TDI Advanced Nitrox

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!

AquaTec,

I don't intend to criticize anyone. The only people I have problems with are those who try to convince other people to do the same dumb things they do.

So let's get back on topic, and hope that Ed can stay away long enough to allow a constructive conversation to happen.

Here's my take:

To me, "deep" means beyond 100 fsw. However, I prefer to use the umbrella term "technical," since even "shallow" dives can require decompression and advanced training and equipment. "Technical," IMHO, refers to any dive outside the accepted recreational limitations, i.e. max 130 fsw, no overhead, no deco. There is a gray area between 100 fsw and 130 fsw, because a 130 fsw dive could be classified as either technical (based on its depth), or recreational (based on its runtime and lack of task loading). It's generally ok to breathe air at 100-130 on a recreational dive -- but if you're doing deco, air is usually a bad idea.

I choose my definition of "technical" because it is simple. I choose my definition of "deep" because that is roughly where I believe the symptoms of nitrogen narcosis become significant (at least on SOME dives for SOME divers). I believe that air is basically contraindicted in technical dives, because there are better choices.

I also chose my definitions because they agree with the majority of experienced technical divers. It only makes sense to agree to some commonality to aid in discussions.

Physiologically, nitrogen is dangerous for a couple of reasons. First, as we all know, it causes narcosis. The severity, onset, etc. are highly variable, so one would do well to limit nitrogen exposure as much as possible. Second, nitrogen is dense, which translates to increased breathing effort at depth. This has been verified in laboratory conditions to predispose a diver to a positive-feedback carbon-dioxide cycle which is probably at least related to deep-water blackout. Third, nitrogen's slow diffusion results in lengthy decompressions. Fourth, there is conjecture that nitrogen stiffens the cell walls of red blood cells, which makes circulation less efficient, as red cells must deform to squeeze through capillaries. Air has a lot of nitrogen.

Air also has a lot of oxygen, which comes bundled with its own set of physiological hazards. Countless studies have indicated that exposure to high partial pressures of oxygen causes seizures and unconsciousness. This is called central nervous system (CNS) oxygen toxicity. It is theorized that the excess dissolved oxygen promotes exessive oxygen radical production. The enzymes (superoxide dismutase, catalase, and others) that specifically bind free radicals can become overwhelmed. When this happens, the free radicals begin to interfere with nervous conduction. Like nitrogen narcosis, the severity of toxicity symptoms and their onset is highly variable. A huge collection of laboratory tests and real-life Navy tests indicate that a PPO2 of 1.6 is tolerated in "most" subjects without harm. Most experienced divers choose to limit their exposure to 1.2 ATA or below to make CNS toxicity unlikely, and to ward off the lung damage caused by high PPO2s. This lung damage is thought to decrease respiratory efficiency, which translates to decreased decompression efficiency.

There is no PPN2 at which anything sudden occurs, which is why you should strive to minimize your nitrogen exposure. There are only rules of thumb. Oxygen is somewhat more straightforward, as a PPO2 of 3 ATA will cause most subjects to convulse in seconds. However, at more sane levels like 1.6 ATA, the conditions of toxicity are highly variable.

The Short List of Why Deep Air is Bad:

1. It has excessive nitrogen, leading to unnecessary narcosis.
2. It has excessive oxygen, leading to unnecessary toxicity exposure.
3. It is too dense, leading to increased breathing effort and possibly contributing to hypercapnia and deep-water blackout.

- Warren
 
Warren
Thanks for the constructive dialog.
I do have some points new and old to raiuse but I need to run off to work.

I just wanted to drop a quick line to say that if we can keep everybody as sinsible and constructive with very little critisisim as your last post then we might find people will sit up and take notice of what is being said here.

and we can all lear good stuff.

My reply and new question will come to you after I get home from work
Thanks Again
 
VTWarrenG,

I present clips from the USN Diving manual.

6-10.2 Surface Supplied Air Diving Restrictions.
1. Surface supplied air diving shall not be conducted to depths greater than 190 fsw.
2. Dives shall be limited to in-water decompression times of less than 120 minutes.
3. An emergency gas supply (come-home bottle) is required for any dive greater than 60 fsw planned decompression dives or for which direct access to the surface is not available.

Having stated the restrictions lets look at what the USN Diving Manual states, rev 4, 1 march 2001, SS521-AG-PRO-010.

9-7.1 Example. In planning a dive, the Dive Supervisor wants the divers to conduct a bief inspection of the work site, located at a depth of 152 fsw. Determine the maximum no-decompression limit and repetitive group designation.

9-7.2 Solution. The maximum bottom time that may be used without requiring decompression and the repetitive group designation after the dive can be found in either the Unlimited/No-Decompression Table or the Standard Air Decompression Table.

Funny, this is an example of 'deep air'

Table 9-6 chapter 9 page 9-53 "Table 9-6. Unlimited/No Decompression Limits and Repetitive Group Designation Table for Unlimited/No- decompression Air Dives." Max depth listed is 190 feet.

Table 9-7 chapter 9 page 9-54 "Table 9-7. Residual Nitrogen timetable for Repetitive Air Dives." list repetitive dives to 190 feet.

Table 9-8 chapter 9 pages9-56 to 9-62 "Table 9-8. U.S. Navy Standard Air Decompression Table" list air dives to 300 feet with allocated decompression times.

Table 9-9 chapter 9 pages 9-63 to 9-65 "Table 9-9. Surface Decompression Table Using Oxygen" list air dives to 170 feet.

Table 9-10 chapter 9 pages 9-67 to 9-69 "Table 9-10. Surface Decompression Table Using Air" list air dives to 190 feet.

Chapter 10 page 10-1 section 10-1
Nitrogen-oxygen (NITROX) diving is a unique type of diving using nitrogenoxygen breathing gas mixtures ranging from 75 percent nitrogen/25 percent oxygen to 60 percent nitrogen/40 percent oxygen. Using NITROX significantly increases the amount of time a diver can spend at depth without decompressing. It also decreases the required decompression time compared to a similar dive made to the same depth using air. NITROX may be used in all diving operations suitable for air, but its use is limited to a normal depth of 140 fsw.

NITROX breathing gas mixtures are normally used for shallow dives. The most benefit is gained when NITROX is used shallower than 50 fsw, but it can be advantageous when used to a depth of 140 fsw.

Chapter 3 page 3-33, section 3-10.1.2
3-10.1.2 Susceptibility to Narcosis. Inert gases vary in their narcotic potency. The effects from nitrogen may first become noticeable at depths exceeding 100 fsw, but become more pronounced at depths greater than 150 fsw. There is a wide range of individual susceptibility and some divers, particularly those experienced in deep operations with air, can often work as deep as 200 fsw without serious difficulty.

Experienced and stable divers may be reasonably productive and safe at depths where others fail. They are familiar with the extent to which nitrogen narcosis impairs performance. They know that a strong conscious effort to continue the dive requires unusual care, time, and effort to make even the simplest observations and decisions. Any relaxation of conscious effort can lead to failure or a fatal blunder.

Experience, frequent exposure to deep diving, and training may enable divers to perform air dives as deep as 180-200 fsw, but novices and susceptible individuals should remain at shallower depths. The performance or efficiency of divers breathing compressed air is impaired at depths greater than 180 fsw. At 300 fsw or deeper, the signs and symptoms are severe and the diver may hallucinate, exhibit bizarre behavior, or lose consciousness. Furthermore, the associated increase in oxygen partial pressure at such depths may produce oxygen convulsions. (Helium is widely used in mixed-gas diving as a substitute for nitrogen to prevent narcosis. Helium has not demonstrated narcotic effects at any depth tested by the U.S. Navy.) Figure 3-16 shows the narcotic effects of compressed air diving.

BTW chapters 1 to 5 is in volume 1 (diving principals and policy); chapters 6 to 11 is in volume 2 (air diving operations)



Now lets talk about the NOAA diving manual.

Figure 4.10 table 4 page 4-6 list the same table that the usn diving manual shows, see above, max depth? 190 feet

Figure 4.11 table 3 page 4-7 is the same

Ed
 
Once more, for the hard of reading:

We're recreational divers, there's nothing down there worth our lives. NOAA book says 190 for air? Well my truck's speedometer goes up to 110 but I know it's stupid to go that fast in it.

Navy divers do dives, and practice doing dives that are worth their lives. For that reason some of their manual, such as the passages blacknet's quoted, are not applicable to recreational diving.

We have the option of just saying "no."

We have the tools available to us to reduce risk.

Good technical diving is about reducing, not taking risks.

Black coral divers earning a living are completely different than those of us with disposable income that can afford the toys to dive deep.

To quibble over He cost is like the young biker talking to the old biker:

YB: How much did your helmet cost?
OB: $400
YB: $400! Mine only cost $60!
OB: Well, I guess your brain is only worth $60.

If you can't afford to pay, don't play.

Roak
 
VTWarrenG,

Tables don’t state anything about safety just states in a given range of criteria thing fall as the tables show. (See my upcoming post on metric vs. imperial dive tables) And for the record I don't like 'deep air' but I realize it's a part of diving and as a part we must learn about it and understand it. I feel in the end it will help us become better divers. This does not mean we should go out and dive deep air but learn and understand about it and do what's safe. Which in this case is He w/out a doubt.

Ed
 
It sounds like everyone here is basically saying deep air is not good, but the degree is what is being argued. My beef is with the agencies that push deep air rather than attempt to make it virtual taboo. I'm still working on getting a bunch of links together describing the dangers of deep air. I have the flu, so it might take me a while.

Take care.

Mike
 
Here’s a compilation of links I have had for a while that entail nitrogen narcosis and deep diving.

http://www.msec.uncc.edu/Nitrogen Narcosis.doc Describes N2 Narcosis

http://members.aol.com/dsusdive/page74.htm Discusses narcosis

http://www.iit.edu/~elkimar/design/...logy/nitro.html Brief paper on narcosis

http://www.aquastrophics.com/articles/articl35.htm David Holt of NAUI describing narcosis

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/...1/article.jhtml Description of narcosis

http://www.scubadiving.com/training...on/narced.shtml Talks about acclimation to narcosis

http://www.scuba-doc.com/n2narc.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=7742709&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b Adaptation to narcosis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=8837939&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b Similarities between alcohol and narcosis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=2741255&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b Behavioral adaptation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=2753017&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b Alcohol, air, heliox

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=678246&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b Narcosis and emotions


http://www.scuba-doc.com/narked.html Discusses narcosis

http://members.aol.com/pdic71/a_fatal.html Narcosis story

http://wrigley.usc.edu/hyperbaric/CHMBDIVE.HTM

http://www.fotofixer.com/1deepDivingonAir.htm Dangers of Deep Air article

http://kupla.tky.hut.fi/~arn/ss_200... Narcosis.htm Discusses CO2 narcosis

http://www.divenewzealand.com/56raptures.html Rapture of the deep; “DAN statistics In the most recent report on Australian Diving Deaths (1972-1993), nitrogen narcosis was recorded as a contributing factor in 14 of the 178 scuba deaths (8%).”

http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/m...sp?articleid=29 DAN Article on narcosis

http://www.naui.org/pdffiles/EvolutionToRevolution.pdf Tim O’ Leary of NAUI’s Technical Operations discussing his apparent dislike of deep air diving.

http://www.skin-diver.com/departmen....asp?theID=1041 Karl Reeves of PADI – Very ambiguous article discussing deep air. “A 130-foot limit for air diving on complex technical dives, especially overhead environment diving (wrecks, caves, etc.) is advisable. Narcosis has no place on a dive where too many variables factor into your safety.” “Even simple dives in open water using redundant life support and following principles for air supply management (i.e. not single tank, recreational rigs) is risky at 185 feet. You’d definitely be narked at this depth, so emergency procedures had better be second nature. Deeper than 185 takes you above 1.4 ata PO2, making oxygen toxicity a concern.”

-- PADI offers a class that allows students to go down to 165’ on air.

-- NAUI offers a course, which can take students to 180’ on air.

-- TDI offers a class that allows students to go down to 180’ on air.

-- ANDI has a class that allows the option to take students to 190’.

-- IANTD still offer classes that allow dives with END’s of 160’ in other countries.


Some of these links correspond directly with scientific studies showing that adaptation to narcosis doesn't happen. Other links point to narcosis effecting everbody whether they recognize it or not. This is about all I have on the subject. The evidence is all there that narcosis effects everyone on virtually every dive; adaptation to it doesn't happen per se; and helium mixes (and not diving deep on air) will fix it.

I should say that I, too, have done my share of deep air diving and never had a problem with narcosis -- nothing ever went wrong on those dives. I have also driven while intoxicated and never had a problem either. Everyone has to evaluate their own acceptable risk -- which is fine as far as I'm concerned.

My beef is with the agencies that instill a false sense of security in their students by allowing and teaching deep air dives. Anyone willing to make a fair assessment of the facts would acknowledge that these agencies are merely fooling their students into believing they can train for, and adapt to, narcosis reliably ("reliably" being the key word here). The evidence is out there, the agencies know it, and they don't care. They care more about supplying the demand than changing the attitude of the industry. By doing so, they are allowing safety to come in second place to profits. I can't respect that and therefore, I don't respect those agencies. GUE is the only "tech" organization (that I know of) that strongly opposes the use of deep air.

That's how I see it. Maybe I'm wrong, but it couldn't be more blatently obvious to me what's going on in this industry.

Mike
 
This is good stuff. Everybody is playing nicely and still getting their opinion across.

I see that both sides of the debate have provided strong evidence for their issues. Which leaves me with everybody needs to make his or her own final choice.

I believe that if one chooses air then one better get some training on it.

Maybe they will need to join the Navy because it seems everybody else is moving in the other direction.

You are right we all agree air at depth is hazardous but the debate is at what depth. Both sides again have done a good job of presenting their case. However there is still no clear winner.

I think we can set up poles on this site I am going to try.
My pole would be
How many dive deeper than or have an END 130 ft on air
How many here are GUE trained, believers, etc.
How many believe that anything with an END deeper than 100ft is crazy

The only reason I through in GUE is because so far the philosophy of this 100 barrier seems to be all from people who support this one agency. Again I go back to many old PADI arguments.
So it would be interesting to see a comparison, and to see just how many here are GUE philosophers.

I have been checking out what I could find on the web about them and so far I really like what I see. Yet they are sort of like born again Christians. It either my way or straight to hell. [Sorry to bring up religion, but it is the only other thing I have seen such strong convictions to]
 
Well, I'm checking out of this discussion.

So far all we have is AquaTec trying to moderate us like a babysitter moderates a roomful of two year olds hopped up on Coca-Cola, and blacknet trying his hardest to prove that the entire free world believes in something it quite obviously does not. Personally, I find AquaTec's lack of experience, combined with his desire to control the way I choose expresss myself, annoying as bloody hell. I find blacknet's lack of experience, combined with his inability to comprehend any argument complex enough to warrant a complete sentence, annoying as bloody hell.

The discussion is over. Deep air is bad. AquaTec, you can believe whatever you want. blacknet, you also can believe whatever you want. I'm rarely in the mood for "playing nice" in regard to a topic that is clear-cut and simply understood by anyone with more than four neurons.

- Warren
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/
http://cavediveflorida.com/Rum_House.htm

Back
Top Bottom