Deep Air - Here we go again....

[Slamfire]

I don't know about that.

It seems to me the relatively few people who train with GUE and UTD do so because they agree with the philosophy, not because they stumbled across a shop and decided they wanted to get certified. Someone who puts enough thought into going with either of those agencies is likely going to put the same level of thought into their actual diving and not expressly rule something in or out because of their training history.

I was trained with 100' maximum END, but am willing to plan deeper depending no the circumstances.

Totally agree with you. As I said before my regular dive buddies are DIR trained. They actually started on PADI. And from personal experience I can say, the vast majority of the DIR trained divers I've met in real life put enough thought into their diving not to blindly follow training history.

BUT, I was just illustrating an example of a fictitious diver perfectly created in the image of the training standards. His diving was born within DIR and he was not exposed to any infidel, heretic philosophies or agencies.

 

[Sloth]

Another thing that bugs me a bit about pushing He diving at say ...110' is the possibility of monetary benefits/motivation on the part of the LDS doing the training. Even if they say the profit margin is lower than regular nitrox fills -- 5% profit from a $70 trimix fill is still more money than 15% profit from a $15 nitrox fill. We're all familiar with the criticism GUE has gotten because JJ is affiliated to Halcyon, so there's no point in me going deeper into that.

The DIR philosophy has so many great points. One that I like very much is that of the "thinking diver" that doesn't allow his computer to plan the dive for him and replace his brain while diving. Question whatever the computer is spitting out and make sure that whatever it is saying makes sense. Similarly, why should I blindly follow or accept training standards that may not make full sense to me. Diving He at 110' doesn't make much sense for me, and as I said before, it is one of the reasons why I chose not to train through UTD.

Most studies into the impact of nitrogen narcosis sees an affect in the majority of subjects at an END of 100ft. Just guessing that this is why the more recent tech diving agencies recommend an END of 100ft.

For me personally I stopped diving 32% to do wreck penetration dives at 100ft due to the difference in narcosis between it and 25/25. So for me I'm ok with an END dive of 110ft if it's a simple recreational dive but if I am doing wreck diving then I much more prefer that END of 66ft at 100ft I got on 25/25.

GUE nor UTD requires instructors to affiliate through a shop so the notion that their is a financial incentive to recommend trimix in recreational limits is fallacious.

 

[JeffG]

Well I have not quoted myself, but I count three statements that diving something other than Trimix is stupid.

Now, I am not in agreement that diving deep on air is a good idea if there are alternatives like Nitrox (still not much better), Heliox or Trimix.

Thanks for proving that you have reading comprehension problems.

 

[Slamfire]

Doing something minorly stupid in a single tank no-stop context is probably not going to be fatal (running out of gas and embolism excepted). Doing something stupid at much greater depth or END in a decompression situation with a pile of additional gear and gases which also have the potential to kill you is much more serious situation which also requires much clearer thinking.

The standards have a max END of 100 irrespective of decompression situations additional gear, or multiple gases -- it is the absolute max within that document whether in an NDL dive or a staged deco dive. I think most people here have agreed that personal END's do vary from individual to individual as well as from situation to situation. For the sake of simplicity and "apples-to-apples" comparison I was only mentioning END and depth as the comparative parameters. Adding other factors into the comparison will not be conducive to a fair or realistic comparison that can be broadly generalized.

 

[Sloth]

The standards have a max END of 100 irrespective of decompression situations additional gear, or multiple gases -- it is the absolute max within that document whether in an NDL dive or a staged deco dive. I think most people here have agreed that personal END's do vary from individual to individual as well as from situation to situation. For the sake of simplicity and "apples-to-apples" comparison I was only mentioning END and depth as the comparative parameters. Adding other factors into the comparison will not be conducive to a fair or realistic comparison that can be broadly generalized.

Why point are you trying to make? That ENDs are black and white and if your training agency says its X it should always be X?

 

[Puffer Fish]

Most studies into the impact of nitrogen narcosis sees an affect in the majority of subjects at an END of 100ft. Just guessing that this is why the more recent tech diving agencies recommend an END of 100ft.

For me personally I stopped diving 32% to do wreck penetration dives at 100ft due to the difference in narcosis between it and 25/25. So for me I'm ok with an END dive of 110ft if it's a simple recreational dive but if I am doing wreck diving then I much more prefer that END of 66ft at 100ft I got on 25/25.

GUE nor UTD requires instructors to affiliate through a shop so the notion that their is a financial incentive to recommend trimix in recreational limits is fallacious.

A long time ago..I was in a military class where we were required to pass a narcosis test.

We were give three two page word problem tests (grade school word problems.. two per page) allowed to look at them and pick the order we did them (I put what I thought was the hardest first, and I assume everyone else did).

You entered the chamber with the instructor...went down to the first depth and took the next test while being video'ed Then went to the bottom depth, and took the last test...

Our instructor gave us the start signal, we raised our arm when done and they collected the tests.

I know the first one was at 120, but my memory of the second one is, well, not there...I think it was at 165... but it might have been 160.

After the testing, everyone (including me) thought they did great Not one person thought they had any issue.

Next day, we were individually shown our test score and shown the video and told if we passed or failed.

Not sure of the numbers (as we were not told), but something around 15 -20% washed out that day.

I also do not know what passing was, but what I do know is that while I got all the problems correct, it took me more than three times longer to do the deep test...and I passed.

Your pass/fail was a combination of both accuracy and time, but was I just on the edge, or one of the best.. don't have a clue.

What I also know is that we were all military qualified divers, so we had training way beyond what normal divers get...with the exception of the parachute qualified guys that had just finished the basic diver course, we were also very experienced divers

I learned a couple of lessons:

1. Everyone thinks they are doing great at depth. So an individual's judgement is meaningless.

2. During the training up to the test, we saw videos of dozens of divers and how that depth effected them...wow, was that eye openning. Memory is one of the things that is effected, so you cannot trust that.

Since leaving the military, I have never been below 120 ft on air, nor will I.

I know for a fact that there were people there that not only were really slow, they could not do even one simple grade school word problem, that they could easily do on the surface..scary.

I don't know if the military even gives that test any more, as miliary diving has gotten much more technical...

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is the question of effort and CO₂ build-up. My cyber-diving manual says that some divers choose to dive trimix at relatively shallow depths (100' - 150') when they anticipate a high cardiovascular effort, for example when swimming against a current. I was told that 30/30 is nicknamed "Ginnie Gas" for this reason.

Any experienced divers care to say whether this is relevant to the question of when is Deep Air too deep? Does a deep working dive differ substantially from a deep look-see dive?

 

[LiteHedded]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is the question of effort and CO₂ build-up. My cyber-diving manual says that some divers choose to dive trimix at relatively shallow depths (100' - 150') when they anticipate a high cardiovascular effort, for example when swimming against a current. I was told that 30/30 is nicknamed "Ginnie Gas" for this reason.

Any experienced divers care to say whether this is relevant to the question of when is Deep Air too deep? Does a deep working dive differ substantially from a deep look-see dive?

yea.
but any technical dive can quickly become a working dive. that's the problem

 

[Slamfire]

Wh[-]y[/-][at] point are you trying to make? That ENDs are black and white and if your training agency says its X it should always be X?

Close but not quite it. ENDs in the standards are black and white. Several DIR divers have acknowledged here that they dive beyond the limits defined in the standards -- the ones they were trained to. Personally I do not have a problem with that. I believe you can acquire skills through formal ie. academical training as well as informal training. And informal training can be every bit as good or sometimes even better than formal.

The point is that the standards are not in line with reality, or perhaps better said, practicality. If they were perfectly in line with practicality you wouldn't have divers going outside the standards. I understand that perhaps they set a target that will encompass a certain lowest common denominator when it comes to narcosis tolerance. But if I know I am fine on air at 110' or 120' why do I have to settle for standards that are lower than mine?

And then with that in mind, the question begs to be asked, why flame up a guy for saying that deep air training can be good? I read his posts and I do not see them as inciting people to be unsafe or go beyond their limits. I think individuals have to man up for their decisions and face the consequences and not try to give lame excuses like "the devil (or DCBC) made me do it."

 

[Blackwood]

BUT, I was just illustrating an example of a fictitious diver perfectly created in the image of the training standards. His diving was born within DIR and he was not exposed to any infidel, heretic philosophies or agencies.

What difference does it make?

Most agencies have different standards and procedures (hence there being multiple agencies). You're a student, and then you aren't. As a diver, I make my own decisions. Yes, those decisions are colored by my education, but they don't define them.

It makes no difference to me what PADI or NAUI or ABCDE may be teaching. And while I'm not a student, aside from the curiosity factor it makes no real difference to me what UTD is teaching. When I team up with someone new, we decide as a team what gas we're going to use for our dives.