Diving to 130 ft ?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Just curious ...

Why wouldn't you use EAN28 for a 130-foot dive?

What are the down sides?

I am interested in your response to this as well.

My first dive after OW was to 120 feet on a wreck using air and only tables (steels herself to be flamed for the first time on SB). I think it was a nice...13 minutes or so, I don't recall exactly. I got Nitrox trained and a computer very fast after that day.

We routinely dive 30% here as it is suitable for most of the wrecks which are within recreational depth limits (I think most are 80-120). And I feel quite a bit better diving 30% than air at those depths. There are upsides and downsides to either choice IMHO. But I am always happy to consider another perspective.
 
Having dived the devil's throat and also the cenotes, I humbly suggest you dive some cenotes before doing the throat. Dos Ojos is a particularly good cenote to dive. Manuelo at the Grand Mayan Riviera Maya resort's dive shack is a great guy to set up a cenote dive. You do not have to stay there to use their dive shop, but it IS a wonderful place to stay. You may dive the cenotes only with an experienced certified guide. The cenotes are a MUCH shallower dive with all the cavern thrills to experience. The Devil's Throat does not have underwater stalagmites and stalagtites, the cenotes do. It is also a laid back diving day, including a nice lunch. But you do have to hump your dive geaqr down the stairs.

I have been to Coz twice and haven't dove Devils Throat yet - just didn't feel ready for it. I feel ready for it now and look forward to it on my next trip. Did dive Dos Ojos and it is on my top ten list so you really don't need to dive deep for a really great dive. There is really nothing to compare the experience with and even though I want to dive Devils Throat if I had to choose between it and another cenote dive the cenote would be my choice - it is an awesome experience.
 
I was just thinking about the mindless dazed stupor of my first experience with narcosis.

I remember: The brain not functioning. Not being able to think. Being aimless, comfortable, and not caring. Being happy.

Only having a few minutes to get in and out of an overhead environment while being narc'ed, potentially out of one's mind, is something I personally would not risk.

I feel sure there is training out there on managing narcosis at 140ft, 150ft, and 160ft. Narcosis can be deadly and I am would address it first.

On the flip side, it really depends on how much risk one is willing to take. We have all types in the world.
 
Only having a few minutes to get in and out of an overhead environment while being narc'ed, potentially out of one's mind, is something I personally would not risk.

So the premise is -

1) that if you dive the devil's throat you will get narc'd and it will be a death struggle to survive?

2) that if you dive the devil's throat you might get narc'd and it will be a death struggle to survive?

:shakehead:

What I'm growing to believe is that the extremely low threshold of the base athletic/fitness level requirements to perform the basic dive skills to allow just about anybody to dive is often over-looked in how it contributes to the 'danger' of diving.

Here in Colorado mountaineering is a 'dangerous' sport but because of the fitness level required to participate it automatically 'self-limiting' in that it makes those that do participate have a base level of cardio fitness and eliminates for instance - obese people from involvement, so the dangers are self-moderated by creating a base line fitness level for participants. This isn't the case in diving.

In Diving - somebody way overweight, in terrible shape, who would get winded walking up a flight of stairs can put on a wet suit and dive, all the time being on the edge of the minimal fitness level that should be required when putting the human body to the stresses of diving, then you throw in any dive conditions beyond the purely floating lazily with the fishes and disasters result and 'diving' or the dive site, gets blamed instead of the diver.

I see almost a 100% correlation always given to dives site difficulty based on experience level (which of course has some appropriateness), but I rarely see any discussion about fitness levels of divers in relation to dive sites, nor any discussion or weight given to how fitness levels contribute on par with experience when it comes to an emergency situation, or more importantly creating a buffer of keeping a diver out of a dangerous situation by having a cushion of safety based on fitness.
 
Last edited:
So the premise is -

1) that if you dive the devil's throat you will get narc'd and it will be a death struggle to survive?

2) that if you dive the devil's throat you might get narc'd and it will be a death struggle to survive?

:shakehead:

What I'm growing to believe is that the extremely low threshold of the base athletic/fitness level requirements to perform the basic dive skills to allow just about anybody to dive is often over-looked in how how it contributes to the 'danger' of diving.
I think a distinction needs to be made between danger and risk ... they are not the same thing. Diving isn't a dangerous activity ... but it is a risky activity.The reason we emphasize proper training and experience is to learn what those risks are, and how to plan and conduct our dives in such a way as to reduce them (or avoid them altogether) and how to deal with them should they occur. In that respect there are a series of "rules" in place which, if followed, reduces the risks to almost negligible levels. This is especially true at the levels that most casual divers participate. But even in the more challenging environments that attract a lot of more experienced divers (e.g. deep dives, wrecks, caves, etc) if one gets the training and follows the rules, the risks are less than we face every time we get on a freeway ... because unlike the freeway, we are each in complete control of our own safety.

For these reasons, I really don't like the "you're gonna die" type commentary when we read about someone doing a dive we wouldn't, personally, choose to do ... because in order to understand whether that person is truly exposing themselves to danger we need to understand the nature of the risks imposed by the dive, and how prepared the diver really is to deal with them.

Here in Colorado mountaineering is a dangerous sport but because of the fitness level required to participate it automatically makes those that do participate have a base level of cardio fitness and eliminates obese people from involvement, so the dangers are self-moderated by creating a base line fitness level for participants. This isn't the case in diving.

In Diving - somebody way overweight, in terrible shape, who would get winded walking up a flight of stairs can put on a wet suit and dive, being on the edge of the minimal fitness level that should be required when putting the human body to the stresses of diving, then you throw in any dive conditions beyond the purely floating lazily with the fishes and disasters result and 'diving' gets blamed instead of the diver.

I see almost a 100% correlation always given to dives based on experience level (which of course has some appropriateness), but I rarely see any discussion about fitness levels of divers in relation to dive sites, nor any discussion or weight given to how fitness levels contribute on par with experience when it comes to an emergency situation.
Unlike mountaineering, scuba diving isn't a particularly physically challenging activity ... I don't, personally, view it as a sport but that's a discussion for another thread. The most physical part of diving occurs out of the water, when you don and have to conduct yourself while wearing all that heavy gear. Once in the water, if properly weighted, there is little physical activity required. And what physical activity IS required underwater can be mitigated with technique. As an analogy, many years ago I was a competitive weightlifter. There were a lot of people working out in our gym who couldn't lift nearly as much as I could, despite the fact that they were bigger and stronger than me. What they lacked was proper technique. Just so in diving. A diver can make up for a lot of lack of physical fitness by learning the proper technique ... which involves good trim, an efficient equipment configuration, and reasonable propulsion techniques.

There are, in fact, many fitness threads on ScubaBoard. They usually degenerate into arguments over the viewpoints held by some that fat people aren't fit to dive. My perspective on that (as a fat person) is that (a) diving requires a moderate level of fitness, but by no means does one have to be a gym rat, (b) conditioning matters more than body shape or weight, and (c) good technique matters more than either (a) or (b). It also helps, before doing more challenging dives, to acquire adequate skills and knowledge to know how to reduce the potential for getting into a situation that's going to require a lot of physical exertion. Most resort divers, for example, are on "tourist" dives that don't, and won't, require a high level of physical fitness. It's the inexperienced or out-of-shape diver who attempts a dive they're not adequately trained, experienced, or prepared for who will find themselves in a bad way ... and perhaps in need of assistance because they tried "writing a check that their body couldn't cash". What got those people in trouble wasn't their lack of fitness so much as it was not recognizing and staying within their limitations.

For the new diver, there's a saying ... you don't know what you don't know. What it means is that most of us, at some level, consider ourselves more skilled than we actually are. We choose a dive because someone else said it was OK ... without really evaluating whether or not we've got the tools to accept the risks that come with that dive. Most times it turns out OK ... but the good diver, at any level, doesn't plan for everything going right. The proper way to plan a dive is to ask yourself "what can go wrong" and then formulate a dive plan based on "what am I prepared to deal with if something should go wrong at the worst possible time".

With regard to Devil's Throat ... when I was in Cozumel I opted not to do it. At the time I had over 1,700 dives, and was diving steel 120's. I opted not to do it because the only available breathing gas was air ... and my personal threshold for narcosis, based on my experience, finds that depth unacceptable. So I chose to dive elsewhere.

Your mileage may vary ... we're all individuals, and ultimately responsible for our own safety. The key thing is to be honest with yourself about the risks of the dive and your ability ... physically and otherwise ... to keep yourself within a risk limit that you find acceptable.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
Hello Mfinley,

A long time tech diver friend of mine takes divers beyond 130ft to measure their ability to manage the mind numbing effects of narcosis. He said they are told, prior to the dive, that when he holds up 3 fingers, they are to hold up 4. In other words they are to add 1. If he holds up 2 fingers they are to hold up 3. The instructions are to always add 1 and hold up that many fingers.

He says that, at depth, they are never able to "do the math". He says they never get this exercise right. Remember, we are basically talking 1 plus 1 here. He also says the divers in narcosis training are always hysterically funny to watch because they are totally out of it. He said that if he, and other divers experieinced and trained with the mind numbing effects of narcosis, were not there during the exercise, the diver in training would not find his way back to the surface.

Narcosis is a subject divers need to educate themselves on. (including myself)

Degree of risk is a personal choice. Example: I don't have the nerve for base jumping, but then there are those that love it.

 
Last edited:
So the premise is -

1) that if you dive the devil's throat you will get narc'd and it will be a death struggle to survive?

2) that if you dive the devil's throat you might get narc'd and it will be a death struggle to survive?

:shakehead:

you will get narced at that depth. not might. the other question will you realize that :) and whether you get away with that. Most likely you will be fine like you was. But damn Murphy never sleeps :)
 
Unlike mountaineering, scuba diving isn't a particularly physically challenging activity ... (Grateful Diver)

This is where I digress from most others because it's a statement that is true only depending on the circumstances. A nice shallow dive with no currents in warm water with yada - yada - yada all the perfectly serene circumstances is what divers think of when they say diving isn't a physically challenging activity.

Then as soon as we begin talking about the opposite dive minus every serene condition or for instance the recent micro gale that blew through the divers in Cozumel while I was there and the statement is completely false.

That's the problem, that the bar to entry to get started is so physically low that the thought process tends to remain that it isn't about physical condition later no matter what dive you are talking about.

DAN preaches the exact opposite of this mentality and collects data that has determined that physical condition plays a very important role in avoiding dive related injuries. However it's overlooked by most of the dive community and we instead always focus on dive numbers to determine what a diver can or can't do when looking at challenging dives.

I simply don't agree and don't understand the blindness to conditioning that divers want to ignore, maybe because so many are in those over weight and out of condition categories that they must defend themselves.

Experience can only be part of the equation. For example : Look at 2 divers, one unphysically fit and one with a high level of fitness with equal experience levels and air consumption is going to be very different, yet this fact has no bearing on dive site decisions? The latter diver has a bigger cushion of safety right off the bat the the former yet this is irrelevant? :confused: I can't agree
 
Personally, (and I emphasize personally) when it comes to the relative degree of fitness required for diving, I think the diver's own personal safety is only part of the equation. I want to know that my dive buddy can help me in an emergency even if it means a prolonged surface swim to a boat or shore and that he can get me out of the water and sustain a lengthy period of CPR (if necessary) without fear of early fatigue. So while I agree that the actual mechanism of diving does not require a high degree of fitness (assuming proper trim and bouyancy) I think it is reckless to not maintain a decent level of cardiovascular fitness.

I don't want to invite flaming but it is a factor in who I choose as dive buddies.

Bob
 

Back
Top Bottom