Connect with us

Education

Gradient Factors in a Post-Deep Stops World

World-recognized decompression physiologist and cave explorer David Doolette explains the new evidence-based findings on “deep stops,” and shares how and why he sets his own gradient factors. His recommendations may give you pause to stop (shallower).

Published

on

by Associate Professor David J. Doolette

Gradient factors are mechanisms which modify the decompression stops prescribed by the Buhlmann ZH-L16 decompression algorithm. ZH-L16 is a “gas content” algorithm, which tracks the uptake and elimination of inert gas in notional tissue compartments and schedules decompression stops to not exceed specified maximum permissible inert gas partial pressures in the compartments. When such maximum permissible inert gas partial pressures are specified for decompression stop depths, they are referred to as M-values.

Gradient factors (GF) modify M-values (and consequently allowed gas supersaturation) to a fraction of the difference between ambient pressure and the original M-value. Thus, GF 80 modifies the M-value to 80% of the difference between ambient pressure and the original M-value. Typical proprietary implementations of the GF method require the diver to select two gradient factors: GF low modifies the M-values for the deepest decompression stop, and GF high modifies the M-value for surfacing (often designated as GF low/high, e.g. GF 20/80). The algorithm then interpolates a series of modified M-values in between these two user-specified points. If the GF low is set less than 100%, this forces deeper stops to limit supersaturation in the fast tissues early in the ascent, and setting the GF high to less than 100% will produce longer, shallower stops to reduce supersaturation in the slower tissues in the latter phase of the ascent

In contrast to gas content decompression algorithms, bubble decompression algorithms (VPM-B is one such algorithm familiar to GUE divers) characteristically prescribe deeper decompression stops. In simple terms, bubble decompression algorithms favor deeper stops to limit supersaturation and thereby bubble formation early in the decompression, whereas traditional gas content decompression algorithms favor a more rapid ascent to maximize the inspired–tissue gradient of inert gas partial pressures to maximize tissue inert gas washout.

New Findings on Deep Stops

Deep stops came to the attention of early technical divers in the form of empirical “Pyle stops,” a practice serendipitously developed by ichthyologist and technical diving pioneer Richard Pyle, arising from a requirement to vent the swim bladders of fish specimens collected at great depth before arriving at his first decompression stop. There followed a strong trend toward the adoption of bubble algorithms, and also for the use of gradient factors to force gas content algorithms to impose deep stops (for instance, using GF low values of 30% or less). Based largely on supportive anecdotes, a widespread belief emerged among technical divers that deep-stop decompression schedules are more efficient than shallow-stop schedules. Efficiency, in this context, means that a schedule of the same or even shorter duration has a lower risk of DCS than some alternative schedule.

However, since about 2005, evidence has been accumulating from comparative decompression trials that shows deep stops are not more efficient, and possibly less efficient, than shallow stops.

However, since about 2005, evidence has been accumulating from comparative decompression trials that shows deep stops are not more efficient, and possibly less efficient, than shallow stops. Most studies have used venous gas emboli (bubbles) as an indicator of comparative risk of decompression sickness (DCS). Blatteau and colleagues compared dives using French Navy air and trimix decompression tables (relatively shallow stop schedules) to experimental schedules with added deep stops and longer total decompression time (similar to Pyle stops). Despite longer total decompression time, the deep stops schedules resulted in either the same or more VGE than the shallow stops schedules, and some cases of DCS.1

Photo courtesy of GUE Archives.

Spisni and colleagues compared trimix dives conducted using a deep stops schedule (ZH-L16 with GF 30/85) to an even deeper stops schedule with longer total decompression time (a UDT version of ratio deco) and found no difference in VGE.2 An as-yet-unpublished study compared trimix dives using a DCAP shallow stops schedule to a ZH-L16 GF 20/80 deep stops schedule with similar total decompression time, and the deep stops schedule resulted in significantly more VGE.3 A large study conducted by the U.S. Navy compared the incidence of DCS in air decompression schedules for 30 minutes bottom time at 170 fsw bottom for a gas content algorithm with the first stop at 40 fsw (shallow stops) or a bubble algorithm with the first stop at 70 fsw (deep stops). The shallow stops schedule resulted in 3 DCS in 192 man-dives and the deep stops schedule resulted in 11 DCS in 198 man-dives.4

What To Do About Gradient Factors

The emerging body of evidence against deep stops suggest common gradient factor setting should be modified to de-emphasize deep stops. Fraedrich validated dive computer algorithms by comparing them to well-tested U.S. Navy decompression schedules, including the schedules from the deep stop study outlined above. For that dive, ZH-L16 with a GF low >55% (e.g. GF 55/70) produced a first decompression stop between 70 and 40 fsw.5 Tyler Coen at Shearwater Research Inc. noted that GF settings recommended by Fraedrich modify ZH-L16 M-values so that approximately the same level supersaturation is allowed at all stop depths. To understand this requires delving a little further into M-values.

The emerging body of evidence against deep stops suggest common gradient factor setting should be modified to de-emphasize deep stops.

M-values are typically a linear function of stop depth. In older algorithms such as ZH-L16, the M-value generating functions have a slope greater than one (in ZH-L16, the slopes are the reciprocals of the “b” parameters), resulting in increasing supersaturation allowed with increasing stop depth. In more modern algorithms developed by the U.S. Navy since the 1980s, including the one used to produce the shallow stops schedule in the study outlined above, the slope of the M-value generating functions are generally equal to one, so that the same level of supersaturation is allowed at all stop depths. This results in modestly deeper stops than older algorithms, but still relatively shallow stops compared to bubble models.

With this information in mind, I set my GF low to roughly counteract the ZH-L16 “b” parameters (I have been using Shearwater dive computers with ZH-L16 GF in conjunction with my tried and true decompression tables for about three years). In ZH-L16, the average of “b” parameters is 0.83. I choose my GF low to be about 83% of the GF high, for instance GF 70/85. Although the algebra is not exact, this roughly counteracts the slope of the “b” values. This approach allows me to believe I have chosen my GF rationally, is not so large a GF low as I am unable to convince my buddies to use it, and satisfies my preference to follow a relatively shallow stops schedule.

This article was prepared by Assoc. Professor Doolette in his personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the view of the Department of the Navy or the United States government.

Header image: Joakim Hjelm

1. Blatteau JE, Hugon M, Gardette B. Deeps stops during decompression from 50 to 100 msw didn’t reduce bubble formation in man. In: Bennett PB, Wienke BR, Mitchell SJ, editors. Decompression and the deep stop. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Workshop; 2008 Jun 24-25; Salt Lake City (UT). Durham (NC): Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society; 2009. p. 195-206.

2. Spisni E, Marabotti C, De FL, Valerii MC, Cavazza E, Brambilla S et al. A comparative evaluation of two decompression procedures for technical diving using inflammatory responses: compartmental versus ratio deco. Diving Hyperb Med 2017;47:9-16.

3. Gennser M. Use of bubble detection to develop trimix tables for Swedish mine-clearance divers and evaluating trimix decompressions. Presented at: Ultrasound 2015 – International meeting on ultrasound for diving research; 2015 Aug 25-26; Karlskrona (Sweden).

4. Doolette DJ, Gerth WA, Gault KA. Redistribution of decompression stop time from shallow to deep stops increases incidence of decompression sickness in air decompression dives. Technical Report. Panama City (FL): Navy Experimental Diving Unit; 2011 Jul. 53 p. Report No.: NEDU TR 11-06.

5. Fraedrich D. Validation of algorithms used in commercial off-the-shelf dive computers. Diving Hyperb Med 2018;48:252-8.


Additional Resources:

PADI recently published an excellent post, “Evolving Thought on Deep Decompression Stops,” by John Adsit, on the subject of Deep Stops.

Alert Diver magazine published a profile and interview with Doolette in the Fall of 2016.

The Math behind the ZH-L16 Model: Bühlmann established, by means of many hyperbaric chamber experiments with volunteers, how much supersaturation the individual tissue compartments can tolerate without injury. He expressed the relationship through the following equation:

pamb. tol. = (pt. i.g. – a) ·b

or

pt. tol. i.g. = (pamb / b) + a

pamb. tol. – the ambient pressure tolerated by the tissue

pt. i.g. – the pressure of the inert gas in the tissue

pt. tol. i.g. – tolerated (excess)pressure of the inert gases in the tissues

pamb – current ambient pressure

a, b – parameters of the model ZH-L16 for each tissue. “a” depends on the measure unit of pressure used, while “b”  represents the steepness of the relationship between the ambient pressure pamb. and the pressure of inert gas in the tissue pt. i.g. The first equation shows which lower ambient pressure pamb. tol. will still be tolerated at the actual pressure of inert gas in the tissues pt. i.g. The lower equation shows which level of supersaturation pt. tol. i.g. can be tolerated at a given ambient pressure pamb for a given tissue.


Dr. David Doolette began scuba diving in 1979 and was introduced to the sinkholes and caves of Australia in 1984. Around this time, he alternated between studying for his B.Sc. (Hons.) and working as a dive instructor, when he developed an interest in diving physiology. He planned and conducted some of the first technical dives in Australia in 1993. Since being awarded his Ph.D. in 1995, he has conducted full time research into decompression physiology, first at the University of Adelaide, and since 2005 at the U.S. Navy Experimental Diving Unit in Panama City, Florida.

He has been a member of the Undersea Hyperbaric Medical Society since 1987, received their 2003 Oceaneering International Award, and is a member of their Diving Committee. He has also been a member of the South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society since 1990 and served as the Education Officer for five years. He is a member of the Cave Diving Association of Australia, the Australian Speleological Federation Cave Diving Group, Global Underwater Explorers, and the Woodville Karst Plain Project. He remains an avid underwater cave explorer, both near his home in Florida and abroad.


3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. MommyRev

    April 8, 2020 at 2:47 pm

    Perhaps the first study of deep stops profile was done by the French Navy while considering whether to move to a bubble model from their gas content model. They compared their model to three different deep stop protocols by measuring post dive venous gas bubbles. They discovered that none of the deep stops models were superior to the gas content model, and one of them was inferior.

  2. Pingback: The Best of InDepth in 2019 - InDepth

  3. Pingback: Decompression Series Part Four: Finding Shelter in an Uncertain World

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cave

Zen and the Art of Mexican Cave Navigation

Do you know your arrows, cookies, REMS, TEMS, presence, personal and team markers? Singley or in combination? Jump protocols? If your answer to any of these is ‘Nada’ you may find yourself lost in a Mexican cave. Fortunately, underground explorer and instructor Natalie Gibb has agreed to provide safe navigation through the watery wilds of Riviera Maya. Grab your markers.

Published

on

By

Photos and text by Natalie Gibb

The most idiotic cave navigation mistake I ever witnessed happened on a dive in Cenote Chan Hol about eight years ago. Exiting the cave, my buddy and I approached our jump line, but were pushed out of the way by a solo diver who elbowed his way over our jump line and into the side passageway. 

I stared in disbelief: the diver had not installed his own jump spool, he had just swum over mine. Had he even noticed my jump spool? Did he realize he was swimming into a side passageway? My buddy and I both had personal markers on the main line, as well as markers on our spool. My jump spool had a neon green line, and all of our markers were clearly marked with reflective tape and our names. It was not subtle.

I signaled with my light to the solo diver, and gestured, That’s my jump! He shrugged nonchalantly, turned around, swam back over my jump spool to the main line, and trundled on down the principal cave passage. If I hadn’t had a regulator in my mouth, my jaw would have dropped open. 

Since that day, I have viewed cave navigation in Mexico as a two-part responsibility: 

  1. Don’t confuse yourself or your teammates.
  2. Don’t confuse other divers. 

As one can imagine, the latter is the more difficult to accomplish. 

Cave Training Agency Differences vs Regional Navigation Differences

This article began as a comparison between different cave training agencies’ navigational standards. Interestingly, there is not much to compare!   From my research it seems that TDI, IANTD, NSS-CDS, RAID, PSAI, and GUE agree on a basic philosophy: specific navigational markings and protocols are often region-specific and even cave-specific. Every instructor from every training agency I have spoken with has stated more or less the same thing: While agencies may have general guidelines, navigation procedures are left up to the instructor. 

As a TDI instructor, my students have mentioned that it’s frustrating not to have exact navigation protocols written out in the textbook. I can understand their annoyance, but from an instructor’s standpoint, I prefer it this way.  Not having rigid operating procedures published in training manuals allows cave instructors to teach to their local protocols. 

While GUE is perhaps the clearest of all agencies, most training agencies agree on basic best practices, including the need to use personal markers to mark the exit side of intersections, the acceptance of cookies as a navigation tool, and the need to maintain a continuous guideline to the open water by using jump spools and reels. 

If regional peculiarities, as opposed to dogmatic navigation standards, dictate protocols, the question becomes: What makes Mexico cave navigation different? How should you navigate there? 

What Makes the Caves in Mexico So Confusing?

Several factors make the navigation in Mexico challenging. I believe one of the major factors is that Mexican caves usually lack strong flow. Divers who have grown up navigating caves in other regions are often used to the orienting movement of the water, providing a physical sense of directionality; it’s unlikely to become truly confused about your direction of exit if the water is pushing you “out.” Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, but in general I find noticeable flow is an excellent, almost subconscious indicator of directionality, and it’s missing in most Mexican caves. 

Diver Stephanie Lee hovers between two massive columns at Cenote Nai Tucha. Mexican cave systems can be very complex and many cenotes cannot be used as exits.

The cave systems in Mexico are very complex, with multiple cenote entrances and exits. This may sound like a benefit, but in reality, it’s not possible to exit the water in all of the cenotes, and even if you can get out of the water, you could find yourself deep in the jungle without a road or the ability to call for help. Several years ago, a lost diver perished from exhaustion after blindly following the cave arrows to an alternate exit, then wandering lost in the strong jungle heat. 

Nicholas Wheeler inside the cave Nohoch Nah Chich. Mexican cave navigation often follows its own logic that can be confusing to divers unfamiliar with the system.

The arrows in Mexico’s caves are likely to alter directions throughout a single dive, changing to indicate whatever the person who placed the arrows felt was the nearest surface or exit. That person could have been wrong. The route to the “nearer entrances” might involve 16 jumps and a no-mount restriction. The lines could have been cut or changed since the arrows were placed. There are no warnings, and there is no system in place, although we are working on one!

Additionally, Mexican cave navigation follows its own logic, different from that of other regions. We use multiple arrows, directional changes, and pretty much zero distance markers. Areas far back in the cave, or areas that were explored in past decades, may have “reach gaps,” often unmarked jumps that end centimeters from the main line, as well as blind T’s, and other navigational monstrosities. My favorite recent bizarre navigation find was an “H” intersection. 

Don’t Depend on the Arrows! 

It’s best to view cave lines and arrows as secondary navigational tools. What’s your primary navigational tool? The cave itself. 

Joe Fellows at Cenote Nohoch Nah Chich. Instead of relying solely on the line, compare your compass with the expected general heading.

Plan this out ahead of time if you have a map, and confirm it during the dive by looking back and actually checking your compass once you have completed a jump or T. If you know your directions, you won’t have to rely on the pesky arrows. The magnetic field of the earth is unlikely to change during a single dive. In a pinch, caves north of Chan Hol Cenote are typically upstream to the northwest and downstream to the southeast. This changes a bit south of Chan Hol, due to fracture zones. 

Cave tunnels often have a general direction, even if they twist and turn a little. Carry a compass and keep track of which direction you are traveling, in many places it is more or less uniform throughout the dive. You don’t need a degree heading; northwest-ish in and southeast-ish out will be enough to determine your exit direction if you get confused. If you make a 90 degree turn, you should notice the heading change. If you make a jump off the mainline or navigate a T intersection, it’s essential to know the exit direction along the mainline once you return to that point. 

Nicholas White in a tunnel towards Cenote Coop One. Despite some twists and turns, cave passages often follow a general direction.

Natural navigation is also important. A diver can observe many key features of a cave without a doctorate in hydrogeology. Is the cave big and wide, or small and restricted? What color is the floor sediment? Are there any unusual speleothems that catch your eye? Do you feel water flow? Was there a major depth change? Maybe you swam over a collapse? If you swam into the cave through a small, restricted tunnel, and you turned around to exit but passed no restrictions, you are going the wrong way.  

This simple observation would have saved multiple dive teams who all made the same mistake. They entered Cenote Kalimba and made a jump from an arrow pointing away from their exit towards Grand Cenote. When they retrieved the jump spool, they swam toward Grand Cenote instead of Kalimba, through enormous cave passages instead of restrictions. They blindly followed the jump arrow, which was not pointing toward their exit; they did not correct themselves,  though the cave passageway they were in was very different from the cave passageway leading to their original exit. The more you can learn about geology, the easier it is to read a cave, remember it,  and notice if you are going the wrong way.

Alex Buess at Santuario de los Guerreros. Enourmous and numerous cave passages can easily be misleading.

Mexican System Markers

Of course, lines and arrows are important to understand, and they give divers information about the general layout of the cave. While there is no standardized system of marking cave lines in Mexico, most caves follow a somewhat logical method. Again, a diver should never assume that the arrows are actually correct or that exits indicated by the arrows are accessible. 

A single arrow usually indicates the presence of a jump line.

In Mexico, jump lines are usually indicated by a single arrow on the main cave line. This is different from Florida, where jumps are often marked with two arrows (a double arrow). Interestingly, double arrow jumps do exist in Mexico, but they are rare and have a special significance – they indicate a particularly important jump, such as a jump to complete a circuit or a traverse. Divers familiar with popular Mexican caves may have noticed this in the double arrow jump to the Death Arrow Passage in Cenote Maya Blue, or the double arrow jump to complete the circuit in Cenote Minotauro. 

Double arrows are less common, and indicate a significant jump.

There are also a great number of secret or hidden jumps that are not marked at all on the mainline. Examples include the jump to the Chinese Garden at Cenote Tajma Ha, or the jump to the Room of Tears in Cenote Carwash. 

From a practical standpoint, the lack of double arrow jumps means that line-to-line jump connections are generally not used in Mexico, and a better protocol is to tie into a line marker (more on this to follow.)

Opposing arrows suggest there are equidistant exits in both directions.

As mentioned above, arrows will often change directions along a single cave line. If you swim far enough into a Mexican cave, it is common to encounter a set of two arrows pointing in different directions. These are commonly referred to as a directional change or opposing arrows. The purpose of opposing arrows is to indicate that there is an exit equidistant in each direction, and to draw the diver’s attention to the fact that the line markers past the opposing arrows will point away from the diver’s original exit.

A pack of three arrows suggests exits in both directions, with the doubles arrows indicating the closer exit. 

Similarly, a set of three arrows, with two pointing in one direction and one pointing in the opposite direction is intended to indicate two exits, with one being closer in time or distance. However, keep in mind that system arrows may also flip direction without opposing arrows as a warning. It’s your job to notice this.  Common practice is to leave a line marker (cookie or REM) on your team’s exit side of the opposing arrows or first flipped arrow to confirm your direction of exit.  

T Intersections. T intersections are generally rare in Mexico. Most navigation is accomplished with jump lines or gaps. T’s are most often present at major intersections, when the cave splits into two equally sized tunnels. At a T, one or more exits are indicated by system arrows pointing away from the T toward the exit.  T’s are also common close to cenote entrances, with a double arrow indicating the presence of a cenote off the main tunnel.  As with opposing arrows,  good practice in Mexico is for the cave team to mark their exit side of the T with a personal marker. 

A T Intersection with an arrow indicating a single exit. 
A T Intersection with arrows marking two exits. The double arrows most likely indicate a nearby cenote.

At this point, an important clarification must be made: never blindly follow system arrows toward an exit that you have not personally confirmed. Cave arrows may point toward an exit that requires multiple jumps, a no-mount restriction, or that is blocked by a collapse that occurred after the original line was laid.  Sometimes line markers are simply wrong. Always return to your original proven exit regardless of the arrow direction, and you will stay safe.  

Personal Markers

Three main types of personal markers are commonly used in Mexico cave diving, and many divers now 3D print or craft their own, very unique styles.  The most common markers are Arrows, Cookies, and REMs (referencing exit markers).  It’s important to consider directionality of personal markers and where in the cave they can be used.  

Arrows. Personal arrows are commonly used to anchor jump spools. However there are a few situations in which I feel that arrows should not be used. In accordance with Rule #2: don’t confuse other divers, it’s generally frowned upon to place personal arrows directly next to system/permanent arrows. A personal arrow, no matter how nicely marked, may look like a system marker to another, less observant dive team, and placing a personal arrow very close to a system marker may lead other divers to believe a double arrow is present. Remember, double arrows have a special significance in Mexico. 

At jumps, placing a personal jump arrow within a few inches of a system arrow can make it look like a double arrow jump.  Instead, the team should separate the personal jump arrows from system arrows by 0.5m/1.6 ft (if possible) to avoid confusion. 

Placing a personal arrow next to a jump arrow may create navigation that looks like a double arrow jump.
Marking a T Intersection with a personal arrow may lead to other teams confusing the personal arrow for permanent navigation.

At T-intersections or directional changes, using a personal arrow to mark the team’s exit may confuse other teams, as it may look like a double arrow indicating a nearer exit. For these applications cookies or REMs are preferred.  

Cookies can be used to mark a team’s exit at a T Intersection.

Cookies. Cookies were a Mexican cave diving innovation invented by explorer/instructor Daniel Riorden in the late 1990s, in accordance with Rule #2.  Cookies are round, or non-directional, and are typically not used as system markers. The shape makes them clearly personal markers, which simplifies marking intersections and directional changes as all other cave teams know that a cookie indicates nothing about general cave navigation. Cookies may also be used to mark a cave team’s reels. 

Cookies may be used to mark an arrow pointing away from the team’s exit, by placing the cookie on the exit side (in this case right).

Cookies are appropriate for most uses, with the exception of anchoring jump reels or spools. It’s inappropriate to tie a reel or jump spool onto a lone cookie, as the cookie alone does not indicate a direction of exit at the intersection, a clear violation of Rule #1: Don’t Confuse Yourself or Your Team Mates. 

REMs. REMs (Referencing Exit Markers), invented by Bil Phillips, are a common sight in Mexico and uncommon in most other regions.  They are rectangular markers, with slats for line attachment closer to one end. The longer end points towards the team exit.  

REMs are rectangular personal markers. The longer end of the REM faces out.

REMs are interesting in that they are directional,  but can not be confused with arrows. They can be used for the same functions as both arrows and cookies, eliminating the need for a diver to carry a variety of personal markers. In my conversations with Bil, he told me this was not his original intention for the markers, but he liked that people were getting creative with them.

REMs have one other useful feature, which is that the exit side of the marker has enough space to write a serious note. This can be left on the line for notes to a buddy or for personal notes, in place of wetnote pages or other methods. 

Creating Your Personal Markers

No matter what style of markers a diver chooses to use, their markers should be clearly personalized. All organizations teach divers to write their names, nicknames, or an identifying word on their personal markers to indicate who the marker belongs to. This helps to fulfill both Rule #1 and Rule #2, making the markers easy to identify. 

An additional method of personalizing cave markers that I recommend is to make them touch contact identifiable. I ask my divers to modify their markers in a way to make them uniquely identifiable in zero visibility, such as cutting a corner off, punching holes in them, or adding something as simple as a cable tie in order to physically identify them if visibility is lost. 

Many divers also like to number their markers, which allows divers to account for all markers and refer to a certain navigational decision in the debriefing or in their notes – for example, “the jump where the diver put down marker number three.” 

Exploration markers are typically arrows, and may have the exploration teams info, date of exploration, and a key word or identifying number written in them.

A word of caution here – it is possible that some system or permanent markers have a diver’s or dive team’s name on it. These are exploration markers. They typically have the team’s names, the date or year of the project, and maybe even a keyword or number written on them, and are not marked with touch or physical identification cues. Exploration markers are so much fun to find! Every time I run across a historic marker with an explorer’s name on it, I feel a kinship to the original explorers and imagine what the person must have felt like, being the first human in this cave. If a diver has a question about the cave, the presence of the explorer’s name indicates who to contact with questions. 

Team vs Individual Markers

Now we are getting into the great debate! Which is better, team or individual markers? 

With the “team marker” approach, the team leader places a single cookie or REM on the exit side of a T. 

When cave divers are using the team marker approach, the diver in the front of the team places all markers for the team, marking and placing jump lines, marking T’s, and placing any other markers that are deemed necessary. Other team members carefully observe the diver in front, and confirm that the markers are correctly placed. The advantage of this style of marking lines is that there are fewer markers on the line, and that it is slightly faster than having each diver personally mark intersections. UTD’s Andrew Georgitisis rather infamously premiered a REM-style “TEM (Team Exit Marker)” in a Facebook video last year advocating the use of team markers.

With the “individual marker” approach, the each diver places a cookie or REM to mark the exit side of a T. 

If a cave team uses the individual marker approach, each diver places a personal marker to mark the team’s exit at every point of navigation, including jumps, T’s, and directional changes.  The advantages of this system are that each diver physically participates in the cave navigation, which helps to fix it in his or her memory. Additionally, more markers are easier to see, and add an additional degree of personalization to the navigation. If my team is using all REMs, and your team is using arrows and cookies, just the fact that a jump is marked with arrows and cookies means that it is not mine. 

When jumping from a team marker, the team leader places the navigation and all others confirm it is correct. 
When jumping using “individual” markers, all team members mark the exit side of the jump.

However, the most important argument for this method, is that individual markers create a level of redundancy in navigation. If a diver accidentally ties into a jump arrow that points away from the team’s exit (and no one notices), but the other divers mark the exit side of the intersection correctly with their cookies or REMs, it is clear that there is a navigational discrepancy upon exit. Divers then know to refer to their compasses and natural navigation clues to determine the correct direction to exit, instead of blindly following the arrow in the wrong direction when leaving the cave. This can be life saving. GUE uses this approach, though most training organizations do not state a preference.

Individual line marking procedures can highlight discrepancies in line marking, allowing divers to notice an error and take appropriate action.  Here, the arrow is pointing away from the team’s exit, but they marked the intersection properly.

Finally, some instructors teach that in an instance of team separation, divers leaving the cave remove their personal markers, while leaving the jump lines and other team member’s markers in place. This indicates to the team who is still in the cave, and who has made it out. This method of dealing with a team separation is debated in the cave community. 

The advantages of individual markers as far as clarity, redundancy, and problem solving make the individual marker method my choice.

Presence Markers

Presence markers are personal markers that are placed at the beginning of a cave line when the line starts in open water and no primary reel is required, or on the primary reel line when a reel is run from the open water. Presence markers can be team markers or individual markers, and indicate the presence of the team in the cave. When individual presence markers are used, they additionally indicate the number of divers in the cave. 

Individual presence markers at the beginning of a cave line.

If a team must exit in complete zero visibility all the way to the end of line in the open water, personalized presence markers allow the divers to confirm that they have navigated correctly to the open water and may safely surface. No agencies seem to have a firm stance on presence markers, nor is this an established local protocol in Mexico. However, I quite like presence markers and use them in my courses and personal diving. 

Jump Protocols

When cave divers swim from the main cave line to a secondary line (jump line) in a side passage, they have made a jump. As all modern training organizations require cave divers to maintain a continuous guideline to the open water,  the cave teams install a jump reel or spool to connect the mainline to the secondary line. This is a visual reference upon exit and allows the team to navigate out of the cave in zero visibility by touch. 

How should a team install a jump line? Good question! Once again there are many options, and again, there is no “right” answer as long as the marking is clear to other divers, the team that installed the line, and has some sort of marker indicating the direction of exit. It’s helpful to use colored line on jump spools as opposed to white line, which is typically used for permanent cave lines, as this makes the temporary nature of the line obvious to other teams.  Here is a non-exhaustive list of options. 

Line to line connection. When a team loops a jump spool directly around the cave line (as opposed to tying the spool into a line marker), the jump is a line-to-line connection. This sort of navigation is more commonly observed in Florida and other locations where jumps are indicated by two arrows. The team can tie the jump spool between the two jump arrows without risk of the jump line sliding out of position. Using this method, two arrows are present (if they are pointing in the correct direction) to indicate the team’s direction of exit. 

Line to line connections are common in regions where double arrow jumps are used.

Line to line connections are less common in Mexico, because jumps are usually indicated by single arrows. The jump line can slide around without arrows blocking it on each side.

In Mexico, where jumps are indicated by a single arrow which may be pointing away from the team’s exit, this method is generally frowned upon. Lines that are not anchored by a line marker are likely to slide out of position, particularly in zero visibility. 

Jump from a system or permanent marker.  One common method of installing a jump line in Mexico is to loop the jump spool’s line around the system arrow. This fixes the jump spool’s line in place and avoids the problems mentioned above. However, it is important that the team carefully observes the arrow’s direction. Divers should never attach a jump spool to an arrow that points away from the team’s exit. Doing so has been implicated in numerous fatalities, including several well-known accidents at Cenote Kalimba. If the team chooses to use individual markers, team members place cookies or REMs on the exit side of the intersection created by the mainline and jump line. Jumping from a system marker is not possible when the arrow has already been used by another team, or if the jump is unmarked, and it’s a terrible idea if the arrow points away from the team’s exit. Always be prepared to use the final jump method.

Jumping from a system arrow using the team marking approach.
Jumping from a system arrow using individual marking with REMS (cookies may also be used).

When jumping from a team personal marker, the leader installs his own arrow or REM on the line.

Jump from a personal marker.  To jump from a personal marker, the team leader places an arrow or REM on the line indicating the team’s exit direction, and ties into the personal marker. If individual markers are used, each member of the team places a cookie or REM on the exit side of the intersection created by the jump spool line and the main line. Again, this can be used as standard protocol, in the case where the jump arrow is pointing away from the team’s exit, in the case where the arrow is already used by another team, or in the case where the jump is not marked by a system or permanent arrow. This is my preferred method because it avoids uncertainty, and I use the same exact protocol for every jump, regardless of what is present in the cave. 

When jumping from an individual personal marker, the leader ties into his own arrow or REM, and all team members mark the exit side of the intersection with personal markers.

If a team chooses to jump from a personal marker when a system arrow is present, what side of the system arrow should the team jump from? I prefer to install my personal marker at least arm’s length away from the system arrow to differentiate my navigation from the system navigation. I like to jump from behind, or from the cave side of the direction the system arrow points, because this leaves the permanent marker on the exit side of my intersection, allowing other teams already in the cave who have noticed this arrow to have an unobstructed reference to the exit. 

Marking Reels and Spools. 

When tying into the main cave line or a jump line, many divers, myself included, like to place a marker on the reel or jump spool line. On a primary reel line, these markers serve as presence markers. The markers also help to visually and physically identify the diver’s line in zero visibility, especially in the event that there are multiple spools or reels tied into the cave line. Finally, this helps to unambiguously identify similar types of spools and reels, helping to avoid  removing a different team’s reel or spool by mistake. Not everyone does this, and some consider it redundant and unnecessary, as realistically divers should be able to identify their own reel or spool. I feel like it is extra clear, so I like to mark my spools and reels. 

A spool is marked with a team cookie.
A spool is marked with individual REMs.

Navigating Around Multiple Cave Teams

Placing a jump as the second team in the cave (yellow line with cookies and arrows).

A brief note is warranted to mention protocols for navigating when there are multiple teams in the cave.  The general rule is to attach any spools or reels cave side of another team’s spools, unless there is a very large space exit side.  The same rule applies to the placement of jump spools. When navigating a T, place your markers on the exit side of the other teams markers, so that their markers are the first encountered during the exit. 

Tying into a cave line or jump line as the second team (yellow line with cookies and arrows).

What’s the Number One Navigational Mistake I Should Avoid as a Tourist Cave Diver in Mexico?

The number one navigational mistake to avoid is to blindly follow arrows and lines to your death. Nearly every Mexican cave fatality I am aware of involves navigational errors exacerbated by camera use. Mistakes include divers jumping off system markers pointing away from their exit and subsequently going the wrong way when returning from their jump line, or teams getting turned around when taking photos.  Mark all intersections methodically with personal markers, understand the overall compass heading of your planned dive, and be aware that arrows do not always point towards your team’s exit, or even an accessible exit. Notice if arrows change directions and mark them accordingly. In the event that you become confused, use your compass heading and natural navigation in conjunction with the cave lines to find your way home. 

Mexico Cave Navigation Is an Art

Navigation in Mexican caves is subtle and often confusing. My shop teaches the system of navigation that we like the best, but there is a wide variety of protocols used in the area, and I wouldn’t say that any one way is necessarily incorrect. I am probably in the minority with this opinion, but I would say as long as you and your teammates stay oriented, and you don’t confuse other cave diving teams, have at it. No matter what you do, someone else is going to think you are wrong. Chin up. Did you confuse your team? Did you confuse other teams? No? Good enough. 

In fact, I actually think it’s great that there are slight variations in the way people mark their lines. If I use REMs, and you use arrows, then I can easily and quickly identify my markers simply because they are different from yours. Nice! 

Divers Nick, Nik, and Troy turn a corner at Cenote Nohoch Nah Chich. Always be sure to be on the same page as the rest of your team and develop a navigational strategy together.

One cannot be too strict with navigational protocols in Mexico, because while a team can have a standard way of placing and marking lines, the established lines in Mexico do not have standardized systems of marking.  Maybe you like to anchor your jumps on personal markers behind the system markers? I do. But it’s not always possible based on the layout of the cave. You must adapt your navigation to the environment, and that’s why it’s an art! As unsettling as this is to many people, there are no absolutes. 

So Many Options! What to Do?

Yes, it can be confusing, and determining your personal or team navigation style takes some thought and discussion within the dive team. There are options, and as grown up adults, you get to choose what is clearest and easiest for you. When evaluating a navigational method, just make sure it doesn’t violate the rules of safe cave navigation:

  1. Don’t confuse yourself or your team mates.
  2. Don’t confuse other divers. 

Based on the previous discussion and general cave training organization guidelines, we can add two additional points. 

  1. Maintain a continuous line to the open water using spools and reels as needed.
  2. Have a marker on the line indicating your direction of exit at key points of navigation, including jumps, T intersections, and directional changes. 

In addition, I would urge dive teams to be consistent. Come up with a protocol, whether it’s team or individual markers, anchoring your line on system markers or personal markers, and use the same protocol on every dive. This makes in-water decision making easier and helps to avoid confusion. Review your navigational protocol with new team members, and agree to a protocol before entering the water the first time. 

Diver Bre Kramer at Cenote Caterpillar. The cave line can be a good directional tool but at the end of the day the cave itself will give you the best navigational indicators.

No matter what navigational procedure your team chooses to use, keep in mind that while important, plastic markers and the cave line are secondary navigational clues. Your first source of navigation is the cave itself: directionality, formations, physical features, and flow if it exists.  Unlike lines, cave features are unlikely to be removed or changed. Learning to observe and read the cave will increase your safety and enjoyment!


Natalie L Gibb’s passion in life is underwater cave exploration and conservation. With her exploration partner Vincent Rouquette-Cathala, she has led her team to discover over 20 previously unknown cave systems in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula, mapping more than 80 kilometers/nearly 50 miles of cave passageways. She is a public speaker, author, photographer, and videographer, and a member of the Woman Diver’s Hall of Fame. Natalie is co-owner of Under the Jungle, a cave diver training center in Mexico, and a TDI Full Cave Instructor.

Continue Reading

Subscribe

Submerge yourself in our content by signing up for our monthly newsletters. Stay up to date and on top of your diving.

Thank You to Our Sponsors

Education