IANTD vs. ANDI

[Lost Yooper]

OK, OK... 165' .

Like I've said in the past, I don't care if individuals take the risk and do deep air dives. My beef is with agencies that tell students that it's safe to do so "with proper training". It's not safe; they know it's not safe; and they continue to profit from it. They are putting students at unnecessary risk by giving them a false sense of security in a piece of plastic. Students exit those classes believing deep air is safe and that is what's wrong.

Take care,

Mike

 

[padiscubapro]

Originally posted by Lost Yooper
OK, OK... 165' .

Like I've said in the past, I don't care if individuals take the risk and do deep air dives. My beef is with agencies that tell students that it's safe to do so "with proper training". It's not safe; they know it's not safe; and they continue to profit from it. They are putting students at unnecessary risk by giving them a false sense of security in a piece of plastic. Students exit those classes believing deep air is safe and that is what's wrong.

Take care,

Mike

With proper training all you can do is lower the risk factors and hopefully most of the skills are known well enough where the reaction is automatic to a problem but as you know narcosis varies from individual to indivdual and day to day and Murphy is always lurking around the corner. Deep air (I wount argue the starting depth for this since different people and agencies feel radically different, but lets say everyone agrees deeper than 165 is deep air and may be as shallow as 130)... definately ups the ante and He is the way to go... The only reason Ed has an Intermediate Trimix program is so under ANDI there is a way to get Helium certified for areas where depths of greater than 200 fsw cant be reached... Its not in the normal progression of things but gives an option that otherwise would not allow divers to get helium under ANDI. Don't quote me here... I don't have the standards handy but I think all dives must be greater than 130 less than 200, with an FO2 of 21%.

 

[MikeFerrara]

No agency that I know of says that diving below 130 is safe breathing anything. All the agencies I have had dealings with include plenty of discussion about narcosis. The texts include the results of studies and references. I think a good diver with experience at 160 on air can perform better than the average diver at 30 ft. You must look at more than the potential for narcosis to asses risk. You can stay above 100 ft but wouldn't it be safer to stay above 60. While your at it we shouldn't dive in cold water. We shouldn't dive past the age of 40. Diving is not safe. Diving deep is less safe. Incurring a deco obligation is even less safe. Through in an overhead and....

I agree that mix is the best way but it's only one factor.

 

[Lost Yooper]

There's a big difference between something that is physiologically unsafe, such as narcosis, and overhead diving. With overhead diving, there are rules you have to follow in order to live through it. You cannot control narcosis. You can be told you can control it, but you can't.

Agencies may not come right out and say that deep air is safe, but they are certainly implying that it is by offering the classes. The end result is people coming out believing it's safe. Cripes! I've been there, done that. I never had one single problem on my deep air dives, other than sub DCS. For a long time, I believed I was impervious to narcosis thanks to the mindset of deep air agencies. Nothing ever went wrong on those dives either (thanks to DIRishness, in part )

People who teach deep air aren't doing their students, or the industry, any favors, IMO. People like me who advocate against the use of deep air are certainly doing no harm like the agencies are.

Mike

 

[padiscubapro]

Originally posted by MikeFerrara
No agency that I know of says that diving below 130 is safe breathing anything. All the agencies I have had dealings with include plenty of discussion about narcosis. The texts include the results of studies and references. I think a good diver with experience at 160 on air can perform better than the average diver at 30 ft. You must look at more than the potential for narcosis to asses risk. You can stay above 100 ft but wouldn't it be safer to stay above 60. While your at it we shouldn't dive in cold water. We shouldn't dive past the age of 40. Diving is not safe. Diving deep is less safe. Incurring a deco obligation is even less safe. Through in an overhead and....

I agree that mix is the best way but it's only one factor.

I wouldn't say diving incurring a deco obligation is less safe for those properly trained but you have to remember ALL dives incur some type of risk.. A deco obligation only negates a direct ascent to the surface, which is no big deal assuming you have either redundant gas to get you through your obligation or two a buddy with gas to get you through it.. In most circumstances divers with planned decompression get out of the water better physiologically than those doing "no Deco dives". Many no deco profiles get you out of the water with a gradient close to the max your tissues can sustain, where as a deco diver is selecting the proper mixes and gets out of the water in many cases well below the critical limits.
Look at most deco software, the limits for 100ft are usually in the range of 16 to 18 minutes thats 2-4 minutes less than even Padis no deco tables..
Most NDL limits bend you and unbend you at the safety stop... its just in many cases there are either no symptoms or symptoms that people are used to (sub clinical DCS).

 

[Lost Yooper]

YES! Now we have found something to agree on!



Mike

 

[padiscubapro]

Originally posted by Lost Yooper
YES! Now we have found something to agree on!



Mike

Kinda strange isn't it..

ut:

 

[MikeFerrara]

padiscubapro,

My point was that there are risks that always exist to some degree. Impairment due to narcosis is one of those risks. In order to evaluate what is acceptable other risk/benifit factors must be examined in relation to each other. Using He doesn't eliminate narcosis it limits it. IMO, the significance of a given level of impairment depends on many other factors. Keep in mind I'm not talking about depths that most would agree are insane on air. I'm talking about depths where ppo2 in 1.4 ata or less and more specificly between 130 and 170. These are the depth where training is taking place.

Safe, is not what we are after. What we are after is to manage and limit the risks to an acceptable level given the benifits.

 

[DPhantomas]

Do you have anything to say about TDI as and organization?

 

[Lost Yooper]

Nothing particularly good anyway .



Mike