Divers claiming that those using PDCs are "blindly" following them, are also "blindly" following their plan. You might have one or two deviations from the plan figured out ahead of time, but you're still blindly following your watch, your depth and your schedule. Moreover, your schedule was calculated by a computer, so what's the real difference? Oh, you guys found a reason to act superior.
Let me say I think you're perfectly correct to address any claim that using a computer EQUALS blindly following said computer - I don't think that's true either.
But I think there's an element, with either method, of developing with whichever method one might use, and adapting with it.
I also think I've seen a lot of divers thoughtlessly following a PDC, and I appreciate that RD is one good way to address
that issue.
Probably, you've found other good ways to do that, and I don't have a problem with that.
I don't really recognize what you mean with your argument that I/we/they are blindly following their watch, depth and schedule.
Regardless, as for the predictive nature of RD, I think it's an understatement to say "might have one or two deviations from the plan figured out ahead of time". But, in either case, it's all just a list of pro's and con's, and I don't think there's a claim to superiority in making that choice.
But, on the note of claims to superiority:
It should be noted for the record in case anyone reads this and naively thinks that you're speaking the truth, that ratio deco is NOT an effective tool if you consider "effective" to mean that it gives you the optimum chance of avoiding DCS.
Perhaps you have a different definition of "effective" but to me if we're talking about deco algorithms then what other measure of "effective" could we possibly be talking about?
That's a bit harsh, but allright - to answer your question, you're basically saying that ALL strategies and algorithms except whichever one is optimal, are ineffective.
Seeing it as neither you nor in fact anyone else knows which one is optimal, "effective", by the logic employed in the quote above, can't be aptly used about
any strategy or algorithm to describe the efficiency of the physiological decompression process under it's use.
I would disagree with that logic, as well as the premise.
First, there is a wide range of algorithms and strategies that can be called "effective", albeit some (slightly?) more so than others.
Second, "effective" stands also in conjunction with attributes of a purely practical nature, for instance in terms of dive planning.
I'll disambiguate:
The deep stop emphasis of the standard RD1.0-framework (absent of personal adaptations), was (I dare say with some confidence) not "optimal" in terms of physiological decompression, but "efficient" - in either case,
certainly practical.
Other algorithms have been verified (including by AG himself in his botched attempt to "prove" the superiority of RD) to be more "effective" at protecting the diver from DCS.
Diving with a computer is not only more convenient but it is also safer than ratio deco. I think we need to make that clear.
I fully understand that you choose to use it because you have "faith" in ratio deco despite the facts (my point about paradigm lock and religion above) and I'm happy to "dive and let dive" when it concerns a diver of your experience who makes a choice. However, less experienced divers will be reading this thread and they need to be made aware that what you are saying here is misleading if we accept that the word "effective" means "effective at protecting the diver from DCS".
R..
Well, this
is in the "Advanced Scuba Discussions"-section, so I'm confident that we won't need to align the content of our conversation to facilitate inexperienced divers. That in mind;
What is your scientific reference to support your apparent position that Ratio Deco does not protect the diver from DCS?
(please correct me if I'm interpreting your position on the matter incorrectly).
In any case:
First, I'll reiterate that there is a difference across "efficient" and "optimal", and further that "optimal" is unknown/unproven, and in either case almost certainly subject to individual differences from diver to diver, and from dive to dive.
Second, you have nothing to support your apparent position that choosing Ratio Deco must be a matter of "faith", "paradigm lock", "religion" or anything of the sort. You can opt for imperfect from one perspective but efficient and practical from another, purely pragmatic, point of view.
Third, Ratio Deco is explicitly intended for personal adaptation - for instance to accomodate scientific findings or individual differences.
Fourth, if I had claimed that RD was scientifically proven to be "optimal" in terms of physiological decompression processes, I could understand your reaction. But I haven't - nor have I even made a comparison.
[EDIT]
My position on the bottom timer/computer-question is on just that - it may make some sense to disambiguate it from a(nother) discussion on deep stops;
I.e. it would be perfectly possible to whack the logics/rules of the formal, standard RD-framework into a computer, in which case I would still prefer the bottom timer, and further, it is perfectly possible to individually adapt/change the deep stop emphasis within the RD-framework.
