Deep Air - Here we go again....

[Blackwood]

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?

130 is practical but 100 is not?

That other agencies have deeper exposure limits doesn't demonstrate im/practicality. If I opened up shop tomorrow teaching a maximum END of 140 and a MOD PO₂ of 1.7ATM, it wouldn't render the limits of other agencies impractical.

Yours is not an argument against 100' END, it's an argument against established standards in general.

 

[Sloth]

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.

Every GUE instructor I know will tell you why GUEs END is 100ft. Then they will tell you that you are an adult and can choose to dive as you see fit after class.

Their goal is to educate you as much as possible to the dangers of technical diving. It's up to you to decide what your individual limits are. I dont think any GUE instructor would tell you otherwise. GUE and UTD are not different from any other agency in this required. Though I think GUE will revoke your certification for gross violations of standards.

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."

Because there is no such thing as good deep air training. You cant train someone to handle narcosis. The best you can do is find out you arent as susceptible as someone else but dont be mislead that you arent susceptible to narcosis or that you can handle it with proper training. Once again a drunk cant teach someone how to deal with their alcohol.

 

[Slamfire]

130 is practical but 100 is not?

I will not define what's a generalized practical max because everybody is affected by narcosis differently. However, yes, by all means 100 ft max END is not practical for a lot people. Usually before going down the tech path, divers will spend a good amount of time in the non-tech recreational realm and we all know that 130 is the generally accepted limit for non-tech. That is the only reason why I mentioned 130. You approach a guy who has many successful and safe air dives under his belt to more than 100 and the tell him he will now have a better training that will allow him to NOT go to more than 100 on air because if he does he'll die. Hard pill to swallow without calling BS.

That other agencies have deeper exposure limits doesn't demonstrate im/practicality. If I opened up shop tomorrow teaching a maximum END of 140 and a MOD PO₂ of 1.7ATM, it wouldn't render the limits of other agencies impractical.

In my specific case, I was trained on deep air to 150 and I've never gone beyond the 150 END. The training standards were more in synch with the reality of the type of diving I do.

Yours is not an argument against 100' END, it's an argument against established standards in general.

The only topic I have touched on regarding UTD standards has to do with END. I have not questioned or mentioned any other topics. Now if you are referring to a broader sense (beyond UTD), then yes, it could also be an argument against standards in the sense that I do believe humans have the capacity to acquire skills through informal training that does not involve following the standards of an academically structured program. Sometimes I've gone as far as saying that a teacher (or instructor) does not teach, it is the student that learns. The teacher is merely an instrument for learning, similarly to how a book is an instrument as well.

 

[Slamfire]

Though I think GUE will revoke your certification for gross violations of standards.

Interesting. I did not know this. I'd be interested in learning more about what actions would warrant revoking certifications.

Because there is no such thing as good deep air training. You cant train someone to handle narcosis. The best you can do is find out you arent as susceptible as someone else but dont be mislead that you arent susceptible to narcosis or that you can handle it with proper training. Once again a drunk cant teach someone how to deal with their alcohol.

I try very hard to avoid being misled in any situation . Have you ever gone through a deep air training dive and debriefing? Have you ever dove say... to 120' on air? If you have, you are probably, at least to some degree, aware of your narcotic impairment at that level. My deep air training dives started at 120' and progressed to 150'. You do not have to go all the way to 150' if your not comfortable. If you haven't taken a deep air training dive, don't you think that personally going through the experience would give you a better ground to discard it and the capability to say, "I've personally experienced it and based on what I went through I can categorically say there is no good deep air diving training."

If you have gone through a deep air training dive before do you mind sharing some of the details of your experience that contributed to your discarding of deep air training? I am genuinely interested in knowing that kind of details. You know... for the sake of avoiding misdirection

 

[phillybob]

 

[Blackwood]

The only topic I have touched on regarding UTD standards has to do with END. I have not questioned or mentioned any other topics. Now if you are referring to a broader sense (beyond UTD), then yes, it could also be an argument against standards in the sense that I do believe humans have the capacity to acquire skills through informal training that does not involve following the standards of an academically structured program.

Yes, that was my intent, as well as to question your use of the word 'practical' (which you refined above as an understandable 'more in line with').

My point was that training standards exist in every agency independently, and that agency b "allows" a deeper exposure than agency a doesn't in any way cast light on the practicality of either.

I was initially taught not to go deeper than 130', not to exceed an NDL, not to enter overheads, etc.. Then I moved on. Are those limitations impractical? No, they're just not always applicable.

 

[Sloth]

Interesting. I did not know this. I'd be interested in learning more about what actions would warrant revoking certifications.


I try very hard to avoid being misled in any situation . Have you ever gone through a deep air training dive and debriefing? Have you ever dove say... to 120' on air? If you have, you are probably, at least to some degree, aware of your narcotic impairment at that level. My deep air training dives started at 120' and progressed to 150'. You do not have to go all the way to 150' if your not comfortable. If you haven't taken a deep air training dive, don't you think that personally going through the experience would give you a better ground to discard it and the capability to say, "I've personally experienced it and based on what I went through I can categorically say there is no good deep air diving training."

If you have gone through a deep air training dive before do you mind sharing some of the details of your experience that contributed to your discarding of deep air training? I am genuinely interested in knowing that kind of details. You know... for the sake of avoiding misdirection

For your deep dive training what sort of exercises did your instructor teach you to better handle narcosis? I am being a bit silly as im sure your deep training consisted of the instructor telling you the dangers of diving deeper on air and then straight to 120. "how did you feel at 120"? "I felt fine". "Do you think you are up for 150"? "Sure I think I'll be ok". Post dive. "Congratulations you are now trained to dive deep on air"! Does that about nail it? I dont want to knock on your training but the notion of deep air training is a bit silly.

For me the deepest I dove before going into technical diving was 130' on air. I would love to tell you about it but the details are fuzzy.

I use to help a technical instructor with some of his tech classes. He would do a discover narcosis dive for his Trimix class in which he would have his students go to 150 on 21/35 with a slung 80 bottle of air. He would have them do a switch at depth so they could get a feel for the difference between trimix and air.

This wasn't really a fair indicator of narcosis as I believe the physiological effects of suddenly and rapidly introducing a higher partial pressure of nitrogen is devastating from a narcotic affect but witnessing a diver narced out of his mind at depth while I was on trimix was eye opening. Seeing it fully cemented in my mind the need to treat END seriously.

 

[Slamfire]

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.

Marc, ...can I call you Marc? Paraphrasing Cuba Gooding in Jerry McGuire, you think we're fighting, but we're finally talking. Again I agree with what you're saying, in fact if you're ever around my neck of the woods, send me a message so that we can go out diving. There's excellent diving around here and I wouldn't mind being a tour guide. I usually dive on Saturdays day, night, rain, shine, snow, or even during windstorms (not very pleasant exits).

What difference... Well, again as I said to Sloth, why flame up a guy for saying deep air training is good when in the end as divers we end up making our own decisions regardless of what standards say. You're fine routinely going to 110' END and I respect that. You got the DIR education, are aware of the dangers and yet decide to go beyond the standards. You're not a blind follower. You sir, have done "deep air", if we are to define deep air based on the standards saying that 100 END is the max.

That's the main reason why I brought up this whole thing about the standards. There was too much subjectiveness attached to the word deep. What is deep? Why not define it by the UTD training standards and get the facts clear.

 

[Sloth]

What difference... Well, again as I said to Sloth, why flame up a guy for saying deep air training is good when in the end as divers we end up making our own decisions regardless of what standards say. You're fine routinely going to 110' END and I respect that. You got the DIR education, are aware of the dangers and yet decide to go beyond the standards. You're not a blind follower. You sir, have done "deep air", if we are to define deep air based on the standards saying that 100 END is the max.

Because a lot of us, myself included, have a problem with anyone saying this....

Deep air isn't smart for the inexperienced, but it is manageable ("can be handled") for those who have learned how....

It has been shown time and time again in study after study that only repetitive tasks can be manageable under the effects of narcosis. When things go badly and you have to react in a way that isn't ingrained and you are narced you are effectively rolling the dice.

There is a HUGE difference in an instructor saying; "deep air diving is dangerous and you should not dive air below X but you are an adult and if you choose to do so know you are taking a greater risk" versus "deep air diving is dangerous to an untrained diver but you can learn to handle narcosis thus mitigating the risks of deep air diving".

In my opinion technical instructors have a moral obligation to instill to a student all the dangers of technical diving and to teach and hopefully demonstrate conservative diving practices. He chooses not to out of ignorance or his own stubbornness.

 

[nadwidny]

Thanks for proving that you have reading comprehension problems.

Apparently it goes with the "look at me in commercial gear" avatar.