Which Is Better

[Lost Yooper]

Rstone,

First of all, I don't believe that the fatality rate for recreational dives (less than 130') is 8%. I'd guess it's not even close to 8%. Recreational diving is safe so long as agencies don't pass students who shouldn't pass.

Secondly, the stat says that narcosis contributed to 8% of the total scuba diving fatilities, not just deep dives. It does NOT say that "diving deep has a 8% fatality rate" resulting from narcosis. It does NOT say 8% of the fatailites were deep dives. Of the 178 diving fatilities cited, how many of those do you think were 130'+ END dives? I'll bet not too many were since most scuba dives are under the 130' mark, and there's a lot of ways to die in the recreational depths.

IMO, this 8% (which I suspect is under estimated) of total diving fatalities can be significantly reduced if people were diving trimix. If the mentality of deep air was squashed immediately by the agencies, then this stat would certainly drop.

If you can think straight, you can solve problems -- it's that simple.

Mike

 

[ghof]

Hello all
It seems to me that the LY has a valid point. It would have been a simple matter for the Big training agencies to simply state that the maximum safe air depth is less than 130 feet with a 100 foot prefered maximum air depth. After that depth you need Trimix, period. This would have solved all the problems and made safer divers. The big agencies simply don't recognize the dangers of deep air and they should. This is what LY calls greed. Simple dives are not a problem but deep air deco dives are another matter and with narcosis a real concern the big agencies are toying with lives. WHY? Do the right thing . DIR !!!
GHOF

 

[Lost Yooper]

I found this article by this guy who sounds like a pretty high ranking guy in NAUI. I can find virtually nothing in his article that I disagree with. Heck, he could almost pass for a DIR advocate sometimes. He talks about how bad deep air is and the benefits of trimix, RGBM, team diving, gear familiarity, and dive planning. He doesn't address anything about the deep air courses offered by NAUI as shown on their web site.

I'm just curious if anyone knows this guy and has his contact information. If this guy was running the show over there in NAUI, it seems they would have a stand up organization.

Source:

http://www.naui.org/pdffiles/EvolutionToRevolution.pdf

Mike

PS. I triple checked the NAUI web site just to be triple sure they allow deep air, and it says they do down to 180'.

 

[Lost Yooper]

So here's a guy who is a VP in PADI and a part of their technical program talking about the dangers of deep air.

This is just plain crazy. He doesn't seem to know what he wants to say -- air past 130' is dangerous, but air past 185' is really, really dangerous? Maybe he's saying that air is OK to 185" so long as nothing goes wrong. :bonk:

Source:

http://www.skin-diver.com/departments/TotallyTech/FearandLoathing.asp?theID=1041

I'm getting this stuff right from the horses mouth everybody. Pay attention, because there could be more to come.

Mike

 

[rstone]

Originally posted by Karl Shreeves - VP, technical development for PADI and DSAT
Technical dives below 185 feet or below 130 for cave/complex dives require trimix (helium, nitrogen and oxygen) or heliox (helium and oxygen).

I dont know what article you read LY, but it wasnt the same one i did!

Karl states that 130 should be the max for REC limits, and that technical divers should limit there dives to 185ft. and that using air alone to 185ft is risky, however using nitrox reduced that risk. He also states that dives over 185 you could have problems with Oxygen toxicity and should be using one of the above gases.

Your quote of him LY is off, and misleading at best.

 

[roakey]

The more I look at this note, the more I realize that this deep air discussion is completely backwards.

I don’t think anyone will disagree in the existence of Nitrogen Narcosis, if so, step forward and we can discuss that first.

If not, then I think it’s up to the pro deep-air folks to step up and defend the practice.

And by the way, it would seem to me that it would be hypocritical to defend the practice unless you think that:

1) It’s OK to slam down a couple drinks of hard liquor and then go on a dive where the surface is well over 100 feet away (read: not readily accessible).

Or

2) It’s OK to slam down a couple drinks and do anything else complex and life threatening, like getting behind the wheel of a car.

I guess I just see deep-air as such a self-evidently bad idea, that the whole mindset of being asked “Show me why is it dangerous to be whacked out of my gourd at 160 feet.” just boggles my mind.

Boggled,

Roak

 

[Lost Yooper]

Rstone,

He didn't say that per se. He said that 130' should be the maximum for AIR for all COMPLEX dives. Everyone raise your hand if you can imagine a dive scenario that was supposed to be simple but turning "complex" without warning at 165'. He is saying that air is fine to 185' so long as you don't have to think when you're down there. Murphy's Law pokes holes all over this and anyone with common sense knows it.

Here's the quote:

"Technical dives below 185 feet or below 130 for cave/complex dives require trimix (helium, nitrogen and oxygen) or heliox (helium and oxygen)."

"Technical Diving
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. Cave diving accident analysis shows diving deeper than 130 on air as the primary source of narcosis and its hazards.
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."

This demonstrates the false sense of security I've been talking about when he says "emergency procedures had better be second nature" That stuff can go right out the window if stuff hits the fan. It doesn't take that many "variables" to get someone smoked down there at 165' on air. A false sense of security by giving their students the impression that because they've been trained by PADI for 165' on air that nothing will go wrong and therefore they are safe. What if....? And there's a lot of "what ifs" that can happen.

Do you think it's wise to prepare for the best case scenario on your dives? I think not. Why does PADI think so?

Mike

 

[syruss32]

I was trying to catch up on this thread but came to the conclusion that I don't have an hour to read the last 10 posts hehehehe.

I did see one that I don't totally agree with. The one that says deep diving classes offered by PADI and NAUI are not usefull and are just greed.

I have to dissagree. The reason is that there are many times that these depths are needed for one reason or another. Although I would say most of them are for commercial reasons such as oil rig repairs and such.

If NAUI and PADI didn't teach divers stuff like this in recreational diving who would then go on to become diving professionals needed to do this kind of work?

When someone applies for a job as a rig diver or whatever they call it, having that training and logged dives for experience to back it up could be what gets you that job that pays in the 6 figures. I met a guy while diving who does that very job and he has 5500 logged dives in his 35 years of diving with the last 30 of that on oil rigs doing repairs and such. He regulary goes to depths well in excess of the deep dive cert and only training has gotten him there.

I think that training needs to start at the recreational/beginning professional level and go upward from there.

Now this is not to say I think everyone should just go out and say I wanna dive 165. (I Think there is a parody here NetDoc) But if I was thinking of going pro and becoming a commercial dier I would first want to have some experience at those depths. I would want to learn more about the effects of nitrogen narcosis and be able to better save myself from DCS.

If no one taught it....where would you learn it?

 

[Lost Yooper]

Syruss32,

Commercial divers have know for decades that deep air foolish, and helium is much gentler on their bodies and easier to decompress from than nitrogen.

Trust me, deep air is not the norm for deep commercial divers who need their brains to function down there.

Mike

 

[syruss32]

Originally posted by Lost Yooper
Syruss32,

Commercial divers have know for decades that deep air foolish, and helium is much gentler on their bodies and easier to decompress from than nitrogen.

Trust me, deep air is not the norm for deep commercial divers who need their brains to function down there.

Mike

True, but they need to start somewhere! That is really what the summation of my post was.