Deep Air survey

[Popeye]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...
This is what I said...


I will look at what the Navy manual says when I locate the CD I have it on. We're in the process of moving the shop. I'm not going to down load it again because it took so long the last time. In the mean time since you don't like the studies I presented If you would like to quote something fron the Navy Manual that might be usefull.

Mike, a carefully selected paragraph does not a study make.

It's not that I don't like the studies you choose, it's that I haven't seen them. Since I've already seen how you present information, I'd just as soon do my own editing.

I don't have the magazine article you cite, and neither do many other members.

Unless you care to reprint it, I really can't comment on it unless and until I get a copy.

If you offer information as a cite for your opinions, it should be information that everyone has access to, unless you choose to provide it in it's entirety.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I trieed to see if any of those studies were published online and didn't find anything yet. Those are IMO some of the studies that should be looked because they state specific measurables not just percieved results. I don't know where else to go with this.

I doubt there will ever be a death certificate that lists narcosis as the cause of death. Injuries and incedents get even less documentation.

Certainly given the veriability of the consequences of narcosis between poeple, enviroments and days one might make a case for using 135 as a limit or 125 or 90 rather than 100 as GUE or 130 as all the mainstream rec agencies and the NACD and NSS cave agencies.

Given that most sources ,everything from OW manuals to articles on the Rodale web site and the NOAA manual, generally agree that narcosis becomes measurable to a significant degree in everyone by 100 ft. It would seem reasonable to recommend management measures close to that point.

Whether the recommended "limit" should be 100 or 130 based on narcosis alone who knows? However I have personally seen far too much in the water to believe 150 ft on air is wise. While some may feel comfortable and learn to compensate in doing routine tasks, motor and thought process are effected. If someone feels they are so good as to not need all (or nearly all) their witts on a dive that's up to them as it always has been.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I started a thread on the DAN report when I firs downloaded it I'll bring it back to life.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

I've read some of this thread, but it's gotten so long that I've not got the time to read the whole thing (it's Friday and I'm tired too). I did want to tell about my two deep dives, and then talk a bit about Hal Watts.

I have only two deep dives to talk about. The first was a search and recovery dive for a helicopter off one of the Ryuku Islands. A Navy helicopter had crashed, and our pararescue team was to dive where an eye witness said it had gone in. We dove off a Navy amphibious boat, and must have swam down for several minutes. When we (there were four of us) decided not to go further, we compared depth guages. They varied from a zero reading to somewhere around 100 feet. We know we were at least 150, and possible much deeper, and the bottom had yet to come into sight. We aborted, and simply swam to the surface (1968, no safety stops at that time). We were diving twin 72s, with single-hose regs (no guage either).

The second was in 1973, at Warm Mineral Springs in Florida. I had been participating in archeological research under Dr. Sonny Cockrell. I had dived there for months, but had not been to the bottom. So we dove to the bottom (220 feet) on air, and spent less than 5 minutes down there. We then ascended and decompressed on oxygen, starting at the 30 foot stop. It was an interesting dive onto the debries pile at the bottom of the spring, and the deepest dive I've ever made. We dove at midnight, and decompressing under starlight was very different.

Now, about Hal Watts. In 1970 I was stationed at Orlando Air Force Base, and was diving with a local club. One of the local divers was very unhappy, and talked to me about a diver recovery effort she had participated in. It involved a fatal dive that Hal Watts was involved with. I hesitate to say more, other than to corraborate from a second-hand source that there was such a dive in 1970 that involved Hal Watts. Mike Ferrara was not pulling this out of thin air. I heard about it in 1970, when I was in Orlando, Florida.

SeaRat

 

[Popeye]

John C. Ratliff once bubbled...
Now, about Hal Watts. In 1970 I was stationed at Orlando Air Force Base, and was diving with a local club. One of the local divers was very unhappy, and talked to me about a diver recovery effort she had participated in. It involved a fatal dive that Hal Watts was involved with. I hesitate to say more, other than to corraborate from a second-hand source that there was such a dive in 1970 that involved Hal Watts. Mike Ferrara was not pulling this out of thin air. I heard about it in 1970, when I was in Orlando, Florida. SeaRat

I think a little professional courtesy isn't too much to ask, especially to a fellow diving professional. I never said Mike was pulling this out of thin air. I did say that if you choose to malign someone to make a point (especially in a public forum), you should be accurate. Also that you should provide an entire cite, or an accessible cite.

I said this:

"The vast majority of the worlds' divers have been and still do use deep air. Probably the most intelligent point of view on deep air comes from Hal Watts, who encourages divers to learn their own personal limits, and make no assumptions."

With the intent of generating a mature discussion on standard diving policies. This is threatening to those who rely on the status quo as refuge, prefering others to do all that difficult thinking, too unimaginative to seek answers for themselves. SCUBANARC would be a perfect example of that type.

You have to ask yourself what kind of personality would find my initial statement -threatening-, instead of encouraging.

Mike responded with this comment:

"I think Hal Watts has had some real adventures that might not have been so adventurous if everyone wasn't narced out of their mind."

I must say that was rather upsetting, given Hal Watts' extensive personal accomplishment and his extensive contributions to diving.

Then, unable to simply pass up or apologize for this poor etiquette, Mike continued with this:

"The most notable incedent I am aware of is outlined in (Ithink it was) "Caverns Measurless to Man" by Sheck Exley. From memory (please don't anyone sue me if I have details wrong and by all means look it up yourself) Mr. watts conducted a deep dive with a student (who I think was like 16 years old) to recover a lost (don't remember what). The dive was a CF. They were seperated and Mr. Watts returned alone. This was in the days before trimix was in common use. Mr. Watts made a Heliox dive to recover the body and was severely bent."

Describing the dive as a cluster fxxx, it essentially blames Watts for the negligent death of a fellow diver. If you make a statement of this nature in a public forum (especially for petty gain), the accuracy is your responsibility, not the rest of the entire internet.

This is what the book says:

Chapter 12, pages 247-248

" He (Dale Sweet) was well aware of the two previous attempts to make helium dives in Florida: Hall Watt' open water descent to 355 feet at Mystery Sink, Florida, in 1970, on which he got a severe case of the bends and a support diver drowned;Lewis Holtzendorff's death during decompression following a 260 foot dive in 1975."

Tossing in a cavalier "Hey, I could be wrong, everybody check it out for yourself" is a ludicrous caveat.

What do you think about that from an accuracy and credibility standpoint, SeaRat?

 

[MikeFerrara]

Popeye once bubbled...


This is what the book says:

Chapter 12, pages 247-248

" He (Dale Sweet) was well aware of the two previous attempts to make helium dives in Florida: Hall Watt' open water descent to 355 feet at Mystery Sink, Florida, in 1970, on which he got a severe case of the bends and a support diver drowned;Lewis Holtzendorff's death during decompression following a 260 foot dive in 1975."

Wrong book popeye. I was looking for the book I have that talks about the first dive where the FIRST diver was lost. Have you any info? As usual you don't have anything of substance to say.

 

[Popeye]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...


Wrong book popeye. I was looking for the book I have that talks about the first dive where the FIRST diver was lost. Have you any info? As usual you don't have anything of substance to say.

"The most notable incedent I am aware of is outlined in (Ithink it was) "Caverns Measurless to Man" by Sheck Exley. From memory (please don't anyone sue me if I have details wrong and by all means look it up yourself) Mr. watts conducted a deep dive with a student (who I think was like 16 years old) to recover a lost (don't remember what). The dive was a CF. They were seperated and Mr. Watts returned alone. This was in the days before trimix was in common use. Mr. Watts made a Heliox dive to recover the body and was severely bent."


Once *again*, Mike, I'm only referring to the cite that -you- offered.

If it was a poor cite, that would be your fault again, and not mine.

You've been asked several times for the correct circumstances of a (scurrilous) anecdote you posted, and you refuse to supply them, indicating you don't have them at all.

And once again, it's not -my- responsibility to verify -your- cites, on points you make, especially when you slur others.

As far as not having anything of substance to say, you've left a week of unanswered questions and (humiliatingly) blatant dodging in several different threads, unsupported cites, and outright foolishness.

"I dive narcosis free" - Mike Ferrara

You've been burned on DAN statistics, Gilboa happenings, and even the assesment of threads you're currently participating in.

Your perception of things in print directly in front of you is amazingly inaccurate.

Since your only avenue now is ad-hominem (look it up) personal attack, in lieu of any coherant information, I'll just call it quits here.

Good luck, and watch that CO2 retention, it can sneak up on you.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Popeye

Where was I burned on Gilboa happenings? The Gilboa regular that posted seems to have witnesed some "happenings" there himself doesn't he? I have been present for at least 4 ambulance runs there. Two were this past season and the other two were two years prior. In one year (according to the owner) there were 9 EMS responses of which I was present for two. Perhaps you would like to ask him (the owner) what he thinks the causes were. In fact it was cause for him to change (or at least tighten up) his policies. Why don't you ask him about the near misses/incedents that he is aware of that didn't result in injury. I have witnessed a good number of them. again you just reject my sourses.

The DAN report does indicate that poor skills like buoyancy control problems are reported by a large percentage of injured divers. So where was I burned? You busy yourself with the statistical significance of the numbers while I am of the view that when it comes to injury or death ONE is significant. I also am of the that lots of injuries and mishaps that don't result in injury are due in large part to a lack of proficiencey in basic diving skills. You don't seem to share that opinion.

Talk about ad-hominem attacks, that describes your conversation techniques perfectly!

You said that cold water in an ear can cause a diver to think he is out of air. Talk about nonsense!

You seem to suggest that CO2 retention isn't a problem for divers. I say seem to because you are careful to never really say anything.

And yes I haven't located "the book", sorry, I'am moving and don't have all my stuff sorted out yet but I'll find it. Of course when I do you'll reject the reference anyway.

I also stated the purpose and intent of the "Hal Watts" comment which was to point out that he has also had and seen problems associated with narcosis. Your response was to tell me that I had a different intent. I also asked who you are to know my intent and you didn't answer.

I have offered references to numerous studies conducted by qualified scientists and you reject them because you don't have them in front of you. Yet you offer no evince or sources of your own. Your only argument is that you say I can't substantiate mine. The fact is I have offered none. This all started because I stated that there was a reason that the rules of accident analysis address depth. You seem to disagree, but you can't or won't say why.

You spend alot of time quoting me, don't you have anything of your own to say?

 

[Popeye]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...
Popeye

Where was I burned on Gilboa happenings? The Gilboa regular that posted seems to have witnesed some "happenings" there himself doesn't he?

I believe his exact words were: "What moron posted this?"

You said that cold water in an ear can cause a diver to think he is out of air. Talk about nonsense!

Already answered, and not the point of the discussion anyway.

And yes I haven't located "the book", sorry, I'am moving and don't have all my stuff sorted out yet but I'll find it. Of course when I do you'll reject the reference anyway.

I only go by what you provide. You've provided information from two cites that was totally incorrect, as I have plainly and clearly documented.

Like I've said time and time again, it's not my job to verify your cites.

It's yours.

I have offered references to numerous studies conducted by qualified scientists and you reject them because you don't have them in front of you. Yet you offer no evince or sources of your own. Your only argument is that you say I can't substantiate mine. The fact is I have offered none.

Bull. You didn't offer references to numerous studies, you provided a paragraph or less from 3 different sources. And I clearly said that I didn't reject them, only that I would not comment on them per your request. I then asked you for verifiable information, which you cannot provide, even though you state these points are widely known.

Because I am not like you, and Scubanarc, and the other fool, I have already ordered the IANTD pub you referenced, so that I may attempt to educate myself to your point of view.

I supplied a cite from the Navy dive manual, contrary to what you claim.

You say you offer cites, then you say you offer none.

"I have offered references to numerous studies"

"The fact is I have offered none"

What's up with that?


"Merely a flesh wound" - The Black Knight

 

[MikeFerrara]

Popeye once bubbled...


I believe his exact words were: "What moron posted this?"

He also provided an account of something he saw and made a comment about some of the things some instructors do. You are very good about quoting parts you like.

Already answered, and not the point of the discussion anyway.

Answered where?

Because I am not like you, and Scubanarc, and the other fool, I have already ordered the IANTD pub you referenced, so that I may attempt to educate myself to your point of view.

You won't be sorry. Even if it doesn't change your mind about anything there is some very good info in the book.

I supplied a cite from the Navy dive manual, contrary to what you claim.

And as soon as I find the box with my copy of the manual in it (CD) I will read your reference and comment if I have a acomment.

You say you offer cites, then you say you offer none.

"I have offered references to numerous studies"

"The fact is I have offered none"

What's up with that?

I said that I have not offered an argument. You continue to punish me because you don't like the "arbitrary" limits but they are not my limits. They don't come from me. I only pointed out that they exist for a reason.

"Merely a flesh wound" - The Black Knight