Personally, I find RD practical because it takes practical considerations like gas logistics and diver training level into consideration.
Now that you say this, I think we had this discussion before on another thread and ended up agreeing to disagree.
That said, I'd like to get clarification on the quote above.
I fully understand the part about gas logistics because RD is tuned to suit DIR standard gasses. That said, if you enter the mix in a computer then the computer is also "tuned" to the standard gasses, so to me that point is kind of like saying that since a sundial is tuned to the sun that it is somehow more practical than a watch. However, we previously agreed to disagree so I'm not going to debate the nuances of this. I will concede the point that RD is, indeed, tuned to standard gasses.
It's the second part I don't get. RD is an ascent strategy, as opposed to a model. When you say it takes diver training level into consideration it triggers me to think that this whole time we've been comparing apples and oranges.
Since RD is not a deco model it is, indeed, unfair to compare it to something like Buhlmann. I think this is where your comment about practicality comes from and your comment above. Am I right about this?
If I zoom out to the big picture then I actually think you're right in a way. An ascent strategy IS a necessary part of the diver's repertoire. "Blindly" following a computer is probably not wise. In fact blindly following ANY ascent strategy is not wise. What you're saying here seems to be along those lines. Where the disconnect happens is when you assume that since a computer suggests a certain ascent approach that you are *obligated* to follow that approach. You are not.
Lately, a great deal of energy has been put into the discussion about *efficiency* of different ascent strategies and the corresponding risks. That said, you *could* make a deep stop using Buhlmann. You could, in fact, make an entire RD type ascent using Buhlmann. In some cases you may (probably would) have to add extra time to the last stop in order to compensate for the inefficiency of the ascent, but it could be done and I think it could be done safely as long as you considered your last stop a "mop up" stop to fix whatever you did before that.
Why do I know this? From personal experience.
Because I was making 3m/min ascents and deep stops in the shallow zone for a while too while using a Buhlmann computer and while it wasn't efficient and I ended up spending more time in the water than I had to, I wasn't ready (yet) to let go of that feeling that what the Buhlmann computer was suggesting could be right. In short, I was paradigm locked due to years of diving a certain way.
It just FELT wrong to ascend so fast.
And I think this may be exactly the same feeling you're having. I can TOTALLY relate to that. In my case I slowly changed my ascent approach over many dives by experimenting with slightly faster ascents. I only started doing that after reading online about the NEDU study. If I hadn't been exposed to that information I would still be doing exactly what I was doing before... namely making a deep ascent line with a long "mop up" stop at the end.
What I did may not work for you but I would like to challenge you to at least strap on a Buhlmann computer for a few dives and see what kind of mop up times it gives you. That may be valuable input to help you put your ascent strategy in perspective.
Just a thought. Not trying to convince you at this point, just sharing a brainstorm I had.
R..
