Dive tables reducing DCI

[GDI]

The arguement of how much a diver's choice of dive tables and for that matter computers/Timing devices plays in reducing their risk of DCI. IS for example USN tables any more riskier Deco Planner software?

DO you believe your choice of tables reduces the actual risk of DCI?

Yes or NO

 

[Blackwood]

Interesting question.

Most everyone I know who's taken a hit has done so "undeservedly" or "unexpectedly," and that accounts for a fairly wide range of decompression strategies.

Theoretically, one table is probably better than another for a given dive on a given day, but in general, I'd have to say no, the choice of table doesn't much matter (with the exception of customized tables that may be well out of the range of widely accepted decompression algorithms).

 

[rjack321]

I don't understand the question? Even within a given model there are various levels of conservatism. nominal vs +5 in V-planner. use 10/50 vs. 100/100gradient factors in buhlmann, etc.

Some tables might be a singular answer for a given profile but most give a range. The ranges are often range over a factor of 2 or more in time.

 

[ucfdiver]

Rick- I'm assuming this is just to see how divers perceive these things? You've got way more experience than me, so if it was a question, please disregard my response, as I'm just throwing my view out there, and no way attempting to give advise to anyone on these forums.

The more I read, the less of a role that I think profile plays, and the more I believe pre-dive factors matter, specifically hydration, but also physical fitness, non smoker, etc. I know people have been bent recently, with a variety of profiles ("mend and bend" computers, vpm, and buhl), and the one common thing is they all said they were probably dehydrated.

I don't pad my deco much other than short deep stops, but I drink TONS of water the day before, and the day of deco dives....my pee valve is well used!

 

[Meng_Tze]

I don't understand the question? Even within a given model there are various levels of conservatism. nominal vs +5 in V-planner. use 10/50 vs. 100/100gradient factors in buhlmann, etc.

Some tables might be a singular answer for a given profile but most give a range. The ranges are often range over a factor of 2 or more in time.

Agree with you here. If we are comparing models that is one thing, but if we are specifically comparing tables (i.e. different models with different conservatisms producing different tables) it gets convoluted.

So the answer is simultaneously 'yes' and 'no' to both questions...... it depends how you look at it.

 

[Walter]

DO you believe your choice of tables reduces the actual risk of DCI?

A conservative table carries less risk than a liberal one. The difference in risk may not be enough to really matter, but I choose to err on the side of caution. I will not use the RDP, it's too liberal for my tastes.

 

[TSandM]

There was an interesting article by David Sawatzky in Diver magazine a year or so ago, talking about the statistics on DCS. His final paragraph said that the big reduction in decompression illness came with Haldane's original insights, and that that reduction was so enormous that it's been difficult to detect any further differences since.

 

[GDI]

I don't understand the question? Even within a given model there are various levels of conservatism. nominal vs +5 in V-planner. use 10/50 vs. 100/100gradient factors in buhlmann, etc.

Some tables might be a singular answer for a given profile but most give a range. The ranges are often range over a factor of 2 or more in time.

rjack, you are on track as to why the question was asked. Can you discribe what you perceive to be conservatism and how that relates and plays into to a diver getting DCI or not?

 

[amascuba]

"NO, NO Table or deco Sotware and /or computer can claim to limit the risk of DCI with 100% accuracy"

That's funny. ...claim to limit risk...100% accuracy... The word limit, infers that their very well could be a case of DCI, thus 100% accuracy is mute.

I'm not really sure how to answer the poll. All I know is, there are many different models and many different approaches to decompression, that they all can't be right 100% of the time. Otherwise, there would a single defacto standard for decompression.

 

[boulderjohn]

I have done a lot of reading lately on different deco theories, and the result is that I am convinced that I don't know how to make a reasonable assessment. I have looked into research and even asked Gene Hobbes for help, with the result that I know there is no clear validation for any of the current decompression theories now being used. The ones that have been around the longest have similar success rates with what little testing has been done, and none is close to perfect.

I have been using V-Planner for decompression planning, and I figure I might as well stick with it because I don't see any reason to change at the moment. I figure that if I stick with one system for a while and it keeps working, then I will see no reason to change.