"Guided" 200' dive with a single AL80?

[porsc]

sounds like a plan. as long as they are spacious caves, because i am too claustrophobic to dive the really tight caves.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I actually read about DUI and car accidents and deaths the other day and a bad driver are still very unlikely to cause an accident compared to a drunken driver...
at .05-.1 your risk of dieing in a car accident is increased thirteen times and at .1-.15 a hundred times higher risk than if youre sober.

I'd like to see how they sampled their data and how they did the math to come up with those numbers.

In Norway 22% of the killed drivers was intoxicated on alcohol and 30% on other drugs (2001-2002).

So 52% of the killed drivers had something in their system.
What about the drivers who weren't killed?

So, next time you check, maybe you want to consider that dead is just dead or if dead could actually have been avoided in the first place.

I put a lot of energy into avoiding death on the highway.

Of course, you also have the issue of bad AND drunken drivers as well as bad AND narced divers..

Yep, you have those too.

 

[MikeFerrara]

sounds like a plan. as long as they are spacious caves, because i am too claustrophobic to dive the really tight caves.

They come in all sizes and shapes.

 

[Tigerman]

I'd like to see how they sampled their data and how they did the math to come up with those numbers.

Since I didnt sample the data, I dont know. What I do know however is that I have friends that drive drunk and end up outside the road far too often.
Some of them I dont have anymore as well...

So 52% of the killed drivers had something in their system.
What about the drivers who weren't killed?

Assuming one exclude the other, which I doubt.
But I also doubt (or is that just a hope?) that more than 30% of all the drivers on the road are intoxicated.

I put a lot of energy into avoiding death on the highway.

Good. So do I and I really hope others think twice about driving under the influence, even if its only from fear of losing their license or being fined. WHY they dont drive intoxicated and/or reckless is quite irrelevant to me, as long as they dont..

 

[Cave Diver]

I say, please stay off the road if you aren't any good at driving. I don't much care why you're a bad driver.

Problem is, everyone thinks that they are a good driver. Don't believe me, ask them!

 

[Scubakevdm]

I think you misunderstood me, mike. I actually wasn’t trying to prolong the debate. What I was saying is that having specific certificates from some money hungry agency isn't the end all be all of training.
Most of the innovations in diving have come from people using techniques that go well beyond what most agencies will allow. And a lot of our training for years and years in the south pacific was about diving the techniques day in and day out, not looking at some book, or practicing in some pool.
So while I have only used tech equipment once in my life, that doesn’t mean that, I don’t have deep diving experience. I have well over 5,000 logged dives, and I haven’t regularly logged dives for more than nine or ten years. And as I have mentioned earlier, a great percentage of my diving while living and working in the south pacific, was spent doing dives deeper than 150’.
I wasn’t meaning to ruffle anyone’s feathers, here. But after living and working in the south pacific for so long, and now living and working back in the North American region, that in comparison, the south pacific as a whole is well ahead in diving. This isn’t an insult to America, just a fact of life. I am American, and love my country as the best in the world. But facts are facts. And unless you have lived and worked in both, it is hard to give a qualified opinion.
Again, I don’t mean any of this to be offensive to anyone. But I don’t work a regular job, and do the instructor thing on the side. I work as a dive instructor as my profession. This is what I do every single day. I usually work in a country for a year or two, and then I move to another country. And so by just working every day with all of the north American divers, who come down here, justifies my point, when I compare them to the divers I worked with in the south pacific. especially with the certified divers, the training, the skill and technique used by both are very different.
finally, i hope this doesn't come off in the wrong way. I am not trying to promote myself, just trying to explain my original comments. My original point is that this thread seems a little over protective to me. With good air conservation and a multilevel dive profile, you can dive with a single 80, to 200' safely, and with out rushing back up. We have been doing it for years.

I'm not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers either, but I am going to say that if you think that diving a single AL 80 to 200' is a superior technique as compared to diving with redundancy, and a gas plan that includes contingeny reserves for yourself and other team members, that you may want to officially broaden your diving horizons and catch your training up to your diving. You would probably really enjoy the courses beacause you seem like a guy who's pretty dedicated to diving.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Since I didnt sample the data, I dont know. What I do know however is that I have friends that drive drunk and end up outside the road far too often.
Some of them I dont have anymore as well...

Lots of drivers end up "outside the road" whithout having had a drink. None of this establishes a causal relationship. The data we see is skewed and more than a little disingenuous. If a driver has alcohol in their sytem, the accident goes in the books as being "alcohol related". That's junk science at its worst. Well, it isn't science at all. Its politics.

Good. So do I and I really hope others think twice about driving under the influence, even if its only from fear of losing their license or being fined. WHY they dont drive intoxicated and/or reckless is quite irrelevant to me, as long as they dont..

That's where we differ. If someone can drive well, I have no reason to worry about what they had to drink. If they can't drive well, I still don't care what they had to drink. I'm only concerned with whether or not they are driving well.

Keep in mind that it isn't a state of intoxication that our law looks for. If one can't stand, see or drive in a straight line, they're easy to spot. We set up road blocks and give breath tests to drivers who are driving just fine. The crime isn't poor driving but violating an arbitrary limit.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Problem is, everyone thinks that they are a good driver. Don't believe me, ask them!

What they think isn't a problem. The problem is that their ability was never tested. A licensed driver can drive in heavy traffic on a highway with a 70 mph sppeed limit (though traffic will probably be moving at 85 mph) but I'm not aware of a drivers test that tests their ability to do so. A licensed driver can drive on snow, ice and rain but I'm not aware of a drivers test that tests their ability to do so.

 

[Tigerman]

What they think isn't a problem. The problem is that their ability was never tested. A licensed driver can drive in heavy traffic on a highway with a 70 mph sppeed limit (though traffic will probably be moving at 85 mph) but I'm not aware of a drivers test that tests their ability to do so. A licensed driver can drive on snow, ice and rain but I'm not aware of a drivers test that tests their ability to do so.

I guess thats a major difference between your drivers license and mine then.
Here you are REQUIRED to be trained to drive at the highway, cities, snow/ice and night before youll get a drivers license. It dont however eliminate drunk or reckless drivers and unfortunately dont require refresh courses if you dont drive in said enviroments for some time, but atleast you ARE required to have that training at the time you get your license...

 

[MikeFerrara]

I guess thats a major difference between your drivers license and mine then.
Here you are REQUIRED to be trained to drive at the highway, cities, snow/ice and night before youll get a drivers license. It dont however eliminate drunk or reckless drivers and unfortunately dont require refresh courses if you dont drive in said enviroments for some time, but atleast you ARE required to have that training at the time you get your license...

Interesting. Our drivers training and testing is a complete joke and so simple as to almost be insulting. No doubt, alcohol will degrade performance and I don't advocate driving under the influence just as I don't advocate deep diving on air. Still, I think it would take a lot of alcohol before I couldn't pass that test and if I can pass the test, my driving is as good as required.