Is this a Dangerous Dive Profile?

[fairybasslet]

Agree with all the "ears" comments. That kind of diving would have done me in for sure. Though like the others said, at this depth there probably is not that much of a potential problem unless you held your breath or something like that, but this is a very good learning experience for you. The first time I looked at a profile of mine I was shocked by how much sawtooth diving I was doing. At one point, I even went back down another atmostphere because of some photo op. I was lucky that the dive Goddesses were looking out for me. I was lucky that I learned my lesson just by being embarrased to show my instructor my profile, and not by an embolism or DCS hit.

 

[Jarrett]

Thanks for all the input.

I was told this was a dangerous dive profile. I didn't think it was, but wanted to get some more feedback before coming to an opinion on it. Thanks.

 

[Xman]

What sort of spin doctoring is that? The computer did not generate the excursions. A lower sampling rate will render it useless for reviewing things like ascent rates.

Pete

I must have misinterpretted the post you are commenting on. I thought he was suggesting shortening the sample interval to give the graph a more fluid representation of depth changes rather than the stepped nature of the current sampling. Can't think why he would suggest to lengthen the sampling rate???

 

[Jason B]

Nothing wrong with that profile at all. You should see the profiles from a cave dive, makes that look flat.

 

[Debraw]

Who told you this was a dangerous profile?
Take a look at the 35 minute mark in your dive log. It shows that you went from 17 to 24 back 17 feet within 1 minute. In the 39 minute to 40 minute time window you fluctuate from 18 feet to 24 back to 18 feet, up and down and back up in one minute. That is called a saw tooth pattern. That is exactly what got me bent on my dive in the gulf. I went to the bottom rested, and then would go up three feet kick against the current and then back down to the bottom again to rest. At CSSP in 18 to 24 feet of water that isa not that bad at 75 feet in the gulf in made a difference

 

[ClayJar]

To me at least, it would seem far more likely that it was kicking against the current that contributed to your getting bent. As for ascending and descending a few feet, the ratios between the upper and lower pressures would be greater on the shallower dive, which would seem to indicate that such actions by themselves will not get you bent more easily at greater depths.

 

[Dive Right In Scuba]

Why would you go down to 75 feet and then up to 3 feet to kick against the current? Then go back down?? To me that doesnt seem safe and I can see how you got bent....am I reading your post right? or are you saying you got bent by being in 75 ft and going up 3 feet to 72 feet and back down....that doesnt seem right......

 

[spectrum]

I must have misinterpretted the post you are commenting on. I thought he was suggesting shortening the sample interval to give the graph a more fluid representation of depth changes rather than the stepped nature of the current sampling. Can't think why he would suggest to lengthen the sampling rate???

Good question...

In re-reading post 12 the poster did not specify a longer or shorter sampling rate. I assumed longer in hopes of skipping some of the peaks. A shorter interval would smooth the curves as you suggest and maybe even catch some further excursions. It surely wouldn't make anything go away.

 

[Debraw]

Why would you go down to 75 feet and then up to 3 feet to kick against the current? Then go back down?? To me that doesnt seem safe and I can see how you got bent....am I reading your post right? or are you saying you got bent by being in 75 ft and going up 3 feet to 72 feet and back down....that doesnt seem right......

Read it slower and you will see " went to the bottom rested, and then would go up three feet"

75 to 72 feet. Lack of longer safety stops over multiple days of repetitive deep diving also contributed, as did a faster than normal ascent closer to the surface. I found this all out when I looked at my sample chart from my Pro Plus 2. Jarret's profile is not dangerous at CSSP but it would be a considerable factor if he were doing that at 75 feet. It is soemthing to be considered at the very least, although not dangerous as the only factor.

 

[captain]

Read it slower and you will see " went to the bottom rested, and then would go up three feet"

75 to 72 feet. Lack of longer safety stops over multiple days of repetitive deep diving also contributed, as did a faster than normal ascent closer to the surface. I found this all out when I looked at my sample chart from my Pro Plus 2. Jarret's profile is not dangerous at CSSP but it would be a considerable factor if he were doing that at 75 feet. It is soemthing to be considered at the very least, although not dangerous as the only factor.

75 to 72 didn't get you bent, there had to be much more to it than that. If a 3 foot deviation at that depth could do it I dare say there would be waiting lines at the chambers.