PADI Trimix

[miztflip]

Can't argue with that.

 

[roakey]

Originally posted by algulfdiver
I Just got my DSAT Tec Deep manual a few days ago. Not planing on taking it any time soon, But to me it looks like it is top notch.
Who has accualy looked at the book?
PADI does a good job IMO. And I don't debate the subject.

I've looked at it, and it's a wonderful book. Very well written with some very good technical information, though they do waffle on some stuff in order not to anger certain manufacturers.

Where I have a problem is that the basic premise on which the entire book is written, which is that it's safe to dive to 165 on air, is horribly flawed.

As a direct analogy, you could have a wonderful book written on how to drive a car while intoxicated, and it won’t make it right.

Roak

 

[miztflip]

I know that padi it the agency of choice to pick on, but what about NAUI offering a Technical eanx to 150' and their extended range to 180'. They also offer trimix. Aren't they also trying to be everything for everyone?

I know that they advise that He be used in the mix where available when diving below 150' but according to their website it is only recommended not required. Even if it were required 150' is still pushing it as far as deep air goes.

Any other thoughts on this?

 

[ninja]

air dives to 150 or 165 feet can be safe I've done hundreds of them on wrecks in the great lakes with NO OVERHEAD enviorment

I definately agree that you should be on mix after 120 feet in overhead enviorments..

Now 200 feet that is a different story that is definately deep air PO2 and narcosis are getting out of hand!!

i'll probably get destoyed for this Trimix can be used accordingly it is expensive and probably isn't necessary on dive less than 150 feet depending on the enviorment..

I'm just saying choose your equivelent narcotic depth accordingly for some people it is alway's 100 feet 140's 150's no problem for some of us

NINJA

 

[roakey]

Originally posted by ninja
air dives to 150 or 165 feet can be safe I've done hundreds of them on wrecks in the great lakes with NO OVERHEAD enviorment

I've known some alcohloics that have driven drunk hundreds of times, so it must be safe, right?

This seems to be a difficult concept for some, so let me express the same concept several different ways and see if it helps:

surviving <> safe, or, for you C programmers, surviving != safe.

For you logic buffs, surviving is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for somethig to be "safe". Or you have your cause and effect confused.

Finally, in common language: Just because you've gotten away with it to date doens't make it safe. Just like the drunk drivers mentioned above.

Roak

 

[miztflip]

What about the virtual overhead environment of decompression? Overhead means that there is not direct ascent possible.

Even on navy tables your only looking at 5 minutes at 150'. Is that amount of time really worth the trouble? Anymore than that and you'll need a stop. I agree that 120 is about the max safe depth on air.

 

[neil]

Originally posted by roakey

Finally, in common language: Just because you've gotten away with it to date doens't make it safe. Roak

Roakey,
I just want to ask at what point does a statistical sample become large enough to be counted. Ninja says he's done hundreds of "deep air" dives. He's obviously still with us, ergo he has a perfect safety record for his dives. Is he still an accident waiting to happen after HUNDREDS of these dives? If he does a hundred more, will anything change. I'm not playing devil's advocate for deep air, just trying to see the logic of your statement. How do YOU differentiate between "getting away with it to date" hundreds of times from, "it has worked hundreds of times"?

For the record, I think diving deep on air is pretty bonehead stuff. Read Cousteau's "Silent World". They knew back then.

Peace,
Neil

 

[ninja]

I guess the definition of deep air is anything below 100 feet I agree in most instances...Although my personal narcotic depth doesn't differ from 120 to 150 feet! Air is fine for me at these depths as i have said but maybey not for the next guy

There are so many variables that can come into play planning a dive if i was in a cave pushing deep i would of course be on MIX
Although I do find that a bit crazy it's not my bag!! yet. Every one has very valid points!

NINJA

 

[BIGJC]

Does anyone have any legitimate statistics about the number of incidents on air vs. mix?? There are most likely too many variables to tabulate a set of numbers for that but....

:doctor:

 

[MikeFerrara]

It seems that we are defining deep air as anything below 100ft. No doubt, narcosis is bad But 130 and even 160 (in some parts of the world) has been used as a max depth for rec divers for a long time. The courses that are being called "deep air" DSAT, IANTD and so on use 165 and 170 respectively as a maximum. The standards say you must go beyond 130 without exeeding the max. I prefer mix for deep dives but I think setting a max END of 100ft is a bit extreme. I think "deep air" used to mean deep as in PPO2 greater than 1.4. No agency that I know of other than Hal Watts advocates air beyond 170 or so. Is it GUE that came up with 100ft? why not 130? I never thought of the PADI Deep Diver specialty (recreational) as deep air. It must be because the max depth for that course is 130ft. I had a student claim he was noticably narced at 100ft. Maybe we should use a max END of 80ft. Are we getting carried away?