Rule of Thirds & Shallow Rec diving

[shoredivr]

You fail to grasp the basics, just as you fail to answer direct questions. The "same tired arguments" are attempts to educate you on the basics, but your mind is made up that you are right and you are refusing to take in any information.

*Shrug* His last few posts have been too ridiculously obstinate and sidestep direct answers. Searching for a reason why, it hit me.
His profile says he's an engineer.
Bada-bing.

 

[victorzamora]

*Shrug* His last few posts have been too ridiculously obstinate and sidestep direct answers. Searching for a reason why, it hit me.
His profile says he's an engineer.
Bada-bing.

I'm an Aerospace Engineer, so I feel VERY qualified to say this: He's WAY too incapable of basic logic and basic math to be an Engineer. If he is an Engineer, it's one of those misnomer positions like "Industrial Engineer" that isn't actually Engineering. A real Engineer would be capable of ingesting logical information, processing it, and accepting it. An engineer would also be able to see flaws in his logic explained via simple math.

This level of stubborn is clearly belonging just to one creature: a troll.

Also, he's in the "Solo Divers" group. I'm not sure if that's good or bad.

 

[Foxfish]

In a 12L=36B used on ascent for a lightly stressed SOLO breathing rate... If something were to go wrong at depth, there is simply NOT ENOUGH GAS to get you and your buddy to the surface using your method fox fish. It does all fine and dandy getting yourself to the surface with 50B if nothing goes wrong but doesn't leave ample reserves for your buddy.

Don't stress, no is suggesting that you plan for your ascent in this way.

My air consumption is normally much less than 25 L/min so for a normal ascent I'd use much less but let's just say I use 30 b to get to the surface from 30 m on a normal dive. If I started the ascent with 80 b and used 30 b for a normal ascent, what would my tank pressure be when I surfaced. Hint 80-30 b.

 

[GCullen94]

And what would you do on or right before ascent if your buddy had a reg failure? Let's say your breathing rate goes up to 30L minute, his is 30L a minute now you're at 60 and no longer surfacing with 50B hint you won't have enough to get both of you to the surface. Which is why we plan MIN GAS. It's not hard to do but you are so stubborn in your 50B ways. Your method is all well and good in planning a solo ascent but what happens when you have to get your buddy home? That 50B isn't good enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Storker]

In contrast BSAC records there have been dozens of incidents caused by problems with drysuits including fatalities.

There's no point in discussing with this person, but just for the benefit of other readers who might come across this blatant lie without having read the rest of this trainwreck of a thread:

Foxfish tries to get back to his previous claim that dry suits are more dangerous than insufficient gas, this time with more drama and stronger exaggerations than before. His previous, less exaggerated but just as wrong claim appeared in his post #211. This was thoroughly debunked in my post #215:

You know, when I hear claims like that, I like to go to the cited material and check for myself. I haven't read every incident report, but I did read the summary. And for the benefit of readers who may be scared by Foxfish's version of the numbers, here's a summary of the summary:

[...]

So, Foxfish is formally correct in that seven incidents (not seven fatalities. Seven incidents) in UK in 2013 were dry suit related. Seven out of 43 ascent-related incidents. Seven out of a grand total of 263 diving related incidents.

Since we're in the basic forum, I'll refrain from stating my opinion about Foxfish's discussion style and methods. But it's interesting to note that seven out of 263 incidents now has transmuted into "dozens of incidents [...] including fatalities"

---------- Post added December 9th, 2013 at 08:25 AM ----------

I'm an Aerospace Engineer, so I feel VERY qualified to say this: He's WAY too incapable of basic logic and basic math to be an Engineer.

I take it you're familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?

 

[Foxfish]

There's no point in discussing with this person, but just for the benefit of other readers who might come across this blatant lie without having read the rest of this trainwreck of a thread:

Foxfish tries to get back to his previous claim that dry suits are more dangerous than insufficient gas, this time with more drama and stronger exaggerations than before. His previous, less exaggerated but just as wrong claim appeared in his post #211. This was thoroughly debunked in my post #215:

Since we're in the basic forum, I'll refrain from stating my opinion about Foxfish's discussion style and methods. But it's interesting to note that seven out of 263 incidents now has transmuted into "dozens of incidents [...] including fatalities"

That was for 2013. Did you check the other years?

 

[Storker]

Did you check the other years?

Now that Foxfish mentions it, it would be interesting to look at the picture over several years to smooth out statistical variations a little bit.

So, going back to 2008 we can see that the numbers agree even less with Foxfish's scaremongering. I didn't go further back than 2008, since the categories were somewhat different previous to 2008, and in some of the reports the ascent related incidents weren't broken down to single issues. Here are the hard numbers:

BSAC reported incidents and fatalities, grand total over the last six years (2008-2013):

Total number of fatalities: 83, of which 43 with non-BSAC members.
Involving (but not necessarily directly caused by):
Buddy separation: 39 (47%)
Non-diving medical: 21 (25%)
Group of three: 17 (20%)
Rebreather: 8 (9.6%)
Solo diving: 7 (8.4%)
Deeper than 50m: 6 (7.2%)
OOG (not including hard overhead): 6 (7.2%)
Rapid ascent: 5 (6.0%)
Lack of buoyancy: 3 (3.6%)
No info: 2 (2.4%)
Dry suit malfunction/mis-use: 2 (2.4%)
Hard overhead (cave or wreck penetration): 2 (2.4%)
Tank valve turned off before entering water: 1 (1.2%)

Total number of incidents: 2056, of which:
DCI related: 618 (30%)
Ascent related: 323 (16%), of which:
Dry suit malfunction/mis-use: 34 (1.7%)


To summarize: Of the 83 UK fatalities the last six years, more than half were with non-BSAC members. Nearly half of the fatalities involved buddy separation and a quarter of them had non-diving-related medical issues. 2 fatalities were dry suit related, while 6 (i.e. three times as many) were OOG related and 7 were solo diving related.

Of the 2056 incidents, less than two percent were dry suit related, while roughly three times as many were caused by "simply poor buoyancy control".

Dry suits are really, really dangerous, aren't they?



Edited to add:
While Foxfish doesn't formally lie (yes, 34 incidents can be given as "dozens", and there were two fatalities involving dry suits during the last six years), the way he presents his numbers gives a totally skewed impression of the reality. 34 incidents, that's right. Thirty-four out of more than two thousand. Two fatalities, that's right, too. Two out of more than eighty.

In my book, this is a dishonest discussion technique.

 

[supergaijin]

Of the 2056 incidents, less than two percent were dry suit related, while roughly three times as many were caused by "simply poor buoyancy control".

Dry suits are really, really dangerous, aren't they?

Waiting for Dan Volkner to chime in with his heated wetsuit push in

3...
2......
1...........

 

[Foxfish]

Now if we extrapolate over the past ten years using 2013 data then there would be an estimated 70 incidents involving drysuits. You could check that as well. Then you could check the records or ask anyone to provide records of the number of incidents involving divers who began their ascent with adequate air in their tank to surface with 50 b in the tank under normal conditions and had an OOA incident that lead to injury or fatality. So far to the best of my knowledge the tally stands at ZERO. If you know differently do tell.

I note that you previously calculated that the amount needed for an emergency ascent was 80 b in similar circumstances to the ones I described in the above recent posts.

Please retract the comment that I lied. It has no place on this forum.

 

[GCullen94]

Foxfish you are impossible. That 85B number I came up with was from your ridiculously liberal numbers giving no consideration to your buddy. MY numbers are far more in line with what everyone else is trying to say. This is the first time I have seen someone just throw away knowledge for an inferior system. I hope we don't read about you in one of Don's post one day. I'm sorry you'd rather chance drowning or getting bent than properly planning and executing a basic gas plan. It's sad honestly.