Compiled and
edited by Jeffrey Bozanic
Dive tables are
proliferating rapidly in the industry. The primary reasons for this
trend include new developments in table theory and design, and new experimental
data. Other reasons include the need by the industry to avoid potential
liability for "unsafe" products, and perhaps a marketing or
profit motive on the parts of some table sponsors.
Where does this
leave the instructor in the field? This was the purpose of this issue's
Forum question, to examine which tables, or what information about dive
tables, should be presented to an entry level class.
Most of the respondents
replied that the U.S. Navy tables, or tables based on the information
in the U.S. Navy tables, were the favored tables for use. The large
amount of empirical data behind these tables justified their opinions.
Other members
suggested other tables might be better to teach and use, including the
DCIEM tables developed in Canada, "No Bubble" tables, and
"No Bends" tables. Each of these tables were selected because
they were more conservative than the U.S. Navy tables, and hence "safer"
for use.
In a more interesting
vein, some members explored what we should be teaching students about
all tables. Background in the theory and development of tables, risk
factors of decompression sickness, risks and weaknesses of all tables,
tissue times and tissue compartments, and supporting data/experimental
evidence for the validation of tables were all suggested or implied.
The same information regarding the development of dive computers was
also recommended.
Traditionally,
all of these factors have historically been covered to some degree in
entry level courses. However, with the rate at which the field is progressing,
much more time would have to be spent on these topics to achieve the
same level of understanding of these concepts. It would also be necessary
to see that the students integrated the information sufficiently to
apply the concepts to each of the various types of tables. This may
not be realistically possible.
It does point
to the need for instructors to understand these concepts, and to be
aware of the implications of the new work which is occurring. Students
depend on the opinion of the instructor to guide their diving practices.
This occurs whether the instructor expresses an "opinion"
overtly, or does so by teaching or personally using a particular set
of dive tables. Because of this trust, instructors should review new
information available, and arrive at an opinion that is carefully considered.
In my opinion,
this is no time to remain set in one's ways because of inertia. This
particular aspect of the diving field is rapidly changing. We need to
follow developments closely to see that our membership, and our instruction,
does not stagnate. It is every instructor's responsibility to see they
keep abreast of these developments.
QUESTION: "GIVEN
THE MULTITUDE OF DIVE TABLES ON THE MARKET, WHICH TABLES SHOULD BE TAUGHT?
WHY?"
A. The program at
Scripps Institution of Oceanography has historically used the U.S. Navy
tables.
I had the good fortune to know Bob Workman and to work with Ed Lamphier
during the 1958 atomic tests in the Pacific. The tables had just been
promulgated and we put them through just about every kind of repetitive
dive profile one could dream up. There were four of us from Scripps and
we had an eight man Navy team working with us. Our main task was implanting
and retrieving tsunami recorders near blast sites, but during that three
month period we logged over 1200 dives, to depths in excess of 190 fsw.
In the years following we conducted research dives to document the sand
movement in the Cabo San Lucas and Los Frailes submarine canyons. On many
dives we were on the extreme exposure tables and on many others the 190-foot
repetitive dive table. These projects usually involved six of us, and
were conducted for a three week period each six months, over a number
of years.
The Scripps program has over 200,000 cumulative dives since the early
1950s. We have had only a single case of decompression sickness. It occurred
during a multi-day, multi-dive kelp research cruise. Six people made the
last dives, all on the same profile. Ironically, the person who hung off
at ten feet for two minutes got hit.
We find that use of the U.S. Navy tables is safe and adequate. Our university
guidelines for diving safety state that "Any dive table used must
be at least as safe as the U.S. Navy tables."
--James
R. Stewart, NAUI A-88; La Jolla, CA(Diving Officer for Scripps Institution
of Oceanography, and the National Science Foundation. Has extensive research
diving and instruction experience worldwide. Member, NAUI Board of Advisors,
Recipient of the Leonard Greenstone Award, NOGI Award, and other awards.
Has authored diving safety guidelines for a wide variety of governmental
and private institutions.)
A. Not one set
of tables has proven to be the best for every diver. The most conservative
would be the safest to use in the sport diving industry, but which is
the most conservative? This is a complex issue, maybe NAUI can run a
special issue in the technical section of SOURCES comparing, pro and
con, all the most commonly used tables and any new table being developed.
If such an article has already been published it may be outdated and
the revision can be published. With NAUI pushing to use a new set of
tables this can be an opportune time to promote the benefits of using
and investing in a new table.
--James
Weston, NAUI ????; Santa Cruz?, CA(Private Professional Instructor,
had taught for Fort Ord, dive stores and universities.)
A. I feel that
we should continue to teach the NAUI/US Navy decompression tables. With
the proper safeguards and safety measures that have become widely recognized
and used, they have proven to be safe, efficient, and easy to use. There
is an incredible data base of dive profiles which prove their utility.
To be sure, there are a number of decompression tables that may be more
conservative than the NAUI/USN tables, but if these are presented briefly
during training, then certainly individual divers can make their own
choices as to the acceptable levels of risk that they feel comfortable
with.
--John
Heine, NAUI 5924; Moss Landing, CA(Diving Safety Officer at the Moss
Landing Marine Laboratories of the California State University. Course-director
for 3 ITC's. Past Mid-Pacific Branch manager. Serves as Secretary of
the American Academy of Underwater Sciences, and is a contributing editor
of Sources. Holds a masters degree in marine biology.)
A. The issue
is really straight-forward. As instructors, we have the responsibility
to teach acceptable table usage, and we are afforded considerable freedom
in how we do just that. Whenever NAUI is able to produce a product that
allows us to teach within our motto, "Safety Through Education,"
then we, as NAUI members should promote that product. If, though, NAUI's
product is inferior, then out of concern for our students, we must utilize
whichever product is safest. Fortunately for us, NAUI's sport diving
tables are the best there are. They are concise, easy to read, easy
to understand, and easy to teach.
I use the NAUI tables exclusively, but with back-up from the U.S. Navy
tables and altitude conversion chart. I have reviewed virtually every
table available but always come back to NAUI's own. It's tops!
--Bill
Gee, NAUI 9190; Santa Fe, NM(Instructor Trainer who teaches all levels
from Openwater I to ITCs. President of "Alpine Divers" scuba
club.)
A. I believe
that the U.S. Navy dive tables should still be used for teaching and
actual diving purposes. These time tested tables still do not show sufficient
evidence that they should not be used. However, they should not be abused.
A minus five to ten minutes deduction from the bottom time should always
be taught as a good rule of moderation.
Although this table was designed primarily for a working Navy diver
with a standby chamber topside, the dive industry and the community
alike have been using this table it its designs, researches and other
activities since time in memorial. If there are any errors in it, it
has not caused enough symptoms during all these years.
I agree, there should be another dive table for the sport diver. I feel
that the industry has got to get together and commission all these dive
table designers to make a standard one for the entire community. An
endorsement from DEMA and most leading dive organizations should make
this project a success.
Still, this future set of tables will have to gather enough barnacles
and updating. Until then, back to the U.S. Navy tables.
--Carlos
N. Santos-Viola, NAUI 5687L; San Francisco, CA(Former Training Director
and General Manager of Aquaventure Phils, Inc. Has taught all levels
to ITCs. Former Safety Chairman for the Amphibians Scuba Club.)
A. Currently
we are using the NAUI tables, which are basically the U.S. Navy tables.
While these may not be the safest tables, they are a good compromise
between ease of use and dive safety.
We should continue to teach these tables as our primary instruction,
but should also introduce students to other tables on the market. The
DCIEM tables appear to be safer, and could be covered in entry level
courses. Because our motto is "Safety Through Education,"
we should introduce students to as many tables as possible, along with
other pros and cons, to improve student understanding while not overloading
or confusing them.
--Struther
MacFarlane, NAUI 6676; Toronto, Ontario, Canada(As a private professional
educator, has taught all levels from introductory to serving as ITC
Director. Recipient of the NAUI Canada Silver Pin and Special Recognition
Awards.)
A. Student divers
and beginner graduate divers should be introduced first to the NO-BENDS
dive table. The reason is obvious...no-bends diving is what they should
be doing (no-bends diving is what we should all be doing, for that matter).
The NO-BENDS table is an easy to use arrangement of abbreviated forms
of the U.S. Navy's "No Decompression" limits and repetitive
group table, surface interval credit table, and the repetitive dive
timetable (Table 1-6, 1-7, and 1-8).
The NO-BENDS table was developed over a period of several years. The
purpose of the NO-BENDS table is to prevent student divers and beginner
graduate students from making many long, deep dives in any one day,
because such dives are beyond the experience of these people.
The NO-BENDS table limits dives to a depth of 100 feet and allows only
two dives per day. The exposure times contained in the NO-BENDS table
are no greater than 100 minutes and in most cases are at least five
minutes less (for any depth) than the maximum exposure times listed
in the U.S. Navy "No Decompression" table. Even with enjoyable
dives of satisfying duration in that portion of our activity's environment
where most sport diving is done.
The NO-BENDS table is easy to use, has no moving parts to get out of
alignment, requires no batteries (and it can't leak). The NO-BENDS table
will keep our student divers and graduate divers straight, and us out
of court.
--Fred
Calhoun, NAUI 380; Boston, MA(Private Professional Instructor, has taught
all levels of diving to ITCs. Producer of the Boston Diving Show. Past
North Atlantic Branch Manager. Recipient of NAUI Outstanding Service
Award.)
A. Basic background
information should be given on the development of dive tables. This
should include "tissue times" (fast versus slow) used to develop
specific tables. A brief overview of experimental and empirical data
used in developing these tables should also be covered. The Navy tables
should still be the standard in the industry, based on extensive empirical
data. The no-bubble tables are now being used by some institutions and
dive computer companies, and therefore should be introduced to the students
as an alternative. Having participated in the field trials for the PADI
Wheel, I suggest not using these tables.
--Don Canestro, NAUI
5877; Santa Barbara, CA(Research diver at the University of California,
Santa Barbara. Has taught extensively in university settings.)
A. NOAA Nitrox
I (32/68), when used correctly and according to the instructions, is
more safe for divers than air. Ignore the clearly defined protocols
and, as with anything, the dangers increase with the magnitude of the
individual's stupidity. Training to use Nitrox I correctly is short
but essential. The rules for its safe use are neither complex nor too
long to remember. Nitrox I must not be used at depths greater than 130
feet, and it must be blended in a precise and accurate way. Unfortunately,
some not so precise methods are in use today and there is no safety
net at the maximum allowable depth to stop those who do not understand
why the gas does not allow deeper diving.
Divers have some options, depending on their needs, in how they choose
to take advantage of Nitrox I. In general, bottom time is nearly doubled
if the diver needs that time. However, when far from a hyperbaric chamber,
the "enriched air" diver may use standard air tables and benefit
from a greatly increased safety margin.
Quality training in all phases of nitrox use is now commercially available.
Those who criticize the use of nitrox by sport divers, including some
leaders within NAUI, should take the training. They might recognize
the dive industry is at exactly the same place with Nitrox I today that
we were with cave diving 15 years ago. Some dedicated leaders said then
we should ban cave diving (a classic example of putting one's head in
the sand). Clearer heads held that experts in the cave diving associations
should lead the way. They did; and when pursued conservatively, cave
diving risks are acceptable. The instructor associations should follow
a similar path for safe introduction to Nitrox I as it can be the cutting
edge of diving technology for the 1990's.
--Bill
High, NAUI 175; Seattle, WA(Director, Professional Scuba Inspectors.
NOAA Nitrox II trained mixer and user. Past President of NAUI, and recipient
of NAUI Outstanding Service Award.)
A. No, I do not
think NAUI should offer a specialty course in Nitrox diving. Nitrox
is beyond the scope of sport diving. Being a professional diver as well
as an instructor I have been involved in nitrox diving operations. The
preparation and care for equipment used in nitrox diving is much more
involved than that used with air diving. All equipment must be cleaned
for use with oxygen and then only used for nitrox. This includes cylinders
and regulators as well. Additionally the mixing and filling processes
require extreme care. The gas must be analyzed before use and should
be checked just prior to making the dive. An oxygen analyzer must be
used for this check. A reliable analyzer will cost several hundred dollars.
In light of the results of the dive table survey conducted recently
at IQ, I do not believe that sport divers are ready to handle the complexities
of table adjustments for nitrox. In short, I think that for sport diving
the possibilities for problems far out weigh the benefits, and nitrox
diving should be left to professional divers.
--Frank
J. Toal, Jr., NAUI 10185; Orlando, FL
A. Emphatically
NO!! I teach mixed gas diving, including nitrox, at a commercial diving
school. I spend a minimum of 40 hours in the theory, mathematics, and
mechanisms of the subject in the classroom before we begin an even longer
practical module. Nitrox gas diving by far has the least research and
the fewest verifications of the no-decompression and decompression schedules
of all the possible gas mixes which we use in the commercial diving
industry. In an industry where decreasing decompression time translates
directly into more effective use of the diver (read more bottom time
for the same amount of money), we still do not use nitrox diving to
increase the no-decompression times for a given depth. On the contrary,
because increasing the oxygen percentage causes adventure into the oxygen
toxicity range, we set the potential for a greater danger than that
of decompression sickness. And this is in an industry (offshore oilfield
diving) where we have full-time topside supervision and support and
highly trained divers; all working in their primary specialty of diving.
A lot of this diving is shallow--less than 80 fsw--and using no-decompression,
repetitive diving schedules.
Sport divers--recreational divers--would do well not to emulate or try
to venture into commercial diving areas. How would they mix their gasses?
How many instructors are qualified to teach such subjects involving
compressibility coefficients of various gasses; the real-gas method
of calculating partial pressures in a mixture versus the ideal-gas method;
calculations of and methods used to adjust percentage of mixes (especially
difficult in small cylinders such as used in scuba and without precise
test gages); establishment of no-decompression limits and oxygen partial
pressure/time limiting factors; etc. And once taught to some varying
level of competency, how are we to assure the students will perform
within the limitations once they are on their own? I feel we are looking
at "liability city" here.
We are treading dangerous ground. Sport diving should constrain itself
to just that and not venture into the realm of military combat diving
and commercial diving, no matter how exotic the latter two may seem.
--Jim
Haynes, NAUI 2115; Houston, TX(Teaches at The Ocean Corporation. Has
taught at the USN Dive School, as a military advisor, semi- and closed-circuit
UBA diving to Greek attack swimmers. Has worked as a military EOD and
deep sea diver and supervisor, commercial diver, and offshore diving
supervisor. Has taught sport diving from skin through ITC Director,
and has been recipient of several NAUI Outstanding Service Awards.)
A. I understand
that nitrox will or should reduce the number of decompression sickness
accidents in sport diving. I am not convinced, however, that sport divers
will follow the rules any better than they do now. I am under the impression
that many of the DCS hits are a result of sport divers pushing the limits
and bending the rules.
Another concern is the availability of nitrox. What guidelines will
divers use when they make repetitive dives using air for one dive and
nitrox for another?
The question is; should NAUI offer a specialty training program for
using nitrox? I think we should get involved in training to insure that
sport divers have the necessary skills and knowledge to use nitrox.
We are the premier diving educators and we should be leading the development
of any training program that will help to make sport diving safer and
more enjoyable. It appears that nitrox is going to be used by sport
divers. NAUI needs to be involved with the development of safe diver
training for using nitrox.
We should learn a lesson from the alternate air source evolution. It
has been about 20 years since sport divers began attaching an additional
second stage on their regulators for air sharing underwater. NAUI did
not get involved in the development process, and consequently the training
and use of these life saving devices is not standardized. Instructors
still are unable to agree on the best methods for training divers how
to use alternate air sources.
I hope NAUI decides to lead the development of educational programs
for using nitrox and other sport diving innovations. Our role is "Safety
Through Education."
--Tom
Hemphill, NAUI 2491; Federal Way, WA
A. Although it
is somewhat premature to comment on available diving tables, I think
a comment is needed for this point in time. Consider that the DAN committee
on Decompression tables will shortly announce their findings on the
PADI recreational dive planner (the "wheel"), which is based
on new tables that have been partially tested. The DAN committee statement
is currently being formulated, and we should wait for their review before
deciding on any new tables. Also consider that the USN has recently
reviewed their Air Decompression Tables and has made revisions of the
No-D tables which have been tested and considered to be the operational
version of the Navy tables. My colleagues involved in this Navy work
promise me that they will publish their data for the sport diving community
in the near future. There is one other set of tables that merits consideration,
those are the DCIEM tables from the Canadian Navy which have yet another
schedule of decompressions for air No-D dives. These tables were tested
to be nearly bubble free using doppler bubble detection.
My experience with many sport divers and instructors is that there is
not enough teaching of the basic principles behind decompression tables
(the articles by J. Bookspan and B. Wienke in Sources of Jan/Feb 1990
are helpful). The major effort should be on teaching safe diving behavior
as well as table theory and use. Dive times and surface intervals are
all to be handled the same way from any table. At present, the choice
of which table is not clear, but the long record of safety behind the
USN tables still makes them my choice. I and many of my colleagues have
repeatedly advocated conservative interpretation of the USN tables.
That means shortening bottom times, making a safety stop (10 or 15 feet),
keeping repets to three or less in one day, and diving no deeper than
100 feet. We are likely to see these rules formalized in some of the
new tables. Past use of the USN tables in this way has kept the incidence
of decompression sickness at less than 0.1%. To date, no other tables
have been this good.
A dive computer is not the ultimate solution to decompression sickness.
Like tables on a plastic card, the computers should be used conservatively.
The DAN experience to date shows that computers do not guarantee protection
from bends.
We need to teach safe behavior, table use and table theory, to protect
our students from decompression sickness. The exact table may not be
important if these other concepts are well instilled.
--Fred
Bove, MD, PhD, NAUI 3055L; Rosemont, PA(A diving physician and researcher,
has written on widely varied aspects of diving medicine for a multitude
of diving and medical publications.)
A. Again the
diving certification agencies have confused and complicated a very simple
issue. There is only one set of dive tables, the U.S. Navy dive tables.
They are not NAUI, PADI, or NASDS tables, they are U.S. Navy dive tables.
We have done an injustice to the new diver with so many versions of
the tables. Two sayings bear repeating, "If it works don't fix
it" and "Keep it simple." We have violated both of the
above.
The Navy tables have been used for many years and with a reasonable
amount of success. And until such time comes that the proper research
and testing can be done, I feel we should stay with the Navy tables,
forget about any wheels, limit the modifications to the Navy tables
to colors, and leave the numbers alone.
NAUI's slogan id "Safety Through Education" not "Safety
Through Modification."
--Walt
Amidon, NAUI 3091; Puyallup, WA(Full time dive industry professional
and instructor. Recipient of the NAUI Outstanding Service Award.)
A. The "Buhlman
Tables" should be taught. Most dive computers are based on Professor
Buhlman's 16 tissue values. Students can better understand computers
if the tables they are originally taught are "similar." High
altitude diving is also safer as the tables have been tested and found
valid at reduced atmospheric pressure.
In Europe the training organizations are not moving together. It is
good to have different teaching methods, but it is rubbish to have as
many different tables as there are organizations. There should be only
two tables used worldwide for sport diving, the revised U.S. Navy and
the Buhlman.
--Norbert
Zanker, NAUI 9657; Giessen, West Germany
A. Before we
commit ourselves to another never ending dispute, let us first decide
what we want to teach, SAFETY or how to increase BOTTOM TIME. Up to
now, the USN tables were the only game in town. They are simple and
easily adaptable to sport diving procedures. To increase safety, we
only had to teach our divers not to approach the no decompression limits,
and for multi-day diving trips have everyone calculate their first dive
of the day as though they were "A" divers. Everyone was diving
the same tables.
Today we have a kaleidoscope of dive tables in many shapes and mechanical
constructions, with apparently safer no decompression limits, shorter
surface intervals, and inconspicuously increased bottom times during
repetitive dives when compared to the USN tables. Some tables on the
market now have a first dive no decompression limit significantly shorter
than the USN tables, but on the first repetitive dive allow more than
twice the bottom time I would consider safe when compared again. Can
we increase safety and extend bottom time simultaneously? In my opinion,
NO!
I believe we should continue teaching the USN tables, with the NOT to
be approached zero decompression limits in red color as they are now,
and one group before in yellow as a caution zone, and emphasizing the
"A" category as a vital part of dive planning during multi-day
diving profiles.
Another recommended alternative is to adopt the Michigan Sea Grant Dive
Tables as standard limitations for sport diving activities. The no decompression
limits and the ANDLs on these tables have been consistently reduced
to produce much safer dive profiles. If we do change the dive tables,
safety and standardization should be our foremost concern.
--George
Safirowski, NAUI 8921L; Hackensack, NJ(Instructor at Underwater Sports
of N.J. and Staff Trainer for Lifeguard Systems, teaching all levels
of diving to ITCs, as well as Underwater Photography, Video, and Diver
Rescue specialties.)
A. I regret the
current dive tables controversy especially since we have allowed ourselves
to become involved. This past year I wrote NAUI HQ several times asking
for justification for the changes that I could share with my students
and fellow instructors. I wanted facts and statistics such as, "How
much have bends cases increased and by what percentage might our new
tables hope to decrease them?" No one answered these questions.
I guess the changes were arbitrarily made because it seemed like a good
idea. This must be the season to monkey around with the tables because
everyone is doing it. I do not believe we should fall in line and further
muddy the water. We do not have the resources and facilities to scientifically
research this question.
Since the beginning of sport diving everyone has depended on the USN
tables. If the Navy, with its vast resources, decides it is time for
a change we should adopt that change. If we make changes on our own
we will probably be asked in court to prove they are accurate or why
we did not make them sooner. In the past we could always pass these
questions along to the Navy and their sacred cow tables. Not many lawyers
have the nerve to sue the government.
Now we are on our own. Next time some gung ho diver, using our tables,
ends up in the chamber you can expect a knock on your door.
--Roy
Damron, NAUI 207; Kona, Hawaii(Diving Instructor, current NAUI Board
of Advisors member. Past NAUI Director, Chapter Leader, West Pacific
Branch Manager, and ITC Director. Recipient of NAUI Outstanding Service
Award.)
A. We have all
these many dive tables, models, and algorithms simply because none of
our present dive tables can be considered adequate on both theoretical
and empirical grounds. Derivatives of the Haldanian model (e.g. USN,
DSAT) use a dissolved gas model that fails to account for undissolved
gas, i.e. bubbles in body tissues. Bubble dynamics models handle the
bubbles well, but fail to fully factor in the statistical nature of
DCS. Maximum likelihood statistical models, critical (bubble) volume
models, and so on attempt to deal with all this empirical and statistical
uncertainty. But a typical four dive weekend could generate over 100
million dive profiles near the tables edges alone. Even the most extensively
tested sport diving tables involved only a few hundred dives. If you
are out there near any of these table edges, chances are good you are
taking part in a physiological experiment as a volunteer table tester.
Good luck! I hope you make it!
The solution is simple--use the NAUI-CUE dive table recommendations.
Always take a safety stop in the 10-30 range for 5-10 minutes. Always
avoid the last two repetitive dive groups (boxes) on the standard USN
dive tables. Obey other dive table rules (60 ft/min or slower ascent
rate, deepest dive first, back off if risk factors such as cold or strenuous
dive, recent injury, etc). Following the NAUI-CUE dive table recommendations
will help you avoid bubbling, and the DCS and "silent tissue death"
that may be associated with bubbling. Prayer also helps.
--Robert
Monaghan, NAUI 8256; Dallas, TX(Five years in diving retail/instruction,
has taught extensively in many specialties and ITCs. Consultant and
author on diving risks analyses.)
A. The U.S. Navy
dive tables should be taught because: (1) They have a very impressive
track record, despite the negative press they have been getting. (2)
They are the industry standard, whereas the validity of other tables
are still under scrutiny. (3) Teaching tables with different theoretical
bases, as well as teaching tables that utilize the figures of the USN
tables yet alter the basic definitions, creates confusion and ultimately
mistrust of all tables. (4) It is well publicized that errors exist
in their tabulation. That speaks for their conservative nature, since
they remain safe despite these errors. Studies where the USN tables
were grossly violated without incident also attest to their intrinsic
safety. (5) The problem lies not with the USN tables but with how they
are taught and the relative complexity of their utilization. That attribute
will not be mitigated by introducing other tables or changing definitions.
--E. Esat
Atikkan, PhD, NAUI 6274; Rockville, MD
A. When the new
PADI tables first came out, I thought this was just what the industry
needs: more conservative tables specifically designed for the sport
diver. However, if you work profiles side by side with the U.S. Navy
tables you may be surprised. The PADI Recreational Dive Planner is sometimes
much less conservative especially on deep repetitive dives.
Of course, no one should dive any table or device to the limit. The
new NAUI tables are the best set I have seen so far. I think we should
teach the most conservative, safest tables available. I also feel we
should make our students aware of the different tables on the market.
--James
T. O'Neal, NAUI 9024; Atlanta, GA(Training Officer for the Dekalb County
Public Safety dive team, and an instructor for Head First. Has taught
Openwater I to Assistant Instructor.)
