An age-old question: ways to 60m.

[scubaozy]

Supporting the other point about comparing apples with oranges @LFMarm made.

All CCR dives are technical dives.
The "vast majority" of OC dives are recreational dives, i.e. limited in scope, kit requirements, lack of decompression stress, etc.

The stats you posted show greater 'incidents' with technical dives simply because they're much more challenging in just about every way: kit, dive profile, decompression obligations, physical and physiological stress, skill requirements, emergency procedures, diagnosis skills, etc., etc.

Nobody argues it is apples to apples. It is legit comparison, every diver moving from rec to tec, ccr or cave will ask this question, how much more risk I am taking?
How would you answer if a beginner asked you whether it is dangerous what you are doing?

 

[Nick_Radov]

Nobody argues it is apples to apples. It is legit comparison, every diver moving from rec to tec, ccr or cave will ask this question, how much more risk I am taking?
How would you answer if a beginner asked you whether it is dangerous what you are doing?

I would tell them that any dive which can reasonably be done on scuba gear can be made exactly as safe or dangerous as you want it to be. If you want to take virtually all of the risk out then you can. For the deeper, more complex dives this involves a high level of discipline and expense. Or you can just YOLO it with air in a single tank and hope that nothing goes wrong.

 

[scubaozy]

I would tell them that any dive which can reasonably be done on scuba gear can be made exactly as safe or dangerous as you want it to be. If you want to take virtually all of the risk out then you can. For the deeper, more complex dives this involves a high level of discipline and expense. Or you can just YOLO it with air in a single tank and hope that nothing goes wrong.

Well that would be misinformation, you still do not accept that risks increase by just using ccr. I see very little difference between you and someone who claims deep air is fully safe because they know what they are doing, rhetoric is identical.

 

[Nick_Radov]

What statistics would convince you?

One death on a deep air dive would be enough "statistics" to convince me that it's a bad idea. But I'm not the one who needs to be convinced of anything here. I'm only keeping up this tedious old argument in the hope that the OP and other less experienced divers will see that there are better ways to do these dives, before they go down the wrong path and get hurt.

 

[Boarderguy]

One death on a deep air dive would be enough "statistics" to convince me that it's a bad idea. But I'm not the one who needs to be convinced of anything here. I'm only keeping up this tedious old argument in the hope that the OP and other less experienced divers will see that there are better ways to do these dives, before they go down the wrong path and get hurt.

So, what of the hundreds of deaths on CCR? Does that same logic not also apply there? I think you mixed your Kool Aid a bit thick today.

 

[Eric802]

One death on a deep air dive would be enough "statistics" to convince me that it's a bad idea. But I'm not the one who needs to be convinced of anything here. I'm only keeping up this tedious old argument in the hope that the OP and other less experienced divers will see that there are better ways to do these dives, before they go down the wrong path and get hurt.

Well, if that's the standard then I've seen enough reports of people dying on CCR's to be firmly convinced they're death traps.

 

[David Carron]

One death on a deep air dive would be enough "statistics" to convince me that it's a bad idea. But I'm not the one who needs to be convinced of anything here. I'm only keeping up this tedious old argument in the hope that the OP and other less experienced divers will see that there are better ways to do these dives, before they go down the wrong path and get hurt.

I would have thought something along the lines of "a statistically significant number of both air and trimix dives on the same site with a statistically significantly greater number of accidents amongst the air dives" might be convincing.

 

[JMarc]

One death on a deep air dive would be enough "statistics" to convince me that it's a bad idea.

You could gain in persuativeness if you meditated Talleyrand's quote "tout ce qui est excessif est insignifiant" (roughly "what is exaggerated is meaningless"). Trolls being so prevalent on Internet, that kind of over-the-top position could make some think you are one.

 

[flymolo]

Well that would be misinformation, you still do not accept that risks increase by just using ccr. I see very little difference between you and someone who claims deep air is fully safe because they know what they are doing, rhetoric is identical.

So, what of the hundreds of deaths on CCR? Does that same logic not also apply there? I think you mixed your Kool Aid a bit thick today.

I like how yall are just continuing to argue out of pure spite it's entertaining

 

[jborg]

It's an amazing combo of whataboutism and goal post moving really. "Deep air is dangerous?! What about a CCR then? Huh?"

I suspect statistics would bear out that there are more deaths on a long hose than on the default rental PADI-style setup. I think it may be more dangerous to dive with a long hose than rental regulators! It's been a long time since we talked about the dangers of the long hose and primary donate. It wouldn't surprise me if a dry suit is also a risk factor.