Reverse Profile Diving

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

cmufieldhockey8

Contributor
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
0
Location
Auburn, AL
# of dives
200 - 499
Background: Dove Hudson Grotto in Hudson, FL with a new buddy.

Dive 1: 62 max depth, 58 min, avg depth 43 ft
1:11 min surface interval
Dive 2: 106 max depth, 59 min, avg depth 46 ft

I figured this is my only chance left to dive Hudson Grotto and I've been there once before but didn't go to the bottom to see the items down there (boats, van.) Another diver who I have dove with was there with his own buddy and had offered to give us a "tour" of the bottom. I wanted to see that stuff before I move up back morth

I talked to my instructor today and he said the reverse profile diving my buddy and I did (63 ft dive then a 106 ft dive) was a no-no. :no If we had done the deep dive first and then the shallower one we would've had a lot more time before the no-deco limit.

I knew that already and that the algorhythm on tables and computers doesn't allow you as much time for your second dive if you reverse profile but I didn't really know why. He told me today it had something to do with the computer and tables not really knowing how much residual nitrogen you've got. I don't remember his exact words, but safety is a factor when doing reverse profile diving.

My reasoning was that I'd never dove with this buddy and wasn't comfortable with our first dive together going so far past his deepest depth of about 60 feet. And Hudson Grotto is so odd with the tannin that the dark water is another factor that could be adding to a potential disaster. My buddy does have a bunch of dives and they weren't in places like Cozumel where the visibility is 100 ft. However 100 foot dives are a big deal to me and I needed a dive with him first.

I thought the benefit of a shallower dive first with my buddy and an opportunity to "feel him out" as a diver would outweigh the cost of diving a reverse profile so thats why I did it. The fact that we jumped so much deeper the second dive is another detail that alarmed my instructor. He also brought up that if we had problems the second dive and either stayed down too long and went into deco or somebody shot to the surface, our tissue already being saturated with nitrogen from the first dive makes that more of an issue then if we had done the deep dive first and developed those problems.

The profile for our first dive was good: started off deepest then got shallower and shallower. We still stayed within no deco limits for the second dive and after we came up from 106 feet we spent 30 min at 40 feet, 10 at 30 feet and 8 at 29 feet so he said that was good.

I did find some some info about a workshop put on by the Smithsonian that says that reverse profile diving is ok as long as you don't go into deco, your max depth is no lower then 130 feet and you don't jump in depth more then 40 feet from dive one to dive two. I jumped 44 feet. It said the only penalty is a shorter bottom time, which my buddy and I definitly noticed and I already knew.

I think the solution to this issue was for me not to do a 100 foot dive. If I wasn't comfortable enough with my buddy to doing the 100 ft dive for the first dive then I'm better off not doing the 100 ft dive then to do what we did. We should've had a longer surface interval too. 1:11 was not nearly long enough.

I have a lot of respect for my instructor- he's got a gazillion dives, he dives 200 ft wrecks (the finest the Great Lakes have to offer) and is a cave diver too. We are very close and most of all he has a very genuine concern for my well being and was not "lecturing" me just to hear himself speak. I definitely learned a lesson and I'd like to pass that on to anybody else.
 
There are some pretty good arguments for doing the shallow dive first as well. Ultimately, you have to go with what you think is right.

I would not have hesitated to do the profiles you did. But that doesn't mean someone else should.

What did your ascents look like? Ascent rate? Any deep stops? How long did you stay at your safety stop? Did you come up slowly from your safety stop or just ascend and exit?
 
PerroneFord:
There are some pretty good arguments for doing the shallow dive first as well. Ultimately, you have to go with what you think is right.

I would not have hesitated to do the profiles you did. But that doesn't mean someone else should.

What did your ascents look like? Ascent rate? Any deep stops? How long did you stay at your safety stop? Did you come up slowly from your safety stop or just ascend and exit?

For the deep dive:
20 f/s ascent from 106 ft- 40 ft
30 min at 40 ft
10 min at 30 ft
8 min at 20 ft

I didn't tell my instructor about that stuff till later and he said something like "oh, you should've been fine." However his point was about max depth.

After all the time at 20 feet my computer counted that as the safety stop and said I was good to ascend so thats what I did (slowly.)
 
You have to put your trust in something I suppose...

Trust a dive computer. Trust Proplanner or some other PC-based programme. Trust some deco tables written by some expert(s).

I know people who've got in the **** using all of the above, in the end it is all down to personal physiology and how that person's body copes with the demands of diving and, in particular, deco diving.

Mark
 
My reasoning was that I'd never dove with this buddy and wasn't comfortable with our first dive together going so far past his deepest depth of about 60 feet.

Given that he was a new buddy and he had never been below 60ft before then I think that you made the best decision. Whether he was ready to dive to 100 ft yet, and whether you were prepared to be his buddy, were decisions you had a dive to work out.

Yes it cost you some bottom time on the second dive, however I suspect that air consumption would have restricted your bottom time at 100+ ft anyway.

Glad it worked out for you and you a couple of good dives. :blinking:
 
cmufieldhockey8:
Background: Dove Hudson Grotto in Hudson, FL with a new buddy.

Dive 1: 62 max depth, 58 min, avg depth 43 ft
1:11 min surface interval
Dive 2: 106 max depth, 59 min, avg depth 46 ft

I can't address the logistics of your dive planning but I can say that reverse profiles with a depth difference greater than 40ft have statistically higher percentages of DCS. There was a symposium about this a couple of years ago and this was their conclusion.

In other words all the crap about reverse profiles is true if the depth difference is big enough....

At the very least you will have to account for that and plan for longer hang times on teh second dive. How much longer is a question of guessing in the absence of any useful protocol.

R..
 
MarkUK:
...in the end it is all down to personal physiology and how that person's body copes with the demands of diving and, in particular, deco diving.

Mark

Agree with this whole heartedly. I try not to make recommendations to others because I usually know little of their physiological response to factors like narcosis or psychological reactions to emergencies.

I do reverse profiles frequently as well as repetitive deep decompression dives. I know my physiological response (and generally maintain a standard lifestyle regime to keep it as regular as possible) and psychological response (at least to date). I also way over extend my deco stops whenever possible.
 
cmufieldhockey8:
Dive 1: 62 max depth, 58 min, avg depth 43 ft
1:11 min surface interval
Dive 2: 106 max depth, 59 min, avg depth 46 ft

I would, and have dived similar profiles. Reverse profiles are not recommended by most organisations and experts, but there are also opposite opinions, and they have their point too. In my knowledge there's no real hard facts or serious study about the subject (if someone knows please inform) just theories and conclusions made with unsufficient material...
 

Back
Top Bottom