Is Deep Air / Light Deco (bounce?) Discussible on ScubaBoard?

[DevonDiver]

And why not a Deep air in this forum, for god's sake advance dive magazine is here and has almost no traffic except curt, I did not go there, but in todays post when I see it no ever really post. and you have to scroll down to find this thread, come on devon lets put a Deep Air up and see how it goes, If it is as dead as the curts mag section then end it, If it has high traffic lets see how it goes can't hurt.

Perhaps you want to talk to Howard and discuss becoming a paid sponsor/advertiser on the board... and then you can have a forum of your own that you can fill with whatever articles, discussions or diatribe you wish.

Other than that, there is no such thing as 'deep air diving' as a defined scuba activity.

An air dive to <40m, with insufficient bottom time to incur deco, is a recreational dive.

Am air dive >40m, that incurs deco, and/or utilises other gasses for ascent/descent/deco is a technical dive.

...as defined in spirit (equivalent wording) by the major scuba agencies.

Other than that, I don't see the Scuba Board staff spending hours of their personal time to create a forum, establish all the necessary links, optimise site structure, etc etc etc just to pander to a minority ego. You don't design websites or run SEO do you?

edit: Further to that, I don't see why anyone would classify a dive as not technical just because air was chosen as a back-gas. Technical diving starts with AN, DP and ER courses. Air, (or, less commonly, normoxic trimix) is the standard gas for this. Those courses teach technical diving skills and procedures using that gas, down to a maximum depth of 50-55m.

 

[Hydreliox]

'advocation of dangerous practices, as defined by the major agencies'

Does the fact that PSAI teach deep air fall in or out of this category....are they considered a major agency and if not then which agencies are? Surely this is a subjective view point.

This also got me thinking...is anyone aware of OTU tables which go beyond 1.6pp02 or articles based on similar research (I have the Erik Baker document)?

I will also make it clear now that I don't in anyway advocate people doing these kinds of dives (myself included), however I feel it is a taboo subject when perhaps it shouldn't be and more open discussion and research into it would be beneficial *certain members* of the community.

 

[VooDooGasMan]

No devon I do not design websites, although i have built state of the art sever rooms with raised floors for cooling huge servers, and have been involed to the end setting up with IT people, and can program building operations and security operations on skyscrapers, just never got down to website design, I CAD and and take a total station of all points on a skyscraper and put them on a carlson program or alike. So I have a good Idea how it works just have not done a website design.

I know some that wanted to post are discouraged of having to argue with members that the only diving they actually do is cyberdive and not actually Deep Air Dive.

And I agree on your post in the Deep Air around the world not having helium from cost or available that is what deep air is for and why it will always be the way to dive the world.

 

[VooDooGasMan]

Hyd I agree and others brought this up Like Dump And Hale, Is the US NAVY a major agency?

 

[Colliam7]

Are people interested enough in Tech to come to the general Tech Forum really the people who most need to see the discussion? . . . the critical thinkers and analyzers are also going to all be different, but they are far from the most at risk of divers with regards to deep air.

1) I am pleased this thread was re-opened, 2) the discussion has been informative and, by and large, &#8216;adult&#8217;; 3) many participants in this thread are thoughtful, experienced, and opinionated (I mean that as a definite positive) people, and I would not expect unanimity of opinion (which clearly is not present) - the diversity of opinions have made a substantive contribution to the value of the discussion, and presented some really interesting ways of looking at the issue; and 4) I am not concerned about this being moved to a Technical forum. The most &#8216;at risk&#8217; divers probably are not on ScubaBoard, anyway. Many &#8216;at risk&#8217; divers that are on SB will probably not be swayed by thoughtful discussions, anyway. Some &#8216;at risk&#8217; divers truly gathering information will seek out threads irrespective of where they are. Others will find information on a purely random basis, so placement here vs Basic Scuba discussions, vs Advanced Scuba discussions is probably immaterial, in terms of who reads it.

I have come away with three thoughts so far:

1. I am comfortable using 130&#8217; as an arbitrary (but generally accepted) dividing point for &#8216;recreational&#8217; vs &#8216;technical&#8217; diving. It works, it is safe, it is conservative, I can share it with other divers (students training with me, new OW divers, other divers that I may be in discussion with, or in the water with, etc.). That does NOT mean that I will necessarily tell all of the aforementioned divers that they ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT dive to a greater depth.
2. I think that many recreational divers would benefit from (some degree of) technical training, even if their intent is to continue to dive single tanks of air to depths no greater than 130&#8217;. The training encourages thorough dive planning, it provides a deeper dive (bad pun intended) into gas management knowledge, it emphasizes risk management &#8211; the list goes on but hopefully the point is made. I am purposefully not bringing up the (im)practicality of a large(r) number of recreational divers pursuing technical training, not bringing up the (possibly prohibitive) cost, certainly not bringing up the issue of whether OW courses should be more substantive and comprehensive to begin with, etc. Rather, I am stating a personal belief, reinforced by this thread, that I will (continue to) share with recreational divers as appropriate.
3. While I did not post in the &#8216;Confess your scuba sins&#8217; thread, I confess here I have done deep air dives (to ~185&#8217, I have done what would be described as deep air bounce dives (went to ~185ft, check my depth gauge, checked my pressure, checked my buddy, turned around and ascended to the surface in a slow, continuous manner). I have even done deep air bounce dives on single AL 80 tanks. I have done these things more than a few times. I will probably continue to do so. And, I can&#8217;t necessarily give a reason for doing so that would predictably satisfy all who read this, although my reasons satisfy me. But, in each case I have done so in a manner where I consciously acknowledged the risks, assessed the quantitative probability of those risks, evaluated my contingencies, and entered the water.

The last thought is included not to suggest that I am intentionally contending for a Darwin Award, or that I am purposefully reckless or thoughtless, or that I am a true redneck (whose last words usually are, &#8216;Hey, y&#8217;all, watch this!) Rather, I do it to point out that each of us does things for personal reasons, and we assess our actions on the basis of individual knowledge and experience. And, the discussion in threads like this often helps clarify our understanding of risks, expands our knowledge, and even adds to our experience.

 

[Hydreliox]

Am air dive >40m, that incurs deco, and/or utilises other gasses for ascent/descent/deco is a technical dive.

So a dive to 40.5m or a dive which incurs <8mins of deco is a techinical dive?

I am not trying to be a PITA here or cause a ruck, I just want to clear up a few bits so I know fully where the distinction lies

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Knowone has made a great point on NWG and TS&M, not only do they have only a few years experience they also are in the instructor/teaching status so they are still learning, most of what they give for an answers on post are just what you can get from any training material, and some experience themselves. These types of divers are into teaching skills, so they are very good at them or they are trying to get better at them, NWG is a solo diver so I give him a bit of credit on self reliance. There outlook in Deep Air is never going to over come them.
.

I think that characterization of those two is unfair. Neither of them has been diving that long, but both have accumulated many dives in a variety of environments. They have both pursued formal training in cave and technical diving and they both (well TS&M especially) seem pretty anal about doing things in the proper manner.

TSM is always pointing out her failures and challenges and describes in great detail what she could have/should have done better. I honestly think that new divers that are very introspective and smart and observant, may pick up on tricks and challenges that are useful to teach to new divers, more so than some of us that have been diving since before Jimmy Carter was president, and may not even remember some of the simpler challenges.

I don't always agree with everything they say, but they have given tons of very good advice and i have also watched how TSM's attitude and advice has become much less "textbook", less dogmatic, more practical and experienced based and more situational dependent as her experience level increases.

It seems they they have sought out some of the best training available and have done a very good job of trying to disseminate this information in a more palatable and useful manner. They have both been on a freaking crusade to address gas consumption/planning and I completely agree that this is a huge "black hole" in current recreational trianing standards. I just don't get where their opinions should not be respected?

Seriously, most people are only gonna get so good at diving (like most any sport) after a few years of very active participation, most people are going to be reaching their personal threshold of ability (especailly if we are talking about one particular type of diving). After you have done a dive 50 times; how much better are you really gonna get by doing the exact same dive another 150 times? Unless of course you are stupid or a very slow learner?

I suspect that their personal distaste for deep air is based on experience AND "book learning" and they are not just parroting "PADI training standards".

 

[Tortuga68]

Frankly, that's just ridiculous...



Carter was President???

 

[Adobo]

So a dive to 40.5m or a dive which incurs <8mins of deco is a techinical dive?

I am not trying to be a PITA here or cause a ruck, I just want to clear up a few bits so I know fully where the distinction lies

Lets say that you are at 40.5m and you have accumulated 7 mins of backgas deco and are getting ready to call the dive. Lets also say that you are diving with a buddy which some (but not all) of us tend to do. Your buddy, at that moment, goes out of gas and comes to you for help. How much time will it take to help your buddy? (Gas donation, handing over your pony, etc.) Optimistically, it will take 1 minute. Most likely, a lot more. How much deco obligation did that extra minute add?

So, for you and your buddy, is a direct ascent to the surface now an option? Lets say it took you 3 minutes to sort out the emergency, what is your deco obligation now? Are your risks significantly increased if you decide to do a direct ascent now? If so, do you and your buddy have enough gas to complete whatever deco you are obligated to do?

I'm gonna guess that most of the masses who only have "recreational" training don't have the knowledge on how to deal with this situation and as such, are likely not only ill equipped but also unaware of their best options for minimizing the severity of the outcome.

Personally, I consider any dive that can go outside of the boundaries of what is taught in "recreational" dive training to be, not recreational. And in the U.S., PADI, NAUI and SSI seem to be pretty close when it comes to defining what the boundaries of their recreational training programs are.

 

[Adobo]

Hyd I agree and others brought this up Like Dump And Hale, Is the US NAVY a major agency?

I don't know. Are they? Where do I go to take recreational scuba training from the the US Navy if I live in the SF Bay area? What about if I live in Seattle, WA? What about Pensacola, FL?

It's an honest question. I googled and didn't see any results that indicated that its easy for the masses to sign up for scuba lessons from the Navy.