The normalization of dives to 100 meters and beyond

[TrimixToo]

Five page now... just curious how many people commenting here have ever even dove a hypoxic gas (OC or dil) and have even been past 70 or 80m?

I have, but not a lot of them. All on OC.

 

[sea_ledford]

The only place that I could see them having any interest at all in recreational tech diving would be in case of accidents or fatalities involving a Tech instructor while the instructor was conducting training dives for another entity (dive shop). They have covered this in 1910.401. Appendix C to Subpart T of Part 1910 -- Alternative Conditions Under § 1910.401(a)(3) for Recreational Diving Instructors and Diving Guides (Mandatory) has guidelines for use of rebreathers and other issues that apply to technical instructors.

Unfortunately, the OSHA compliant CCR doesn't exist, so any CCR instructors would have to be independent contractors so there isn't a employer-employee relationship.

OSHA requires:
eCCR only
Moisture monitors
Constant CO2 monitoring calibrated to within 10% of a CO2 concentration of 0.005 ATA or less
Duration based CO2 monitoring is acceptable but only under the EXACT conditions of the Mfg test (depth and temp)
Water temp and loop gas temp monitoring

 

[Schwob]

S...

My wife and I travel in the same car/plane/ship...as you and your wife as well...

But...I'll bet you and your wife do not attempt ''recreational'' dives in the neighbourhood of 1000 ft deep...

When safety stats for successful 1000 ft deep dives reach that of commercial air travel...maybe we could both try it...not holding my breath...how about you...

My skinny chicken bones shudder at the thought of that kind of task loading...

Best...

Warren

Yeah, I think we are on the same page, although I am not entirely sure how 330ft (OP's 100m) became 1000ft and I am definitely not qualified to talk about either of those depths. My (covert, implied by just citing an example) point here was to speak to normalization. When the kids were new & very young we actually booked a couple of separate flights. I was convinced we have to do that to assure the continued existance of the greatest thing in earth, our family. Well, back from new parenthood thinking to the real world, that got old quick. We experienced often enough that really nothing bad happens during flights and that that risk avoidance tactic and the extra effort that comes with it really seems to not be justified to us anymore and changed our stance. Even so, at first we were sure it had to be that way... We now are comfortable flying together. Normalization at work... (that was meat to be the point).

@rjack321 Thanks for your earlier reply. I wasn't thinking weight belt, but harness (forcibly due to my body shape) and it was a general question for understanding....
(Hey, I am even wonderimg why suits, dry or wet don't come with integrated weight pockets, but that really does not belong here) and no I never plan to ditch my not yet existing RB at that depth or half as much or ever. I appreciate the answer so. And while I generally think contingency planning needs to heavily include exactly all that's not planned but could become necessary, I take it from your reply that ditching you RB at that depth is a very moot consideration to begin with.
I also hope you didn't take my posts as posing with expertise on any such depth. I did not. I made a point not to and disclaimed properly... I think. It was not obvious to me, that the thread as posted by the OP should exclude my participation in terms of questions. My being here in this thread is reasoned in learning, not contributing, albeit I may have attempted to contributed on non depth related normalization. Old pet peeve as professionally and otherwise I see it happening everywhere and all the time.
Anyway, no further thread hijacking from me here. Still a good, interesting thread. Thanks for your insights / contributions.

 

[W W Meixner]

Yeah, I think we are on the same page, although I am not entirely sure how 330ft (OP's 100m) became 1000ft and I am definitely not qualified to talk about either of those depths. My (covert, implied by just citing an example) point here was to speak to normalization. When the kids were new & very young we actually booked a couple of separate flights. I was convinced we have to do that to assure the continued existance of the greatest thing in earth, our family. Well, back from new parenthood thinking to the real world, that got old quick. We experienced often enough that really nothing bad happens during flights and that that risk avoidance tactic and the extra effort that comes with it really seems to not be justified to us anymore and changed our stance. Even so, at first we were sure it had to be that way... We now are comfortable flying together. Normalization at work... (that was meat to be the point).

@rjack321 Thanks for your earlier reply. I wasn't thinking weight belt, but harness (forcibly due to my body shape) and it was a general question for understanding....
(Hey, I am even wonderimg why suits, dry or wet don't come with integrated weight pockets, but that really does not belong here) and no I never plan to ditch my not yet existing RB at that depth or half as much or ever. I appreciate the answer so. And while I generally think contingency planning needs to heavily include exactly all that's not planned but could become necessary, I take it from your reply that ditching you RB at that depth is a very moot consideration to begin with.
I also hope you didn't take my posts as posing with expertise on any such depth. I did not. I made a point not to and disclaimed properly... I think. It was not obvious to me, that the thread as posted by the OP should exclude my participation in terms of questions. My being here in this thread is reasoned in learning, not contributing, albeit I may have attempted to contributed on non depth related normalization. Old pet peeve as professionally and otherwise I see it happening everywhere and all the time.
Anyway, no further thread hijacking from me here. Still a good, interesting thread. Thanks for your insights / contributions.

S...

Sorry...you're right...between 100 m...and the 333 m failed record attempt...I got my posts confused...

As you stated...not going to either...I can't even dream that deep...

Tobermory next week for three days...if the weather co-operates...may get 40 m...

Best...

W...

 

[Dsix36]

First point of interest - If you have not done any of these deep dives, then you have no experience or knowledge of all the time in water doing work up dives to get to the level needed. These work up dives are generally filled with a lot of moments that cause you to pause and think though various scenarios. Things can and do happen even on the most beneigh dives that we can learn from if we remain open minded and willing to learn. Experience is a better teacher than anything else but not if you go too far and end up dead before you learn it. There is so much to consider when doing this deep diving stuff. It is more than mere physical abilities. There needs to be a rock solid metal preparedness without any room for second thoughts at all. The entire team must all work and train together and have a plan for any and all contingencies. Yes, even death must be planned for it you really want to do it right. You better be honest with yourself and others about every aspect of it too.

Second point of interest - Most people that have actually done deep dives like this are not very forthcoming with information. There is the simple reason of covering their arses in some instances. Most of the time it is merely because they do not wish to encourage or tempt others to do something that they know very well is a seriously dangerous activity. Beware of those who might be boastful about their deep dives and really steer clear of any chest thumpers. This is something that should never be tried just for bragging rights.

Third point of interest - Yes, I was foolish enough (and still am) to go deep enough to comment on this thread.

 

[cerich]

This thread was an offshoot of the reported fatality in Michigan where divers with no understanding of hypoxic gases were commenting about doing CESAs - even though the deceased were on CCR... Having training and experience in the hypoxic depth range is relevant since there is no such thing as a "generic" risk evaluation. If an AOW diver was talking about doing a 70m dive we'd all be pointing out he "doesn't know what he doesn't know" right? So what makes that same diver qualified to chime in about what actually is "safe" in a thread like this?

well, someone made the comment that a CESA would never work from that depth with no qualifications at all, it was blanket, those qualifiers were added after when it was pointed out.

I'm a Hypoxic Trimix Instructor Trainer and CCR diver/instr and SCR IT. I have in the range of 500 dives or so below 200fsw, a few dozen deeper than 300

 

[KevinNM]

Eagles Nest was a Cascade of mistakes that started before they entered the water. Support wouldn't have changed anything.

If you could elaborate on this that would be great.

 

[Dsix36]

If you could elaborate on this that would be great.

Being extremely familar with the location of this event and having had a "bad day" there once myself, I would venture to say that team structure was either not fully prepared mentally for such or that they lacked the proper prior experience at that location. Either one of these is enough that they never should have attempted their plan.

 

[kensuf]

I don't do these sorts of dives and I do recognize that you have firsthand expertise. Yet there have been fatal accidents that do not involve a high level of support -- no habitat, no dive team placing stages before or cleaning them up after. I would hold up as examples the double fatality at Eagles Nest about a year ago, and the recent double fatality in Lake Michigan. In each case, there was surface support in the form of other divers with emergency gas on hand, but nothing beyond that---no chamber aboard, no habitat, no bailout placed at depth beyond what the divers took with them, no communications. I think the track record of the WKPP and some other exploration oriented groups shows that it is possible to conduct dives to these depths safely. What I find troubling is that a buddy team -- whether husband and wife or two friends -- would undertake such dives with no more outside support than, say, a dive on the Spiegel Grove.

Part of the attraction of a rebreather is that it allows dives that were previously team dives (due to gas logistics) to be conducted by buddy pairs or solo divers.

Speaking as one of the guys that pulled the decedents out, the double fatality at EN had nothing to do with support for the dive and whether or not there was a chamber or habitat on site. I was also a very active member of the WKPP between 1995 and 2000 and there were dives that the WKPP accomplished during that time with minimal support, including a couple of world records (one of which still stands).

However, I agree with your thesis that some people are taking on dives that are beyond what the US Navy would call "Exceptional Exposure Decompression Dives" without fully appreciating the risks and magnitude.

 

[kensuf]

Support "could" have said " bad plan" or could be enablers...seen both over the years.

Regardless, the margin to deal with crap at 100 m is thin and technology has made dives that go right easy.

I'm gonna echo Chris and repeat this. Anyone that paid attention to Doc Deep and how that unfolded witnessed a support team that became a huge enabler for a foolhardy attempt.