Charlie please read your post again. It is not the the ppo2 that is at issue. It is all the factors that you have excluded in the post. This is a safety issue. I am beginning to think that you are using this as a baiting exercize. Perhaps what is needed is that you understand the basis of how and why the limits were set. Certainly you have to know know that ppo2 is not the sole component of the limit. What you are doing when engaging in such dives is not the same as the rec divers are doing. IE 4 dives a day. You can do one and probably be ok but the repitatition on multi dives has a price to pay for it in exposure time. Naturally rec divers who are going to do multi dives have to have shallower max depth to comp for the exposure effects of multidive diving. perhahps a dingle dive to 165 is the same as 3 dives to 90 ft for 20min each, I dont know. Rec diving and tech dving are apples and oranges. Thier limits are based on a different set of root assumptions. Basic require minimum skills and have a limit assigned that is appropriate for that set of skills. I believe if you dive techical depths with basic skills then yes evil and doom await you. If you are engaging the use of technical skills at technical depths then deeper limits are acceptable, and as such should not be compared to rec limits and the right or wrong of exceeding them when the limits do not apply to the depths and tec skills set being used. Your OP suggests that you are a REC diver using REC skills and whether it is ok to exceed your REC limits that are based on the extablished REC skills that when adhered to make < 130 ft dives "SAFE" for most. This assumes IMO single 80/77 cu ft tank with a sac of say .6 usiing 21% air. where a free accent CESA is an option to survival. which means remaining in the NDL envelope.. The premis of the gloom an doom being preached is simple math. Once you leave the default group for REC ,,you no longer have CESA as a last resort and as such havce to engage in gas management for emergencies. In caving you have the rule of thirds. !/3 in !/3 out and the other 1/3 reserved for emergencies. You just cant do that with a single 77 . At 200 ft and .6 sac youare breathing 4 cuft / min. It forces unacceptable acccent rates ect. Those who engage such diving are inviting trouble and it is not due to the 1.6 pop2. If you and i were at 200 and you have a reg failure at 30% remaining air, will 2 of us on my tank get us to the surface SAFELY. I hypothisize NO. And as such it is ,,,because of unacceptable high risk factor's ,,,an unsafe behavior which should be avoided.
Your poat #114
I'm not sure that I get the significance of many of the posts, in that, I do not equate a dive to 165 ft to that of 225 ft or certainly 300 ft.
165 ft and 225 though different in ppo2 are the same as they are too deep to safely free accent from. different obligations and rules apply as well as skills needed and precautionary gas management apply that are not taught in bow and aow. untrained/mentored divers in this arena are illequiped to handle emergencies at those depths. and hence like me and others our expectation of your continued long term existance becomes somewhat statistically predictable and limited. The lack of understanding is the danger.
Ether
1. You have been manipulated by others to make a post that they can not make themselves. Shame on them
2. Your an advocate of it your self. Shame on you
3. You have been drawn into and area of diving which youare unprepared for. Shame on you and them
4. You are diving with tech skills and are asking if it is ok for tech diving to exceed REC limits. Of course it is as it is TECH
perhaps SB ahould make an opt in section in the tech area for deep air discussions and move all threads into it to shield many impressionable divers as a pretective measure. after all. At this moment
Currently Active UsersThere are currently
2215 users online.
317 members and 1898 guests
Many I guess are new or wanabe divers
E=Charlie59;6093416]I'm not sure that I get the significance of many of the posts, in that, I do not equate a dive to 165 ft to that of 225 ft or certainly 300 ft. The specific issue of exceeding the ATA of 1.6 that occurs deeper than 200 ft would seem to be something that does not come into play at 165 ft. Yet, there is little differentiation of these points on most posts. The only thing I take away from most posts is >130 ft = evil and death.[/QUOTE]