CAPTAIN SINBAD
Contributor
UTD uses average depth to calculate the entire decompression profile. Everything is based on average depth and mixed gases.
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
DSAT is not a GF model.Which gradient factor is this? I am unaware of PADI or DSAT but Minimum Decompression Limits tend to fall into Buhlman 30/70 ish.
DSAT is not a GF model.
How did you arrive at this conclusion pls, obvious signs of stress, Doppler etc?
Also any difference in thinking depending on profile, so 4 hours could accumulate over a really long dive at shallowish depth, versus a deep "bounce"?
We all know the drawbacks of using tables and max depth only.My view of tables and actual depth comes from pre-computer days diving in Chicago, New England, Europe, using many kinds of tables. ALL of which clearly specify actual depth, not some sort of average depth.
So you disagree with Navy, NAUI, PADI, DCIEM, BSAC, and the Buhlman deco tables, all of which use max depth, not average depth?Avg depth works just fine for calculating your deco.
Can you show one of the tables?UTD uses average depth to calculate the entire decompression profile. Everything is based on average depth and mixed gases.
Tables are an extremely simplified representation of reality. All tables I've seen assume a square profile, which, IME, is pretty far from reality (unless you go on a boat dive on a wreck or a flat reef, which I personally have almost never done. In that case, when depth changes are nearly insignificant, average depth might be a relevant parameter).Can you show one of the tables?
Can you show one of the tables?