This means even with an advanced or master diver certificate from PADI, (NAUI, SDI, SSI, etc...) the tables you learn to use do not go beyond decompression limits (requiring mandated decompression stops on your ascent) since they stop at 30m. It used to be 40m but I believe the standard has become more conservative since I was last teaching. NAUI does have supplemental training that goes beyond WRSTC standards but a lot of that has to do with the science and ecology of the underwater world more generally.
All open water level certs (usually the most basic level cert) expects students to be fully autonomous (with their buddies) by the end of the course. If you sign up for an open water dive in southern. California for example, it is rarely a guided experience and most people form groups of 2-3 on the boat and go and enjoy the water, coming back within an 1-1.5 hours. Almost everywhere else I have worked, it is expected (by the guests...) that all dives in open water are lead by a certified dive master and not self lead in small groups. I personally think this is a result of the way the standards and incentives work for dive operators to encourage that dependency on their outfit and keep the money flowing in.
Generally recreational diving is very safe but even working as an instructor for a few years at a few different outfits, there is always a handful of fatalities. I really like the comparison to Skydiving someone else made, except its a much more subtle danger since you dont actually need to be in top physical shape to do this activity (even though it is required by the certification agencies).
The only other thing I find interesting is all the certification agencies are for the INSTRUCTORS (hence the I in PADI, NAUI, SSI...). These orgs are outfits that enable recreational scuba operators to have a standardized set of empirically derived safety limits to protect the instructor and shop liability (not the student's). More often than not, especially in far flung, remote diving destinations, caution is thrown to the wind and people do not always follow the prescribed standards.
Source: OWSI (Open water scuba instructor) with multiple agencies as well as CMAS level 3 diver
I wonder how diving compares to other off-track sporting activities. Does it have a worse record?
argh
Older Navy diver instructor walks in "So I know each of you is coming into this class with different levels of experience. What we're going to do first is a short test on your proficiency for 20 minutes.
It will be graded on completeness, not correctness. You are not expected to know all the answers. I'm just interested in gauging what you know.
Be aware, there are a lot of questions for the time, so I suggest you work quickly to get through all of them. Make sure you read and follow all instructions.
Do not turn your paper over and start until I've handed all of them out and said go.
hands out tests
Go."
12/14 people in the class start furiously scribbling
The first sentence on the test?
"If you read this sentence, please continue to hold your pencil, but do not write on this test. Wait until time has expired."
It always stuck with me as one of the best lessons about diving. Both in what you should do, and what our natural inclinations to actually do are.
"OK class, today's lesson is going to be a dictation, get your books out and start taking this down"
I can't remember the exact content but effectively he started off with some familiar organic chemistry and then veered off to stuff that was pretty obviously wrong.
I'm proud to say that I'm the one that said "Eh ... that doesn't seem like a valid equation ... ?"
"Good! Never just copy this stuff down without engaging your brain!"
(Or at least that's the way it goes in my memory, 17 was a long old time ago!)
'Now that you've read all the questions, just write your name in the top corner and turn your paper over.'
Yeah...a lot of my classmates ended up with holes and scribbles on their tests...
He also claimed the goal was to gauge their knowledge. Again, that was lie. And those who scribbled were literally trying to fulfill stated goal of test.
> It will be graded on completeness, not correctness. You are not expected to know all the answers. I'm just interested in gauging what you know.
In overwhelming majority of situations, of you sabotage goal of event due to following likely faulty mutually conflicting instructions, you will be blamed for it.
I am not diving but I am sailing and for the most part sailing is a safe sport assuming you are prepped including mental preparation. If you are not, things can get downhill pretty fast.
I consider diving one of the sports where you place yourself in a situation where you are dead by default unless you have paved the way for you to escape. Same is flying, skydiving but so is going into a corner in a car or motorcycle at the max speed you can handle.
As a licensed skydiver who got out of the sport partially because I didn't like the culture, I assure you that a huge amount of the skydiving industry also views it like a roller coaster ride.
In most cases there wasn't an indication that they were speeding or drunk or on drugs, just that other people weren't paying attention. And maybe that the rider didn't allow for that.
I've ridden for many years, and I also fly small planes, so I'm quite aware of my higher-than-average risk profile, and have gone through a lot of studies and reading to determine how I can, as much as possible, mitigate the risks while still enjoying the activities.
For motorcycles, riding regularly, in full gear, while sober, gains you an awful lot. Riding infrequently is hard because you don't maintain the muscle memory, full gear turns most crashes into a "Invent new cusswords to remove the paint from your helmet, get up, and walk away" event (not all, obviously, but if you crash without gear, it's going to either suck a lot or end your life, and if you crash in gear it's a lot less likely to suck or kill you), and "bike nights at the bar" are just dumb.
Knowing the limits of your bike is also helpful. I did a few track days, decided I didn't want to go down this route, but very much appreciated the chance to learn (in a safe environment) how much further than my normal limits I could ride on the bike. I couldn't ride anywhere near the limits of my bike, and knew it, but I expanded the envelope of "I know I can make this bike do that," and it was occasionally useful. The guys riding wheelies down the highway, against what most people believe, actually don't kill themselves terribly often. They know the limits of their bike, they know what they can make it do, and if there's something that requires a rapid response, they can make the bike do it on demand. One of those guys has a car pull out in front of them, they're either able to stop competently, or aim for the new gap, lean the bike over, cut through the gap, and flip off the car. The guy who rides a big cruiser 300 miles a year to the bar is more likely to mentally lock up, lock the brakes (before antilocks were standard), and slam into the side of said vehicle. Often while sliding on the ground first, having locked the rear tire.
You also, if you're riding regularly, learn in a hurry how to identify the cars to watch out for. Maybe the slammed Honda with a fart can, park bench, and body damage is being driven by someone's mom, who is the most respectful person on the road. Don't care, I'm going to assume it's likely to do something very abrupt and stupid. And, often enough, they do.
But if you wear gear, ride a lot, and understand the limits of your bike, you can manage a lot of riding miles, very safely. As much as people make fun of the old couples on Goldwings in the glow-stick yellow riding gear, a lot of those people ride 30k+ miles/yr, for many, many years, entirely safely.
This is getting long, but general aviation accident records contain a lot of the same sort of thing - "Here's a short list of quick ways to die in an airplane. Don't do these and your life expectancy will increase dramatically."
And nothing here means that you can control all the risk. Sometimes, shit happens and there's nothing you can do about it, despite all your preparations (Gann's Fate is the Hunter is a great read on the subject). But you can radically balance the scales in your direction with the right planning.
From my experience the dive operators in tourist spots often don’t want you to touch anything. Kind of makes sense because most tourists like myself only have a very vague recollection of the procedure.
The crew on a dive boat in a tropical destination could very well be a 20 year old newly certified divemaster who's been up all night partying - there's no way I'm letting that person be responsible for making sure my air supply is connected and turned on before throwing me in the water, or any of the other standard pre-dive (BWRAF) safety checks that all certified divers are taught to do.
If you're an experienced diver, know your narcosis limits, know your oxygen toxicity limits, know your air consumption, havn't had a drink the night before, and are physically fit, maybe you can pull it off without trimix. Otherwise, it's an absolute beginner's dive with the right gas blend.
1. Being able to easily sign up for a dive at an all-inclusive resort makes it seem more 'fine', you get a false sense of security that you will be taken care of.
2. Dive shops tend to be fairly relaxed with checking if someone is properly qualified to go on a particular dive. They barely check your papers or equipment, if at all.
3. You often don't really know what exactly you are getting into until you are in the middle of it. And then it can be too late to bail. Is it safer to abandon a group and attempt to go back and potentially get lost, or go into an environment that looks more dangerous than you expected?
I am a PADI open water diver, but only dive a few times a year, so not too experienced. One time I signed up for a shipwreck dive at an all-inclusive resort. I am usually quite careful, and naively thought it would be fine - we just dive down, go around the wreck and come back up. I rented all equipment, and had to pay extra for a wetsuit - the 'default' was to just go in my swimming trunks. Turned out, on the dive we ended up going inside the wreck through a very narrow passage under it, going through narrow dark corridors surrounded by rusted metal. Touch anything and you get scratched (which I did). Your cables or tank can easily get caught (which it briefly did for me - and since I was the last one in the group it was quite scary seeing the group getting away from me as I tried to catch up). The current around the wreck was quite strong.
Somehow the dive was planned such that there was very little allowance for extra air. I ended up using more air than I suppose was normal, and there would not have been enough to make a normal ascent. I ended up having to use the dive instructor's alt supply for some of the return swim and switch to my own for the safety stop, otherwise I would've run out. It is one thing to practice it, and another to actually have to do it on what was supposed to be a relaxing 'touristy' dive.
On another occasion, a dive instructor took me and my partner (who was on an introductory dive - she doesn't have a license) into a cave, which is also more dangerous than I would've preferred.
These experiences - combined with the general experience of wasting the whole day on a rocky boat breathing diesel fumes for an hour or so of diving - make me reluctant to dive again, unless the sight is particularly picturesque.
It was an intense experience. Our dive instructors warned us of how deadly the site was, and the various hazards. But the dive itself was unique compared to other deep dives I've done.
I would describe it like parachuting, slow motion, into the bluest blue. By the second, the sunlight got dimmer and the blue got bluer. It was disorienting if you looked in any direction besides the crater wall. At about 25m down, I looked up and realized we were too deep to reach the surface quickly.
That triggered my panic reaction. I started hyperventilating into my regulator, and had the urge to spit it out. But knowing that would be literal suicide, I managed to override it.
I felt like given a few minutes, there was a strong chance of getting my panic under control, but I thought, "why take the chance?" Also, the dive plan was to continue to go deeper, and if part of my panic was due to nitrogen narcosis, it was only going to get worse. It wasn't worth it for a recreational dive.
So I gestured the "up" signal to one of the instructors, and she immediately worked with me to do a controlled ascent. I spent the rest of the time doing a shallow dive along the crater wall, which was much more relaxing.
Lipski's body was recovered the following day by Tarek Omar, one of the world's foremost deep-water divers, at the request of Lipski's mother.
Omar says: Two days after we recovered his remains and gave [his mother] his belongings and equipment, she came to me asking that I help her disassemble them so she can pack them. The camera should have been damaged or even broken altogether because I had found it at a depth of 115 metres, and it is only designed to sustain 75 metres; but, to my surprise, the camera was still working. We played it and his mother was there. I regret that his mother will have this forever... If I had known the footage existed I’d have flooded it. I think the thing that really upset and saddened me about it was that his mom has it now – she has the footage of her own son drowning."
Some basic diving rules which when broken lead to deaths:
- Not diving with a partner
- Diving below the depth you should be
- Diving after partying the night before
- Rising back up too quickly
For those of us who (don't) remember the 60's, experience can take many forms. I remember reaching a depth of 100' in scuba training, and being asked to do arithmetic at a whiteboard.
"Um, ask me how I wrote my thesis..."
It’s upside-down, with a hole in the hull, and rests in about 40 meters of water (120 feet or so).
What makes it dangerous, is that it’s filled with silt, and it only takes an errant kick of the flipper to fill a room with zero-visibility mud.
People panic, and panic at 120 feet means the oxygen goes fast.
They nickname it “The wreck that eats divers.”
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/underwater-archaeology...
I have over 10k dives and the closest I came to death was when I was guiding on the liberty wreck in bali when a small earthquake shook the wreck, I was barely 3 meter into the wreck that I had dived hundreds of times and couldn't find my way out. Fortunately my buddy was outside the wreck at the time and used his banger to guide me out.
Point is, shit happens, so you better plan for it.
Gulp... That puts it in perspective. It's exceptional to dive a hundred times on a wreck in Bali and write about it on HN - and do both in the same live. Respect!
What compounds it, is that we have an environment of "Macho Knuckleheads" around here. They will do things like dive the SD alone, and skip the decomp.
*For the non-divers out there, it’s possible substitute a less narcotic gas - typically helium but not always - for a portion of the narcotic gas in a mixture. Equivalent narcotic depth (END) is a way to equate a mixture’s narcotic effect to that of air at a given depth.
Neon might also reduce narcosis but it's more expensive and the work of breathing is higher.
I know some french federation divers who will tape their hands to their hand power inflator to avoid confusion when experience narcosis at depth.
At first I thought it was a goofy idea, but after experiencing debilitating narcosis at 60m I had second thoughts about it.
And taping your hand to your power inflator is just too stupid for words. Put some helium in the mix.
Interview with Tarek Omar (the diver rescuer in the article) and location shot. Much better than reading the article.
Video crushes your imagination. It's factual, and leaves little mystery. Well-written narratives are full sensory waking dreams that you populate with sights and sounds, something you can inhabit.
Subject seemed interesting enough that I came to the comments to get alternative links, which have been provided, thank you posters.
Thanks for the link.
I am not a superstitious person, and have dived multiple deep technical dives with bad visibility, below 0 Celsius sea water (poor dive computer) on sites with munitions, chemical contamination and war graves with body remains. This is the only time I felt that there was a large predatory presence watching me and all around me. Was offered to do the Arch, have the needed experience and clearances. Did not do, will not do ever.
The memorials and history of the place did not affect me in any way, I've worked rescue, dealt with dead bodies and attended many a funeral. I've participated in autopsies as part of my training. The blue hole was a strange enough experience that it stands out of all of my many dives.
In general, if you are diving to see fish, it's rare to go past 20-30m (the minimum depth to exp. narcosis). The visibility is worse the deeper you go and typically if there is a reef at 30m there is also one at 15m where your oxygen will last longer, less cold, etc...
I don't think diving needs to be dangerous to be enjoyed. It's about seeing an entirely new world and the moving in the medium of water. The people who've perished at the Blue Hole are taking an extraordinary amount of risk - diving solo, descending to 150m - for 'achievement' purposes and I understand Omar's frustration.
There is nothing particularly dangerous about it except the huge numbers of greedy dive centers who take inexperienced divers there.
To all novice divers reading this, dive within your limits and you have nothing to worry about. Do not listen to dive guides/instructors who encourage you to dive deeper than you are certified or in wrecks / caves without the proper training.
Diving is a calculated risk like most extreme "sports", and when you ignore those risks you endanger yourself and anyone else diving with you.
Don't expect your guide to care more about your life than you do.
"If there was zero adrenaline, it was a dive done properly."
I've once taken an intro flight on a light aircraft. After I observed my instructor doing all his pre-flight procedures, I reflected "umm, you know, it's actually much less than I do for a simple dive." He thought for a moment, but found an interesting reply: "I'm not an expert, but I think, if we take a number of dives or flights, we have more diving-related deaths than light-aircraft-related." (He was talking about Poland though - i.e. cold water dives.)
A real shame that this diving site is known for all of these avoidable deaths.
Map: https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Blue+Hole/@28.5722712,3...
http://maltatechnicaldiving.blogspot.com/2009/07/dive-site-o...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Blue_hol...
For sure that site was not branded as deadliest in the world, but already back then dive masters told us about people who lost their lives there.
> return console.log("Messaging without detection successfully executed.")
Higher salinity may exacerbate that but not by too much.
You probably weren't too smart to begin with to go to 50m on compressed air, and without a seafloor at that.
Without that compensation step, as a diver descends their buoyancy becomes increasingly negative.
Add a level of narcosis for descending below 40m, mix in some excitement/stress, and some equipment configuration issues (e.g. too much weight), and the task-loading can cause some people to forget/skip routine techniques such as adding air to maintain neutral buoyancy.
That means the blue hole can go screw itself. I'll stick to a maximum depth of 25 meters or so and my goal is to see shipwrecks (from a distance) and pretty fishies.
As for skydiving, I want a good view, no wind, a maximum of one tiny cloud, and a dropzone with good packers and craft beer.
There are plenty of people out there BASE jumping or deep-sea diving. There are plenty of them recording their own deaths. I plan to not be part of those people.
Also, the article speaks of mermaids so I'll just add on a lighter note that for a long while there was a toy mermaid tied to the over-hang mid way through the arch.
The written test for open-water felt inadequate to me; I expect most reasonably smart people could pass it without any study, what with only needing 75% on multiple choice.
Mine came in the form of a six foot barracuda getting a bit too close for comfort. I am sure if I hadn't played it cool. Had somehow attacked or acted aggressively to shush it away (when I was a guest in it's deep sea domain). It would have enjoyed a nice lunch of fresh human flesh.
The second was going below the hard deck at 300 feet whilst diving the continental shelf in the Caribbean. It's stunning. Floating weightlessly over the void that drops suddenly over a mile in depth. Feeling the rush of frigid current rise from the abyss. And seeing mysterious shapes as light filters down into darkness. But I too ran low on air. And had to come up fast.
I haven't been diving in decades. And would require re-certification. But I've always heard legendary tales of the Red Sea and Australia's Coral Reef. Definite bucket list items ;)
I don't think most recreational divers push things close to the line at all.
Once, a 5-meter tiger shark came to me out of the blue and got too close, but as humans aren't a regular diet of tiger sharks either, it swam away.
I'm also shocked that you could come up from that depth with any sort of urgency and not be seriously injured / killed by some form of DCS.
Maybe I misunderstood and you were not a beginner, because otherwise that tour operator has no business running a dive op.
You're experience matches mine so I'm now extra careful to vet all the diving centers - especially looking for complaints of divemasters being too "hardass" on people and demanding good equipment / qualifications. A lot of other divers are still surprised that my inital diving instructor actually checked if I could do the required 200m swim by demanding that I do it in the pool before starting training.
I've also bought my own equipment because of that - who knows just how well the regulators, dive computers and BCDs are maintained in those places. It's scary enough that you need to trust them with air and tank quality.
If the instructor had looked away from the TV for a second he would've seen and flunked me, which would probably have been a good thing. I'm stupid. Went through with it and out on a couple of dives which I enjoyed greatly, but now ten years later still haven't dived again and won't until I can swim. Having kids does stuff to your sense of self-preservation.
I think PADI should be emphasizing that your first 20 dives or so should be with a guide never exceeding 60ft. IIRC, a lot of the course material for Open Water is about shore diving with a buddy by yourselves.
ref: https://www.padi.com/courses/open-water-diver
PADI does emphasize that with an open water cert you must absolutely always remain above 60ft.
That’s what’s shocking to me the most about the article and some of the conversation here—many folks are talking about diving to crazy depths as if that’s normal.
I don’t know why that is, but I will agree with your general point as a result. Folks need to understand this is a dangerous sport and one that can easily kill you (though not by barracuda).
I think fear is what has kept me safe this long. I've got at least 100 dives under my belt but I was quite careful to slowly ramp up the difficulty, and even now, I'm very cautious of really strong currents.
I must have done over 20 easy shore dives just getting navigation experience (and I'm still not super confident with it) before jumping on a boat to go deeper. And even then there were a couple of potentially close calls. I must have had over 40 dives before I even went on a dive holiday, and many of the scenic places are not super difficult to dive.
He essentially told us that any missteps would have very nasty consequences, and spent most of his time badgering us with safety precautions. He also encouraged us to dive with a guide, do refresher dives, etc.
The only downside is that I don't dive anymore now that I have kids, since I believe it's dangerous, and I'm worried I will make a mistake...
Over the holidays I was reading a book about a winter fatality on Mount Washington a few years back. The person was actually very well-prepared and fit. And even had some big mountain experience--but always with guides. And simply went out on a day she should never have been out on.
One should be vigilant not to get lulled into a false sense of security and prepare well for any hike. I have been irresponsible in the past at times but now I know better - I wish I did back then too.
> The area ahead has the worst weather in America. Many have died of exposure even in the summer. Turn back _now_ if the weather is bad.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ScarySigns/comments/ekx3rw/found_wh...
They are NOT kidding. Things can go from beautiful to ugly very quickly. 5,000 feet might seem like a joke to somebody from out west, but it's not all smooth trails (practically the same as pavement) with plenty of switchbacks like you're used to. When you're on steep nasty almost-technical terrain and its wet and hella windy, safety can suddenly be a long way away.
I know those mountains very well, I'm a strong hiker even by local standards, and I still make sure to exercise plenty of caution every time. Those rocks are not to be trifled with.
One problem is that that experience lull you into a false sense of security. I'm not talking arrogance or so. Merely that you can do something everyday that's unsafe and get away with it, training you on bad data to think it's safe.
Like avalanches. Certain conditions are met. You go out. Everything is fine. Same the other times. You learn that it's safe. Suddenly an avalanche happen with those exact conditions. It was just arbitrary it didn't happen the other times.
What you describe sounds like a terrible and irresponsible trip to me.
That is typical of tours and resorts. These are not in the US where the law might investigate. Just some divers who will show anyone around. Many will teach you to dive, a two hour course is enough for a simple dive (ie.something you could snorkel to), then they take you on a first dive that needs far more training.
Always dive within your limits, and if interested find a local club. To me, dive turism is something that can only be truly enjoyed after reaching a certain dive level. It's no fun to see turtles or sharks if your whole focus is still on being neutral buoyant or checking your air supply.
As you say, diving is like hiking. I love hiking, but I know my limits and will not attempt a K7 or travel with a specific hike in mind. I like walking a trail, seeing birds and views and nature. Same applies underwater! The red sea is amazing, but so can be your nearest dive site.
If truly afraid / curious about things that go awry, "Diver down" is a nice intro
I recall, when doing my first real dive (not training in 4m), in Croatia, the instructor took us to 33m. I was showing him this on depth meter, he just signaled OK with fingers. The feeling of being so deep that we didn't see surface anymore, on a first dive was a bit unnerving.
I also have similar experience to yours with shipwreck, although with some 30 dives it wasn't so scary. But we were swimming through narrow passages of very old shipwreck from WWII on Bali, and I felt how tubes are touching the walls. It wasn't a big wreck, but I wouldn't go to this kind of inspection on my own, just followed instructor.
One thing I noticed - a minority of folks are so arrogant they barely follow instructor and do what they want, ie not following the group, swimming lower than instructor etc. Can't comprehend this, I mean you are literally reminded by all senses how you are in very unfamiliar environment, yet some can't show any respect for it, even though they don't have much experience themselves.
Anyway, a very cool sport, although its one way to realize how messed up our environment is, when you see more and more corals dying literally just over few years.
As a counterpoint, I did another "introductory" dive at another Australian island a few years later, and it was beyond amazing. Prettier than any wildlife documentary I had ever seen. Incredibly attentive, patient, and professional staff, etc...
I am an instructor and it always makes me sad to hear about people questioning the hobby because of shady dive centers.
Do not let a guide or instructor talk you into exceeding your certification limits.
Also, if anyone encounters a situation like what is described above please report it to PADI asap. PADI takes cases like this very seriously and will initiate an investigation immediately.
You might save someones life.
I find this is very destination dependent.
I did some Cenotes dives in Mexico that I was seriously underqualified for, and some deeper wreck dives in the Carribean too.
OTOH in Australia everything was very much by the book. The new book, even (when I qualified for PADI Open Water in the early 90s we did deep-diving as part of the training, and were qualified up to 30m, but sometime in the 00s AFAICT things changed and O/W people are these days confined to 18m or less.)
Which reminds me, I must get my 'advanced' at some point soon. I did a deep-dive specialty a while back so that I could do some more interesting reef dives at the great barrier reef, and an enriched air qualification as well, but not the advanced O/W.
One day, after many years, I may even have the qualifications to do those dives I did many years ago... Thankfully I was young and stupid enough to just go with it and enjoy it at the time.
Not saying that it is the right way but dive shops would have a lot fewer customers if they really emphasized the dangers.
Also diving is one of the best the best experiences of my life. It really feels like being in another world. It is extremely peaceful and meditative. You should try at least once.
You are absolutely correct, in mountaineering risk-management you have two risks an objective an subjective.
If you do hiking, the objective risk is low (hey i am just wandering), but the subjective is often much higher then one thinks (falling rocks, rapid weather change, out of water, break you angle, no way to call emergency, aggressive mother-cows etc.).
If you plan to climb a Wall the objective risk is obvious (you can fall down, rocks break out and hit you etc), and because of that you are already aware of those risks, the chance that you calculated the subjective risks in too, is much bigger.
In my other comment, I recommended that everyone try Scuba diving at least once, cannot edit it now but there is another option, free diving. Most of the reefs and fishes are around 30-40 feet depth. With free diving, you can experience beauty of seas without carrying heavy equipment, worrying about equipment failure, ascending too fast, etc.
I have also because of similar reasons, moved my focus on free diving. There is less overall risk in my opinion, as long as you are not pushing your limits.
It is a common discussion topic I hear among divers, and almost everyone who been diving for a while has had a similar experience. Dive guides get basically all of their income from tip, and it creates a strong incentive for them to bring guests into areas which the guest might not be qualified to be in. Same for instructors at popular resorts.
To me the whole experience was a major incentive to get better training and gear so that next time I won't be under qualified to do the dive, and the more training and equipment I get the more I realize how dangerous diving can be and how little redundancy recreational diving have. The basic premise for open water dive is that you should be able to rocket to the surface at any point, and that there is a second diver next to you at all time. Being the last person inside a wreck is neither of that.
But I will end this comment by saying that one should not let guides ruin ones enjoyment of diving. There is a lot of great diving to be done within the limits of recreational diving.
Not that I’ll never go with a PADI dive, especially if it’s the only game in town where I’m visiting. But I generally bias towards NAUI, and would highly suggest anyone new go with a NAUI cert.
I'm not sure I agree about alpine hiking. Most of the failure states I've seen can be avoided by having at least one competent person (out too late, lost, continue in bad weather, etc.) There is still the issue of approving people who aren't fit enough, but you've got a much slower start than diving and you'll probably notice that sort of thing before you're too far in to turn back.
Edit: Possibly you meant more mountaineering-y sorts of trips instead. If you're talking about the sort of thing where you might use protection then I agree with you.
ADDED: re: fitness. I've definitely had to take people down when I've been leading a trip and even had to turn a group around. But so long as you don't push on past where it's safe, it mostly just means people don't get up the mountain. (Of course, it can be a problem with canyons.)
Thats why "guides" exist. And if course it is very safe with a competent guide.
But alpine hiking can be indeed very dangerous, without.
Because Alpine hiking has climbing elements in it.
Add to that a storm and wind and fog - and you have tourists with sandals on slippery rock about to fall very deep. Happens allmost every year.
But of course, if the whole idea of something going wrong will leave you lying awake the night before, it's probably not worth it :)
Basically, as long as you dive in much better conditions than what you trained/qualified for, you will have a great time. Well worth doing.
I just wish more dive shops were on the more conservative side. And that they had better boats with less fumes and less waiting around!
You do about 1k dives per year if you are working in diving.
I have loads of respect for some of the recreational divers I have met with hundreds of dives, that is a lot of money and time to invest in a hobby.
Diving is wonderful. Get certified (but you don't have to be for some dives).
I also sail. Also wonderful. Can be dangerous if you push the edge, but more likely embarrassing if you stay within your limits.
Same with motorcycle riding or paragliding: it gets dangerous once you are beyond the beginner stage.
I really don’t know what could go wrong on the typical tourist dive if the dive master keeps an eye on people and you don’t panic.
People don't dive enough. So they buy all sorts of new stuff for their big new drift dive vacation. In some cases they've literally not been underwater with it for even 20 minutes. Also makes it harder to do an at a glance x-check for folks if you don't know their gear. And some gear harder to deal with (ie, adding weights underwater) if someone turns out underweighted.
My own feeling - unless someone is current with their equip or has current diving - start with a hard bottom dive at 40'.
Ofc, I suppose Germans who actually read it for the local info could be a lot more interested than me.
They are a minimal threat but they look kind of scary so people always always think that they had a close call with one when the barracuda is just doing what they do which is checking out a human who might hand them a fish.
It always makes me chuckle because I hear people tell their barracudas stories and they always sound the exact same. At no point were they in any danger but they really think they were.
Jelly fish, OTOH, suck.
Ascent from depth without having cavities open to equalize pressure will be a really bad deal even from 18m (and really from comparatively shallow depths like 3-6m), but that really just means breathing out at slow rate during ascent. For that it'd be explode vs. implode though :)
(Lungs do compress during breath hold freediving.)
This is most definitely how it should go.
It seems like an inevitability you will eventually have something go wrong (maybe you lose your group, your mask is a problem, you burn through air too quickly, etc). In this scenario the most important skill is to not panic and control your breathing but I think that mostly comes with experience.
While you develop experience, diving conservatively hedges against some of the worst case scenarios. Something as simple as a mask coming off can lead to panic which leads to hyperventilating. Someone hyperventilating will feel like they just can't get enough air and the immediate reaction will be to exit as quickly as possible.
Guides, as OP points out, should be far more sensitive to the experience a person has.
To go deeper you need to blend in inert gasses and decrease o2 and n2 to keep partial pressures below fatal doses. This means most commonly mixing in Helium to cut down on over o2 and n2 in your gas mix. Human tissue I guess doesn't absorb helium the same way it does n2.
Source: Open Water Scuba Instructor with multiple agencies... I havent taught in about 5 years though so some of this information may have changed, especially in light that global helium shortages (or US stock piles?) may have driven the price of He up to high to be used for mixed gas diving.
I'm like genuinely confused at this point. I've had so many guides, even in places like Hawaii, not follow their own guidelines. It would be trivial for PADI to see Open Water divers are diving the thresher sharks at Malapascua, for example, and that would necessitate they go past 60ft.
Still, that was circa 1997 so, um, I forgot pretty much all the detail :).
When you are doing a safety check list, you don't skip and do whatever part of the checklist you feel comfortable doing.
You do it from top to bottom.
Multiple people have died in accidents because they focused on small issue ignoring the larger problem.
So when it's time to check safety in scuba diving, you should better follow the instruction instead of doing whatever you want.
Example. There is no point to worry about "Is your mask clean?" when you are going to run out of oxygen and drown. 1) read all tasks
2) do x
3) do y
4) do z
5) now that you have read all tasks, just write your name and do nothing
To me, the correct procedure would be to read all tasks (task 1), then continue executing task 2), etc.
2.) That is standard boilerplate typically said due to people not reading whole questions. And it is not useful advice in general.
Your body can function pretty well at PPO2 levels less than 0.17 bar. People go to an altitude of 10000 ft / 3000 m all the time where PPO2 is only 0.14 bar.
Good was Lord Howe Island, which is the last true paradise on Earth. It's on the southernmost tip of the Great Barrier Reef, so it has coral, but none has bleached. The waters are pristine and protected. It's a place more civilised than Japan. You can leave a camera bag with $10K of gear in it on the beach and go on a hike, because it will be there when you get back. There's a beach with a shack next to it where you can stuff a $20 bill into a jar to rent snorkelling equipment. The jar had about $500 in it. Nobody is going to take that either. This place is what most places should be like, but aren't.
The dive at Lord Howe Island was just... unspeakably beautiful. To set the scene: the missus had done a dive before (supposedly), and this was an introductory dive anyway to a depth no greater than about 12m, but she had a panic attack. While the instructor was patiently helping her relax, I snorkelled around the boat. Above were thousands of wheeling seabirds coming in to roost to a cliff about 100m high. That view alone was spectacular. Below were layers of coral and shoals of fish like underwater highways of colour. Had I paid the fee just to see this I would have considered it money well spent.
Then the younger instructor leading the team of kids doing their PADI certification offered to take me on a one-on-one dive since a boy in his group used his air too quick and we had spare time now. I got to see shellfish bigger than I had ever seen, a huge octopus squirt ink in the instructor's face, then we dove through a tunnel under coral, there were fish bigger than me, and generally it was just awesome.
I highly, highly recommend this place to everyone who's willing to listen and has the budget. My tip is: skimp on the accommodation, splurge on the restaurants. Go there to turn your phone off and relax.
Thanks anyway for worrying about me, ha!
"A few meters more" is not dangerous per se unless you go below 24 meters (80 ft), but I agree it would be very bad to do that without the divemaster telling you before and also without him/her being a certified instructor.
According to instructions, the test was judged on completeness. The instructor expected the students to pick set of instructions that make test less complete.
In this variant, answering majority of questions and leaving that one missed is rational behavior.
I'd be worried about someone who receives that instruction, receives an anomalous instruction on the test, and decides to ignore the anomalous instruction.
For all the mitigation work they do on a regular basis, there are periodic avalanches at ski areas in the Alps and in the US West. Many of these are out of bounds, but not all. [1]
[1] https://www.powder.com/stories/skier-killed-in-avalanche-at-...
But sometimes I think. If I have to do aaall those things to mitigate the risk, is it really safe and worth it? So far, the answer is yes. Maybe it changes if I ever see an accident.
I stopped taking notes at this point and started paying attention instead. My grades improved. This might not work for everyone but something to try if you struggle retaining lecture content even as you take a bunch of notes.
It was my fault that I zoned out, that's why I had to find a way to avoid it.
Driving safely != not cause an accident
Driving safely == not be in an accident
You can be the best driver in the world driving the best car in the world and it doesn't matter, because some idiot will not look in their mirror when changing lanes and suddenly you are in an accident.
To drive safely on a public road means to take care for your abilities and your car but most, most importantly, too give wide berth to other road users and to drive in a way that will minimize the accident if it happens.
Understand everybody makes mistakes. If you aim to drive safely you need to make it your responsibility to drive in a way that will allow yourself and others make mistakes and still not cause an accident. In other words, give margin for error.
Some examples:
-- try to minimize your time in somebody's blind spot.
-- observe traffic behind you, not just in front of you. I have on multiple occasions avoided a car hitting me from behind, twice at a difference of speed that looked like at least 100km/h. Being aware where the cars are gives you ability to act instinctively without hitting somebody.
-- try to maintain slow relative speeds with regards to other road users. For example, never drive fast around cars stuck in traffic.
-- always have a backup plan for every maneuver. For example, do not have fast closing speed to the car in front of you with a plan to change the lane just before you hit it. You need to maintain the ability to break in case the car in front of you suddenly slows down or in case you can't change the lane for whatever reason,
etc.
Driving on a closed track is completely different business.
While definitely not as crazy dangerous as some people would paint it, I don't feel you can ever drive as a sport and be completely safe.
Driving as a sport is by definition pushing the boundary on how close you can get to crash so if you are good at driving it means you are getting closer and closer to the limit.
I think this is confirmed by how many professional drivers died in crashes. And it seems the better you are the higher the chance you will die in a crash.
In my late 20s I was militantly fit and also very into rock climbing. I supplemented this with some lifting to balance things out; people who ONLY climb end up looking a little weird as the lats develop out of proportion with the rest of you.
Anyway, even with a lungful of air, my neutral buoyancy point was like 8-12" below the surface.
Alas, I am now 51.
My experience matches that.
While climbing most deadly accidents (30+% of them [1]) happen because people rappel through the end of the rope (or ropes if using half/twin ropes). Stopper knots are a 10s precaution that is often overlooked.
However, it is true that on easier climbing routes it is easier to hurt yourself because you might hit a ledge on your way down. If that happens it's most likely the belayer's fault because he/she should keep "a tight leash" on the sections just above said ledges. If you let an unexperienced person belay you I assume you evaluated the risk and are ok with that.
[1] https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/skills/8_common_climbing...
I tried to do one hike this winter that wasn't even particularly hard but it was really icy and cold and the steep parts were steep enough. I ended up turning around given that I wasn't wearing my full crampons.
"Oh well, I'll settle today" I thought. Midway down Hermit's Rest I cross a much more experienced hiker -- she had lived in and around the Grand Canyon full-time for a year. She was only coming back to the Rim to move her car due to the incoming on-season (yeah, just a "casual" river to rim and back, lol). She told me she had just been around Bright Angel the day prior and had seen a girl be air-lifted away with a broken leg. Even though she had microspikes and months of winter experience in that park specifically, she bailed.
Suddenly, I didn't feel like I settled anymore... turning back can save lives and limbs. The majority of the time, nature (and the trail) will still be there when you return. It will certainly outlast you, if anything.
She died just off the Star Lake Trail, having ascended to the ridge via the Valley Way, which hits the ridge line at Madison Hut (4800', or much lower than the summit of Washington at 6288'). My partner and I have bailed off pretty much exactly her route in the summer when the winds were too high for our experience and fitness levels when we popped up out of the lee side of the ridge line on Adams.
Anybody who wants a really well researched case study should read Ty Gagne's book on her trip and the subsequent rescue attempt.
Incidentally, my partner and I climbed Washington on a guided trip the weekend after she died. The weather was so good the guides had their cameras out to take pictures. The extremes in the Presidentials are no joke, as stated, but can also result in some beautiful days.
The actual accident, while obviously very tragic, wasn't especially interesting. Basically don't try to do a Presidential Traverse during the worst weather in about 20 years. It was actually a different situation from the more common cascading failures mode of accidents.
She made a grave error by deciding to drive up to NH that weekend and a fatal one by continuing above treeline. Even Rick Wilcox (owns local climbing gear/guide store and has summitted Everest) basically says in the book that she was well enough prepared but shouldn't have been out that day.
That said there were definitely lessons around just because you have a lot of experience, don't assume you understand the local situation when you have little to no experience there.
But the search and rescue account was morbidly fascinating. Also demonstrates that locator beacons won't always save you. (She admittedly didn't use it properly but I doubt it would have made a difference given the weather.)
0) Her mileage to the top of Madison was off by about a mile on her written plan. Not a good place to start for an ambitious day.
1) Most of her prior experience was guided where somebody else was responsible for making the decisions. I am fully prepared to believe that she had the physical experience, but would suspect that she lacked the decision-making experience that would have saved her.
2) She died heartbreakingly close to Madison Hut. If she'd turned around 30 to 60 minutes earlier, she might have made it to the relative shelter of the hut with enough energy left to warm up and get back below treeline on the Valley Way, which is quite close to the hut. Speculation, I know, but I can't help but wonder.
We talked a lot about the decision-making because we could both see ourselves having a go in the same circumstances owing to our inexperience (we independently thru-hiked the AT, but we aren't mountaineers). Reading it was a really useful case study for us and helped think through identifying when we're about to cross the line from adventure to peril.
If you didn't know, he's got a second book out, btw. Gonna crack it open next :-)
The test with the bail-out at the start sounds logically fine. The test I was given was just a cruel trick from a trusted source of tests / knowledge provision.
An argument could be made for "read the (short) instructions at the start". An argument cannot be made for this. There is often very little value to skimming the entire question set before the exam.
What tended to occur was the earlier fast passes at the very least warmed up the cache upstairs, and some previously unclear questions became obvious. Then for the remaining questions, they often had dependencies with other questions and their answers, which I could use to deduce probably correct answers.
This was obscenely effective. To the extent that I would ace tests in classes I barely attended and never turned in homework for, in some cases culminating in teachers publicly accusing me of cheating on the exams. Though some of that was also due to switching from private to public school where I had already learned the material in the previous years.
An added bonus is reduced stress about time limits. After the first pass you have a big chunk (if not most) of the test done in little time - this feels good and also leaves you with a clearer idea of how much work and time is left.
1. Answer all questions that I know the answer instantly or (for math type tests) can solve within a few seconds. Skip anything not quick. 2. Go back and answer questions that I know I can solve. These usually take a minute or two (since the easy ones should already be done). If there happens to be a question I know I can solve but also know will take "too much time," skip it. 3. If there's time left, work through any remaining questions (hopefully there aren't that many), making a best effort to prioritize the ones I'm more confident that I can solve in the time remaining.
It's a good lesson, but it's a lesson about taking tests not about the material. I can see arguments for and against including that in any given class.
And from those mutually exclusive requirements you are supposed to pick the "least likely one" else you are wrong. It is good example how manipulation works however. You put people into unsolvable situation and then blame them.
To your point, I agree and think I touch on most of them upthread. Weather is definitely an an important consideration. She hadn't mostly been involved in making tough calls.
And, yeah, she had opportunities to bail after driving up from NY. But clearly she wasn't going to do that prior to seriously going for Adams at which point it was too late given the weather.
The issue that many take with PADI is that their values are mostly aligned with making profits.
> You need to be PADI Advanced Open Water Diver who is at least 18 years old to enroll in the Cavern Diver course.
After doing some research around this. Cenotes are an exception to the rule and even though Open Water Divers often do enter inner rooms in wreck dives and caverns what matters is maintaining a direct line of ascent.
---- Original ----
Open Water can do caverns. Dos Ojos is incredibly popular and has hard ceiling.
Edit: Also Cavern Diver is just a specialty cert and doesn't confer any extra penetration. Those certs are mostly designed for skill mastery. IANTD's Cavern cert is required to get Full Cave, but I don't know if PADI's would count towards it.
https://blog.padi.com/2019/04/29/must-dive-cenotes-for-open-...
> certified Open Water Divers can take a cavern tour guided by professionals qualified by some of the cave diver training organizations to lead such tours. This is a highly controlled, limited tour along a line into the cavern zone, which is defined as within the natural light zone and within 130 to 200 ft (39-60m) (some minor variations here) of the surface.
In some tests I have seen future questions answer previous ones. For a contrived example:
"Q1: What color was the bookshelf? A. Red B. Green C. Blue"
"Q2: What sentimental item did John take from the red bookshelf?"
I was never sure if it was on purpose to reinforce reading all questions before answering or if it was merely poor test design. Usually it was more subtle than my contrived example but it did bump my scores on some tests up a bit.
>little injuries sliding down a shallow wall
Those are often not "little" the rocks rip you apart, and when you stop you look not human anymore (a bag of flesh)...happens often at glaciers too.
Not for everyone obviously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_ferrata
And if without securing...even a bigger objective danger for you to decide if you can do it, that's the point.
As a rule, they absolutely aren't.
In this specific place, PADI allows some of them to make a supervised dive at a certain site following a specially installed line. This doesn't change the rule, which is "Open Water Diver certification does not qualify you to dive on shipwrecks, nor caves".
At some other place, there may be an option for a person with Open Water certificate to drive a semi-trailer truck, while under supervision from a trained professional, and over a course specifically crafted to minimize any possible collision. This doesn't change the rule, which is "Open Water Diver certification does not qualify you to drive semi-trailer trucks."
Where I'm confused is the difference between a direct line of ascent (even when there is an overhead directly above) versus penetrating beyond that. This is a differentiator that makes swim-throughs OK but most caverns not OK.
Edit: Turns out I can't edit a comment that old.
I've normally felt really safe on these but once there was way to many people for them all to be babysat and the group actually got split up due to 'issues' that the following guide had to help with.
Unless you are a diver please don't comment with this type of snark - seriously.
" Discover Scuba Diving is a quick and easy introduction to what it takes to explore the underwater world. To sign up for a PADI Discover Scuba Diving experience, you must be at least 10 years old. No prior experience with scuba diving is necessary, but you need to be in reasonable physical health. Are you ready to try it out? "
I called them "disco" dives. Dive down a bit, show them some lights and some fish turn around a few times and back up. A play on the discovery label.
But yeah, the grumpy "master" divers will be yelling at you from shore about the whole thing!
Def want 100% contact from start to finish, and if you keep dive to 8-10 meters or less (hard bottom) helps. Just throw some statues / structures down there to look at.
Things to watch for. Folks who can't equalize - just come up or do a super shallow route if you can. And def need to make sure folks can breathe comfortably underwater (shallow water / cow pen). Also doesn't need to be long, it's about the experience. Some idiots take advantage of the depth to extend time which is silly.
Another labor was resort dive, but wasn't sure what differences / similarities were between all these experiences.
PADI Advanced, deep, nitrox, 100+ dives mostly in the cold waters of the North Sea.
Edited: added context
A dive or two later I am okay with helping newly certified divers both on shore and on the boat, but on the first dive after some time you should never overestimate your memory.
Diving is safe if you know how to keep it safe.
Do you have a checklist?
I myself got my first certifications with two amazing divers, they taught me very well and I had a lot of fun. However they also allowed people to take dives that they weren't certified for, because it was a small diving center they could only do two dives a day and they had to satisfy a wide range of divers.
They did that with people that they had taught and knew well, and never had issues (certainly not a 60m compressed air dive as in the article!) but it did indeed make diving somewhat less safe.
Tourist dives are even safer since they do not perform advanced dives. Overall, the evidence does not support the view "If you really have only a vague recollection of basic safety checks you shouldn't be diving - seriously."
Most tourists diving have only that and they're not dying in droves.
The bikers I know are not getting buzzed at the local watering hole, and aiming the bike home. It's not the 70's.
In my county, the fatal bike crashes are usually new high end high performance bikes, on country roads. They are experienced, but pushing it. They are cold sober.
The days of having a few beers, and driving home on the bike, or even an old car, must be down across the county?
Cops realized a while ago that most Americans have no qualms over arresting a guy over a DUI, and they are villigant.
To vigilant in my opinion. (I heard in Texas if a dui defendant can prove they were not physically, or mentally impaired, while doing a computer simulation, they might get out of a dui? This might be just a rumor? I feel it's more fair, especially when a marginal dui can significantly impair your economic viability for years, especially for the poor.)
In upper class neighborhoods, it's usually the only crime they can solve, after pulling over 50 sober drivers?
My brother got a DUI over .04 BAC. He also had weed in his system from the day before, and clumsily told the cop the truth when asked. Bored officer, "Did you take any drugs?". My naieve brother, "well yesterday I smoked some weed.". Arrested, and lost the case.
My point is the DUI scare is real among everyone, but the naieve.
When I had my motorcycle, I was pulled over so many times for no reason it was maddening. It's the main reason I don't ride anymore.
Getting pulled over for no reason other than a cop hoping to nab a marginal dui is really irritating.
I've gotten to the point where I have two dash cameras always activated, and I try to not go out past 10 pm in an old car.
(I can offer this, if you are ever in Marin County CA, expect to be pulled over if driving a motorcycle at night. Also expect to be pulled over if you look ethnic, or drive an older vechicle. We have a bunch of bored cops, and they look for anything they can to fill up that duty sheet. Oh yea, they peer into bars, and follow patrons home.)
Either that, or the Sausalito community just really shares a passionate opposition to cyclists rolling along the uncontested sides of quiet T intersections.
Our biases prevent us from recognizing this in ourselves ever.
Not saying you're rationalizing your behavior, but I'm saying it's a possibility. The only way to know for sure is to provide data to back up what you're saying.
What is your statistical risk profile based off of the conditions your provided?
I like riding motorcycles, so I try to do it in as safe a way as reasonably possible. Right now, given that I'm typically on ill-handling sidecar rigs, that involves gear and no longer riding two wheels frequently.
I like small planes. Again, I try to find safer ways to do it.
But I recognize that these are still riskier activities, and I do them because I enjoy them, entirely aware of the risks involved.
"Trying to do the research to be able to quantify my risks and mitigations in a spreadsheet" doesn't sound terribly enjoyable to me, so I've no intensions of doing it.
However, you are still kind of correct- the number of fatalities picks up strongly at 50+. People 35-45 tend to be the safest. People 50+ are still on average significantly safer than <30, even those who are first riding late in life.
Motorcycle fatalities are heavily associated with risk-taking more than anything else. There are more people like that <30, but there are plenty of Boomers riding recklessly as well. 27% of motorcycle riders in fatal accidents are alcohol-impaired, by far the highest of any vehicle category. Passenger cars and light trucks are 21% and 20%.
Data from NHTSA summaries
I think this is attributable mostly to the fact that fatality rate on any motorcycle accident is higher (for obvious reasons) and that alcohol is especially a contributing factor to single vehicle accidents.
If you are tipsy and go into a corner a bit fast in a car you can usually react in a way that will save it; many "gut" level reactions on a motorcycle will cause bad things to happen (e.g. most braking while already in a corner). Touching a soft shoulder is much, much easier to recover, etc.
I'm not sure if you were trying to imply there was some connection between those sentences? You could easily have more than 50% of fatalities over 50, and still get an average of 42 (for example, deaths clustered mostly in either twenties or fifties).
Which I think is the point. Very young riders are in fact crashing a lot - something parent claimed is a myth.
Anecdotal, but still.
There are a couple of high risk groups. One is young guys with a combination of inexperience and a desire to go fast(er than conditions/skills allow). Another is older guys, often who haven't ridden for years if ever, who get into trouble. Again inexperience is a big factor in both.
Lack of regular experience is definitely a contributing factor. Muscle memory has a half life.
Indeed. This is part of why I sold one of my motorcycles - a powerful, fairly aggressive sport touring bike. It was my daily driver for about 2.5 years, and I rode it typically 7 days a week, around 1300-1500 miles a month. I knew the bike, and I had the "edge" - there was no question about what the bike was going to do. I knew it, I knew how it responded, I knew what I could ask of it. If I didn't ride for a few days, I could feel that the edge was dull when I got back on - there was just a little something missing, corners were a smidge sloppier, etc.
And I was no longer riding enough miles on that bike to keep that. I knew I was ham fisted when riding it compared to what I used to be, and I just don't put enough miles on anymore that I was able to keep it up.
I now ride the motorcycle version of a Russian tractor (one of a few Urals - sidecar rigs), and they're both entirely different from two wheels and demanding in different ways. But they don't have the sort of instant response of a sportbike either. A good sportbike does what you asked, right now. Capable of it or not, it does what you told it to do, and if that includes an unintentional wheelie, well, you did ask for it with your throttle inputs. The Urals have their own nasty handling corner cases, but are a lot more forgiving in many ways, and you really have to muscle them around at times. A subtle input gets entirely ignored.
A lot of them involve loss of control of some form or another - typically in instrument flight conditions, often enough by someone who either doesn't have an instrument rating or is badly out of practice. A VFR only pilot in the clouds has a lifespan measured in minutes.
Running out of fuel for some reason is depressingly common - and while an off-airport landing isn't automatically fatal, "pilot failed to monitor fuel in flight" is a pretty stupid reason to crash.
And avoid light twins. They're a lot more demanding when an engine fails, and typically don't handle off airport landings very well. There don't tend to be many injuries with twins - either you handle everything properly and land safely, or the aircraft leaves a small smoking crater in the ground.
A lot of it is simply looking at the sky, forecast, and deciding "You know, this just isn't a good day to put a small airplane in the sky." I consider night VFR to be fairly risky too. Clouds are invisible, visual illusions in sparsely populated areas are common, and it's hard to find a nice flat area to land if your engine quits at night.
It seems like one of the big ones is simply: "Don't go up in shitty weather."
Too many people are dead because they just had to fly in crap weather.
Merely pointing out that there is no evidence for the assertion as stated.
I don't want or need anything more.
At least in the UK, getting a private pilot's licence did involve a couple of hours of simulated IFR. Not enough to do anything complex. But enough to turn 180, and be able to follow detailed controller instructions.
If you're up over, say, Iowa at night? Tons of farms, flat, lights everywhere? It's fine. Pretty, you can still see stuff, and short of an invisible power line for an off airport landing, it's almost like flying during the day.
Out in Idaho, in the mountains? You're pretty dumb to fly VFR at night. There's no light anywhere, lots of hard rock, and plenty of clouds that like to appear with no warning.
But, yes, fuel gauges suck. The problem is that even if you put something like a fuel totalizer in, you still only know how much has gone into the engine, not how much is left in the wings. I understand a loose or missing fuel cap will drain a Cessna's wing tank in about 10-15 minutes.
I remember coming across that as a specific design challenge to overcome. Floats don't read the same when flying upside-down.
Those who fly upside down on purpose tend to either not care about the fuel readings when upside down, or fly something modern enough. But I can't imagine an airshow performer is paying any attention to the fuel gauges. "I have a 15 minute routine, I have an hour of fuel onboard, and I'm surrounded by an airport, which is a good place for an emergency landing."