first deco dive

[udtfire]

TECH divers dont just run into deco for the fun of it we plan it and you stated you had plenty of gas how did you know? what formula did you use to figuar that out ?and did you have enough for and emergency? for you and your buddy? also what happens when you have more obligated deco than you have gas ?what is your plan ?so as you can see you looked into the monsters eyes and he was sleeping you may not be as lucky the next time as one diver to another get proper training ,class, mentor what ever but know the risk you are taking befor you take it
stay safe ,dive often and stay in love with the sport. hope to see you in the water

 

[Tortuga68]

you stated you had plenty of gas how did you know?

My guess would be he looked at his SPG

 

[redacted]

My guess would be he looked at his SPG

My SPG indicates 1600 psi. Do I have enough gas?

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

My guess would be he looked at his SPG

My SPG indicates 1600 psi. Do I have enough gas?

There is a valid point here, and one that needs to at least be pointed out to those who would consider experimenting ... looking at your SPG really doesn't tell you whether you have enough gas ... particularly if you've not got a redundant air supply available in case the one you're breathing, for some reason, suddenly becomes unavailable.

Once you go into deco, you have removed going directly to the surface as an option ... at a minimum you have shaved your safety margins so thin that you're taking a real chance of damaging yourself in a way that will affect you for the rest of your life. Type II DCS is serious business, even when symptoms appear relatively mild ... and a diver who has not been trained to recognize these symptoms is highly likely to ignore them, or write them off as being unrelated to their dive, until treatment options become far less likely to produce a good outcome.

Gas management skills, the ability to plan and execute a safe ascent, and adequate knowledge to know when you've pushed yourself beyond your body's ability to deal with it are essential skills if you're planning on experimenting with diving beyond recommended decompression limits.

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't go there ... just that it's a good idea to do it with some knowledge of what you're getting yourself into ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Tortuga68]

Yes it's a valid point, and I agree - anyone who is going to go into deco should understand two things, as others have already eloquently noted:

1. What NDL represents and the possible consequences of exceeding it
2. What the tools and techniques are for dealing with them

The problem I have is the black-and-white attitude to NDLs which are at best arbitrary and as has already been covered vary wildly according to which table/computer/software you are following

My SPG indicates 1600 psi. Do I have enough gas?

Of course it's impossible to say without knowing your SAC, depth, deco obligation if any etc

The OP would have known at least some of this information

My point is that if you have 'more than enough' gas at NDL then you are going to have 'enough' gas at 1-2 minutes over

 

[redacted]

Of course it's impossible to say without knowing your SAC, depth, deco obligation if any etc

The OP would have known at least some of this information

My point is that if you have 'more than enough' air at NDL then you you are going to have 'enough' air at 1-2 minutes over

I would not consider the OPs minimal venture into deco to be "reckless"; but the apparent lack of planning (and his newness to diving) I found a bit alarming.

It is probably a venture that more divers should consider. Dive computer manuals get you started but are not the same as actual experience. But such ventures are best planned in some detail with a reasonably clear understanding of gas requirements and redundancy, and dive buddy coordination.

 

[joe8mofo]

Yes because not another poster on this board has good information and is capable of sharing it. (Lynne and Bob are great but they are not the only ones - sorry guys ) There are many great posters and some of them are in this thread. You just choose to ignore or misinterperet their posts.

Actually the fact of the matter is that Bob and Lynne can post an articulate response based on their own experience which is not as black and white and therefore unrealistic as those non-logic based opinions of the Scuba Police. Posts which simply state that the OP was reckless and was lucky to have survived have no statistical merit.

Lets look at the failure rate of properly maintained breathing apparatus in warm water, extremely low. Now lets look at the rate of DCS among recreational divers, also extremely low. The statistics are definitively against the OP's experiment going horribly awry. So now lets look at the definition of reckless: foolhardy: marked by defiant disregard for danger or consequences. We then of course need to look at the definition of danger: 1. Exposure or vulnerability to harm or risk. 2. A source or an instance of risk or peril

So by conclusion we can infer that the OP's decision was low risk which translates to them not being in danger which translates to not being reckless based on the definitions provided and based on the OP's acknowledgement of a sufficient gas supply.

People have the right to do what they want, and they are more likely to take constructive advice (Bob or Lynne's in this case) over the advice of the Scuba Police; not just because Bob or Lynne's advice is more appealing, but because it actually offers a logical explanation behind the advice instead of "You are reckless and you just escaped death or bodily injury."

 

[ScubaSteve]

MANY of the posters in this thread can post articulate responses based on their own experience. You seem to think this is a unique skill available only to Lynne and Bob. You obviously have not read many posts out on the board. Don't get me wrong....Lynne and Bob are great and I respect their opinion and advice a great deal, but they are not the only two posters capable of good and sound advice. If your board consists of only those 2 members then good for you. I am, however, not the one requiring the reality check. This board is made of up 100,000+ members that will sometimes post stuff that we agree with, and sometimes will post stuff that we do not agree with.

Wow....you have said you were going to look at equipment failure, DCS hits and many other things but have provided nothing more than telling us you would look at them. Why not offer the details of what you claim to know? Did you stop to think that maybe some people will reach that conclusion by a different path? Maybe they are willing to accept less risk in life and therefore classify more things risky than you.....that would have them no doubt defining (interpereting) reckless in a slightly different manner than you.

I love the way you guys join these threads to preach about how preachy and terrible the other posters have been......try reading past the post that you feel has incorrectly claimed "reckless" and explain why you think the OP was not reckless rather than just try to attack using words with no substance.

Oh and by the way, you cannot conclude anything because your post includes nothing you could come close to calling information.

People can do whatever they want. You are right. But when they come onto a public board and post the question to the world "WAS I RECKLESS?", they might just find a couple people that feel they were. Or maybe they feel they were careless but use the same words the OP used. This does not translate into Scuba Police. Get over yourself.

Actually the fact of the matter is that Bob and Lynne can post an articulate response based on their own experience which is not as black and white and therefore unrealistic as those non-logic based opinions of the Scuba Police. Posts which simply state that the OP was reckless and was lucky to have survived have no statistical merit.

Lets look at the failure rate of properly maintained breathing apparatus in warm water, extremely low. Now lets look at the rate of DCS among recreational divers, also extremely low. The statistics are definitively against the OP's experiment going horribly awry. So now lets look at the definition of reckless: foolhardy: marked by defiant disregard for danger or consequences. We then of course need to look at the definition of danger: 1. Exposure or vulnerability to harm or risk. 2. A source or an instance of risk or peril

So by conclusion we can infer that the OP's decision was low risk which translates to them not being in danger which translates to not being reckless based on the definitions provided and based on the OP's acknowledgement of a sufficient gas supply.

People have the right to do what they want, and they are more likely to take constructive advice (Bob or Lynne's in this case) over the advice of the Scuba Police; not just because Bob or Lynne's advice is more appealing, but because it actually offers a logical explanation behind the advice instead of "You are reckless and you just escaped death or bodily injury."

 

[joe8mofo]

MANY of the posters in this thread can post articulate responses based on their own experience. You seem to think this is a unique skill available only to Lynne and Bob. You obviously have not read many posts out on the board. Don't get me wrong....Lynne and Bob are great and I respect their opinion and advice a great deal, but they are not the only two posters capable of good and sound advice. If your board consists of only those 2 members then good for you. I am, however, not the one requiring the reality check. This board is made of up 100,000+ members that will sometimes post stuff that we agree with, and sometimes will post stuff that we do not agree with.

Wow....you have said you were going to look at equipment failure, DCS hits and many other things but have provided nothing more than telling us you would look at them. Why not offer the details of what you claim to know? Did you stop to think that maybe some people will reach that conclusion by a different path? Maybe they are willing to accept less risk in life and therefore classify more things risky than you.....that would have them no doubt defining (interpereting) reckless in a slightly different manner than you.

I love the way you guys join these threads to preach about how preachy and terrible the other posters have been......try reading past the post that you feel has incorrectly claimed "reckless" and explain why you think the OP was not reckless rather than just try to attack using words with no substance.

Oh and by the way, you cannot conclude anything because your post includes nothing you could come close to calling information.

People can do whatever they want. You are right. But when they come onto a public board and post the question to the world "WAS I RECKLESS?", they might just find a couple people that feel they were. Or maybe they feel they were careless but use the same words the OP used. This does not translate into Scuba Police. Get over yourself.

I don't need to get over myself, I never claimed to have all the answers, unlike some members. I shouldn't need to provide statistics for known facts: scuba regulators hardly ever fail if properly maintained and DCS rarely happens to recreational divers. I think if anyone needs to get over themselves it is YOU, you think you can bully anyone don't you?
Is this because people didn't like your response to the OP, and because in this particular thread 2 people offered more sound advice? Based on your attitude in your posts I would say YES. If anything you have just added to the background noise of this thread by being defensive. Try accepting that your advice on this thread was not as sound as others and move on.

People shouldn't be afraid to post what they do on scubaboard for fear of a beating, they should get a logical response that explains the answer.

 

[Blackwood]

Lets look at the failure rate of properly maintained breathing apparatus in warm water, extremely low. Now lets look at the rate of DCS among recreational divers, also extremely low. The statistics are definitively against the OP's experiment going horribly awry. So now lets look at the definition of reckless: foolhardy: marked by defiant disregard for danger or consequences. We then of course need to look at the definition of danger: 1. Exposure or vulnerability to harm or risk. 2. A source or an instance of risk or peril

So by conclusion we can infer that the OP's decision was low risk which translates to them not being in danger which translates to not being reckless based on the definitions provided and based on the OP's acknowledgement of a sufficient gas supply.

The only question here, as far as I'm concerned, is gas supply and maybe thermal issues. If you don't know how your computer will react to deco, you can not know that you have sufficient gas.

A minute or two is probably unlikely to cause an exorbitantly long obligation, so doing so without that knowledge may be benignly reckless, but reckless nonetheless.

Again, this all assumes that the OP did not know how his computer would react. That may be a bad assumption.