deep air

[LiteHedded]

I don't know what you're shaking your head at, survival is always a matter of risk management and risk mitigation. You may get the choice to dive or not to dive, ultimately so do I, but the question for me, more often than not, is how to minimize risks within a given universe of operational constraints. For example, I could have easily done everything that the WKPP did with almost no risk to anyone, and in a much shorter time, but the budget would have been astronomical. Does that take away from their accomplishments? I think not.

these threads are so productive.
let's make another one!

 

[PfcAJ]

Operational constraints for a recreational diver wanting to see something at 180ft = not a whole lot unless you're in the real middle of nowhere.

And Thal, you're right. As soon as your feet get wet, the danger begins. However, we can mitigate some (not all) risks with good choices. Good equipment, good skills and training, and good gas choices. Which once again begs the question, why use something substandard when other (better) options exist and are attainable?

 

[Thalassamania]

Sure, you can get all the helium you want in Gainesville or Seattle, but how many cubic feet of helium are available on, say, Ellesmere or Pitcairn or Raratonga or Svalbard or Jan Mayen? It'd be great to have mix for all dives, but you save what little mix you can bring in for dives that simply can not be done on air, rather than burn it up on dives that you know that you can do on air.

 

[PfcAJ]

Probably not much, but I am no authority on those locations. But the option not to go to 180 is certainly on those islands.

 

[Thalassamania]

But that may be where the work is to be done and in the collective professional judgment of all of the university Diving Safety Officers that there have been since 1952 such dives can be undertaken by properly trained and qualified buddy pairs (and might I add, have been conducted with a 100% safety record).

If your judgment is different, that's fine, you can stay on the beach, because in order to make the dive, regardless of what you're breathing, you'd need to first convince someone like me that you were ready for such a challenge, and then someone like me would have to convince a rather skeptical Diving Control Board that it was reasonable for the institution to take the risk of permitting you to take the risk.

 

[PfcAJ]

Once again, this topic is about recreational fun diving, not scientific diving. Apples to apples, please. And arguments such as "its always been that way" aren't the best. The safety record is, but without numbers behind it, it doesn't give the whole story.

I do have a legit question for you about the science thing. At 190ft (which I understand is the outer bound of the scientific diving limit), are there any concerns about data errors from narcosis? In cave surveys done in the past, data errors were more common than now (correlating with increased helium) and new passageways were often missed. Has the scientific community done any testing on this?

And yes, we simply disagree. Military/commercial/scientific diving has its own set needs, but recreational diving is simply...recreational.

 

[Thalassamania]

I can't comment on what you do for fun or why you do (or do not do) it. All I can tell you is that it is possible to make air dives to 190 that are productive and useful.

I know of no specific studies that relate to air/depth/narcosis/data collection. I would take it as a given that there is an effect and would strongly suggest that the tasks be kept as simple as possible and not require a lot of judgment calls, that's common sense. I'm not arguing that air is better, or even that it is as good, only that there are times that it is all that is available and that the science community has demonstrated that it can be used as an effective tool.

 

[Van Isle]

One should learn to dive deep air before learning to dive deep on trimix. As well, one should learn to climb using hemp rope before "graduating" to modern synthetics. And before getting a driver's license one should learn to drive a horse and buggy with no brakes. Zeppelins before fixed wing. Paddle a birch bark canoe before driving a ski boat.

 

[PfcAJ]

Paddle a birch bark canoe, lol!

 

[Scott L]

I understand that. I choose not to dive in such places or to pay the extra to get mix, but I have no problem that others chose differently.

If a person choses to dive deep air, than learning to manage narcosis makes sense. However, diving deep air recreationally for the sole purpose of learning narcosis management seems backwards to me. I see a very few number of remotely valid reasons to dive deep air. Learning narcosis management for the sake of it isn't one.

This thread gives me a headache much like last week's. Thal indicates that NOAA and other scientific divers need to be proficient with diving to 190ft on air because that's their job which is fine. Everyone else advocates that all recreational tec divers are best served utilizing gas mixtures greatly reducing nitrogen and narcosis. Why does this arument continue?