Diving at altitude

[Dan_P]

I would not buy into the UTD decision that altitude is irrelevant

Meanwhile, at UTD:
"...It is UTDs official position that knowledge specifically relevant to altitude – in particular extreme altitude – should be obtained by any diver pursuing that type of diving, in order to make such adaptations when using Ratio Deco at altitude."

 

[tbone1004]

Meanwhile, at UTD:
"...It is UTDs official position that knowledge specifically relevant to altitude – in particular extreme altitude – should be obtained by any diver pursuing that type of diving, in order to make such adaptations when using Ratio Deco at altitude."

i.e. we don't actually do any adaptations, and can't give you any knowledge on the subject because we don't believe in it, but this statement is our CYOA policy so we don't get sued when you bend yourself using RD at altitude

 

[Dan_P]

UTD don’t offer a formal course for altitude, nor do they need to.
There’s nothing controversial about that.

What do GUE-divers opting for SM do, I wonder?
Just because GUE hadn’t a formal SM-course doesn’t support some bogus commentary that GUE think SM isn’t real

 

[tbone1004]

UTD don’t offer a formal course for altitude, nor do they need to.
There’s nothing controversial about that.

What do GUE-divers opting for SM do, I wonder?
Just because GUE hadn’t a formal SM-course doesn’t support some bogus commentary that GUE think SM isn’t real

except the head of GUE hasn't come out saying that SM isn't real, the head of UTD has come out and said that there are no modifications to RD for altitude diving. Very different

@boulderjohn had a very interesting direct experience on that a few years ago....

 

[boulderjohn]

ulderjohn had a very interesting direct experience on that a few years ago....

Yes, I did.

And now UTD says it never happened. UTD now says it NEVER said that attitude was not a consideration. Our instructor never said that there is no reason to adjust for altitude. Andrew never in private conversations gave me the specific reasons he did not think altitude needed to be considered for high altitude dives. When Andrew came in person to do a RD workshop in Boulder, he did not tell our entire group that altitude did not have to be considered.

In the thread I started back then when I talked about the UTD approach to altitude, I was either lying or mistaken. In all the many, many dives our group did at altitude without making any adjustments, we were all mistaken about it.

I was either mistaken or hallucinating when I had an email conversation with Jarrod Jablonski of GUE about using RD at altitude without adjustment. That email conversation still exists (it was actually a PM exchange through ScubaBoard), and I reread it recently, but I must have been out of my mind when I explained the UTD position to him to get his response.

So I was apparently having a massive, several years (and countless dives) long hallucination back then when I thought UTD said altitude did not need to be considered. Either that or I was flat out lying for reasons one would have to imagine.

It's hard to imagine how I could possibly have been that mistaken back then.

 

[tbone1004]

care to offer a rebuttal to that post @Dan_P ?

 

[Trace Malinowski]

Being a kid from the Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania, I thought it was really cool when my first dive computer that I owned would display a mountain on the screen to indicate that I was diving at or above 2000 feet when diving at Moosic Lakes. The big lake was located 2001 feet above sea level. The small lake was 2032 feet above sea level.

During my PDIC OW course, we were taught to use altitude tables. As kids, before computers, we did use tables when diving above 2000 feet locally and in places like the mountains of New York and New England. These were more or less the kind we used.

 

[Dan_P]

care to offer a rebuttal to that post @Dan_P ?

Not really.
I can't state a damn thing about some workshop in Boulder.
Or what someone said many years ago.
What I can say is that UTDs official position on altitude is perfectly clear, and opposite to what you say it is.

 

[tbone1004]

Not really.
I can't state a damn thing about some workshop in Boulder.
Or what someone said many years ago.
What I can say is that UTDs official position on altitude is perfectly clear, and opposite to what you say it is.

clear as mud. "we don't know a damned thing about it, so get someone else to tell you how to use our proprietary decompression strategy that is entirely untested in an environment that we know nothing about" That's perfectly clear to me

 

[Dan_P]

clear as mud. "we don't know a damned thing about it, so get someone else to tell you how to use our proprietary decompression strategy that is entirely untested in an environment that we know nothing about" That's perfectly clear to me

No, you just need to have a bit of common sense, and a reference of understanding, and you can use RD just fine at altitude.
But there's not a formal class for altitude in UTDs repertoire. There are other courses that many other organizations don't have a formal equivalence to.
And that's how that goes.

If you have RD-training, you can use RD. If you have altitude training, you can dive at altitude.
With that knowledge and common sense, you can use RD at altitude. It really isn't as controversial as you portray it.

GUE don't have a SM-program because SM "can't be intelligently done" if memory serves - so what?
It doesn't stop anyone who wants to learn SM, from doing so?