Do not ever say you are a rescue diver

[Wibble]

Yea I assumed that 2mins would be 100% because I use 80 for GFHi too.

2 mins of skipped deco is actually more skipped for me since I would normally do the 1m per meter after the last stop.

On my recent dives where the SurfGF was 250 or more when I left the bottom, at the end of the deco it almost seems to be about 1 minute per -1 SurfGF. Yes, roughly.

So... two mins would equate to a SurfGF around 82.

 

[BlueTrin]

@Wibble exactly this is why I would skip 2 mins of deco because I got to the same rough approximation.

I know I roughly lower my SurfGF by 5-6 by doing this 1 min per meter at the end.

 

[tursiops]

Isn't every dive's a solo dive regardless of diving with buddies or not?

No.

 

[boulderjohn]

This to me, as a former USAF Pararescueman and EMT Paramedic (long ago for both) was a case of air embolism, not drowning. With extreme air embolism, unless treatment is immediately available, the patient will most probably die.

I would bet you are right in this case, but the cause of death would probably still be considered drowning.

I haven't read a DAN fatality report in years, but standard language in that report over the years explained that whatever truly caused the diver to become disabled, including AGEs and heart attacks, the disabled diver was likely to die from drowning. That would be the official cause of death. DAN explained this to show why it was so very hard to rely on official reports of dive fatalities to determine the true cause.

 

[pauldw]

You can never have enough boltsnaps!

That’s what Christopher Walken said!

 

[John C. Ratliff]

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I suspect you may be misinterpreting comments.

The standard concept is "to not endanger yourself, to rescue another diver." In this particular scenario, what does one do when their dive-buddy blows through deco to the surface, and is out of reach? Presumably, if your buddy would be injured by that, and you followed, you would be injured in the same way.

You are making some assumptions. If close contact had been maintained, the rapid ascent may have been prevented. But the other assumption in the Malta case is that the diver could have assisted on the surface to prevent the "drowning." I was showing that without specific treatment and recompression, this diver in Malta probably would have died no matter the buddy's actions after she surfaced.

But I was talking more to a different situation described in the beginning of this thread whereby divers on a boat would not respond to a diver who entered the water and went deep. So far as "not endangering yourself," I've had specific training way beyond what others even in a rescue diver course could have had, and so that doesn't really apply to many situations for me.

SeaRat

 

[Wibble]

Isn't every dive's a solo dive regardless of diving with buddies or not?

No.

Not even slightly self dependent? Ensuring that you conduct this dive as if people aren't around: monitoring your gasses, systems, deco, environment...

 

[tursiops]

Not even slightly self dependent? Ensuring that you conduct this dive as if people aren't around: monitoring your gasses, systems, deco, environment...

No, you don't get to redefine words to suit your point. Self-dependent is fine, and may be with or without a buddy, but solo means without a buddy.

 

[boulderjohn]

I was showing that without specific treatment and recompression, this diver in Malta probably would have died no matter the buddy's actions after she surfaced.

A scuba instructor who reaches the surface with no other physical impairment will not drown. It's inconceivable. Any diver who reaches the surface and goes unconscious because of some medical issue will almost certainly drown.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

A scuba instructor who reaches the surface with no other physical impairment will not drown. It's inconceivable. Any diver who reaches the surface and goes unconscious because of some medical issue will almost certainly drown.

boulderjohn,

In my thinking, it depends. If the diver has embolized, seriously has bubbles in the circulation of the brain, death will be very, very quick, perhaps quicker than would happen with drowning. I'm not a doctor, but I think looking at the physiology, if the lungs were dry, and the diver dead, death was not from drowning. A diver on the surface is in a vertical position, in which those circulatory bubbles would go directly to the brain. I don't think this diver's body, Christine as I recall, was evaluated for an air embolism. It's easy to say "drowning," but more difficult to look deeper into the cause of death.

Now, years ago (1980s) I tried by inventing the Para-Sea BC to make a case for a front-mount BCD that could save the life of an unconscious diver, but the diving industry wasn't interested. They wanted wrap-around and back-mounted BCDs on the scuba unit. Your statement about an unconscious diver drowning is true, but did not have to be true. The below diagram comes from my patent.

SeaRat