Well, the thread did start to stray a bit and wander some.
My question was only why the Navy taught to deploy the CO2 at depth while the civilian side taught that deploying at depth can lead to an uncontrolled ascent (which is true). Either would be a 'buoyant ascent'. I was wondering how the Navy controlled the ascent with larger and often more numerous cartridges while the civilian diver usually only has a single, small cartridge that he is told not to deploy at depth. What I think I got from this is that apparently the Navy just expected to deal with the aftermath of an uncontrolled buoyant emergency ascent that a civilian would normally avoid.
Anyhow, I think I'll clear out to let the op topic continue.
Duckbill, the answer lies with the "r" phrase in Dr. Stanley Miles' accident equation. The U.S. Navy is willing to assume the risk of a buoyant ascent, whereas USA diving agencies are not. It is as simple as that. I'll tell you though, if I come across an unconscious diver at depth, there will be weights dropped (if I can figure out how to do so on the current BCs) and a buoyant ascent initiated. You cannot do much for an unconscious diver at depth. One other thought is that the new steel tanks, which are ten pounds negatively buoyant, cannot be easily ditched in an emergency. Has anyone else thought of that?
Speaking of tanks, in this thread someone mentioned using an AL 80 tank as a stage decompression bottle. Some people use pure oxygen in their stage tank. I want everyone here to be aware of a hazard involving use of pure oxygen in an AL tank by reading this thread in the Accident Forum on an Oxygen Tank Explosion (click this link). We need to be aware of "traps" whereby a diver thinks he or she is doing something correctly, but is putting themselves in danger through an unknown hazard.
SeaRat