Deep diving advice that goes against conventional thought?

[PfcAJ]

Look 'em up. Go for it.

And as to crime vs choice, if you drink, have a +BAC <.08 (so 'legal), and you kill someone, you're still a reckless @$$, and its well known that any +BAC dramatically increases your chances of having an accident. And you were reckless BEFORE you had the accident, too, because this stuff is common knowledge. The same way high ENDS are clearly associated with accidents (evidenced by the extreme lack of deep/lowEND accidents).

And I can judge behavior all I want.

 

[tomfcrist]

AJ, you are seriously talking just to hear yourself talk. End>100 is reckless? Then why does every agency condone diving air beyond that? John Chatterton still teaches. If you take his trimix course you WILL do a dive to about 180' on air. So now John is not only reckless but guilty of reckless endangerment to his students?

What you are doing is jumping on the no deep air bandwagon(which you did not likely come up with yourself) without acknowledging that the guys who regurgitate this nonsense are trying to sell you more helium.

Helium is great, but do you need it for a 130ft dive...not only no but hell no.

 

[PfcAJ]

Eh, every agency doesn't condone it.

I would not sign up for one of John's classes. Hell of a guy, impressive resume, but not for me.

 

[tomfcrist]

Ok, I'll bite... Other than GUE and UDT which ones don't?

 

[PfcAJ]

Not sure. I'm not 100% up to date on the standards of most agencies. But I also don't use padi as some sort of barometer for my diving. Not interested in what agencies do (for the most part).

 

[tomfcrist]

Ok AJ. Just realize that you are stating that every AOW diver that I have ever seen is reckless.

 

[chillyinCanada]

Color me reckless . . . But not as reckless as I used to be.

 

[Akimbo]

&#8230; I feel that people who dive deep with an END higher than ~100' are reckless, and the higher the END the more reckless it is. Same with people who don't run lines in caves. Or violate thirds. Or RB divers who don't follow checklists or maintain their units. Or people who don't follow a min gas. Or deco divers who don't have a plan. ...

OK&#8230; naive but OK. I &#8220;feel&#8221; the same way about Trimix divers with decompression obligations approaching their bottom-times and don&#8217;t have a chamber onboard. I know several people who believe that diving any mixed gases (HeO2 or Trimix) untethered (not surface-supplied) is foolhardy. None of this is relevant to the question posed by Mike, the OP.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

PfcAJ,

I'm curious what you are doing with the twin tanks in your photo? I see that you are tech diving qualified--do you dive below 100 feet?

I have dived for more than half a century, and feel that there are places where to dive to more than about 40 feet is beyond the recreational realm. There are other places that a dive to 120 feet (the limit for NAUI in the 1980s for recreational diving) would be easy. Normally, sport divers dive a single tank, which limits somewhat their time-at-depth. Hazards that would bring my sport diving limit up from 120 feet include currents, cold, weather, ice, visibility, chop on the surface, an altitude dive, etc. But to arbitrarily say the limit of air is 100 feet seems pretty unreasonable and not according to known scientific studies I have seen.

I have to also ask if there is a financial incentive to such a limit?

SeaRat

 

[jadairiii]

AJ, you are banging your head against the wall, there will always be those that claim they are &#8220;good on air deep&#8221;. No different than when you hear the drunk leaving the party that won&#8217;t give up his/her keys claiming in a loud voice &#8220;I am good, I can drive&#8221;. Just let them go and leave 20 min later to avoid them.
They will always beat you up with examples of all the agencies and &#8220;experts&#8221; that still teach deep air without realizing the low-level food chain structure of dive instruction.
But don&#8217;t fight them, they are performing a public service, they are being &#8220;obvious&#8221; and it allows those of us that actually understand this stuff to avoid them. F**k&#8217;um, sooner or later they will either quit or end up in the Accidents/incidents section and prove us right.