OK to Bounce Dive to 220 Fsw as...

[Web Monkey]

Sadly, the realities of life in a warm-water resort environment mean that people HAVE to do such dives on single tanks. On a purely statistical basis I have to say that it is safe.

They don't have to do it. They could skip the dive . . .

Has anybody asked for an extra 80 to sling? I could easily see bringing an extra reg and a stage bottle kit (line/hoseclamp/clips) and slinging one.

Terry

 

[carrielsal]

How many new divers would even know how to sling an AL80, much less deploy it. Or even know what it means to sling a bottle
New divers do not have the knowledge to even know what they don't know.

 

[peterbj7]

I have forgotten what the maximum payout is on my Dive Master liability insurance, but I have no desire to find out. I think taking a diver down to 144' or greater on an AL80 with no redundancy could be viewed as reckless behavior.

Don't forget team-diving redundancy considerations. There's rarely no redundancy.

 

[carrielsal]

Don't forget team-diving redundancy considerations. There's rarely no redundancy.

An AL80 does not have enough air to safely bring 2 divers up from 144' under stress. IMHO, this qualifies as non-redundant.

 

[peterbj7]

How many new divers would even know how to sling an AL80, much less deploy it. Or even know what it means to sling a bottle
New divers do not have the knowledge to even know what they don't know.

Are we talking about new divers? Clearly they shouldn't be expected to do things they've no experience or training in, and that includes diving beyond shallow depths.

I do feel quite strongly that air consumption considerations should be included in even basic scuba training. In fact, the beginner course should be longer and far more comprehensive. But wait a minute, that's what it used to be like.....

 

[idocsteve]

I have forgotten what the maximum payout is on my Dive Master liability insurance, but I have no desire to find out. I think taking a diver down to 144' or greater on an AL80 with no redundancy could be viewed as reckless behavior.

Related to this, I had to dig up the face sheet to my life insurance policy recently..I haven't looked at it in a while.

It has me in a higher risk group due to "tobacco user". I was like.. "What?! I don't smoke!" I called my agent and he checked out the file and reminded me that I was placed in a higher risk group, not because I was a smoker, but because on the application I acknowledged that I scuba dive to depths of deeper than (I think it was) 60 feet. Apparently it's the same equivalent level of risk, at least as far as the insurance company is concerned.

 

[carrielsal]

Are we talking about new divers? Clearly they shouldn't be expected to do things they've no experience or training in, and that includes diving beyond shallow depths.

I do feel quite strongly that air consumption considerations should be included in even basic scuba training. In fact, the beginner course should be longer and far more comprehensive. But wait a minute, that's what it used to be like.....

Here's the post that started the discussion. New divers.

We did the Belize Blue Hole this past August and I went to about 144 ft to be able to swim through the stalactites. We had several new divers (10 to 20 dives) with us and some were a little nervous about the depths but all ended up doing the dive. Folks were given an option to hang out a lot higher if they wanted. No pressure at all to do the dive from anyone. The dive master lead the dive but was constantly looking and checking with the newer divers to make sure they were OK. I think the total dive ended up being maybe 20 minutes or so. After the dive all the new divers were glad they did it and said it helped them overcome some of their fears of diving to some deeper depths.

 

[Gombessa]

Related to this, I had to dig up the face sheet to my life insurance policy recently..I haven't looked at it in a while.

It has me in a higher risk group due to "tobacco user". I was like.. "What?! I don't smoke!" I called my agent and he checked out the file and reminded me that I was placed in a higher risk group, not because I was a smoker, but because on the application I acknowledged that I scuba dive to depths of deeper than (I think it was) 60 feet. Apparently it's the same equivalent level of risk, at least as far as the insurance company is concerned.

Risk equivalency is one thing, but I would fight that designation, as it may come back to bite you later in life if you develop a condition with correlation to smoking...

 

[peterbj7]

An AL80 does not have enough air to safely bring 2 divers up from 144' under stress. IMHO, this qualifies as non-redundant.

It probably doesn't, though in my hands it has done just that when only one of the two divers was stressed. But there may well be more divers around, and I didn't say sufficient redundancy, I said not none. It's a sliding scale, not black and white. Like so much in diving.

 

[idocsteve]

Risk equivalency is one thing, but I would fight that designation, as it may come back to bite you later in life if you develop a condition with correlation to smoking...

Interesting point and it is well taken.

I'll look into that, thanks.