Deep Diving on Air

[MXGratefulDiver]

NWG still on the gene pool of deep divers are gonna die.

Actually no ... never have been. I've dived to 240 feet, and didn't think I was gonna die ... but deep diving's all about risk mitigation.

The deeper you go, the greater your risks.
The choice of equipment can help mitigate those risks ... deep diving on a single tank is riskier than deep diving on redundant tanks.
The choice of breathing gas can help mitigate those risks ... but no matter what gas you choose, there's trade-offs to consider that can increase or decrease risks.
Maintaining good personal health can help mitigate those risks ... deep diving when you're not feeling well ... or when your doctor has advised you not to dive ... increases risks tremendously!
Drugs, alcohol ... anything that inhibits mental sharpness ... increases risks.

All of those mitigations are cumulative ... ignore them at your peril. The more mitigations you ignore, the greater your chances of not ending the dive in a happy way. It's Russian roulette for divers ... spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Do it often enough, or load the chamber with multiple bullets, and eventually it catches up with you ... and when it does, it isn't the deep dive that got you ... it was your belief that the risks didn't apply to you ...

... Bob (Grtaeful Diver)

 

[1.3]

The Thrill of Deep wrecks (250'+) is where the trimix is the most useful, and these dives are long and take time to prep and the cost, then the Rebreather, the Dual Rebreather and now your at 1000'.

Sorry no go. The one 1000' dual rebreather dive was just that - Down and up for the record books with a whole bunch of support to pull it off. Due to Work of Breathing and associated CO2 retention, a RB diver can't actually do much beyond 400-500'. RB's do shine 75'-300' but again, a RB diver is trained to take bailout for whatever target depth they plan on... even an AL40 for a 50' dive.

Last edited by Quero; Today at 12:41 AM. Reason: Removed reference from deleted portion of a previous post.

As others have said, why bother given there is absolutely nothing to accomplish from it (nothing to see/short dive/can't remember sh!t/dangerous) and this is all the wisdom/reasoning you can offer? Thanks.

 

[DevonDiver]

Now to argue that deep air is unsafe is not an argument to anyone that has dove deep air. Once you dive 200' on air you realize how easy this is and now when your on your vacation dives if there is a dive to 180' you are confident as hell to make the dive.

I've dove to 280' on air on several occasions, and have dove between 160' and 200' more times than I can count.

I would not support your hypothesis that it is "safe", nor that it fulfills any sort of training or developmental value.

Neither would I recommend that any diver considered such an activity without extensive and appropriate training specific to that depth range, in addition to having amassed considerable experience (X x 000's) in progressively and conservatively extending their depth thresholds over a sustained period.

VDGM, I don't understand your motivations behind this 'campaign' that seeks to legitimize deep air/bounce diving. I've been diving for 20 years, and have tended to gravitate towards the more aggressive end of the diving spectrum - but I'd still state that your claims about the state/popularity/safety of deep air/bounce diving are nothing more than your deluded personal fantasy.

I think open-minded debate is a positive thing, but it's becoming tiring, even boring, to be subjected to your inaccurate POV Crusade and 'fantasy-represented-as-reality' on such a regular and frequent basis.

 

[NAM001]

VDGM, Untill this thread i did not condsider it inportant to remember the author of the die at depth comment. I just recalled the comment.. I am going to give you the beneifit of doubt of the safety of deep air. The basic math says it is ok. My point and it appears others also is . Thre is more than just math safe air involved with deep air diving. it is not DEEP AIR, It is DEEP diving. Remove the air blend out if it and what is left if GAS quantity. Even if you are using the best mix of trimix. It is still a dangerous dive on 80cu ft if all goes well. If your buddy or your self has an equipment issue you can not recover.

I know you will respond because I believe is your nature to do so. Answer me this. How many safe deep dives have you made with Equipment failures or ones that resulted is having to share gas back to the surface. Cause that is what this is really all about. May be you are doing it with twin 130's I dont now. but your emphasis is on the gas mix and not the other aspects of the dive. You make a 150" dive on 80 cu ft of air and if a problem exists it will not be the gas that does you in it will be the lack of gas that does it. It may be cowardly of me to say , bit I dont need to do much calculatons to deterimine that 2 divers at 200 ft and one with a broke reg will have enough gas to get both to the surface on the remaining tank.

Though i may not agree with you in entirity, i do not cnodemn you in your decision on how you dive. I wont attempt to speek for others either when i say that my concern is with say a couple of new aows with a dozen dives to 80 ft under thier belt who do the math and question if 150 ft is ok and then after reading , not just you posts, but any ones posts condoning that kind of dive on air,,, becomes a statistic because they lack the experience you have with the narc tollerance you posess and the ability to handle stress and a rescue if needed on a limited bow/aow set of skills.

Not being an expert of any kind I suspect that if the OP had a lot of bottom time he would not have asked such a volital question. It lends me to believe the OP is a relative new diver as compared to many on SB.

I started 45 years ago because if MIKE NELSON could do it ,,,, so can I. If i did it I would have bragging rights in that i engage in something that my peirs could not do. I got identity from it. Those reasons were powerfull enough to get me in the sport. Those same motivations exist in each and everyone of us. When those motivations drive us to do soemething that is OVERALL not a safe thing to do for what ever reason, eventually it will be reflected in a statistic. Whether you are skillful or just luckey or not decides what side of the statistic you end up in.

I would ask tht if you are to voice support of such dives please insure that you make clear that there is n=more to deep air diving than just air.

Lastly If i did not know your user name before i do now and will not forget it.

Regards ....

 

[NAM001]

Charlie please read your post again. It is not the the ppo2 that is at issue. It is all the factors that you have excluded in the post. This is a safety issue. I am beginning to think that you are using this as a baiting exercize. Perhaps what is needed is that you understand the basis of how and why the limits were set. Certainly you have to know know that ppo2 is not the sole component of the limit. What you are doing when engaging in such dives is not the same as the rec divers are doing. IE 4 dives a day. You can do one and probably be ok but the repitatition on multi dives has a price to pay for it in exposure time. Naturally rec divers who are going to do multi dives have to have shallower max depth to comp for the exposure effects of multidive diving. perhahps a dingle dive to 165 is the same as 3 dives to 90 ft for 20min each, I dont know. Rec diving and tech dving are apples and oranges. Thier limits are based on a different set of root assumptions. Basic require minimum skills and have a limit assigned that is appropriate for that set of skills. I believe if you dive techical depths with basic skills then yes evil and doom await you. If you are engaging the use of technical skills at technical depths then deeper limits are acceptable, and as such should not be compared to rec limits and the right or wrong of exceeding them when the limits do not apply to the depths and tec skills set being used. Your OP suggests that you are a REC diver using REC skills and whether it is ok to exceed your REC limits that are based on the extablished REC skills that when adhered to make < 130 ft dives "SAFE" for most. This assumes IMO single 80/77 cu ft tank with a sac of say .6 usiing 21% air. where a free accent CESA is an option to survival. which means remaining in the NDL envelope.. The premis of the gloom an doom being preached is simple math. Once you leave the default group for REC ,,you no longer have CESA as a last resort and as such havce to engage in gas management for emergencies. In caving you have the rule of thirds. !/3 in !/3 out and the other 1/3 reserved for emergencies. You just cant do that with a single 77 . At 200 ft and .6 sac youare breathing 4 cuft / min. It forces unacceptable acccent rates ect. Those who engage such diving are inviting trouble and it is not due to the 1.6 pop2. If you and i were at 200 and you have a reg failure at 30% remaining air, will 2 of us on my tank get us to the surface SAFELY. I hypothisize NO. And as such it is ,,,because of unacceptable high risk factor's ,,,an unsafe behavior which should be avoided.

Your poat #114
I'm not sure that I get the significance of many of the posts, in that, I do not equate a dive to 165 ft to that of 225 ft or certainly 300 ft.

165 ft and 225 though different in ppo2 are the same as they are too deep to safely free accent from. different obligations and rules apply as well as skills needed and precautionary gas management apply that are not taught in bow and aow. untrained/mentored divers in this arena are illequiped to handle emergencies at those depths. and hence like me and others our expectation of your continued long term existance becomes somewhat statistically predictable and limited. The lack of understanding is the danger.

Ether
1. You have been manipulated by others to make a post that they can not make themselves. Shame on them
2. Your an advocate of it your self. Shame on you
3. You have been drawn into and area of diving which youare unprepared for. Shame on you and them
4. You are diving with tech skills and are asking if it is ok for tech diving to exceed REC limits. Of course it is as it is TECH

perhaps SB ahould make an opt in section in the tech area for deep air discussions and move all threads into it to shield many impressionable divers as a pretective measure. after all. At this moment

Currently Active UsersThere are currently 2215 users online. 317 members and 1898 guests


Many I guess are new or wanabe divers



E=Charlie59;6093416]I'm not sure that I get the significance of many of the posts, in that, I do not equate a dive to 165 ft to that of 225 ft or certainly 300 ft. The specific issue of exceeding the ATA of 1.6 that occurs deeper than 200 ft would seem to be something that does not come into play at 165 ft. Yet, there is little differentiation of these points on most posts. The only thing I take away from most posts is >130 ft = evil and death.[/QUOTE]

 

[DevonDiver]

perhaps SB ahould make an opt in section in the tech area for deep air discussions and move all threads into it to shield many impressionable divers as a pretective measure. after all. At this moment

Scuba Board has some rather nice TOS that cover this issue - namely the prohibition on "advocating unsafe diving practices, as determined by the major scuba agencies".

That tends to direct debates into an appropriate discussion area and ensure that specific diving activities are debated in the context of proper training and experience.

In this instance, "recreational" diving below 40m, "recreational" deco beyond specific agency defined limits, diving below ~50m on air and bounce diving (if defined as short-duration, unplanned dives without specific equipment considerations) would all be defined as 'unsafe diving practices'.

If a member "advocates" such practices in a post, then that post would be moderated. Likewise, if such a post was made into an inappropriate forum area; i.e. discussing decompression diving in the 'New Divers' area, then it would be moved to the forum area that specifically catered for that topic.

For reference, the definition of "advocate" is: Publicly recommend or support

Thus, members can discuss specific diving activities (in appropriate forum areas), but they cannot recommend or support such activities if they are otherwise contra-indicated by the major training agencies.

This should ensure that novice divers visiting Scuba Board are not subjected to any recommendations or otherwise encouraged to participate in activities that would otherwise contradict the prudent safety advice they were given by their scuba training agency.

If such a thing happens, then it is a breach of the board's TOS and is actionable for moderation and/or infraction (reduction in user posting privileges) of the individual concerned. Members are encouraged by Scuba Board to report any breaches of TOS that they find objectionable, using the "Report!" button associated with the post concerned.

 

[VooDooGasMan]

Kws most of the past discusions on deep air was about wanting own section, after awhile it stopped and the members have just dropped it and that is why they just read this and move on, you a bit late to all that went on. And for devon I am not on a crusade you were in these threads and I thought you did a good job explaining how things are placed in forums.

It does not even matter any more that Deep Air Diving threads are discussed as it was all brought out and it is what is.

Another is on Devon's and nwg's recent post, they have been past 200' on air so you know and so many other members do also.


Gotta dive now finish later.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Another is on Devon's and nwg's recent post, they have been past 200' on air so you know and so many other members do also.

No ... that is not true. I have not ... and have never claimed ... to go past 200' on air.

All of my dives to and below that depth were on trimix ... 18/45 or 16/55, as appropriate to depth.

I have been to 155 fsw on EAN25 ... once. Once was enough to know it's not something I should do again ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Aqua-Andy]

I have just read some of this thread and I just don't get what people are arguing about. Yes you can dive deep using a single tank on air, is it safe (you will have to use reasonable judgement here)no it's not..... I would have to say every individual has to weigh the risks of an activity themselves and live with the consequences of that decision. The real problem with society today is we protect people from themselves, We are the only species of animal that actually protects the week and or stupid. We need to let Darwins theory's do there work and not mess with nature. Just my $.02, I just had to deal with a stupid engineer today at work that knew more about cars than I did(or so he thought).

 

[DevonDiver]

The real problem with society today is we protect people from themselves,...

In respect of this debate, how do we protect them?

Providing education and training, to safely mitigate risks.
Providing guidance, when education and training is not sufficient to reasonably mitigate risks.

I don't know of many locations/nations/governments that impose statutory legislation to limit diving activities for the divers' safety.

I don't know of any scuba agencies that impose and/or enforce statutory/mandatory limitations on divers... all I see is "recommended limits", nothing more than reasonably prudent advice relative to specific training/experience levels.

Dive operations don't 'protect people', they protect themselves... from liability, from the dangers of rescue/recovery work, from paperwork and inquest attendances etc. As such, they apply the limitations to their own businesses.

We are the only species of animal that actually protects the week and or stupid.

I'm not sure if that's correct or not... but I thought many group/social-orientated animals (big cats, meerkats, dolphins, primates etc) do indeed provide a level of mutual preservation.

That said, I don't quite see the logic of your statement. Homo Sapiens protect their own, in recognition of the value that individuals can provide for the group. Are you stating that you believe that any physically or mentally weak person has no value to the community?

btw... it's weak, not week. You did spell 'stupid' right. Congrats.

We need to let Darwins theory's do there work and not mess with nature.

You'll be rejecting any future medical, first-aid, social, governmental, military, police, fire or rescue support then? Will live your life without any external protection?

Please...show us how you get along with that..