Private Boat - Emergency O2

[johndiver999]

You forgot this... you need this.. DGX Inline Shutoff Valve: 9/16-Inch M = 9/16-Inch F or something similar.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

The Mares Abyss 52 is OK for oxygen use, not the 22.

 

[Wibble]

You forgot this... you need this.. DGX Inline Shutoff Valve: 9/16-Inch M = 9/16-Inch F or something similar.

is everyone aware of an in-line shutoff and how it works?


Dangling a regulator over the side requires a dedicated resource to monitor that there’s oxygen in the pipe — if the tank AND SPG is on a rope, the diver using it is in full control.

Surface supply— which is what the hose over the side is — requires a lot of specialist techniques, lest you kill the diver. Surface Supply isn’t S.C.U.B.A.

 

[broncobowsher]

Dangling a regulator over the side requires a dedicated resource to monitor that there’s oxygen in the pipe — if the tank AND SPG is on a rope, the diver using it is in full control.

Surface supply— which is what the hose over the side is — requires a lot of specialist techniques, lest you kill the diver. Surface Supply isn’t S.C.U.B.A.

You are over thinking it.

 

[Heat Miser]

I like the idea of having some emergency O2 onboard. And have been on charter boats that have dangled cylinders 20 ft deep, off the stern, often on deep dives >100 ft. And I always wondered why those cylinders were often filled with air and not a Nitrox >= 50%

My only two questions on your shopping list, is:

1) why wouldn't you get the Abyss 22 1st stage reg O2 cleaned?

2) what does the Lightning X o2 reg do? Aren't you going to have the LP Hose attached to the Abyss 22 first stage and then attach the RescueEAN to the LP hose?

Interested observer

 

[rjack321]

A New Look at In-Water Recompression (IWR)

What is your best option if you or a team-mate get bent at a remote diving location, that is more than two hours from a chamber? If you are prepared—that means having the right equipment and know-how—the new consensus among the hyperbaric docs is to treat with In-Water Recompression (IWR).

gue.com

​

A New Look at In-Water Recompression (IWR)​

What is your best option if you or a team-mate get bent at a remote diving location, that is more than two hours from a chamber? If you are prepared—that means having the right equipment and know-how—the new consensus among the hyperbaric docs is to treat with In-Water Recompression (IWR).

Published
3 years ago
on
July 2, 2019
By
InDepth

• 
  
  
  

by Reilly Fogarty
Header Image: Photo courtesy of DAN.
Depending on who you ask, in-water recompression (IWR) is either a critical life-saving tool for experienced divers or a fast-track to becoming a case report. Casually dropping it in conversation is a great way to make hyperbaric medicine experts froth at the mouth, and it’s the stuff that insurance underwriters have nightmares about. Putting a diver back in the water after a serious injury is not something to be taken lightly. Managing the diver requires significant training and equipment, as well as the training to diagnose a diver before treatment and manage them and any possible complications afterwards.
Even in ideal conditions, recompression (in-water or in a chamber) is not guaranteed to eliminate or even ameliorate symptoms, and there’s a very real possibility that divers may exit the water in worse shape than when they entered due to oxygen toxicity, natural symptom progression, or further exposure to the elements. Despite all of this, the practice has been saving lives in some of the world’s least hospitable environments for decades, and recent research has shown that there may be even more reasons to consider IWR.

Divers Decompressing. Photo courtesy of DAN.
At the recent International Rebreather Meeting in Ponza, Italy, Simon Mitchell, Ph.D., presented a new take on IWR taken from In-Water Recompression, a paper he recently published with David Doolette, Ph.D. The pair propose that IWR may be the best option in a much broader array of situations than previously thought, and that it should be applied in situations where a diver is at risk of losing life or limb, a chamber is more than two hours away, and the team is appropriately trained and equipped for the protocols.

Illustration of the Australian In-Water Recompression Treatment from “In-Water Oxygen Recompression: A Potential Field Treatment Option for Technical Divers, aquaCORPS # 5 BENT, JAN93. Graph by Richard L. Pyle
First, a little background: IWR tables vary, but most modern protocols involve administering oxygen at 30 fsw/9 msw for one to three hours. Historically, these protocols have varied widely, from the use of oxygen down to 60 fsw/18 msw to “deep air” spikes down to 165 fsw/50 msw. The supporting evidence underlying these practices and the extent of testing also vary widely. Up until the last decade or so the practice was considered foolhardy at best and dangerous at worst by most experts, and was reserved as a tool of last resort for divers who got bent in areas where recompression in a chamber wouldn’t be possible for days. At the time, the leading researchers were working under the assumption that delay to recompression had little or no effect on post-treatment outcomes, and both the logistics of sourcing open-circuit gas supplies and managing oxygen toxicity risk made it difficult enough to organize that most experts avoided broaching the subject.
In the past decade many of these concerns have found technological workarounds or have seen a reversal in best-practices. Increasingly, injury data is showing that minimizing time to recompression is key to positive outcomes in cases of decompression sickness (DCS) of all types, and the difficulty of providing oxygen to divers has diminished dramatically with the proliferation of rebreather use. IWR today may just require an injured rebreather diver and their buddy to reenter the water and clip into a hangar with an extra cylinder of oxygen and some way to maintain a patent airway (via full face mask, mouthpiece, or gag strap). Our understanding of oxygen toxicity and the applicable risk factors has improved, as has our ability to diagnose and manage serious DCS, but the combination of factors seems to have come together without much notice until Mitchell and Doolette took on the project of standardizing and promoting a procedure.

Divers Decompressing. Photo courtesy of DAN.
Citing retrospective analyses of military and experimental dives that showed complete resolution of DCS symptoms during the first treatment (and often within minutes of initial recompression) in 90 percent of cases, the two advocate strongly for a delay to recompression of less than two hours. Realistically, a promptly diagnosed condition and initiated IWR protocol could have a diver back under pressure in half that time or less, but there is little research into whether recompression in that short period notably improves outcomes. The primary protocols outlined in the paper involve the use of oxygen for one to three hours at 30 fsw/9 msw, a notable departure from what most non-commercial and non-military divers are used to in terms of oxygen exposure, but they are widely accepted and have significant research backing.
In addition to the hazards of CNS oxygen toxicity, convulsions in the water, and symptom progression in a difficult environment, Doolette and Mitchell highlight both the inability to further evaluate patients in the water and the lack of applicable medical interventions. IWR is not a cure-all, nor is it something to be undertaken on a whim, but it has been a viable option for decades for those appropriately trained and equipped, and it’s refreshing to see those at the forefront of the industry promote the evidence-based practices we need in order to save divers in extreme situations.

Having actually done some IWR in the PNW twice, I can say it's very difficult to actually do completely. You may be able to mitigate symptoms to some extent. Before you freeze or the tides turn, etc etc

We've actually only had one fatal DCS incident in the PNW in living memory (Garrett Wineberg). In the same timeframe, we've lost many other divers to medical issues (heart attacks, strokes, and pulmonary emboli), equipment issues, gas supply issues, poor instruction, poor skills, excessive depth, and several mysterious solo events. Planning for IWR is really just a distraction from the historical risk factors.

 

[houstonspearo]

I haven’t read through all 9 pages of replies but when I dove about the same setup, I carried 40% in my pony. Curious what gas you’re putting in yours? A rich gas that’s breathable at 60 ft or so will clear out more nitrogen then 32.
Also we hang a line like what you are describing all the time. Make sure it’s all O2 clean. And hang and extra 5 ft for any contingencies. We also hang a bottle of 100% tied off on the rig leg at 20 ft. But it sounds like you may not have structure.

 

[Wibble]

You are over thinking it.

That’s me told then.

It’s one hell of a lot easier to send down a cylinder tied to a fixed length of rope than a super long hose with the cylinder on the boat. Just powering up a 9m/30ft hose will consume a load of gas.

 

[tursiops]

That’s me told then.

It’s one hell of a lot easier to send down a cylinder tied to a fixed length of rope than a super long hose with the cylinder on the boat. Just powering up a 9m/30ft hose will consume a load of gas.

Isn't the point that it is better to get banged on the head with a second stage than with a cylinder?

 

[NW Dive Dawg]

Isn't the point that it is better to get banged on the head with a second stage than with a cylinder?

Hey folks.... Once again, I just want to say thanks to all of you that have provided advice, support and even criticism. Information is a good thing! But I think it's also fair to say that this is an internet forum and so I really have no way of knowing if the responses are coming from qualified experts with good intentions or self serving know-it-alls with illusions of grandeur.

What I do know is that my honest intention here is to have viable options that might help myself or others when I am on my boat in remote areas of the Pacific NW where assistance and even communication can be a challenge. Admittedly, I am a stubborn nonconformist. My inclination and "spidy sense" .......is that Tursiops, MaxBottom Time, JohnDiver and Tbone are offering balanced advice as well as genuine and proper / educated concern.

My main take-away is that having the equipment options onboard is a good thing..... but that continuing education and training is probably a good idea....

Thanks again for taking your time to help me work through all of this....

Cheers....