk into some manageable and more concrete categories to help illustrate how these concepts have to be addressed. Generally, risk increases with increased complexity. More gear equals more risks/failure points. Also a more complex item will invariably be harder to use properly in a stressful situation, thus increasing risk. These rules are bounded by the practical consideration that some increases to complexity introduces far more safety than the incremental risk introduced, such as adding an octopus (the back-up second stage) to your configuration. Generally, the increased safety it affords far out weighs the incremental risk of hazards such as free-flows and entanglement hazards. Of course these risks, in turn, need to be managed.
For the purposes of this discussion, I’m going to break gear risk down into three components: 1) Internal risk, 2) Accessibility risk, and 3) Environmental risk. Acknowledging that these components do, of course, have some interdependencies, let’s look at these forms of risk in greater detail. To help ground these seemingly academic distinctions, I will carry the analysis of our aforementioned second stage throughout the discussion.
This asks the question, “What is the probability the gear will work as it’s supposed to when it is needed.” How complex is the gear? How many internal components (i.e. how many possible failure points are there in the item)? Are the components electronics, mechanical, or some of both? The more internal components that are crucial to the function, the greater the risk of failure (i.e. more failure points). While risk describes a level of danger, a failure point represents a component whose individual failure renders the equipment inoperable.
Taking our octopus example, the selection of what secondary to put on the end of the hose is crucial. While most of your gear is quite literally your life support system, many people place an inordinate focus on the cost of the gear. This concern over cost must be weighed carefully against what risk are being managed (or exacerbated). Why would you want your secondary regulator to be of a lower quality than your primary? If you have to resort to it, you should expect the same level of performance that your primary affords you. This helps reduce physical and psychological stress and in turn, reduces the likelihood of greater gas consumption during its use. To draw conveniently from a couple handy clichés to make the point: Do you want to place your life in the hands of “the lowest bidder?” And: “How much is your life worth?”
A secondary risk is, given a functional failure, what is the reparability of the item. Can the gear be readily repaired underwater (i.e. immediately repaired)? For example, second stages with screw off covers are preferred over models where the diaphragm cannot be accessed without tools. This allows for re-setting the pop-it and flushing out foreign objects that may be causing a free-flow or other undesirable events.
This one is a little more obvious. Now that we have an octopus that should work as expected and, in the event of probable failures, can be fixed, we next ask: “Can the gear be deployed so that it can be used as intended?” In other words, can it be reached and deployed – regardless of the circumstances? With our new high performance and functioning octopus, we need to figure out the optimal location to store it. Since this is a back-up device, it has to be “stowed away” and may not be needed at all, but it must
always be readily available. One of the signature characteristics of Hogarthian configuration is the location of the octopus. It is worn like a necklace, resting just below the chin, held in place by a thin bungee tied around the mouthpiece. Ease of deployment is crucial. Given its location, some divers can retrieve it without using their hands by tilting their head down. For the less adept, it still takes only one free hand and a split second – even is zero visibility – to move the regulator into the mouth. If the necklace is too long the octopus will flop around and potentially get entangled with other equipment; it could also be more difficult to grasp in an emergency. If the necklace is to short, you can’t raise it to your mouth and keep it comfortable seated in your mouth for use. In the Hogarthian configuration, the octopus hose comes off of the regulator mounted over the left shoulder, laying behind the BC, and draped over the right shoulder. Hose length is selected to ensure that the second stage rests just below the chin and the hose doesn’t “hang” off the shoulder – another entanglement hazard.
Our last gear related risk asks the question, “What risk does the gear introduce that is unrelated to its function.” How will its presence – whether during use or “idle” – impact or be impacted by the environment? Is it an entanglement hazard with other gear? Does it hamper access to other gear or mobility? For example, will it impair the ability to use the power inflator or attach/deploy stage bottles? For our octopus example, one consideration is the overall size of the second stage. Larger stages create a larger profile extending off your chest. This can create a greater entanglement hazard in a very tight squeeze or even produce free-flows in tight all-rock restrictions. Are the exhaust vents and mouthpiece going to allow easy intrusion of sands, shells, etc? One solution to this is to place a section of window screen across the mouth so that when the rubber mouthpiece is attached, it holds the screen in place, taut across the opening.
While all of this may seem excessively academic and analytical, no one questions the value of having a back up second stage, but this illustrates just how focused the mindset of the true Hogarthian diver is on all the “little things” that could turn into big problems.
These attitudes can manifest themselves quite poignantly in dive site chatter. I have overheard countless divers describing their planned dive with boastful tones on how they were going to use multiple stage bottles and a scooter to reach the target penetration. To hear them talk, one would think they were getting points for each additional piece of equipment they could get into the cave with them. Conversely, a Hogarthian diver will pride himself on achieving the dive goal with as little additional gear as possible – while still remaining safe.
In the Hogarthian world, you don’t bring something unless you truly need it. True need here is the operative phrase and the more contentious consideration. We all realize that if a specific set of events occurs, our hypothetical item will be needed. In the end, these “what if” exercises boil down to gut-level probability analysis of the genuine likelihood of need, the items true value, and the risks it introduces during all of its “downtime.” Then – after all of that mental math – if you decide to bring it, make sure it works.
We discussed how the first macro risk is gear and that all of it will fail – eventually. The next macro failure point is you – your brain and your body movements. To minimize your risk of failure, you need to practice and configure yourself so that everything can become second nature, like learned instincts. Then, under stress, you don’t have to consciously manage your actions; instead, unconscious reactions suffice. One of the keys to the success of this concept is to always configure your gear the same way. Whether you are in a large or small cave, deep or shallow, everything needs to be in the same place. That way, your body and mind get trained where to reach for the octopus, the pressure gauge, the power inflator, without fumbling around or requiring thought.
On the brain side, stress itself is a huge risk factor. Since stress can lead to bad decisions and ultimately panic, the near elimination of stress is crucial for safety. Managing your gear – knowing where it is instinctively and using it with ease – will avoid additional stress.
A term that has gained significant popularity as a community and market segment is “Tech Diving.” Unfortunately, the “tech” in Tech Diving means technical and technical translates into gear – more and more gear. For the Hogarthian diver, “tech” is about technique. Technique can always be counted on – you always have it with you.
Another consideration as a failure point is the rest of the divers in your dive team or other divers diving in the system during your dive – or even previous to your dive. Can you trust your life on a stranger’s placement of a line arrow pointing the way out?
While this topic warrants a separate posting to do it justice, for now, the key take away is that your dive buddies should have the same mentality and gear configuration. With the same configuration, each diver is better poised to help each other out. This can be crucial in low visibility and stressful situations where your next action may make the situation safer or much more deadly. You know where everything is on your buddy when he’s having a problem, because it’s in the same place on you – the gear placement that has become second nature for you from consistent placement and practice.
Some people think of the Hogarthian style as rigid and stagnant. The Hogarthian configuration does continue to evolve, although its evolution now is in incremental refinements rather than massive redesigns. Changes to the configuration are based on more of a “scientific method.” A change is proposed, analyzed and evaluated by peers, tested, and then if the test results bear out, adopted. Of course, there is no “Hogarthian Institute” that reviews and ratifies revisions to the doctrine, but there is a strong word-of-mouth-community where new refinements are vetted and either adopted or abandoned based on experience.
Ultimately, understanding and embracing the Hogarthian mindset ensures that when you tailor your configuration, it is a genuine enhancement appropriate to the specific peculiarities of your diving needs. While the Hogarthian goals of safety (risk reduction) and efficiency (getting the most out of your dive) are grounded in cave exploration, the Hogarthian mentality can serve any diver well – be it 30 foot reef divers, nitrox or mixed gas divers, deep wreck divers, or spearfishermen. No matter what kind of dive you’re doing, there’s always a fair amount of effort that goes into making it happen, so you want to get the most for your effort and money. And regarding safety, we’ve all heard the admonition “it only takes a few inches of water to drown.”
DIVING IN DEPTH TAGS
- hogarthian configuration
- scuba hogarthian
- konfiguracja DIR/Hogarthian
by Sergio Granucci
A new cave to explore just 5 minutes from my house…
Over the past years, the Labnaha exploration team has explored more than 80 cenotes north of Playa del Carmen in the state of Quintana Roo, Mexico. In this area, a great number of cenotes are still waiting to be discovered and explored.
Largest Underwater Caves (Total Surveyed Passage)
- Sistema Ox Bel Ha, Tulum Mexico: 134, 048 meters with a maximum depth of 110 feet
- Sistema Sac Actun, Akumal, Mexico: 61,941 meters with a maximum depth of 82 feet
- Sistema Nohoch Nah Chich, Akumal, Mexico: 61,143 meters with a maximum depth of 235 feet
- Cenote Dos Ojos, Akumal, Mexico: 56,6971 meters with a maximum depth of 391 feet
- Leon Sinks Cave System, Florida: 30, 480 meters with a maximum depth of 240 feet
- Wakulla Springs Cave System, Florida: 42,100 feet with a maximum depth of 300 feet
Deepest Underwater Caves
- Zacaton, Mexico: 1,148 feet deep, Jim Bowden
- Fontain de Vauluse, France: 1,033 feet deep
- Boesmangat, South Africa: 1,016 feet deep
Deepest cave dive by a Woman
In October 2004, Verna van Schaik from Gauteng, South Africa set a world deep diving record by diving to a depth of 725 feet (221 m) at Boesmansgat cave.
Longest Solo Swimming Dive into a Cave
Sheck Exley, 1989, Chips Hole cave system, Florida, solo swimming penetration of 10,444 feet
Longest Solo Scooter/DPV Dive into a Cave
Gilberto Menezes (Brazilian), September 20, 2004, Bananeira Cave, state of Bahia in Central Brazil, Solo scooter/DPV penetration of 6,400 meters (21,000 feet) in the upstream sump of the cave system. The dive lasted 11 hours 23 minutes and was stopped in going passage. The Bananeira sump starts 400 m inside the cave and comprises a narrow passage 3 m wide and 2 m high in average with a silty floor. Although the water is warm (c. 25 ºC), visibility is never more than 3 m being only 1.5 m during the 2004 dives. The underwater passage is generally shallow in the first 3,500 m (25 m maximum depth) becoming gradually deeper until a short loop at around 6,000 m penetration brings the depth to 50 m. The dive was stopped in the ascending portion of the loop at 20 m depth. In his longest push two Submerge Inc. UV-42 scooters (specially adapted with 65-amph @ 24-volts NiMH batteries enabling a total range of about 10,000 m per scooter!) were used. The dive used conventional (open circuit) apparatus and a total of 33 tanks were either used or were in place at the sump during the longest dive. Trimix 25/50 was used from the surface to 25 m depth (up to 5,800 m penetration). Trimix 16/70 was used from 25 to 50 m in depth (from 5,800 m to 6,400 m penetration). Nitrox 70 was used for decompression from 12 m to 7 m in depth (3,000 m to 1,800 m penetration) and pure oxygen was used at 6 m depth (1,800 m penetration) and 3 m depth (1,500 m penetration).
Longest Cave Penetration Dives (scooter/DPV and swim)
- Gilberto Menezes, September 20, 2004, Upstream sump of Bananeira cave, state of Bahia in Central Brazil, 21,000-foot penetration scooter/DPV dive at a maximum depth of 164 feet
- WKPP divers, 2000, Wakulla Springs cave system, Florida, 19,000-foot penetration scooter/DPV dive at a maximum depth of 300 feet
- Sheck Exley, 1989, Chips Hole cave system, Florida, 10,444-foot solo penetration swim dive
Longest Cave Traverse (distance from one cave entrance to another)
WKPP divers, May 29, 1999, Leon Sinks Cave System from Big Dismal to Cheryl Sink, Leon County, Florida, 14,000-foot scooter/DPV traverse at a maximum depth of 220 feet
If there are records you would like us to add to this list, please contact us with the details.
DIVING IN DEPTH TAGS
- casve diving records