Deep Diving on Air

[MXGratefulDiver]

It is beyond my scope of understanding why the Cave and other Tech divers continually demand that non cave and tech divers have to speak Cave and Tech when speaking of non tech dives deeper than 40 m.

Perhaps it's because by the accepted definition of recreational diving, there are no non tech dives deeper than 40 m ... well, more precisely (since that appears important to you) no deeper than 42 m. The 175 foot dive you referenced previously is, by definition, a tech dive since there is an incurred deco obligation. No recreational training agency trains non-tech divers to dive to that depth.

Sure, I get the lawyer/insurance "technicalities" of agencies not interested in publicly endorsing "air" below 40 m, but are individuals discussing "air" below 40 m in a web forum really so dangerous that a forum proprietor will only allow trainwreck discussions of "air" below 40 m?

Breathing gas below that depth isn't the issue ... diving beyond your training is.

The only way it makes sense to me is that the forum proprietor makes money by selling advertising, and "trainwrecks" sell advertising. And it also seems that many of the trainwreckers make money, or have friends that make money, selling Cave and Tech training and equipment.

What an absurd thing to say ... afaik, nobody who you're arguing with, insulting, or making up names for makes any money off of ScubaBoard. In fact, I pay ScubaBoard annually for the privilege of being able to post here.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[CaveMD]

90/55 = x/100

x = 163.6%

163.6/100 = y/132'

y = 216'

lamont, this thread is about a 175' max depth buddy dive that had a total dive time of 62 minutes; this thread is not about a solo dive to 216'.

Perhaps adults would have educational and pertinent discussions about buddy diving to 175' if they were allowed to have adult discussions about buddy diving to 175'.

FSW /= MPH. They are not scalable linearly.

Then again this discussion has so thoroughly departed from anything meaningful at this point that its hardly worth continuing with

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[lamont]

90/55 = x/100

x = 163.6%

163.6/100 = y/132'

y = 216'

lamont, this thread is about a 175' max depth buddy dive that had a total dive time of 62 minutes; this thread is not about a solo dive to 216'.

Perhaps adults would have educational and pertinent discussions about buddy diving to 175' if they were allowed to have adult discussions about buddy diving to 175'.

The fact that you think that is an appropriate way to argue against my point seriously blows my mind in the first place.

In the second place, I'm thinking of sections of I-90 where the speed limit is 70 mph -- even in town its a 60 mph speed limit around here when traffic allows you to drive that fast.

90 / 70 = 1.28

130 * 1.28 = 166.

So even your bizzare arithmetical argument turns out to fall apart anyway.

And if I'm one of the "trainwreckers" you should know that all I do is spend money on dive gear, I have no dive-related income. I may also be a SB-mod, but that's just to babysit the DIR forum my only interest in trainwrecks is to keep them out of that forum.

And my interest in this thread is simply that there's been too many accidents in the past 10 years and I'd like to see fewer of them. A major contributor to that is narcosis and CO2 at depth, and I'll keep beating that drum for as long as there's people who claim they think they can handle the narcosis at 160-180 (or deeper). You can handle it right up until you take a CO2 hit and wind up dead/bent. Nobody has a super human tolerance to CO2.

 

[boulderjohn]

Charlie59 made a quick descent to 175', with a buddy who has experience deeper than 200', then ascended soon enough to make a total dive time of 62 minutes. Now, not only do you seem to be saying that Charlie59's dive is exactly like Opal's tragic last dive, Charlie59's dive is also exactly like Agnes's tragic last dive.

No. The point is that over the past decades, people have learned how to do dives safely, whether in caves or in open water. We are still learning, but we have learned a lot. We have established certain norms for doing such dives. Violating those norms reduces the safety margin and increases the risk. Agnes and Opal increased the risk, something went wrong, and they both died. Charlie59 increased the risk (but not as much), nothing went wrong, and he lived.

And it also seems to me that we have now muddied definitions such that we have to pick nits between "deliberately ignoring your training" and "diving beyond your training".

Diving beyond your training means that you do not fully understand the risks you are taking, you do not know the safety measures you are missing, and you do not have the training it takes to deal with emergencies that should be anticipated.

Deliberately ignoring your training means that you understand the risks you are taking, you make a conscious decision to miss one or more safety measures, and you hope your training will enable you to deal with an emergency that you anticipate could happen because of that decision.

It looks like a pretty big difference to me. Of course, people who have not been trained for this sort of thing don't realize how much there is to it, so they have trouble seeing the difference.

It is beyond my scope of understanding why the Cave and other Tech divers continually demand that non cave and tech divers have to speak Cave and Tech when speaking of non tech dives deeper than 40 m.

Well, that is certainly clear. It is beyond the scope of your understanding because you have not had the training and do not understand its scope. You seem to think it's something you pick up in a weekend class.

The only way it makes sense to me is that the forum proprietor makes money by selling advertising, and "trainwrecks" sell advertising. And it also seems that many of the trainwreckers make money, or have friends that make money, selling Cave and Tech training and equipment.

First you accuse SB members of defending friends who died while diving beyond their training. Asked for specifics, you produce some quotes that are not even remotely close. Now you accuse people in this thread (I assume including me) of writing for financial gain. Once again, please be specific. Which of us are profiting from this? I sure wish I was in such a position, even if it only meant getting discounts for tech gear. I would have thousands more dollars than I do now.

I think it's great that you use this icon all the time. It's code is "dontknow." It just seems right.

 

[Akimbo]

…Back to the discussion though. I would suspect that deep air bounce dives were/are pretty common for those who set anchors or tie into wrecks for charters, spearfishermen and Navy types sent down to retrieve gear or look at damage. Can any Navy divers confirm this?

Sorry Dale, I missed this post and it was just pointed out to me. In my limited Navy experience, I would say they virtually never happen. The Navy doesn’t lack resources and hurting sailors when there is any other possibility is bad for careers. The vessel would get in a four-point moor and have a chamber onboard. The dive would be surface supplied — something like 15 people dedicated to the diving operation alone. They would also likely use HeO2 and hot water suits deeper than ~180' today.

Besides, the Navy didn’t even have singles until we started using bailout bottles. The only standard Scuba rig I ever saw were twin aluminum 90s with hemispherical bottoms. I can’t speak for what is happening today, but I doubt the motivations have changed.

 

[Tigerman]

FSW /= MPH. They are not scalable linearly.

Then again this discussion has so thoroughly departed from anything meaningful at this point that its hardly worth continuing with

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

The danger of speeding by itself is not really linear to the speed either..
Crashing at 100mph doesnt have twice the damage potential of crashing at 50mph. By doubling the speed down the highway you just quadrupled the energy that will potentially bust your car (and anyone whos in it or anyone or anything it hits) up. (As Ek=1/2mv^2).

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

The fact that you think that is an appropriate way to argue against my point seriously blows my mind in the first place.

In the second place, I'm thinking of sections of I-90 where the speed limit is 70 mph -- even in town its a 60 mph speed limit around here when traffic allows you to drive that fast.

90 / 70 = 1.28

130 * 1.28 = 166.

So even your bizzare arithmetical argument turns out to fall apart anyway.

And if I'm one of the "trainwreckers" you should know that all I do is spend money on dive gear, I have no dive-related income. I may also be a SB-mod, but that's just to babysit the DIR forum my only interest in trainwrecks is to keep them out of that forum.

And my interest in this thread is simply that there's been too many accidents in the past 10 years and I'd like to see fewer of them. A major contributor to that is narcosis and CO2 at depth, and I'll keep beating that drum for as long as there's people who claim they think they can handle the narcosis at 160-180 (or deeper). You can handle it right up until you take a CO2 hit and wind up dead/bent. Nobody has a super human tolerance to CO2.

Yes, yes, the prohibition with regards to this subject has worked so well that there have been too many accidents in the past 10 years. Yes, yes, different parts of the world have different conditions; there are no roadways here with faster than 55 mph speed limits.

No, no, with 3 posts in this thread I am far from calling you a trainwrecker, but if your intent is to educate the divers who are most at risk from diving deeper than 40 m on air, do you think they are listening to the "education" disseminated in these recent trainwreck threads?

I do not believe "speeding" is an appropriate way to discuss diving air deeper than 40 m.

There are pretty complicated dives that get done, on air, from 150 to 190. No tether, lots of real time, complex navigational decisions, occasional short penetrations, almost always line running, lots of photography and complex instrument servicing, deco obligations are calculated before the dive not during, plenty of mid-water work, lots of critical team work, rare scootering, no comms, no surface support, no decompression chamber. Science and risk management, not enjoyment, are the only issues.

We have for over half a century relied on good training and lots of planning and practice.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

OK ... so ...

We have for over half a century relied on good training and lots of planning and practice.

Compared to ...

Let me be specific. I essentially accompanied someone who has routinely dived air to 200 ft on a bounce dive to 175 ft. It was a single tank dive that ended up lasting 62 minutes. I did not find it to be a wild idea.

Wonder how much good training, planning and practice went into that dive ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DaleC]

Thanks akimbo for the answer. I wasn't sure about navy practices in this area.

 

[VooDooGasMan]

Akimbo The navy tables go to 300', so in your limited navy experience have you known of any air dives even in a different branch, or was there a cut off date for the navy tables on air and switched to HE.

I routinely did the 230' dive profile this summer of 1@30' 2@20' 6@10' and I would do another 5@10 just for goodness. Now I would usually hit 200' to 220' something as I use no ascent line, I just roll over at 200' and the current would take a bit deeper by time I hit bottom. I did this twice a day and every 4th day I would do a deeper dive till I got to my max by summers end, so it would be 3 dives every 4th day, then I would do a a shallow dive in early afternoon every day 100' or less. plus the day after the 3 deep dives I would do a long 20' dive.

I have herd different opinions of the navy table through the years and they have always done me right.


Hale I agree that agnes was to young to be the best in the world, although she explored where none have, a credit I will give her.