Is this video real? 293ft on air...

[Akimbo]

...If he really did got to 293 feet on air, I would have thought that the biggest problem would be that even on a high performance regulator, that would be like trying to breathe glue.

I concur with captain and Superlyte27. I offer this as perspective rather than criticism.

Even on chamber runs to 250' plus, air density is really low on your list of distractions. Sure the air feels thick and is usually uncomfortably warm when you reach bottom, but labored breathing is rarely noticed. Breathing on a regulator adds further to the respiratory work load, but there is even more demanding your attention in the water.

Virtually all regulators on the market are quite adequate for the dive in that video. Granted, under extremely heavy work conditions some are less than optimum, but that single tank would be drained so fast at these rates that O2 toxicity and narcosis wouldn't matter.

The regulators we used on 800' working dives 35 years ago were far worse than those delegated to decom bottle service today. Having made at least 100 dives to the 250' range, in cold water, on Scuba, on air, using older and comparatively terrible regulators; breathing performance was not a perceptible problem. Even with repeated exposure and possible increased tolerance to Narcosis, breathing resistance is one of the last things we noticed, let alone reliably judge.

No doubt, higher performance regulators under extreme conditions can contribute to improved human performance. However, you better be on a hose if you blow that much gas because your doubles will be sucking back in no time. AquaLung's least expensive regulator, the Calypso, easily passes the European EN250 requirements and significantly out performs everything we had then. This lowly unbalanced piston first stage and a mind-numbingly simple unbalanced second stage leaves top of the line regulators of that era in the dust.

There is a valid argument that increased respirator work loads diminish diver safety. However, it is well proven that the diver's physical condition trumps regulator performance by a wide margin. Keeping yourself in condition improves safety far more than the finest regulator ever conceived.

 

[smellzlikefish]

Diverdoug-Was the NOAA diver on duty or off duty?

 

[diverdoug1]

Diverdoug-Was the NOAA diver on duty or off duty?

Yes, why do you ask?

 

[LeadTurn_SD]

When I learned to dive, we were not taught a limit of 1.4 or 1.6 atm partial pressure of oxygen, but 2.0. That happens on air at 297 feet.

1+

Best wishes.

 

[LeadTurn_SD]

I concur with captain and Superlyte27. I offer this as perspective rather than criticism.

Even on chamber runs to 250' plus, air density is really low on your list of distractions. Sure the air feels thick and is usually uncomfortably warm when you reach bottom, but labored breathing is rarely noticed. Breathing on a regulator adds further to the respiratory work load, but there is even more demanding your attention in the water.

Virtually all regulators on the market are quite adequate for the dive in that video. Granted, under extremely heavy work conditions some are less than optimum, but that single tank would be drained so fast at these rates that O2 toxicity and narcosis wouldn't matter.

The regulators we used on 800' working dives 35 years ago were far worse than those delegated to decom bottle service today. Having made at least 100 dives to the 250' range, in cold water, on Scuba, on air, using older and comparatively terrible regulators; breathing performance was not a perceptible problem. Even with repeated exposure and possible increased tolerance to Narcosis, breathing resistance is one of the last things we noticed, let alone reliably judge.

No doubt, higher performance regulators under extreme conditions can contribute to improved human performance. However, you better be on a hose if you blow that much gas because your doubles will be sucking back in no time. AquaLung's least expensive regulator, the Calypso, easily passes the European EN250 requirements and significantly out performs everything we had then. This lowly unbalanced piston first stage and a mind-numbingly simple unbalanced second stage leaves top of the line regulators of that era in the dust.

There is a valid argument that increased respirator work loads diminish diver safety. However, it is well proven that the diver's physical condition trumps regulator performance by a wide margin. Keeping yourself in condition improves safety far more than the finest regulator ever conceived.

The deepest dives I've ever made were with the Aqualung Calypso-J back in 1977 and 1978.

At that point, it certainly was not the best regulator out there, but was just fine at a bit over 200'. Certainly it was harder to breath at 200' than at 60', but was still just fine.

Best wishes.

 

[Thalassamania]

Thalssamania, with due respect to your extensive diving experience, your statement is not correct. I have consulted on the post mortem examination of a diver who had proximate cause of death ruled as drowning caused by oxygen induced sezure (he was a NOAA research diver). I also was a witness for the defense in a lawsuit involving a SCUBA manufacturer and a diver who had an O2 induced seizure at depth resulting in severe anoxic brain injury. The plantiff in this case survived 18 months after his injury. He died due to pulmonary complications after being ventilator dependent since the time of his accident. In both cases divers were using conventional open circuit gear. Both cases were determined to be a result of switching to deco gas instead of travel gas. Both divers were witnessed seizing at depth. Both with deco second stages deployed. These are just the cases in which I have had personal involvement.

My statement is correct.

Qualification Criteria for NOAA Reseach Diver:

To qualify for a scientific diver certification, individuals must be previously certified scuba divers beyond the basic entry level (e.g., advanced open water, Divemaster, assistant instructor, instructor) by a recognized scuba diving certification agency (e.g., US Navy, NAUI, PADI, IANTD, SSI, TDI, YMCA, etc.). Candidates must also have completed a minimum of 25 dives; be current in CPR, First Aid, and oxygen administration training; pass a written examination (based on an advanced-level recreational scuba diving certification), a NOAA dive physical examination, and a swim test; and complete a checkout dive with a NOAA Unit Diving Supervisor, or their designee.

Qualification Criteria for NOAA Working Diver:

To qualify for the working diver certification, individuals must successfully complete the NOAA 3-week working diver course (offered in May and September in Seattle and in Key West in January) or an equivalent training program (e.g., military or commercial diving school), or have documented experience in performing working dives. Candidates must have completed a minimum of 25 dives; be current in CPR, First Aid, and oxygen administration training; pass a written examination (based on an advanced-level recreational scuba diving certification), a NOAA dive physical examination, and a swim test; and complete a checkout dive with a NOAA Unit Diving Supervisor, or their designee.

As opposed to the 100 hour Scripps model course that is the entry level for the Scientific Diving Community as defined by OSHA.

To be a member of the Scientific Diving Community, something that is an OSHA definition, and thus become part of the SDC's statistical basis, one must be affiliated with an institution that trains and qualifies its divers in accordance with the Scripps model for a diving safety program.

NOAA personnel do not so qualify, they are sometimes well trained and well qualified but they are also, as often, just recreational trained, especially when they are NOAA "Research" divers as opposed to NOAA "Working" divers.

It is interesting to note that despite their rather small numbers and short history NOAA has had many more fatal accidents that the entire, and much larger, SDC has had since the early 1950s.

 

[smellzlikefish]

Like Thal, I am trying to figure out the circumstances. NOAA divers are under strict regulations that no longer apply once they get in their car at the end of their workday. As Thal mentioned, there are NOAA working and NOAA scientific divers, as well as levels in between and beyond (working divers with certain exceptions, Unit Supervisors, etc.). The training for these certs is similar but not equivalent to scientific diving.

Scientific diving as I understand it, is in stark contrast to commercial diving in that it is relatively safe. In fact, while commercial diving is almost on rank with commercial fishermen on the dangerous workplace scale, scientific diving is one of the safest professions in the business. Scientific diving accidents make waves (sorry for the pun) in the community because they are rare. I am both an AAUS scientific and a NOAA diver, but I am not an expert on such matters. I'm sure others could shed a more specific light on this.

 

[Blazinator]

There is a valid argument that increased respirator work loads diminish diver safety. However, it is well proven that the diver's physical condition trumps regulator performance by a wide margin. Keeping yourself in condition improves safety far more than the finest regulator ever conceived.

When I dived the back wall of Molokini crater last May, our boat captain, John, (who was a small guy in great physical shape) said that he often dives over 200 ft on air. So does his DM. They both have gills, probably weigh less than 200 lbs combined, and it seemed pretty believable to me. He said that overweight and inexperienced divers have the most to worry about.

I certainly won't be doing 200+ on air, but John has 5000 + dives and knows his personal limits, and wasn't bragging about his 200 ft dives - just answering my questions.

As to visibility on Molokini? I only went to 100 ft, and it was still bright. Remember that the video camera they were using adjusts to ambient light levels, so as it got darker as they went deeper, the video will show a similar light level the whole way down.

video of spotted Moray at backwall: Backwall-Eel! on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[diverdoug1]

My statement is correct.

Qualification Criteria for NOAA Reseach Diver:

To qualify for a scientific diver certification, individuals must be previously certified scuba divers beyond the basic entry level (e.g., advanced open water, Divemaster, assistant instructor, instructor) by a recognized scuba diving certification agency (e.g., US Navy, NAUI, PADI, IANTD, SSI, TDI, YMCA, etc.). Candidates must also have completed a minimum of 25 dives; be current in CPR, First Aid, and oxygen administration training; pass a written examination (based on an advanced-level recreational scuba diving certification), a NOAA dive physical examination, and a swim test; and complete a checkout dive with a NOAA Unit Diving Supervisor, or their designee.

Qualification Criteria for NOAA Working Diver:

To qualify for the working diver certification, individuals must successfully complete the NOAA 3-week working diver course (offered in May and September in Seattle and in Key West in January) or an equivalent training program (e.g., military or commercial diving school), or have documented experience in performing working dives. Candidates must have completed a minimum of 25 dives; be current in CPR, First Aid, and oxygen administration training; pass a written examination (based on an advanced-level recreational scuba diving certification), a NOAA dive physical examination, and a swim test; and complete a checkout dive with a NOAA Unit Diving Supervisor, or their designee.

As opposed to the 100 hour Scripps model course that is the entry level for the Scientific Diving Community as defined by OSHA.

To be a member of the Scientific Diving Community, something that is an OSHA definition, and thus become part of the SDC's statistical basis, one must be affiliated with an institution that trains and qualifies its divers in accordance with the Scripps model for a diving safety program.

NOAA personnel do not so qualify, they are sometimes well trained and well qualified but they are also, as often, just recreational trained, especially when they are NOAA "Research" divers as opposed to NOAA "Working" divers.

It is interesting to note that despite their rather small numbers and short history NOAA has had many more fatal accidents that the entire, and much larger, SDC has had since the early 1950s.

Thalassmania, don't mean to get into a pissing match with you, but you said that my original comment about the increased risk due to oxygen induced siezure when breathing at a high ppO2 was misleading, because there has never been a sinlge instance of oxygen induced seizure within the "science community". Now you say that the NOAA diver working on a project for NOAA is not in the "science"community because he is not a "working diver" (he had 5 years of saturation diving experience, with resulting femoral head necrosis). Next it will be because the wind was not blowing northeast on a Tuesday! I stand by my original comment Re: high PO2, and I also stand by my comment that this type of accident has occured in the "science community". If you think that my initial comment regarding "increased risk of exposure to high oxygen concentrations during diving" is misleading because you have no personal knowledge of it occuring in the narrow subset of divers you deem worthy of being included in the "science community", so be it.

 

[vladimir]

He said that overweight and inexperienced divers have the most to worry about.

Including brain damage now, according to today's NY Times:

Being fat is bad for your brain.

That, at least, is the gloomy conclusion of several recent studies. For example, one long-term study of more than 6,500 people in northern California found that those who were fat around the middle at age 40 were more likely to succumb to dementia in their 70s.

In life in general it's almost never good to be fat, and experience is almost always preferable to inexperience. And I think that is also true in diving. But in the case of going to 200' on air, is there a particular reason to think that fat people have more to worry about than others? Was he suggesting, for example, that fat people are more prone to ox-tox? Just curious. I have always felt that we undervalue fitness as a risk mitigator here on Scubaboard. I guess it's easier to buy a pony bottle or a seven-foot hose than it is to get fit.