When did this change?
When I took my tech diving classes through UTD, I was absolutely required to use Ratio Deco. A key part of my training was why ALL other algorithms were wrong and ONLY Ratio Deco provided a "proper" ascent profile. Those others were demonstrated to be wrong solely on the basis of the fact that their profiles were different from the UTD Ratio Deco profiles, which were assumed to be perfect.
I'm sorry, but while I have respect for you and follow with great curiosity and pleasure most of your posts, as so very often when you talk about RD, I can't relate. Probably that's because I simply cannot recognize the methodology, attitude, content or relation to Standards and Procedures in what you're describing.
Granted, things may have changed, so I'm not saying you're wrong.
But if the assumption is that the above is representative of today, I can confidently say that's an incorrect assumption.
But, to answer your question; if there was a change, I don't know when it was.
I plan my dives without the deep stops? That’s fairly obvious.
The first example is the most obvious to me. You can plug in a pair of gradient factors that don’t stop you as deep as say vpm2, and still use 50% as a deco gas.
Even for ratio deco rule of thumb type ascents, it’s super easy to modify the plan to eliminate time spent before the gas switch. Maybe on a 240’ Dive for 25mins, instead of 30fpm to 75% avg depth, then 10fpm from there till 50% avg depth, then 5fpm from 50% to the 1st switch, change it to 30fpm to 50% and then 10fpm to the 1st switch. Whatever mirrors non deep stop gradient factors. I’m not even looking at deco software but it’s clear the approach #2 skips time spent dilly dallying before you get on a deco gas and is still easy to remember.
It’s not even difficult.
Fair enough. I don't have a problem with how you dive.
I'm saying all the examples I brought up, are super easy for me to utilize in the same solution across all dives and I appreciate the use of RD for those things, among others. That's all.
I'm not saying or implying that I know RD to be superior to "your way", or trying to take a dig at you with that.
Dan
With all due respect sir, you are perhaps too close to this discussion. As an outside observer, it seems obvious to me that the only thing you are convincing anyone of is that you are determined to have the last word and that while you seem to have retreated on the major points to a place where we are wondering what you are still arguing about, you remain willing to find something to argue about. It has come to a place where it is like that bad movie that I've spent 90 minutes watching, convinced it was just about to take a twist that makes that investment of time worthwhile but in the end I realize that there was no more there there.
On the upside it is great to see that this topic can be discussed with civility. When RH was banned from the thread, that ended the name calling and accusations. That is a very good thing because all of the participants are well educated, intelligent and worthy of our respect. I suspect that anyone here could teach me and each other much. Thanks for keeping the discussion out of the pit. Now, there is another even higher place that we could take discussions like this where we only speak with respect to each other and only when we have something additional to add but I rarely see that happen online unless the participants are all acquainted in real life. Those discussions build into a sum that is greater than the participating points of view. Here's hoping we get there.
Hi Ray,
I'll leave it with this, then - I still feel there are open questions (even prompted within highly relevant reports) which are dismissed when asked or highlighted in these discussions.
I still feel that there are natural concerns about specifics within the studies we have available, which are dismissed in the debate.
I still feel that disproportionate perceptions of the concepts we're discussing, appear to me as common, online and -off.
I still feel that because I ask such questions or highlight such concerns, the perception is that it must be because I have some agenda. Even when showing how I do not have an agenda, somehow that's all of the sudden an argument (see strawman depiction above).
All of that aside, what I'm saying is: what I see is that deep stops have not been shown to be unsafe. "Probably suboptimal when overemphasised", sure. I don't have a problem with that - but that's different. And I think it's important to stress the difference.
I understand that you're saying about proximity, and in fairness to you, there
is something to that. Of course, I don't think that makes what I'm saying any less valid, and I'd like to reiterate that I don't have an interest in maintaining any specific deep stop level per sé.