MikeFerrara:
The class deals with diving down to 120 ft. I don't know that they are suggesting the 60 ft dives should always be done with triox. Helium is just a tool that they're introducing to be applied to diving down to 120 ft.
.
Mike,
I've snipped the rest of your post in the interest of brievity. I'll make a few additional comments on this issue, but I'd prefer to leave Genesis alone on this issue. I've tried to explain our position to him on numerous occassions, JJ attempted to explain it to him, and at some point it falls into the catagory of let's agree to disagree.
1) The class covers a range of depths. In the shallowest possible dives you're talking about a 70' dive using a 32% Nitrox. Does anyone believe that a set of doubles is required for that dive?? If not, then the rest of the discussion is quarreling over semantics and I'm not interested in getting into that game. Once you determine that a 70' dive using 32% Nitrox doesn't need doubles, then how can you write a standard that requires doubles??
2) No other agency in the entire world requires the use of doubles for dives in the 120' range..
3) As anyone who has studied the issue well knows there is a correlation between gas density and C02 buildup and narcosis. C02 is approximately 130 times more narcotic; the density of the gas is nearly double when comparing He and N2. Accordingly, given that there is a correlation and a well established relationship between C02, narcosis, gas density and depth I don't buy the argument(s) that are being put forward that you are more dangerous in case you have to do a CESA..Who's more likely to need a CESA ?? 1) A diver diving within the ethos of a unified team, using a narcotic reducing gas, using proper gas management or a diver diving deep on air absent a buddy??? The point is that many apply the wrong solution to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.. You don't use a band-aid for surgery, so some that are trying to apply their logic and reason to our way of diving are only partially seeing the picture, which is why it doesn't make sense to them..
4) The CESA argument so squarely misses the point of what we are trying to teach that it's almost beyond the scope of analysis. We teach diving within the ethos of a unified team. We teach gas management protocols called rock bottom and frankly we teach that the dives covered within the scope of this class vary between ranges where single tanks may be more appropriate and where doubles are the more prudent course of action. What we didn't want to do was follow the industry lead and sell one class for Nitrox using 32% and single tanks and then sell another class teaching "helium" and then doubles. That is specifically the pattern that the industry has fallen into that we want to avoid.. We believe diver's are way smarter then that and we believe that they are capable of understanding, when explained properly, where in certain cases you may use a single and where in other cases doubles are more appropriate. It doesn't take 4 classes like IANTD that sells you one class to use Nitrox up to 40%, then sells you another class using Nitrox from 41%-50% and then yet a third class that uses Nitrox from 51% - 100% and then finally a normoxic Triox class.. That business model is antiquated and outdated and we chose not to follow it. If some can't see the forrest from the tress then GUE training probably isn't for them and I'll not waste time arguing with some that want to just debate in cyberspace..
Anyway, Mike I'm confident you see most of this, but I have made a choice to avoid exchanging public posts on this subject with Genesis because my sense is that he doesn't want closure, he wants issues to publicly posture. I can be reached at
mhk@gue.com if anyone wants additional information, Genesis included..
Regards
