Rule of Thirds & Shallow Rec 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!

Speaking of which, I've made an Excel spreadsheet calculating RB/MG in imperial with a bunch of variables allowed to be changed.
So have I, except that it's in metric. I can change basically any variable (time before ascent, ascent speed, safety stop duration, safety stop depth, deep stop duration, and personal residual pressure margin). It gives min gas in liters, RB pressure for three tank sizes (10, 12 and 15L) and available bottom time for a bunch of different tank sizes and pressure ratings. It also compares those bottom times with PADI's ND limits, showing bottom times exceeding the NDL in red.


View attachment Min gas_Rock bottom metric.xls
 
Foxfish, I've honestly never seen a grown person more hard headed and argumentative in my life.

I gave up on Foxfish more than 250 posts ago ... my continued involvement in this discussion is for the benefit of everyone else reading the thread.

I've had this conversation with a lot people over the past decade or so and quite a few of them have thanked me for the information. I've also come to the conclusion that the few who decide it's too difficult or unnecessary won't ever learn it, even if it's clearly to their benefit and completely within their capabilities.

To each their own ... it's what keeps these conversations interesting ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
I swore I was out of here, but in the spirit of Bob's post above, I just want to observe that calculating reserves to the psi is not the point . . . the point is to recognize that you need to maintain a reserve that will get you AND your buddy to the surface. In that spirit, all calculations should be done with generous overestimation of gas consumption and time to the surface. When the excrement hits the rotary propeller, nothing will go to plan . . .
 
On the positive side I'm very happy to see that this thread has educated some other divers as to the benefits of gas management planning.

I have participated in many threads on many topics in which one person dominates by being obstinate and forcing people to repeat their positions over and over and over and over again. It can be painful. In those threads, i recognize that the person being obstinate is not my primary audience. My primary audience are those who are reading and trying to make a judgment of their own. I then decide if it is worth going on and repeating the same arguments in different words, or if it is time to hang it up.

Assuming that others will feel that this is true in this case, I do have a word of advice. In what I hope is the majority opinion, it is not hard to calculate the gas needed to start an ascent. I teach it pretty quickly in basic OW classes to students who have never dived before. Since the overwhelming majority of divers will do all or almost all their dives on the same size tank, it is a calculation that does not have to be made often, so once it is done it is done. The overall message we want the new reader to glean from this is that the calculations are easy and worthwhile.

In trying to make that point, a number of people have allowed themselves to be dragged down the hole of replying to points in unnecessarily precise measures. As a result, we end up showing readers walls of equations that will make their heads swim, all with the purpose of convincing them it is easy to do. If I were a reader who does not like math (and I would say that is the majority), seeing the stacks of numbers produced in some of these posts would repel me completely. The message would be "Wow! This is way over my head! I can't do it."

If you want to convince those readers that this is easy to do and well worth that minimal effort (and I believe both to be true), perhaps we should keep that goal in mind.
 
You are LITERALLY wrong on every level with this statement. You didn't "estimate" a thing. You guessed. This is what we're trying to avoid using basic arithmetic.

You didn't read my previous posts properly did you. Refer to posts 254 to 264 and the rest of the thread for the argument that I've presented.

In case there was any doubt about your lack of credibility, I refer to your previous post:

You previously stated:

2) (Not semantics, but logic) The better way of looking at it is that all of them did. Using RB/MinGas guarantees that at the absolute worst point for it to happen, even the catastrophic loss of one air source allows for safe return to the surface. So, anybody following MinGas would be able to return to the surface safely in ALL conditions....unless they got caught/entangled or trapped in an overhead. In those scenarios, it wouldn't be the gas planning but dive execution.

At best you simply don't know of any cases. And besides, in emergencies things often don't go to plan. In the case you gave previously I demonstrated the divers air consumption was about four times what is normally calculated in a minimum gas plan.

And what is a minimum gas plan? Who defines the rules for doing such a plan? From what I've seen on this thread it is left up to the individual.

The only way to plan a dive that covers every contingency and guarantees you will never have an accident as you suggest is to stay on the boat or the shore.

Your statement is logically wrong.

So, I can safely say that nobody has ever died diving MinGas procedures.

You've noted exceptions yourself where that can happen. Planning may help but it is no guarantee you'll follow the dive. See also my comments above.

Your statement is logically wrong.

I can also say, categorically, that all other divers were using the "50b rule" as the guideline to their gas management plans.

There are a wide range of rules that people follow to determine how and when they ascend.

Your statement is logically wrong.

This, by definiton, ensures that all OOA divers have been caused by the use of the "50b rule".

As stated before, there are a wide range of rules that people follow to determine how and when they ascend. And even if your plan or rule was the right one there is no guarantee a diver will follow the plan.

As noted above, OOA emergencies may result in circumstances outside the bounds of the 50 b rule and minimum gas calculations as noted above.

And even if everyone else did follow the 50 b rule, for most OW recreational diving depths the 50b rule is more conservative than minimum gas planning. It would logically follow that the risk of an incident in an OOA emergency is less with the 50 b rule.

Your statement is logically wrong.
 
Most of the fish have fled, but the wily fisherman casts about for one more... Where is he - he was biting a minute ago... Will he take the bait so suited to snag the ego?

_________________________________________________________


I think the take home message for most is not that ones numbers need to equal another's numbers, or that one method of calculation is the same as another's.

What is important is that one has thought about gas volume, how the dive will effect it, and the parameters that will contribute to it's depletion.

If you can demonstrate that you need X amount of gas to descend/ascend, Y to travel distance, Z to stay for time, and that you've considered your partners needs, you are on the right track.

The actual numbers vary depending on individual and team consumption rates, conditions, risk tolerance etc...

I don't worry about the numbers, those are just details that can be discussed. What I am happy to see is a thinking diver. Otherwise, lack of concern in one area usually indicates a lack of concern in another.
 
We must be getting close to the end of this thread. It has been interesting and thought provoking.

We've talked a lot about how you determine the pressure at which you begin your ascent. In the past it hasn't been something I've thought much about. I started with the idea you ascended with about 70 b on a deeper dive and a bit less on a shallow dive. The main thing was to hit the surface with 50 b. I modified that over time and unconsciously got a good feel for how much air I'd need to ascend to meet the 50 b rule. It was never something I had trouble achieving and I've never come close to running out of air except where it was planned on very shallow dives.

People started talking about rock bottom and minimum gas calculations at the start of the thread. I'd never heard of them before. I noticed there were many different methods and numbers being bandied around. So I started to investigate.

In simple terms I took a typical rock bottom calculation that was posted on a link and used those numbers to check what kind of 'minimum gas' pressures you'd need for an ascent from 30 m for a 12 L tank. The answer came out to be about 80 b or 1200 psi in round numbers. I then did a calculation to determine how much air I'd need to ascend from 30 m on a normal dive for a range of air consumption rates. I then added that number to 50 b and found it came to about 80 b. That meant that in normal diving conditions, providing I started my ascent to surface with adequate air to ensure I hit the surface with the required 50 b I'd be okay in an emergency ascent. From what I could gather on this thread most people considered 80 b or 1200 psi a reasonable amount with which to start an ascent from 30 m. I've seen a couple of calculations outside the thread that confirmed the numbers I'd calculated were not excessively low. Some people argued that you needed to add an extra buffer to this and that may have some justification in some circumstances. Also, I found that as you reduced the depth the 50 b rule became increasingly more conservative than the minimum gas calculations.

It seemed to me that whoever came up with the 50 b rule for recreational diving had given the matter careful though. I've never seen or heard anything different in my diving both locally and overseas in depths up to and slightly exceeding 30 m.

So, the point that I've tried to make here is that if you comply with the requirements of the 50 b rule you end up with a similar ascent pressure to what you'd if you calculated it with the minimum gas approach. More for the shallower depth. If you were really worried about the rise in OOA emergencies, why would you bother changing this time honored rule for something that is more cumbersome, more complicated and less conservative for most of the recreational depths.

Some have asked how I'd determine how much air I'd use when beginning an ascent. As I said, it's not something I've really felt a need to calculate before. If you need a value I've given some in the previous posts for 12 and 15 L tanks. Add a bit extra on if you want to make the calculation more conservative.

I noticed a similar debate regarding the size of a spare air tank in the solo forum. You got the same spread in arguments and values we've seen in this discussion.

So my conclusion on the matter is that I personally see no need to change the 50 b rule. I've not seen any credible studies or evidence of anyone who had adequate air to surface with 50 b having an incident during the ascent. I don't claim to be an expert. I've just weighed up what has been presented on the thread and concluded there is no compelling support to the claim that OW divers need to learn how to do minimum gas calculations and base their ascent on those calculations. I hope that decisions made on this matter by the major recreational agencies are based on better substance than the kinds of things surfacing in this thread.

Some people are using the surface at 35 b 500 psi rule. My OW book says that is okay up to 18 m. Beyond that I'd go with the 50 b rule.

Thanks for the discussion.

Some advice on posting on a thread to make it more enjoyable and educational:


  • Stick to the topic.
  • Avoid personal attacks. They mostly make you look silly.
  • Read what people say carefully.
  • Make sure the argument you are trying to counter is the one that is being presented.
  • If you don't have anything sensible or constructive to add sit back and watch the discussion. If it makes you upset, jump onto another thread.
  • Be prepared to have your pet theories challenged.
  • Don't expect everyone to agree with your opinions. Be prepared to substantiate them.
  • When your argument has clearly been shredded be prepared to admit you are wrong.
  • Don't get too worked up. Its only an internet chat forum.
 
Last edited:
So my conclusion on the matter is that I personally see no need to change the 50 b rule. I've not seen any credible studies or evidence of anyone who had adequate air to surface with 50 b having an incident during the ascent. I don't claim to be an expert. I've just weighed up what has been presented on the thread and concluded there is no compelling support to the claim that OW divers need to learn how to do minimum gas calculations and base their ascent on those calculations. I hope that decisions made on this matter by the major recreational agencies are based on better substance than the kinds of things surfacing in this thread.


For me, given various reasonable circumstances, the difference is knowing how much gas a teammate and I need to surface versus assuming I have enough gas to surface, and I don't need accident reports to show me that knowing is better than assuming.

...and I consider regulator free-flows and broken spgs to be reasonable situations.
 
The difference between "Arrive on the surface with 500 psi" and minimum gas calculations is like saying:

Be at the airport 2 hours ahead of departure
vs
Providing instructions on how to find the Terminal

People don't miss flights because the time frame is wrong. They miss flights because they don't get to check in on time.

Show most reasonable souls how to plan their trip to the airport properly and they probably won't miss their flights. Arguing ad nauseum about 2hr's vs 1.5hr's shows you don't grasp the real issue.

It's fascinating to watch... but still wrong.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom