Another fatal record attempt in Lake Garda, Italy

[ginti]

JFK basically said, "Hold my beer. We're going to the moon." NASA managed to justify the stunt of landing on the moon.

Extreme deep diving for the heck of it was just as much of a stunt as going to the moon and just as recreational as doing anything stupid underwater while sport diving. It's just more difficult to justify it without NASA's marketing department. This next moon trip is being done just for the heck of it and being sold as a necessity to put a person of color on the lunar surface for one. It's a stunt. It just takes a bigger group to pull it off than a few guys. Most record attempts have a support team.

Ok, I get what you mean.

So let me rephrase it. I am not against stunts. I am against stunts WITHOUT further benefits; the benefits must overcome costs.

For example:
Go to the moon with a massive R&D plan - BIG YES!
Go 80m below the surface of the sea with proper training but without any other purpose besides "I want to do a stunt" - well, in this case, it is a very small yes (very close to a "no"); I do not find it wise, but the costs for society are limited (due to the relatively low risk of accident), and the main advantage is a satisfied person that will contribute much more to our beautiful world.
Go 240m below the sea's surface without any other purpose besides "I want to do a stunt" - BIG NO! Costs are way too high to justify this action.

Go to Garda lake to try a dive with an 80% mortality rate without any further goal than "I want to do a stunt" - massive, huge NO!

 

[BlueTrin]

Ok, I get what you mean.

So let me rephrase it. I am not against stunts. I am against stunts WITHOUT further benefits; the benefits must overcome costs.

For example:
Go to the moon with a massive R&D plan - BIG YES!
Go 80m below the surface of the sea with proper training but without any other purpose besides "I want to do a stunt" - well, in this case, it is a very small yes (very close to a "no"); I do not find it wise, but the costs for society are limited (due to the relatively low risk of accident), and the main advantage is a satisfied person that will contribute much more to our beautiful world.
Go 240m below the sea's surface without any other purpose besides "I want to do a stunt" - BIG NO! Costs are way too high to justify this action.

I think most people will find it silly but if someone wants to do it and is not hurting anyone … who am I to tell him to not do it?

 

[ginti]

I think most people will find it silly but if someone wants to do it and is not hurting anyone … who am I to tell him to not do it?

Indeed, if there are no costs just do it (it is the go to 80m in my list of examples)

But if the mortality rate is 80% (or even 10%) - the diver is hurting the pockets of people paying for the rescue, for the doctor, etc. Not to mention the time that doctors and rescuers could devote to other problems... and the psychological damage to friends and family

 

[Vicko]

I think most people will find it silly but if someone wants to do it and is not hurting anyone … who am I to tell him to not do it?

It is hurting someone, Tec diving is not a big industry in Europe. If someone decides that 5 dead people in a lake is enough it is perfectly reasonable to prohibit tec diving like in Croatia, where every recreational dive over 40m is 100% illegal.
Luckily no one cares at the moment for the most part, but a number of caves and wrecks are closed (and monitored) due to it.

 

[doctormike]

How would you guys defending these dives react to these three new proposed CCR record categories, where brave explorers could push back the limits of human achievement and help manufacturers develop new gear:

1) Lowest PPO2

2) Highest PPO2

3) Scrubber duration

If you have a problem with them, tell me why and how they are different from the depth attempts.

 

[Superlyte27]

The only reason I can think of for people to do these stupid depth record attempts is so they can be seen as the diver who's better than everyone else. Because they've dived the deepest and are the only one to do so. If it was just a fun dive for them to explore, they wouldn't be trying for a record.

That's the only reason YOU can think of. That doesn't mean it's the only reason. I went to 500' a couple of years ago. It had nothing to do with ego. It had nothing to do with pretty stuff. It had nothing to do with any mission that most people would ever consider, but there was a valid reason to go, in my mind and several others.

People need to learn that while you can't conceive of any other perspective than your own, that doesn't mean there isn't another perspective.

 

[Superlyte27]

And people dive to well over 1000 feet all the time. They just do it on propper gear, which is surface supply with a dive bell. And then they go to work welding stuff.

It's like trying to break the land speed record on a bike, but instead of using a bike designed for it, they are using their BMX bike from when they were 12, because "no one has gone 85 miles an hour on a Huffy before!"

Show me anyone going to 1000' and welding? LOL

 

[Superlyte27]

Finally someone who gets it.
Doesn't have to be about ego or "testosterone poisoning" (nice sexism btw, very classy).
Pushing limits has always been a thing for the human race, no matter how little sense those ventures will make to the rest of us.

Totally lost respect for her when she wrote that sentence.

 

[Degenerate]

Totally lost respect for her when she wrote that sentence.

Well, she's also claimed that you have to suffer from a serious disorder (OCD) in order to dive a CCR.
I wonder what changed, seeing as she has one now.

 

[Superlyte27]

Threw 300m/1000ft into MultiDeco for a larf.

10mins (giving 2mins on the bottom) with 3/90 gas and 1.1 set point.
Over 11 hours of decompression.
Oxygen toxicity is an issue: CNS near 300% and OTU's of 800

Any dive to that depth has an extreme level of planning with extremely esoteric techniques, such as variable set points and many diluent gas changes.

Bailout planning is even harder, relying on a team support divers running a complex and very detailed plan.

Sigh, there's a lot wrong with this. So much that I don't want to fix it.
But I will say, 4 minutes to the bottom (tops). Why on earth would we stay for 2 minutes. No way would we use 1.1 Setpoint. I won't talk about 300% CNS or OTU's here, but.... non-issue