Deep Air - Here we go again....

[dumpsterDiver]

So how do you suggest arguing with "it's not as safe, and sure 100's have died while doing it, but it's cheaper."

I'm genuinely interested in hearing how you answer that, or reply to someone who in essence is saying what I just said.

Has anyone compiled a similar list of divers who have gotten killed while using trimix?

If the original list of diving fatalities has only one single common factor (using air or a high END) does that provide any evidence that this was the single, common cause of their demise?

I know a few people (and have heard of a few others) that have gotten killed while engaging in trimix training. I've also seen a few accidents personally during technical training that were near death experiiences.

Will a list of the people who got killed while engaged in trimix training provide similar justification for the argument that using helium mixes is more dangerous and is the common cause of their death?

 

[ucfdiver]

Sure, it could be, but that is not why I posted.

Maybe I am being overly picky, but whenever I see people make specific claims that a specific source says a specific thing, then I believe the reference needs to be accurate. If you know my history, I am forever correcting people on the many, many times they misstate statistics from DAN.

You specifically said that a specific source said something it did not actually say. You said they state that exceeding equivalent nitrogen depth is a key factor in fatalities, and they do not say that. Perhaps one might infer that exceeding those depths was a factor, but that is not in the source. I know that if someone were to quote me and misstate what I had said, I would not be pleased.

If other sources have something else to say on the matter, then you can cite those sources and quote them accurately.

If you want to be overly picky, reread my first statement.

The only source I have directly cited was the GUE manual, which very clearly states that helium be added below 100ft.

Here's a quote from the NSS-CDS articles and opinions book by Jeffrey Bozanic, PhD, who perhaps has the most up to date database of cave fatalities. Note that he was chosen to give a presentation on accident analysis to a NACD gathering within the past year, and the NACD cites his presentation on their current homepage. You'll find the story on p107 with the title of the article being "Accident Analysis".

#4 - Deep Diving
Avoid deep diving on air
...Using these tools, we recommend that dives be conducted with an equivelant narcotic depth of less than 130fsw. Another chapter in this text will discuss this in further detail.

Note that this is quotes from 2 agency publications recommending END <100-130ft. Now, reread my statement and you'll see that I've provided 2 agency publications suggesting to avoid END >100-130ft END's-

That's a nice, easy going attitude. Unfortunately where I live, many dive sites (caves specifically) are getting closed due to stupidity. The training agencies have used analysis of over 500 cave diving deaths and found END's >100-130ft the #4 most common attribute to cave deaths.

An article by Lamar Hires on p116 does not specifically address END, but does make statements in regards to divers who thought they could mitigate deep air, and died.

I never cited a source, you assumed the source.

 

[boulderjohn]

If you want to be overly picky, reread my first statement.

The only source I have directly cited was the GUE manual, which very clearly states that helium be added below 100ft.

You mentioned the research on the most common causes of cave fatalities, which is different from the GUE article. That is the one where I challenged your statement.

Here's a quote from the NSS-CDS articles and opinions book by Jeffrey Bozanic, PhD, who perhaps has the most up to date database of cave fatalities. Note that he was chosen to give a presentation on accident analysis to a NACD gathering within the past year, and the NACD cites his presentation on their current homepage. You'll find the story on p107 with the title of the article being "Accident Analysis".

Note that this is quotes from 2 agency publications recommending END <100-130ft. Now, reread my statement and you'll see that I've provided 2 agency publications suggesting to avoid END >100-130ft END's-

You did not need to provide the 130 foot one--I gave that one to you twice earlier. You do not have two agencies agreeing on a 100-130 foot END. You have one agency saying 100 feet and another saying 130 feet.

I never cited a source, you assumed the source.

OK, then. You said that exceeding ENDs of 100-130 feet was the #4 cause of cave diving fatalities. The others you mentioned were the same as the NSS-CDS data, so I did leap to a conclusion. Now that you have told me I was wrong, please clear this up. What is your source for saying that exceeding those ENDs is the #4 cause of cave diving fatalities? (I believe I asked that question quite some time ago.)

 

[ucfdiver]

You do not have two agencies agreeing on a 100-130 foot END. You have one agency saying 100 feet and another saying 130 feet.

I generalized the agencieS saying it's between 100-130ft. I could have been (slightly) more clear by stating 100 or 130ft, depending on agency. I think everyone that's not trying to twist my words understood that. Furthermore, I'm near certain that even if I quoted a training manual, that the depth limits have shifted at least once or twice, and our versions might not match up, and you'd be calling me out on that. Either way, the most literal interpretation of my statement was a range, and I provided 2 sources within that range.

What is your source for saying that exceeding those ENDs is the #4 cause of cave diving fatalities? (I believe I asked that question quite some time ago.)

I never stated it was the #4 cause, I said it was an attribute. Not running a line isn't a CAUSE, either.

BTW- How's the skiing in Colorado this time of year? The caves aren't doing well in Florida!

 

[LiteHedded]

this is ridiculous now.
agree to disagree.

 

[marchand]

Be advised; this is an internet diving free zone. All internet divers please refrain from further posting.

 

[phillybob]

Man !!!! This thread sure can suck the fun out of a fun sport.

 

[jtivat]

I really do not care how deep anyone chooses to dive on air. Just don't make others think that you can train to do it safely. The deeper you get you are more narc'ed period. The deeper you get your reaction times and reasoning are more impaired period. If you feel 200' is a safe END great, but you are taking a bigger risk than if your END is 100'. Every diver has to choose what is right for them. Just make sure you make that decision based on personal experience and a lot of time in the water. I choose an END of around 100’ but if the dive is a 270’ wreck penetration dive then I want it to be less than 100’. These are personal and team decisions me and my dive partners have made.

 

[Blackwood]

agree to disagree.

no

 

[PfcAJ]

Ya, its been a good show from all sides, but at 360 posts, its time to put it to bed.