 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / March 2010500 psi at the boat and the 130' limit.
I know it's been discussed before. But I'm getting into a discussion on another forum with some one about the history of those limits. And whether or not they are arbitrary or not. And if they have any real basis as being safer than say any other number. So anybody care to refresh my memory on the history of those numbers? > I know it's been discussed before. But I'm getting into a discussion > on another forum with some one about the history of those limits. And > whether or not they are arbitrary or not. And if they have any real > basis as being safer than say any other number. > > So anybody care to refresh my memory on the history of those numbers? My opinion: 500 PSI is about 350 PSI usable before breathing gets harder, depending on the regulator in use. 350 PSI is about 12% of a tank of air in an 3000 PSI tank, a bit over 8 cubic feet for an AL80. As margins go, 8 CF is a bit thin at 130' (let's say a bit over a minute of moderate exercise), but it beats "nothing" by a mile and it would probably be hard to talk recreational divers using singles into greater margins. I'd rather be more conservative, personally, but I also carry a lot more gas than the average recreational diver and I don't dive singles without a 20 CF pony. Pretty significant narcosis sets in around 140' on air or Nitrox, at least for me on most days. At least some of the agencies that certify for Trimix recommend an equivalent narcotic depth of 100' on deep dives. I'd prefer to limit depth for air or Nitrox to about 150', but if the dive is complex or long I'd want Trimix or to stay shallower. Another way to look at this (thanks, Popeye, for your "where are the bodies?" post a year or two ago) is to observe that those who obey these limits don't seem to die very often. There is a pretty broad body of experience that say these rules are "conservative enough," in other words, in light of current training standards and diving with a buddy. So while these margins make me nervous for the average recreational diver who dives once or twice a year, they seem to be working reasonably well. YMMV...  SignatureJohn Eells >> I know it's been discussed before. But I'm getting into a discussion >> on another forum with some one about the history of those limits. And >> whether or not they are arbitrary or not. And if they have any real >> basis as being safer than say any other number. >> >> So anybody care to refresh my memory on the history of those numbers? IIRC, there's a gear related military history significance about the 130 ft mark- something about older regs' breathing characteristics going to crap at that depths, and it just became an arbitrary rule-of-thumb. ESG will be along to explain that coherently. > My opinion: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it beats "nothing" by a mile and it would probably be hard to talk > recreational divers using singles into greater margins. I think that's true. They gotta set a limit (for me to ignore) somewhere, and 750 or a grand would be too much. > I'd rather be more conservative, personally, but I also carry a lot more > gas than the average recreational diver and I don't dive singles without a > 20 CF pony. > Pretty significant narcosis sets in around 140' on air or Nitrox, at least > for me on most days. At least some of the agencies that certify for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Another way to look at this (thanks, Popeye, for your "where are the > bodies?" post a year or two ago) I've put that paradigm to many good uses. :-) > is to observe that those who obey these limits don't seem to die very > often. There is a pretty broad body of experience that say these rules > are "conservative enough," in other words, in light of current training > standards and diving with a buddy. So while these margins make me nervous > for the average recreational diver who dives once or twice a year, they > seem to be working reasonably well. YMMV... Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye8...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I know it's been discussed before. But I'm getting into a discussion > >> on another forum with some one about the history of those limits. And [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mark- something about older regs' breathing characteristics going to crap at > that depths, and it just became an arbitrary rule-of-thumb. Agreed. In part because early regs weren't balanced. And what's also important to note is that the mathematics by which 130fsw also works out to be 1 ATM PPO2 was revisionist bullshit that came much much later as an attempted "justification" of the 130fsw value by the Recreational Agencies. > ESG will be along to explain that coherently. With pictures with diagrams and circles and dates. > > My opinion: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > They gotta set a limit (for me to ignore) somewhere, and 750 or a grand > would be too much. In the early days, we also didn't have 3000psi tanks - a full steel was ~2200 (if no plus rating). As such, a 1000psi rule would have been half the tank. Similarly, the lack of an SPG made the J valve ... and its spring setting .. your reserve. Given that unbalanced regulators tend to breathe like crap below ~250psi, a setting of 500psi for the J valve would give you a warning starting at around 750, whereupon its release would give you "enough" time to get up from ~100fsw. Naturally, there's also stories of divers who accidentally tripped their J and while still deep, sucked it dry, flipped, and then got a surprise of no reserve. -hh > Similarly, the lack of an SPG made the J valve ... and its spring > setting .. your reserve. Given that unbalanced regulators tend to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > their J and while still deep, sucked it dry, flipped, and then got a > surprise of no reserve. It seems (to me) that it would be simple enough to add a mechanical device to the first reg. that "pings" (plonks, thuds, whatever) when a certain pressure is reached without otherwise being part of the airflow control. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >> Similarly, the lack of an SPG made the J valve ... and its spring >> setting .. your reserve. Given that unbalanced regulators tend to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >certain pressure is reached without otherwise being part of the airflow >control. I would think that they could invent a pressure gauge that could fairly accurately tell you the amount of air left in your tank. One that is submersible and could be put on a high pressure hose and clipped off to your left side D ring. >>> Similarly, the lack of an SPG made the J valve ... and its spring >>> setting .. your reserve. Given that unbalanced regulators tend to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that is submersible and could be put on a high pressure hose and > clipped off to your left side D ring. Almost amusing. However, the point being the saving of human lives despite the very high inventory of same at present, redundant safety warnings are not contraindicated. Especially if same are simply mechanical devices that are fail passive and do not depend on electronics or visuals. The J system seems to have been a first attempt at such warning, though with drawbacks. The K or DIN system could easily have such a device added into any of the medium pressure lines without it otherwise interfering with operation. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >>>> Similarly, the lack of an SPG made the J valve ... and its spring >>>> setting .. your reserve. Given that unbalanced regulators tend to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >contraindicated. Especially if same are simply mechanical devices that >are fail passive and do not depend on electronics or visuals. If you're too incompetent to look at your SPG or to not know what your SAC/DCR is, you're probably going to die from something else while diving. >The J system seems to have been a first attempt at such warning, though >with drawbacks. The K or DIN system could easily have such a device >added into any of the medium pressure lines without it otherwise >interfering with operation. Why complicate things with more stuff? Or add another failure point? >>>>> Similarly, the lack of an SPG made the J valve ... and its spring >>>>> setting .. your reserve. Given that unbalanced regulators tend to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > SAC/DCR is, you're probably going to die from something else while > diving. I had added that in most environments where dependence on something is important to safety, that redundant indicators and backup alarms are often added. Aviation comes to mind. There are fuel guages. And there are low fuel warnings. There are all manner of engine state gauges. And there are over limit warnings (sometimes to several layers, eg: blinking lights AND alarms). There are altimeters and radar altimeters. The later has both blinking lights and alarms to warn the pilot. And so on and so forth. I would hardly call any air transport pilot incompetent unless he proved himself to be so. But I had deleted that all that. So, I'm adding it again. It's so easy when diving to be enthralled at the diving and not check the gauge. Certainly I didn't check it much on my first few dives until it became a habit. But habits have a habit of being broken unless of course they're bad habits. >> The J system seems to have been a first attempt at such warning, though >> with drawbacks. The K or DIN system could easily have such a device >> added into any of the medium pressure lines without it otherwise >> interfering with operation. > > Why complicate things with more stuff? Or add another failure point? So what if it fails if it's passive and fails passive? Most of the time it will not fail. And possibly save a life - or least reduce incidences of 0 press bottles being returned to the dive center. Certainly such is less likely to fail than the computers people use to watch their air (and then they have the backup of the gauges - oh! a backup! Who'd have thought! On that note, one computer equipped diver was PO'd to note that his computer didn't register the start time of the dive ... ) Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >>>>>> Similarly, the lack of an SPG made the J valve ... and its spring >>>>>> setting .. your reserve. Given that unbalanced regulators tend to [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >important to safety, that redundant indicators and backup alarms are >often added. If you're too incompetent to look at your SPG or to not know what your SAC/DCR is, you're probably going to die from something else while diving. >Aviation comes to mind. There are fuel guages. And there are low fuel >warnings. There are all manner of engine state gauges. And there are >over limit warnings (sometimes to several layers, eg: blinking lights >AND alarms). There are altimeters and radar altimeters. The later has >both blinking lights and alarms to warn the pilot. And so on and so forth. Well, in diving, you don't have an engine except your own body. I suppose you could put a heart monitor on you as well as a respiration monitor. Perhaps they could invent an underwater GPS too just like pilots have. You wouldn't need cave line then in an overhead environment. Oh wait... You'll find that the more advanced and experienced you become, the more you'll want to keep things simple. >I would hardly call any air transport pilot incompetent unless he proved >himself to be so. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >it became a habit. But habits have a habit of being broken unless of >course they're bad habits. If you're too incompetent to look at your SPG or to not know what your SAC/DCR is, you're probably going to die from something else while diving. >>> The J system seems to have been a first attempt at such warning, though >>> with drawbacks. The K or DIN system could easily have such a device [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >So what if it fails if it's passive and fails passive? How would you make a passive system that tells you that you're low on air? Please explain. >Most of the time it will not fail. And possibly save a life - or least >reduce incidences of 0 press bottles being returned to the dive center. I own all my own tanks. All 10 of them. >Certainly such is less likely to fail than the computers people use to >watch their air (and then they have the backup of the gauges - oh! a >backup! Who'd have thought! On that note, one computer equipped diver >was PO'd to note that his computer didn't register the start time of the >dive ... ) I would never have a computer that has a pressure sensor (I don't trust them and my current VR3 doesn't have one nor could ever see one made that would sense all 10 different gases that it currently can run in your profile. I use 4 different gases on my deeper dives). I did all my tech training with a computer that was worthless for the mixes I use (it was used as a back up for my bottom timer). I dived with my bottom timer, tables and my SPG and that got me through Advanced Trimix using a travel gas and two deco gases as well as my back gas. > >>>> I would think that they could invent a pressure gauge that could > >>>> fairly accurately tell you the amount of air left in your tank. One > >>>> that is submersible and could be put on a high pressure hose and > >>>> clipped off to your left side D ring. Obviously they need to invent a brain that will not forget to look at it ;-) Or invent scuba education that..... > Well, in diving, you don't have an engine except your own body. I > suppose you could put a heart monitor on you as well as a respiration > monitor. See! That's what I like about my Draeger Dolphin. With it's back mounted counterlungs, I can sense them expanding and collapsing, so I can always monitor that I am breathing. Ain't life simple! > If you're too incompetent to look at your SPG or to not know what your > SAC/DCR is, you're probably going to die from something else while > diving. With his amount of posting, I doubt that he will stay long enough in the water ;-) regards, Matthias <snip> > I had added that in most environments where dependence on something is > important to safety, that redundant indicators and backup alarms are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I would hardly call any air transport pilot incompetent unless he proved > himself to be so. What you're describing would be more appropriate for a submarine. Think "hang glider" or "ultralight." Most general aviation airplanes have no double-redundant instruments except VORTAC receivers and radios. There are instrument combinations in a standard stack that allow partial panel flight under IFR but that's about it. Some general aviation pilots have trouble keeping the wings level without a functional attitude indicator under VFR with good visibility. Most learn they can use the horizon for reference without one. Think of diving that way. You need to find the things that let you use appropriate visual and knowledge-based references without over-reliance on instrumentation. Even someone without an ATP endorsement can keep the wings level without *anything* working on the panel, guess at airspeeds from the pitch angle, and approximate TPA well from experience. > But I had deleted that all that. So, I'm adding it again. > > It's so easy when diving to be enthralled at the diving and not check > the gauge. Certainly I didn't check it much on my first few dives until > it became a habit. But habits have a habit of being broken unless of > course they're bad habits. This is an exceptionally bad habit to have as a diver, just as failure to plan and pay attention to fuel is an exceptionally bad habit for a pilot. Nonetheless, the top reason for general aviation accidents remains, for lo! these many years, running out of gas while aloft. Go figure. The gauge is your friend. Read it often, no matter what. >>> The J system seems to have been a first attempt at such warning, though >>> with drawbacks. The K or DIN system could easily have such a device [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Most of the time it will not fail. And possibly save a life - or least > reduce incidences of 0 press bottles being returned to the dive center. I don't know how to make any device fail passively under all circumstances. It will require seals to be able to be manufactured and serviced. Seals fail. Having more of them is intrinsically bad. > Certainly such is less likely to fail than the computers people use to > watch their air (and then they have the backup of the gauges - oh! a > backup! Who'd have thought! On that note, one computer equipped diver > was PO'd to note that his computer didn't register the start time of the > dive ... ) The number of computer failures (1) and the number of regulator failures (2, 1 catastrophic) I have seen underwater so far argues against this logic. SignatureJohn Eells > <snip> >> I had added that in most environments where dependence on something is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > are instrument combinations in a standard stack that allow partial panel > flight under IFR but that's about it. See below regarding partial panel on VFR aircraft. > Some general aviation pilots have trouble keeping the wings level > without a functional attitude indicator under VFR with good visibility. > Most learn they can use the horizon for reference without one. Think of That's actually the sole way VFR flying is supposed to be taught. However in the US there is a tendency to teach reliance on the AH for VFR flight. In part this is due to the high haze levels in some areas (NE US, California, etc.). > diving that way. You need to find the things that let you use > appropriate visual and knowledge-based references without over-reliance > on instrumentation. Even someone without an ATP endorsement can keep the > wings level without *anything* working on the panel, guess at airspeeds > from the pitch angle, and approximate TPA well from experience. On partial panel. I used to teach instrument flying. Even on the most basic C-152 or 172 (factory equipped for VFR flight and optionally IFR) there is instrument redundancy. A failed AH can is easily replaced with attention to the T&B + airspeed. Failed HDG? You have the mag compass + T&B. etc. These are all operated on segregated power sources and types (vacuum, electric and pitot/static). Similar variants are on other co. aircraft. However, without partial panel training, it is not so easy. This is the first part of night VFR training, by the way. (One of the Kennedy's refers - and he probably had a perfectly functioning set of instruments.) (And by the way, the reason you have two VOR receivers (no TACAN receiver in most civil aircraft) is to make it more convenient to identify intersection crossings in IFR. IFR flight does not require 2 VOR receivers. Nice to have to be sure, esp. with a DME of course. You can legally file for IFR with surprising little equipment, actually, but that just increases the workload leading to fatigue, confusion and mistakes. >> But I had deleted that all that. So, I'm adding it again. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > remains, for lo! these many years, running out of gas while aloft. Go > figure. The gauge is your friend. Read it often, no matter what. I get it. In fact I got it. But, given the environment and that the primary source of life is air, it seems like a small enough addition to warrant the extra warning when air is dropping. The sole downside I would see to it is perhaps reliance on it as a "time to surface" bell. >>>> The J system seems to have been a first attempt at such warning, though >>>> with drawbacks. The K or DIN system could easily have such a device [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > circumstances. It will require seals to be able to be manufactured and > serviced. Seals fail. Having more of them is intrinsically bad. The device would be removable in the same way as a transmitter. Why a seal there would need more than an annual replacement is beyond me. The part I would see failing is the popper. And in failing it would not get into the air path. That would be the design goal. (eg: the orifice from the pressure side to the device would be tiny since there is no flow. So no failed parts from the device would be able to get out). >> Certainly such is less likely to fail than the computers people use to >> watch their air (and then they have the backup of the gauges - oh! a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (2, 1 catastrophic) I have seen underwater so far argues against this > logic. Which means little to the guy who completely forgets 'cause he's low man on the group and doesn't realize he's sucking air while trying to do what the others are doing. And gee he brought a camera for the first time and is getting too involved with that... a little ping noise should bring him back to the one true question pretty quick. I get the feeling the resistance here is based on established convention rather than seeing the value in this. On the other hand gadgetry like computers (including transmitters) are accepted and needed and cause long discussions about what they're really saying. Talk about complexity. Enough said, Newbie. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >> <snip> >>> I had added that in most environments where dependence on something is [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > VFR flight. In part this is due to the high haze levels in some areas > (NE US, California, etc.). It's not *that* hazy here in the NE where I learned to fly even during most of the summer. >> diving that way. You need to find the things that let you use >> appropriate visual and knowledge-based references without over-reliance [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > These are all operated on segregated power sources and types (vacuum, > electric and pitot/static). Similar variants are on other co. aircraft. I'm not a CFII, but as it happens I knew that. Diving is similar in this regard, actually. If your SPG is stuck or your transmitter broken you still have a watch and knowledge of your SAC rate to tell you, with a bit of calculation, how much gas you probably have left. You'll abort anyway, of course, but it's not as scary as wondering when the gas will run out. I am certainly not trying to argue with you about flying, an area in which as a CFII you are far more qualified than I, with my mere (and very dusty) SEL license. > However, without partial panel training, it is not so easy. This is the > first part of night VFR training, by the way. > > (One of the Kennedy's refers - and he probably had a perfectly > functioning set of instruments.) Yup. > (And by the way, the reason you have two VOR receivers (no TACAN > receiver in most civil aircraft) is to make it more convenient to > identify intersection crossings in IFR. IFR flight does not require 2 > VOR receivers. Nice to have to be sure, esp. with a DME of course. DMEs are indeed very nice. GPSs are nicer, though (grin). I had a full radio stack failure on my first solo cross-country. But I still had a sectional, a compass, eyes, and an instructor who drilled into me that "things break." It was trivially easy to navigate without the electronics. > You can legally file for IFR with surprising little equipment, actually, > but that just increases the workload leading to fatigue, confusion and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The sole downside I would see to it is perhaps reliance on it as a "time > to surface" bell. The other downside is that as your SAC rate decreases and you go deeper, gas won't be the limiting factor in many of your dives. The no-deco limit (NDL) will. Also, if you have a buddy that whose SAC rate is greater than your own, your low-on-gas warning device will not tell him or you about his gas status. My computers (both of them) beep when I approach or exceed the NDL and when I exceed 130'. Most of the time I don't hear them over normal breathing noise, but I always know within a minute or two when my turn time is coming up and what my pressure is within 100 PSI or so. These are part of my scan just as glances at the altimeter and airspeed are part of a pilot's. >>>>> The J system seems to have been a first attempt at such warning, >>>>> though [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > from the pressure side to the device would be tiny since there is no > flow. So no failed parts from the device would be able to get out). If it's removable, the seal between the device and the reg can fail, and sometimes will, no matter what's inside it. The device, whatever it is, will either be more massive than the plug it replaces, adding stress to the seal or worse, will be in between the first stage and the existing HP hose or transmitter, adding another seal to the system. If we want to have this sort of device then it should be internal to the first stage without adding any points of reg failure including external HP seals. I would not let such an internal fail-safe device deter me from buying a reg but I still wouldn't bolt anything extra on. >>> Certainly such is less likely to fail than the computers people use to >>> watch their air (and then they have the backup of the gauges - oh! a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > time and is getting too involved with that... a little ping noise should > bring him back to the one true question pretty quick. If he hears it, it will perhaps make up for this aspect of his lack of situational awareness. But like those Colgan Air pilots, if you accept the NTSB's conclusions, perhaps that won't be enough (they pulled up when the yoke shaker came on). A warning device is only as good as the diver's reaction to it, and I'll argue that not having sufficient situational awareness in the water to develop a habitual scan that includes one's air status is inherently dangerous in more ways than just this one. You need to be "ahead of the dive" just as you need to be "ahead of the airplane." > I get the feeling the resistance here is based on established convention > rather than seeing the value in this. On the other hand gadgetry like > computers (including transmitters) are accepted and needed and cause > long discussions about what they're really saying. I *do* see the value in warning devices. Honest! I also see the risks of adding them to certain systems and of over-reliance on them. It's the balance between them that matters. If we evaluate and balance the risks and can show that we are statistically better off with the device you propose then I'm all for it. Put one inside my next new reg! But for the example you chose, not everyone accepts transmitters because the risk/benefit equation for them does not work them in all environments. They fail more, and in more ways (e.g., loss of communication, leak due to damage incurred when the thing takes a solid bump from something overhead), than a simple SPG. And many of us dive with either a second computer or knowledge of depth and time and limits to back up the first computer. (I know one exceptionally unlucky diver who seems to have one computer fail a year whether he needs it to or not. It's often the communication between his transmitter and computer that fails.) Having said all that, for open water diving the benefits of transmitters (consolidated information, shorter scan, etc.) can outweigh the slight risks. But I rarely see wreck or cave divers using one, even in open water. > Talk about complexity. I am not anti-complexity. As other posters to this forum do, I jump in the water with a fairly complex system that has many more points of failure than you have diving with a single, but which also offers redundancy for most of them. It's unnecessary complexity in my primary life support system I am wary of, even though I dive with at least two of them (not counting travel and deco regs) virtually all the time. > Enough said, Well, maybe (grin). > Newbie. SignatureJohn Eells <snip> > However, the point being the saving of human lives despite the very high > inventory of same at present, redundant safety warnings are not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > added into any of the medium pressure lines without it otherwise > interfering with operation. Complexity is often the enemy. I want a bare minimum of stuff between me and my breathing gas, and a bare minimum of ways that gas can be put at risk. I am likely to take a dim view of anything that increases the complexity of my life support system unless there is a clearly demonstrable and substantial countervailing safety advantage. If I plan my dive and dive my plan and keep an eye on my pressure gauge, such warning devices are superfluous and only add complexity and additional risk of failure in my view. Also, an intermediate pressure line warning would not be effective, as it would warn you far too late. By the time tank pressure drops to IP, you're about to suck hard for a few breaths before there is nothing left... SignatureJohn Eells > <snip> >> However, the point being the saving of human lives despite the very [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > warning devices are superfluous and only add complexity and additional > risk of failure in my view. I hate to sound argumentative, but such a device could easily be passive in operation and fail passive as well. At worst (in fail) it would not make the noise when the set pressure occurred. Tt would just be a few ounces more mass on the system, out of the way, behind your head. > Also, an intermediate pressure line warning would not be effective, as > it would warn you far too late. By the time tank pressure drops to IP, > you're about to suck hard for a few breaths before there is nothing left... If the guage works down to near 0, then a device on that same line (between the first reg and the gauge hose for example), can certainly be made to "pop" at, for example, 600 or 800 psi. Long before the air runs out. And for that matter remain passive and fail passive wrt to the whole air system. Think of a transmitter for an integrated computer. It cannot block airflow. It can fail and still not block airflow. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >> <snip> >>> However, the point being the saving of human lives despite the very [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > make the noise when the set pressure occurred. Tt would just be a few > ounces more mass on the system, out of the way, behind your head. Nor am I. I'm just trying to make you understand. The choices are all yours. It's not the idea of a warning device I object to. It's the practical application of same. >> Also, an intermediate pressure line warning would not be effective, as >> it would warn you far too late. By the time tank pressure drops to IP, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > whole air system. Think of a transmitter for an integrated computer. It > cannot block airflow. It can fail and still not block airflow. It can also fail by being broken off at the first stage, causing a fairly significant (but not instantly catastrophic) leak. It's surprisingly easy to bump the overhead in a wreck, or under a ledge. That vulnerability and the additional complexity of such a system vs. a gauge on an HP hose are the reasons I did not buy an air integrated computer. SignatureJohn Eells > It can also fail by being broken off at the first stage, causing a > fairly significant (but not instantly catastrophic) leak. It's > surprisingly easy to bump the overhead in a wreck, or under a ledge. > That vulnerability and the additional complexity of such a system vs. a > gauge on an HP hose are the reasons I did not buy an air integrated > computer. But HP hoses can likewise be bumped. Even worse, they can be cut or they can rupture. And they are an extra entanglement hazard, even when routed and clipped off. And that gauge part is much more liable to get damaged, even properly clipped off, then the little watch around my wrist (unless I'm banging around in a hole trying to catch a lobster). And that extra hose and its attached gauge aren't as streamlined, whatever that's worth. All of those disadvantages and failures points are the reasons I did not buy a HP hose and gauges. >> It can also fail by being broken off at the first stage, causing a >> fairly significant (but not instantly catastrophic) leak. It's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > All of those disadvantages and failures points are the reasons I did > not buy a HP hose and gauges. Nonetheless, I have yet to see an HP hose or gauge failure that required a dive to be aborted. HP hoses are pretty tough. My SPG's case is 2" of solid metal about 1/2" thick with a slightly recessed glass face. It's not in a bulky console, and it's pretty hard to hurt it badly enough to make it leak air. Also, the moment arm on the fitting at the end of an HP hose is a lot shorter than the one presented by a typical transmitter, and the hose material itself softens the blow, reducing stress on the fittings. I have seen transmitter link failures, though I have not personally seen one broken, or broken off. Since I have no electronic remote connection, though, it can't fail. Since the gauge is mechanical, the batteries cannot go dead. It just works. I've also seen a couple of LP hose failures as well as both HP (not HP hose or SPG) and IP O-ring failures. One of the HP O-ring failures, the seal between the DIN fitting and the first stage, made a pretty spectacular frothing area at least 30' across on the surface, and in the resulting emergency one diver missed 12 minutes of deco (and was OK) and the diver's buddy finished deco without a mask by counting the seconds and guessing at depth changes using his hand widths on the up line. Seeing these things has made me very wary of delicate things and additional points of failure. All anecdotal, I'll grant you. Anyone have a better sense of the relative failure rates for these components? Maybe what I've seen hasn't been typical. Last, I'll submit that the SPG on an HP hose is no more an entanglement hazard than an octo. In fact, since the SPG is a lot smaller than a second stage, I'd argue it's a smaller hazard, particularly when clipped off. As I said before, for open water diving within recreational limits, the operational simplicity of an air integrated computer might well outweigh the disadvantages I perceive for their use in real or virtual overhead environments. If you disagree, that's OK. We're each free to choose between the alternatives. SignatureJohn Eells > As I said before, for open water diving within recreational limits, the > operational simplicity of an air integrated computer might well outweigh > the disadvantages I perceive for their use in real or virtual overhead > environments. If you disagree, that's OK. We're each free to choose > between the alternatives. No, I'd tend to agree with your assessment as far as real overhead environments go. And I wouldn't deliberately attempt a virtual overhead, i.e. deco, without at least a backup timer/depth gauge. I can live without the pressure gauge since I know my air consumption intimately and still check my tank pressure rather anally, so I'd know within a minute or two exactly how much air I had left before the computer died. And if I were doing a deliberate deco dive, I'd have been smart enough to plan my dive and write my planned stops on a slate and also figure out my air consumption, just like I was taught. And I'd probably have a buddy with me too! Backup on the depth and time is more crucial than backup on the tank pressure for well-planned dives. >>>> Similarly, the lack of an SPG made the J valve ... and its spring >>>> setting .. your reserve. Given that unbalanced regulators tend to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > into any of the medium pressure lines without it otherwise interfering > with operation. Can't let the gear do the diving for you. Besides, diving as a whole is incredibly safe. Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 > I would think that they could invent a pressure gauge that could > fairly accurately tell you the amount of air left in your tank. One > that is submersible and could be put on a high pressure hose and > clipped off to your left side D ring. Damn, warn a buddy next time, mess on my keyboard. Curtis >> I would think that they could invent a pressure gauge that could >> fairly accurately tell you the amount of air left in your tank. One >> that is submersible and could be put on a high pressure hose and >> clipped off to your left side D ring. > > Damn, warn a buddy next time, mess on my keyboard. You're too easily amused. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:16:26 -0500, Alan Browne >You're too easily amused. No such thing. The more easily amused one is, the more pleasant is their life. > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:16:26 -0500, Alan Browne >> You're too easily amused. > > No such thing. The more easily amused one is, the more pleasant is > their life. Not when the stimulus is low. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >>> You're too easily amused. >> >> No such thing. The more easily amused one is, the more pleasant is >> their life. > > Not when the stimulus is low. Maybe tis you who is too uptight? Troll maybe? Sit Down, Hold On, Shut UP, Listen to your Elders & Enjoy the Ride. Curtis > >>> You're too easily amused. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sit Down, Hold On, Shut UP, Listen to your Elders & Enjoy the Ride. Getting a little defensive because I'm not the only one who thinks your attempts at humor pitiful? He's been a very good student and like any very good student he's been asking good intelligent questions. Thanks to him, this is the only decent dive-related thread in a long time here. Your sh.t attitude will only ensure rec.scuba sinks into a mud hole, and unlike you, not all of us prefer mud holes. >> I would think that they could invent a pressure gauge that could >> fairly accurately tell you the amount of air left in your tank. One >> that is submersible and could be put on a high pressure hose and >> clipped off to your left side D ring. > > Damn, warn a buddy next time, mess on my keyboard. Hehe <snip> > I would think that they could invent a pressure gauge that could > fairly accurately tell you the amount of air left in your tank. One > that is submersible and could be put on a high pressure hose and > clipped off to your left side D ring. SPGs were not commonplace when I learned to dive. We used the J valve *and gas planning* to figure out what was what. Knowing one's air consumption (SAC) rate was not optional if you went deep. This is a tremendously good habit for any diver that nobody will teach you today until you get to your first tech diving class. Dive equipment is far better now. People were amazed when I did a dive on a single but had forgotten to rig an inflator hose on the reg I grabbed, and went anyway. I learned to dive by mouth inflating a horse collar. I still know how (grin). SignatureJohn Eells >>> Similarly, the lack of an SPG made the J valve ... and its spring >>> setting .. your reserve. Given that unbalanced regulators tend to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that is submersible and could be put on a high pressure hose and > clipped off to your left side D ring. That was good. Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Feb 9, 1:16 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > Similarly, the lack of an SPG made the J valve ... and its spring > > setting .. your reserve. Given that unbalanced regulators tend to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > certain pressure is reached without otherwise being part of the airflow > control. Nowadays, ait-integrated dive computers will beep at you when you get below a certain set point. Unfortunately this "feature" can be hard or impossible to turn off, making them a nuisance when I deliberately run my tank down well below 500 psi. > On Feb 9, 1:16 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > or impossible to turn off, making them a nuisance when I deliberately > run my tank down well below 500 psi. Can't you stop it? On one of our dives somebody's computer would beep every time he went through the 5 m safety stop depth. But that was the depth we were at for that reef. With bobbing up and down at about that depth it kept going off to everyone's distraction. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On Feb 9, 2:25 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > On Feb 9, 1:16 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Can't you stop it? Not on Uwatec models, so far as I know. I think the factory can do it, but I never bothered. Instead, I gave it to Janna, since she's really bad about running her air too low. I figure it won't stop her from running her air low, but at least it will annoy the heck out of her. Suunto first gives me a few beeps when I hit 725 psi (50 bar), then the second alarm is customizable, so I set it to the lowest setting of 10 bar and hope I don't hear that one go off. > On one of our dives somebody's computer would beep every time he went > through the 5 m safety stop depth. But that was the depth we were at > for that reef. The only alarm I've found useful is the depth alarm for reminding me when I'm at my MOD (maximum operating depth) for nitrox. Normally, that's not something I would exceed, but the problem with going that deep on air or nitrox is that you're not always thinking clearly when you get there. It likely saved my butt one time when I was swimming frantically after a whaleshark in limited viz water where there were no visible physical features that could allow me to sense my depth beyond the pressure in my ears/sinuses. The computer beeped and I glanced over to realize I was already at 127', not to mention out of breath and low on air from chasing the bastard. Bye-bye whaleshark, get that breathing under control, begin slow ascent while trying to figure out which direction I came from. Live to dive another dive. Thank you Suunto, it saved me from the siren call of the evil whaleshark. > get that breathing under control, begin slow ascent while trying to > figure out which direction I came from. Live to dive another dive. > Thank you Suunto, it saved me from the siren call of the evil > whaleshark. A whaleshark is definitely on my list of "want to see". Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >> Can't you stop it? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > then the second alarm is customizable, so I set it to the lowest > setting of 10 bar and hope I don't hear that one go off. On the DataTalk software, there is a setting for "Buzzer On-Off" I have never had need to mess around with it but I would guess that would turn the alarm off and on. Andy Hi Greg, >> Can't you stop it? > > Not on Uwatec models, so far as I know. It depends on model. 1. you can set end of dive pressure which is used for calculating RBT 2. You can set "gain" for breathing alarm 3. You can switch off beeps for alarms but you cannot switch off beeps for emergency like fast ascend and ceilings. Also, diving several EANs, you cannot stop beeping for gas switching. I think the factory can do > it, but I never bothered. Datatalk is the software for older Uwatecs. > Instead, I gave it to Janna, since she's So at least, she got a good computer ;-) What Model is it? lg Joerg SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de > Hi Greg, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > So at least, she got a good computer ;-) > What Model is it? Aladin Air Z O2, originally purchased to go with the Draeger that's sitting in my garage. It's a nice computer, but basic. No temperature. No time of day. And I'm not too keen on the wrist band. > Aladin Air Z O2, originally purchased to go with the Draeger that's > sitting in my garage. It's a nice computer, but basic. No > temperature. No time of day. And I'm not too keen on the wrist band. Yeah, kinda old. No compare to D9. Same old days, where Suunto had its "companion". SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de > Aladin Air Z O2, originally purchased to go with the Draeger that's > sitting in my garage. It's a nice computer, but basic. No > temperature. No time of day. And I'm not too keen on the wrist band. oh, it has temperatur and time and date. But it does not display it. Only visible thru readout via PC. SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de > > Aladin Air Z O2, originally purchased to go with the Draeger that's > > sitting in my garage. It's a nice computer, but basic. No > > temperature. No time of day. And I'm not too keen on the wrist band. > > oh, it has temperatur and time and date. But it does not display it. > Only visible thru readout via PC. It kind of sucks that you have to bring a waterproof PC down with you just to know what time it is. When I do my solo afternoon dive in Bonaire, for instance, it's absolutely imperative I don't lose track of time or I might miss happy hour. Water temp is good to know too. When we dove Cannibal Rock for the first time, I was all ready for the often chilly water in my 5mm FJ suit - they said it often gets into the mid-60s. Naturally I screamed like a girlie when I jumped into that frigid water, but then I looked at my trusty Suunto which said it was a relatively toasty 79 degrees. That fact established, I was very warm for the rest of the dive. Had I been diving my Uwatec, I would have been cold and miserable. On Feb 9, 10:16 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > It seems (to me) that it would be simple enough to add a mechanical > device to the first reg. that "pings" (plonks, thuds, whatever) when a > certain pressure is reached without otherwise being part of the airflow > control. This regulator was called Scubapro MK7, in the 70ies. Today for rec and sports diving, pressure gauges are used. There was also something called "reserve" a mechanism which choked supply when a certain pressure was reached, and you had to pull a SS rod to open it agein. Like in old Volkswagen Beetles. Matthias > > It seems (to me) that it would be simple enough to add a mechanical > > device to the first reg. that "pings" (plonks, thuds, whatever) when a > > certain pressure is reached without otherwise being part of the airflow > > control. > > This regulator was called Scubapro MK7, in the 70ies. I've been reading all the responses looking for someone to have already said this. The Scubapro Mk7 had the nickname of the "Honker" due to this feature. > Today for rec and sports diving, pressure gauges are used. There was > also something called "reserve" a mechanism which choked supply when a > certain pressure was reached, and you had to pull a SS rod to open it > agein. Like in old Volkswagen Beetles. Ah, the reserve gasoline tank in the old Beetles. I recall that Dad's '63 bug had one, but I never knew too much about it. Wasn't this designed like a "pocket" higher up in the tank that wouldn't get refilled unless you got a full tank of gas? -hh >> Similarly, the lack of an SPG made the J valve ... and its spring >> setting .. your reserve. Given that unbalanced regulators tend to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >certain pressure is reached without otherwise being part of the airflow >control. KISS principle applies. I dived with a HyperAqualand on my wrist. It beeped incessantly with rate of ascent warning if I so much as moved my hand up in the water column. Every diver I was with could hear it. Except me. I had to strain to hear it. Hooking it to a D-ring made it less annoying for others but I still couldn't hear it. One extra gizmo I didn't really need. I wear my hoseless computer for all dives but I still carry the SPG and hose console in my kit in case of hardware failure. Nothing would be worse than being on a trip and having a computer or transmitter fail. At least with an SPG I can still dive on tables. As for your cockpit redundancy analogy, all those gauges to scan and read and commercial pilots still are bored to death in the cockpit. Those gauges don't mean a thing when the wings are falling off or you've busted your elevator jack screw trying to "troubleshoot" a problem. The key is awareness. You don't have to stare at the console for the whole dive, it's OK to look at the scenery but a periodic glance at your gauges will tell you instantly how your consumption is going to affect your dive. >>> Similarly, the lack of an SPG made the J valve ... and its spring >>> setting .. your reserve. Given that unbalanced regulators tend to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > KISS principle applies. Exactly. Which is why I proposed a device that is small, passive, out of the way and would fail passively as well. Would still be a reminder to anyone to check their gauge when it popped if they were in a bad habit mode. Certainly people are adding transmitters for their computers. That is is definitely not "simple". Considering gear some people bring with them that could cause distraction, photography being an easy example, such a device seems well warranted. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. Awareness. Awareness. Awareness. You don't dive a profile waiting for a bell to ring like you're a three minute egg. You don't suck your air down to 500 or even 750 psi at 100 fsw before you decide, oops, it's time to head for the surface. You plan your dive. You dive your plan. Departure from the plan may or may not call for an abort of an open-water dive in a tourist group situation but a low-air situation certainly shows a lack of awareness of a number of factors and calls for re-training if it occurs more often than rarely. It's perfectly OK to be aware of your air consumption at depth and to be calm about it. Awareness of it will calm you down because you will know that you will not miss a decision point about when to turn around or when to start your way up to your safety stop. A sharing air situation is an abort condition for both buddies, not a method of continuing the dive. > It's perfectly OK to be aware of your air consumption at depth and to > be calm about it. Awareness of it will calm you down because you will > know that you will not miss a decision point about when to turn around > or when to start your way up to your safety stop. A sharing air > situation is an abort condition for both buddies, not a method of > continuing the dive. Why, necessarily? If one diver continually runs short on air and his buddy continually returns with more air than the recommended minimum, assuming only one size tank is available such as at the standard resort setting, what's the harm in balancing out the air a bit if it can prolong the dive by another few minutes? Does anyone foresee dive technology getting to a point where much more limited skill is involved? We have it easier than the last generation of divers. We have SPGs and computers and such. Most divers have no idea of their SAC rate, most just follow the DM. What's the next innovation that will remove yet another critical skill from diving? On Feb 10, 5:08 pm, John Van Ostrand <john.van.ostr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Does anyone foresee dive technology getting to a point where much more > limited skill is involved? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What's the next innovation that will remove yet another critical skill > from diving? In the nineties, a German company devellopped an autopilot device replacing your BCD`s inflator assembly providing automatic presettable depth and bouancy control, as well an ntegrated decompression including ascent feature following Buelmann's model. Matthias > In the nineties, a German company devellopped an autopilot device > replacing your BCD`s inflator assembly providing automatic presettable > depth and bouancy control, as well an ntegrated decompression > including ascent feature following Buelmann's model. I've often though that would be the "killer technology" (literally and figuratively), but I didn't know it had been created. What killed it? Lack of sales or lawsuits? >I've often though that would be the "killer technology" (literally and >figuratively), but I didn't know it had been created. What killed it? >Lack of sales or lawsuits? Probably lack of sales due to general uselessness. On Feb 12, 2:09 am, John Van Ostrand <john.van.ostr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In the nineties, a German company devellopped an autopilot device > > replacing your BCD`s inflator assembly providing automatic presettable [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > figuratively), but I didn't know it had been created. What killed it? > Lack of sales or lawsuits? Well I don't know exactly if it is still in production. Methinks the company had seen severe economic difficulties. This was long ago, I believe in the early Nineties. It was before the arrival of the Uwatec Nitrox range of computers. In a medical meeting 3 years ago, a paraplegic was speaking about how he is using this device, and some incredible fins mounted at the lower arm, while still allowing full hand motion range if needed. I'll try my best to remember the name of the device. The creator last name was Tolksdorf, I believe, but probably not the same one as the guy from Tecme. Matthias On Feb 10, 8:08 am, John Van Ostrand <john.van.ostr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Does anyone foresee dive technology getting to a point where much more > limited skill is involved? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What's the next innovation that will remove yet another critical skill > from diving? Self-clearing masks would be cool, for those divers who still haven't mastered the purge valve. And why can't they make boat ladders like escalators, so you just have to step on and let the ladder bring you up? > On Feb 10, 8:08 am, John Van Ostrand<john.van.ostr...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> What's the next innovation that will remove yet another critical skill >> from diving? Skill sets evolve according to technology, esp. technologies that improve safety and/or reduce workload. (Having said that I haven't used a computer for diving yet - and for the diving I do the tables seem more than adequate). When I did my first pre-PADI dive in 2003 I was surprised that everyone has two regulators on their systems making the old buddy breathe essentially redundant (we still trained for the buddy breathe). In fact, I remember reading about the "first" dive computer a couple decades or so ago. A black box with a hole in it and a light or two (what I seem to remember). Now computers seem near ubiquitous. Technologies don't replace technique when they show up, but when that technology proves to be reliable, useful, workload decreasing and esp. safety enhancing. It is thus in everything. Many people can't drive manual shift cars (at least in N. America). Not that it's hard to learn. Many people can't perform a high performance stop in their cars, most especially in a turn. (Now just max out the brakes and wait while comfortably steering). Some can't get off a slippery patch on the ice without spinning: now, anti slip manages the torque. (there are even cars that parallel park for you...) Such lists may be endless. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:08:48 -0800 (PST), John Van Ostrand > Most divers have no idea of their SAC rate, Which shows how unnecessary that knowlege is. >> Most divers have no idea of their SAC rate, > Which shows how unnecessary that knowlege is. Beg to differ. Although the specific numbers may not be important, knowing how long a tank will last is. Curtis > Beg to differ. > > Although the specific numbers may not be important, knowing how long a >tank will last is. Begging is so unbecoming. I choose to differ. It's possible to know long a tank will last without knowing your SAC. >> Beg to differ. >> >> Although the specific numbers may not be important, knowing how long a >>tank will last is. > Begging is so unbecoming. I choose to differ. Aye, literally meant it is, but recognizing your experience is my choice. > It's possible to know long a tank will last without knowing your SAC. Quite true, and actually the important concept. Curtis >>> Most divers have no idea of their SAC rate, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Although the specific numbers may not be important, knowing how long a > tank will last is. In perfect conditions, during a relaxed dive. A SAC rate doesn't have anything to do with how long a tank -actually- lasts. It has to do with how long a tank -might- last, under absolutely ideal conditions. I use the SPG. In my world, the SAC rate is virtually useless. Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 > A SAC rate doesn't have anything to do with how long a tank -actually- > lasts. > It has to do with how long a tank -might- last, under absolutely ideal > conditions. > In my world, the SAC rate is virtually useless. > I would be interested in finding any source of oxtox within 1.6. > Even considering 1.6 to 2.0 range with an reasonable short 5 to 10 minutes > exposure I doubt finding one. > I agree wholeheartedly. > But I would substitute the word "amazed" for "interested". > I love my VR3 for cold water > deep diving. It gets me out of the water > many minutes quicker than tables. > How ironic. My Oceanic hockey puck keeps me in the water much longer > than would tables. > Whether it's reasonable or not, it's being safely done by hundreds if > not thousands of divers around the world each and every day. There > are a lot of liveaboards out there that offer 5 dives per day and many > of their divers are doing them, plus shore dive locales like Bonaire, > Cocoview, or Wakatobi, where some divers and their computers might try > for 6 or even more per day. Luddites can't do that. Precisely why I read rec scuba for entertainment purposes only, not for serious learning. Curtis > > A SAC rate doesn't have anything to do with how long a tank -actually- > > lasts. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Precisely why I read rec scuba for entertainment purposes only, not for > serious learning. Of course no one else on rec.scuba could teach Curtis anything about diving since he knows everything about everything. (Even though he apparently still doesn't understand that he can't do typical recreational dive profiles as I've described without a dive computer) But don't bother explaining yourself or attempting to contradict anything you quote - just make your typical snide remarks and pretend that we think you're really very impressive for diving in mudholes in GUE-clone team formation. >> A SAC rate doesn't have anything to do with how long a tank -actually- >> lasts. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >> But I would substitute the word "amazed" for "interested". > Precisely why I read rec scuba for entertainment purposes only, not for > serious learning. > > Curtis Not trying to make you mad, brother, but we're not all extended range cave divers. Out of the millions of divers doing millions and millions of dive world wide, can you list ten oxtoxes in the last ten -years-? I can't. Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 >> Precisely why I read rec scuba for entertainment purposes only, not for >> serious learning. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I can't. Not at all mad, just watching the oversimplifications, bad comparisons and goofy explanations. Curtis >>> Precisely why I read rec scuba for entertainment purposes only, not for >>> serious learning. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Curtis If you're happy, I'm happy. :-) Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 > If you're happy, I'm happy. :-) My happiness is not dependant on this group. Nor is my dive knowledge, fortunately, although I did get some good pointers here at times. (Couple of the best were to seek answers elsewhere. ;-) ) > A SAC rate doesn't have anything to do with how long a tank -actually- > lasts. > It has to do with how long a tank -might- last, under absolutely ideal > conditions. > In my world, the SAC rate is virtually useless. Since that would mean "in effect, but not in fact", I like the qualifier "virtual". > I would be interested in finding any source of oxtox within 1.6. > Even considering 1.6 to 2.0 range with an reasonable short 5 to 10 minutes > exposure I doubt finding one. > I agree wholeheartedly. > But I would substitute the word "amazed" for "interested". Seems to me I gave you some of these before. Enough to put a hole in absolutes. > I love my VR3 for cold water > deep diving. It gets me out of the water > many minutes quicker than tables. > How ironic. My Oceanic hockey puck keeps me in the water much longer > than would tables. Guess the humor of comparing deco and bottom time escaped everyone. > Whether it's reasonable or not, it's being safely done by hundreds if > not thousands of divers around the world each and every day. There > are a lot of liveaboards out there that offer 5 dives per day and many > of their divers are doing them, plus shore dive locales like Bonaire, > Cocoview, or Wakatobi, where some divers and their computers might try > for 6 or even more per day. Luddites can't do that. Jumping straight to such an example assumes so many things. The math doesn't scare me, having to plan my dives doesn't scare me, having a party animal tell me I cannot make valid dive decisions, because he uses a "dive calculator" to interpolate his estimated exposure levels and I do not, well, that's funny, 'though not funny enough to get him a pardon from my killfile. > Precisely why I read rec scuba for entertainment purposes only, not for serious learning. Even if it is free "advice". Of course it does serve a social interest, so I'm not calling it useless, not by a long shot. Curtis > > Whether it's reasonable or not, it's being safely done by hundreds if > > not thousands of divers around the world each and every day. There [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that's funny, 'though not funny enough to get him a pardon from my > killfile. In other words, you can't do it. Honesty would be nice, but that's not expected of you. Instead, it's easy to read between the lines and realize you're stumped. What a moron! >> If you're happy, I'm happy. :-) > > My happiness is not dependant on this group. It sure seems to make you unhappy at times. I was just trying to be nice. > Nor is my dive knowledge, fortunately, although I did get some good > pointers here at times. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Since that would mean "in effect, but not in fact", I like the > qualifier "virtual". What it meant was, "virtually useless". Dan Bracuk said it precisely: On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:08:48 -0800 (PST), John Van Ostrand > Most divers have no idea of their SAC rate, "Which shows how unnecessary that knowledge is." I love that guy. >> I would be interested in finding any source of oxtox within 1.6. >> Even considering 1.6 to 2.0 range with an reasonable short 5 to 10 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Seems to me I gave you some of these before. Enough to put a hole in > absolutes. 4 (not 10) anecdotal incidents without names, all experienced cave divers, two who hit the wrong deco bottle. Against millions of divers doing millions and millions of dives. That would seem to be more and indictment of cave diving. Hardly an indictment of 1.6 vs. 1.4. And nobody but you said anything about absolutes. Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Feb 21, 12:33 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye8...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If you're happy, I'm happy. :-) > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > And nobody but you said anything about absolutes. I did. I said he absolutely cannot keep up with the typical recreational liveaboard dive schedule, party animal or not, without using a dive computer. It's not about "doing the math". Math won't help him. Tables won't help him. Knowledge of advanced trimix GUE voodoo won't help him. Just like most of us who evolved from primates, i.e. non-Luddites, would rather use a jackhammer to break bricks, we also use computers to do things that our minds can't. Smart, huh? But since he chooses to disdain dive computers (and those who use them), he also sacrifices the ability to dive from a liveaboard, i.e. sacrificing some of the greatest diving in the world. Good for the rest of us, 'cause he's one of the last people I'd want to be stuck on a boat with for a week or more. >> My happiness is not dependant on this group. > It sure seems to make you unhappy at times. > I was just trying to be nice. Huh? Maybe seems that way to those I know solely or mostly by contact here. Now a nice mini-vacation, non-diving, like I just returned from, much more likely to effect my reality. BTW, ran into another R.S. personality this week, have picture, got no site to put it up.....interested? >>> A SAC rate doesn't have anything to do with how long a tank -actually- >>> lasts. >>> It has to do with how long a tank -might- last, under absolutely ideal >>> conditions. >>> In my world, the SAC rate is virtually useless. >> Since that would mean "in effect, but not in fact", I like the >> qualifier "virtual". > What it meant was, "virtually useless". Virtual....in effect, but not in fact > Dan Bracuk said it precisely: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:08:48 -0800 (PST), John Van Ostrand > Most divers have no idea of their SAC rate, > > "Which shows how unnecessary that knowledge is." > > I love that guy. Alert Diver, Winter 2010, starting on page 34, good read. >>> I would be interested in finding any source of oxtox within 1.6. >>> Even considering 1.6 to 2.0 range with an reasonable short 5 to 10 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Seems to me I gave you some of these before. Enough to put a hole in >> absolutes. > 4 (not 10) anecdotal incidents without names, all experienced cave > divers, two who hit the wrong deco bottle. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And nobody but you said anything about absolutes. "I doubt finding even one" sounds like an absolute to me. "I would be interested in finding any source of oxtox within 1.6." sounds like you are unaware of any cases. Since you said 4, guess I found you at an earlier time 4 confirmed oxtoxes in Florida, one you knew, from one source. Source was a cave accident site, which was indeed a small sample, just one I am familiar with. I'm sure there's more. I could add 3 anecdotal stories within recreational diving limitations, at around 1.3, which of course couldn't be used, but I believe acceptable enough to not discard. Somewhere it lists that no cases recorded below a 1.2, which would indicate this is a lower limit. Cave diving by its nature has longer dives, exposures & decos. But, one who states "I ride my computer like a WFO dirtbike. Sometimes, I fall off..." sounds like he likes to push limits also. At any rate, I agree oxtox is not common. However, unless you're lucky enough to be diving with a good buddy or safety diver, it usually means when it happens, you're dead. This in mind, I'd rather take precautions against it happening than dismiss its existance. I use 1.6 deco, 1.4 recreational diving and under 1.2 for overhead. Curtis >>> My happiness is not dependant on this group. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > BTW, ran into another R.S. personality this week, have picture, got no > site to put it up.....interested? Sure, send it. >>>> A SAC rate doesn't have anything to do with how long a tank -actually- >>>> lasts. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > interested in finding any source of oxtox within 1.6." sounds like you are > unaware of any cases. I am not aware of any cases. > Since you said 4, guess I found you at an earlier time 4 confirmed > oxtoxes in Florida, one you knew, from one source. No, I was referencing your earlier post. "Confirmed" is very relative in certain circles. I'm not aware the one I knew was ever confirmed (or even alleged, outside a certain section of the cave diving community). I know for a fact it wasn't listed as the cause of death, and that there was groundless speculation from a source of information that has proven to be partisan and corrupt in my personal experience. But I'd really rather not discuss it because of the surviving family. > Source was a cave accident site, which was indeed a small sample, just > one I am familiar with. I'm sure there's more. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Somewhere it lists that no cases recorded below a 1.2, which would > indicate this is a lower limit. And that's speculation at best. Someone's military dive unit uses a PO2 of 2.2, and has for decades. > Cave diving by its nature has longer dives, exposures & decos. Exactly, and I bow to the fact your diving is utterly different than mine. Probably 1/100 of a percent of all divers dive within your parameters, where as (virtually :-)) all the rest dive in mine. I'm discussing mine. > But, one who states "I ride my computer like a WFO dirtbike. > Sometimes, I fall off..." sounds like he likes to push limits also. Speculated arbitrary limits... on a known conservative computer. Absolutely. How about the no-fly time recognized by some members of the cave community- "sometimes I get on the plane with my hair still wet"...? > At any rate, I agree oxtox is not common. However, unless you're lucky > enough to be diving with a good buddy or safety diver, it usually means [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Curtis And I have no complaint about that. Just like the Rule Of Thirds, which is absolute to you, is simply preposterous to me. Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 > Sure, send it. on its way > I know for a fact it wasn't listed as the cause of death, and that there > was groundless speculation from a source of information that has proven to > be partisan and corrupt in my personal experience. > > But I'd really rather not discuss it because of the surviving family. Fair enough, but leave out the "editorials" also. Exempt any info you don't like. It's your world after all. I'm not bound to prove you wrong, I did not make the original claim. The examples were from an exchange years ago from a similiar claim, they were good enough then, and now to me. Besides, not here to teach, or argue...... > And that's speculation at best. No speculation. Maybe you can find a diver CNS tox below a 1.2 ppO2? If you can, you can update the number. > Someone's military dive unit uses a PO2 of 2.2, and has for decades. Considering the risk of detection vs risk of tox, and a certain percentage "loss" being acceptable, why would you compare? > Speculated arbitrary limits... on a known conservative computer. So, you use one, but don't believe it. OK, I get it....... > How about the no-fly time recognized by some members of the cave > community- "sometimes I get on the plane with my hair still wet"...? Context, target audience, Helium, cardiovascular fitness, deco method and acclimation, absense of PFO, and definitely not of your world. But, I am sure you can call the guy who you quoted and get clarification. > Just like the Rule Of Thirds, which is absolute to you, is simply > preposterous to me. Only absolute where applicable, and then it's an absolute minimum. Do dive without its literal interpretation in appropriate circumstances. So, once again using an absolute without qualifiers incorrect. To label as "preposterous" shows selfishness and ignorance, traits I don't associate with you. Curtis >> Sure, send it. > > on its way That's good. :-) I'll get that up soon. >> I know for a fact it wasn't listed as the cause of death, and that there >> was groundless speculation from a source of information that has proven [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Fair enough, but leave out the "editorials" also. My point is, that I want to make sure the accounts aren't already "editorialized". > Exempt any info you don't like. It's your world after all. > > I'm not bound to prove you wrong, I did not make the original claim. What I said was, show me ten. No one can. The only -confirmed- Oxtox I've ever heard of was during a GUE training dive, and it wasn't related to 1.4 vs 1.6. The reason I want names is so that I can review them myself, and avoid the partisanship and editorializing. > The examples were from an exchange years ago from a similiar claim, they > were good enough then, and now to me. Good enough for you, and that's fine by me. > Besides, not here to teach, or argue...... > >> And that's speculation at best. > > No speculation. Maybe you can find a diver CNS tox below a 1.2 ppO2? > If you can, you can update the number. I can't find one at 1.6. >> Someone's military dive unit uses a PO2 of 2.2, and has for decades. > > Considering the risk of detection vs risk of tox, and a certain > percentage "loss" being acceptable, why would you compare? I don't put those parameters on it. With modern equipment, they have no need to maintain that standard unless they believe it safe for their diving circumstances. >> Speculated arbitrary limits... on a known conservative computer. > > So, you use one, but don't believe it. OK, I get it....... Not far from the truth. I use it as a guideline. It's as accurate as any deco-related computation. Until realtime blood gas analysis is available to us, each of us is throwing a dart at a board, blindfolded. Your guys might be better at darts. But they're still blindfolded. >> How about the no-fly time recognized by some members of the cave >> community- "sometimes I get on the plane with my hair still wet"...? > > Context, target audience, Helium, cardiovascular fitness, deco method > and acclimation, absense of PFO, and definitely not of your world. Just like my comment, it's the context that matters. And particularly, the target audience. > But, I am sure you can call the guy who you quoted and get > clarification. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > To label as "preposterous" shows selfishness and ignorance, traits I > don't associate with you. Thank you. Once again, a matter of context. If I'd said the Rule Of Thirds is preposterous, I'd agree. However, taking 1000 psi back to the boat, as a rule, -is- preposterous. I don't see that as selfish or ignorant. Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 <snip> > However, taking 1000 psi back to the boat, as a rule, -is- preposterous. I think it depends on what you're doing under the boat. In open water within the NDL on a single, I agree with you completely. Why give up the time underwater? But as others do, I routinely bring 1000 or more psi back to the boat on wreck penetration and deco dives, for which things like the rule of thirds and lost gas deco plans come into play. SignatureJohn Eells > <snip> >> However, taking 1000 psi back to the boat, as a rule, -is- preposterous. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > back to the boat on wreck penetration and deco dives, for which things > like the rule of thirds and lost gas deco plans come into play. Ya, but, how much gas did you leave the boat with? Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 >> <snip> >>> However, taking 1000 psi back to the boat, as a rule, -is- [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ya, but, how much gas did you leave the boat with? 200 CF on my back, plus deco gas. Different diving, different practices. SignatureJohn Eells >>> <snip> >>>> However, taking 1000 psi back to the boat, as a rule, -is- [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 200 CF on my back, plus deco gas. Different diving, different practices. So it's not a third. Different diving, different practices, is what I've been trying to point out all along. Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 > So it's not a third. > > Different diving, different practices, is what I've been trying to point > out all along. Yes, you have. I have popped up, waddled into the shop and had my Walter Kidde dubs jacked to 4k while still on my back. I dont suggest anyone do what I did. We got our eddy current tester during the storm, and both bottles had cracks through the threads. The Good Lord watches out for drunks and fools. > I have popped up, waddled into the shop and had my Walter Kidde dubs jacked > to 4k while still on my back. Bullshit. Unless you refer to your arsehole as Walter. > The Good Lord watches out for drunks and fools. Twice lucky. >> However, taking 1000 psi back to the boat, as a rule, -is- preposterous. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >psi back to the boat on wreck penetration and deco dives, for which >things like the rule of thirds and lost gas deco plans come into play. The missus routinely comes back with over 1000 psi but that's because she is really good on air. > I use 1.6 deco, 1.4 recreational diving and under 1.2 for overhead. I'd still use 1.4 for overhead environment unless my OTUs were exceeded for the dive or would be for a subsequent dive. > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:08:48 -0800 (PST), John Van Ostrand >> Most divers have no idea of their SAC rate, > > Which shows how unnecessary that knowlege is. Abso-fuckin-lutely. Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 >> It's perfectly OK to be aware of your air consumption at depth and to >> be calm about it. Awareness of it will calm you down because you will [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >resort setting, what's the harm in balancing out the air a bit if it >can prolong the dive by another few minutes? Normally, not much harm, but how is that a "good" dive or good habit to get into? Is a few more minutes of bottom time worth the safety of two people? If you and your buddy are diving on air-integrated computers, what does that tell your computer when you are continuing to dive on zero air? Why are you screwing up your buddies profile? You are trained to sign the OOA, grab his octo, signal OK, signal agreement to ascend and begin proper, coordinated ascent. Why would anyone encourage others to ignore basic training? Granted, in today's resort or big-boat dive community the buddy system is not tightly coupled but the point, I think, is safety margin. A safe diver pays attention to their physical fitness, their air consumption, their diving skills and their buddy. They dive their own profile and skill level. They work on relaxing and gaining confidence and improving their skills. This makes for better, safer, longer dives. This trains you to improve your skills at your own rate on your own behalf. In a gang-dive or drift dive it's probably better to be aware of your consumption, signal low-air and that you are beginning a slow solo ascent and let your buddy continue the dive with the group. During my air-sucker period that's exactly what I ended up doing. It wasn't until I was pushing 30 or 40 dives that my bottom time significantly improved. Yep, I surfaced exactly one time so far, with 300 PSI on my gauge and I didn't like it either but I leaned to become a better diver and to know my equipment and my capabilities. > >> It's perfectly OK to be aware of your air consumption at depth and to > >> be calm about it. Awareness of it will calm you down because you will [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to get into? Is a few more minutes of bottom time worth the safety of > two people? Consider, if you will, and granting it's rather rare the case where airhog sucks down tank, borrows form buddy, and while borrowing from buddy, buddy's regulator fails. Where's the backup now? That's one good "why not?" SignatureCats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by On Feb 10, 3:02 pm, Ecnerwal <MyNameForw...@ReplaceWithMyVices.Com.invalid> wrote: > Consider, if you will, and granting it's rather rare the case where > airhog sucks down tank, borrows form buddy, and while borrowing from > buddy, buddy's regulator fails. Where's the backup now? That's one good > "why not?" Yep, and consider, if you will, and granting it's rather rare, the case where a meteor strikes and kills all of us. What would be the point of not sharing her air then? No backup? > Normally, not much harm, but how is that a "good" dive or good habit > to get into? Is a few more minutes of bottom time worth the safety of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > agreement to ascend and begin proper, coordinated ascent. Why would > anyone encourage others to ignore basic training? Because basic training is, by name, basic. I do a lot of things now that I was told not to do in basic training, such as hold my breath on occasion when I'm taking a picture, or go deeper than 100'. I know the risks and I have enough knowledge and experience to properly evaluate them. I wasn't "encouraging" anyone, just questioning your hardfast "rule". As for the air-integrated computer, it's still tracking my depth and time for NDL purposes. If it suddenly senses I'm really really good on air, that's only gonna affect the "remaining air time" calculation and only an idjit would base their dive on that number alone. > In a gang-dive or drift dive it's probably better to be aware of your > consumption, signal low-air and that you are beginning a slow solo [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > gauge and I didn't like it either but I leaned to become a better > diver and to know my equipment and my capabilities. And when you and your buddy have been pushing 300 or 400 dives together, you get to know not only your equipment and your capabilities well, but your buddy's too. Your air is your buddy's air, that's a common mantra in tech diving. What's wrong with putting that into practice? Hi Greg, > Your air is your buddy's > air, that's a common mantra in tech diving. What's wrong with putting > that into practice? You, always benefitting. Your SAC sucks, Hanna`s doesn`t ;-) lg Joerg SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de >You, always benefitting. Your SAC sucks, Hanna`s doesn`t ;-) Doesn't seem too wrong to me. > And when you and your buddy have been pushing 300 or 400 dives > together, you get to know not only your equipment and your > capabilities well, but your buddy's too. Your air is your buddy's > air, that's a common mantra in tech diving. What's wrong with putting > that into practice? In that case my buddy will always be my SO! When I'm at 600 she's at 1400. A friend indeed! If I ever manage to tame my air consumption, we should be able to add a good 10 minutes to dives to 60 or so feet. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >In that case my buddy will always be my SO! When I'm at 600 she's at >1400. A friend indeed! If I ever manage to tame my air consumption, you'll change your opinion about computers. > you'll change your opinion about computers. I won't. Unnecisary evil, undesireable luxury, waste of dive funds. Curtis >> you'll change your opinion about computers. > I won't. > Unnecisary evil, undesireable luxury, waste of dive funds. Insurance company lawyer driven algorithm. >> you'll change your opinion about computers. > > I won't. > > Unnecisary evil, undesireable luxury, waste of dive funds. I love my VR3 for cold water deep diving. It gets me out of the water many minutes quicker than tables. > >> you'll change your opinion about computers. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I love my VR3 for cold water deep diving. It gets me out of the water > many minutes quicker than tables. And none of the Luddite "I calculate deco in my head" fray can explain how they'd do multilevel diving on a liveaboard at the rate of 5 dives a day for 5-6 days in a row. That sort of diving would be extremely limited or impossible without a computer recalculating deco obligations based on actual, not maximum depth. Plus, doesn't the VR-3 have video games on it? On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:25:49 -0800 (PST), Greg Mossman >And none of the Luddite "I calculate deco in my head" fray can explain >how they'd do multilevel diving on a liveaboard at the rate of 5 dives >a day for 5-6 days in a row. That sort of diving would be extremely >limited or impossible without a computer recalculating deco >obligations based on actual, not maximum depth. You don't have to have that much diving to benefit from a computer. It could be something as simple as a single dive where the initial decsent is to 80 or 90 feet, and yet you want to stay in the water for an hour. > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:25:49 -0800 (PST), Greg Mossman > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > decsent is to 80 or 90 feet, and yet you want to stay in the water for > an hour. They claim to follow the "deco curve" that they figger out from doing all that tech diving. Me, I figger anyone experienced enough probably can memorize or mezmerize a deco curve that would be safe enough based on prior dives - for instance, without a computer, I would play it safe, stay maybe 10 minutes at 80 feet, 10 at 60, 10 at 50, then enjoy the rest of the dive at 40 feet or less, with a long safety stop. Clearly not permitted on the tables, but surely not a profile that any computer would complain about, even my ultra right-wing Suunto. The problem then becomes, how do you track that information for the second dive? They'll be able to pull a second dive out of their tech hat as well, again using their mezmerized standard profiles. But throw 5 dives at them in a day? Make them go deeper than 100' on at least one or two of those dives? Introduce unplanned mid-dive profile changes, for instance when I had to chase a whale shark down to 127' (and only stopped there because of the damn nitrox in my lungs)? There's absolutely no way it can be done safety without either a computer or else self-imposing serious limitations that wouldn't allow them to keep up with the rest of us computer-enhanced recreational divers. >They claim to follow the "deco curve" that they figger out from doing >all that tech diving. Tech divers are hardly luddites. Most if not all use computers to figure out their bottom time - just not the kind you take into the water with you. >>They claim to follow the "deco curve" that they figger out from doing >>all that tech diving. > >Tech divers are hardly luddites. Most if not all use computers to >figure out their bottom time - just not the kind you take into the >water with you. Actually, most tech divers take computers into the water with them. A lot will take more than one. > Actually, most tech divers take computers into the water with them. A > lot will take more than one. And many leave them in gauge mode. They are nice for downloading data. Besides, how others choose to use them doesn't change my opinion of them or my potential usage. I have no need or use for anything other than my bottom timer, but then again I don't require a cash register to figure out how much change I am due, nor a calculator to do simple math. At least a couple of us here are quite comfortable diving a BT only. (BTW, the new Ewatec BT has an added feature, average depth is displayed.) Curtis >> Actually, most tech divers take computers into the water with them. A >> lot will take more than one. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > (BTW, the new Ewatec BT has an added feature, average depth is >displayed.) You might change your mind after about an hour or so in 40 degree water. I noticed I started getting cold in Lake Superior after an hour and I was above the thermocline in 20 feet of water sucking O2 and the bottom temps were in the upper 40s. The temp was about 55 degrees at 20 feet. Depending on the dive, the VR3 will get you out of the water 5-10 minutes quicker. > Tech divers are hardly luddites. Most if not all use computers to > figure out their bottom time - just not the kind you take into the > water with you. Hell, mossman's opinion weighs in to me as "so valuable", since he considers me a "luddite" for believing in the US Constitution as written, not as liberals try to reinterpret. Dan, your whole vacation in Marathon's diving could have been QED without a dive computer. Take for example a common profile in South FL, two 60 ft dives for <60 min TDT with an hour SI. Assume the divers can actually do the full hour, use 32%, then convince me a dive computer is gonna help lengthen the dives. Curtis > Dan, your whole vacation in Marathon's diving could have been QED >without a dive computer. > > Take for example a common profile in South FL, two 60 ft dives for <60 >min TDT with an hour SI. Assume the divers can actually do the full hour, >use 32%, then convince me a dive computer is gonna help lengthen the dives. For many dives on that vacation, I didn't even bother turning the computer on, it was a waste of batteries. Two 60 ft dives with a one hour SI, on air, would put you off the tables. I have never seen nitrox tables so I don't know how much of a difference that would make. > For many dives on that vacation, I didn't even bother turning the > computer on, it was a waste of batteries. :-) > Two 60 ft dives with a one hour SI, on air, would put you off the > tables. I have never seen nitrox tables so I don't know how much of a > difference that would make. Diving to 60 feet on "air" is off my tables. Curtis > Dan, your whole vacation in Marathon's diving could have been QED > without a dive computer. Any diving could have been without a dive computer. > Take for example a common profile in South FL, two 60 ft dives for <60 > min TDT with an hour SI. Isn`t that more being submersed or getting wet rather than diving? ;-) Still, I would want to mention, that the SI of 1 hour is rather short. for not to mention "unhealthy". I would recommend 2hours or more. We had that discussion here before. Assume the divers can actually do the full hour, > use 32%, then convince me a dive computer is gonna help lengthen the dives. You may even use Ean50. As far as I am not confused with the feet/meter issue. Joerg SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de >Isn`t that more being submersed or getting wet rather than diving? ;-) >Still, I would want to mention, that the SI of 1 hour is rather short. >for not to mention "unhealthy". I would recommend 2hours or more. >We had that discussion here before. Did that discussion include me mentioning that in many Caribbean locations, the standard dive package includes 2 dives, and lasts about 4 hours, including going to and from the site? Surface intervals tend to be 1 hour at the most in these circumstances. > Take for example a common profile in South FL, two 60 ft dives for <60 > min TDT with an hour SI. Assume the divers can actually do the full hour, > use 32%, then convince me a dive computer is gonna help lengthen the dives. No, take my common example of a liveaboard: 5 dives a day for 60-70 minutes each, max depths of 100' or deeper on many of them. Your dumbed-down example is exactly why I told Dan his example won't work. If you dove on many of the liveaboards I've dove, you'd either have to limit your dives severely compared to the rest of the passengers or else use a computer. > You don't have to have that much diving to benefit from a computer. > It could be something as simple as a single dive where the initial > decsent is to 80 or 90 feet, and yet you want to stay in the water for > an hour. Naw, that's too easy. I wouldn't even pull out tables. Hint, 32% (or 30/30), and allow for travel and stop in total dive time. Curtis >> >> you'll change your opinion about computers. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Plus, doesn't the VR-3 have video games on it? It does! You can play to pass the time while doing 25 minutes on O2 at 20 feet. > > >> you'll change your opinion about computers. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > limited or impossible without a computer recalculating deco > obligations based on actual, not maximum depth. I'd bet that Bruce Wienke couldn't do either. That is, explain, how any dive computer reasonably calculates 5 dives a day. Matthias > > And none of the Luddite "I calculate deco in my head" fray can explain > > how they'd do multilevel diving on a liveaboard at the rate of 5 dives [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > any dive computer reasonably calculates 5 dives a day. > Matthias Whether it's reasonable or not, it's being safely done by hundreds if not thousands of divers around the world each and every day. There are a lot of liveaboards out there that offer 5 dives per day and many of their divers are doing them, plus shore dive locales like Bonaire, Cocoview, or Wakatobi, where some divers and their computers might try for 6 or even more per day. Luddites can't do that. > Whether it's reasonable or not, it's being safely done by hundreds if > not thousands of divers around the world each and every day. There > are a lot of liveaboards out there that offer 5 dives per day and many > of their divers are doing them, plus shore dive locales like Bonaire, > Cocoview, or Wakatobi, where some divers and their computers might try > for 6 or even more per day. Luddites can't do that. Don`t forget to compare the dives. Nobody would do more than 2 daily of Mat`s or mine over a week or two. We are not talking about the same. SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de > > Whether it's reasonable or not, it's being safely done by hundreds if > > not thousands of divers around the world each and every day. There [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Nobody would do more than 2 daily of Mat`s or mine over a week or two. > We are not talking about the same. Of course not. I was referring to a certain Luddite who says that he don't need no stinkin' computer to do any recreational diving, basing his experience of recreational diving on two 60' dives in one day. Me, I says bull-honky, there ain't no way no Luddite's gonna do 5 dives a day like many divers do on many liveaboards. Am I right or wrong, any challengers to my actual claim? Here are some examples from my logbook, so we have real-world dives for the Luddites to test their mesmerizing skills, depth is maximum depth during the dive, time is total bottom time from descent to ascent as measure by, you guessed, my extremely-necessary dive computer: 8/29/2001 (Truk Odyssey): Dive #1: 123 feet for 52 minutes (Unkai Maru) Dive #2: 113 feet for 60 minutes (Fujikawa Maru) Dive #3: 95 feet for 53 minutes (Fujikawa Maru) Dive #4: 89 feet for 62 minutes (Fujikawa Maru) Dive #5: 101 feet for 60 minutes (Fujikawa Maru) 3/20/06 (Nekton Pilot, Belize): Dive #1: 106 feet for 42 minutes (Aquarium, Lighthouse Atoll) Dive #2: 87 feet for 46 minutes (Aquarium, Lighthouse Atoll) Dive #3: 106 feet for 47 minutes (Long Caye Ridge, Lighthouse Atoll) Dive #4: 83 feet for 50 minutes (Long Caye Ridge, Lighthouse Atoll) Dive #5: 73 feet for 47 minutes (Long Caye Ridge, Lighthouse Atoll) 9/6/06 (Turks & Caicos Aggressor): Dive #1: 93 feet for 44 minutes (Driveway, West Caicos) Dive #2: 82 feet for 54 minutes (Driveway, West Caicos) Dive #3: 49 feet for 58 minutes (Rock Garden Interlude, West Caicos) Dive #4: 52 feet for 53 minutes (Rock Garden Interlude, West Caicos) Dive #5: 52 feet for 51 minutes (Rock Garden Interlude, West Caicos) 3/11/08 (Palau Aggressor): Dive #1: 75 feet for 39 minutes (Little Drop Off) Dive #2: 93 feet for 49 minutes (Blue Corner) Dive #3: 64 feet for 59 minutes (New Drop Off) Dive #4: 57 feet for 62 minutes (Fern's Wall) Dive #5: 48 feet for 63 minutes (Turtle Cove) I'd have more examples, but in truth I don't have very many five-dive days under my belt. However, that's only because I'm lazy, sore ears, whatever, not because of lack of opportunity - I see plenty of divers making every single dive offered on a liveaboard, five in a day on many of the days. The trick is, I know how much time I can spend at maximum depth, how much time I can spend in the shallows, all by glancing at my wrist. How would a Luddite do the same? >I love my VR3 for cold water deep diving. It gets me out of the water >many minutes quicker than tables. How ironic. My Oceanic hockey puck keeps me in the water much longer than would tables. > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:00:35 -0600, John Hanson > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How ironic. My Oceanic hockey puck keeps me in the water much longer > than would tables. Like he said, "cold water". I'd want to get out quicker too :) >>> you'll change your opinion about computers. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I love my VR3 for cold water deep diving. It gets me out of the water > many minutes quicker than tables. Funny, I go up when I'm ready, not when a 'puter says I'm ready. You're now talking dives beyond what most here do, myself included. Curtis >>>> you'll change your opinion about computers. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You're now talking dives beyond what most here do, myself included. Granted. But, I spent less on my used VR3 than I did on my breathing gases alone on Isle Royale last year ($700+ on gas). I picked mine up used for $550. So, if I can save time in the water as well as minimize the amount of gas used (finite amount on a live aboard...why were started dropping O2 percentages on our "70 foot" gas), I'm a happy diver (and warmer). >> You're now talking dives beyond what most here do, myself included. > Granted. Which actually makes it harder to "justify". ;-) Curtis On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:56:12 -0800 (PST), Greg Mossman >Why, necessarily? If one diver continually runs short on air and his >buddy continually returns with more air than the recommended minimum, >assuming only one size tank is available such as at the standard >resort setting, what's the harm in balancing out the air a bit if it >can prolong the dive by another few minutes? Absolutely nothing. >>Why, necessarily? If one diver continually runs short on air and his >>buddy continually returns with more air than the recommended minimum, >>assuming only one size tank is available such as at the standard >>resort setting, what's the harm in balancing out the air a bit if it >>can prolong the dive by another few minutes? > Absolutely nothing. If the sharing is done early, before reserves are hit, gotta agree, although I'd not advise a newbie to do it. (Opinion limited to recreational OW diving.) Curtis > "Dan Bracuk" wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > (Opinion limited to recreational OW diving.) No, not something newbies should be advised to do. It requires enough trial and error experience to know how far you can safely "cheat". Also something that is done later than earlier in the dive, when we both have a better sense of how close we our to our "reserves" and when we're likely to be shallower and therefore closer to the surface and unlimited air just in case we cut it too close. In Bonaire, for instance, it's allowed us to make it back from the second reef to the first without having to make a lengthy surface swim. Plenty of reserve left in my tank if we needed to make an emergency ascent from 70-80 feet, even including safety stop (700 psi is plenty for that), so why not suck her 1,200 psi down a bit while making the swim at depth, thus allowing both of us to ascend up the gentle slope of the first reef from 60' with about 700 psi left apiece, 500 left at the 25' crest of the reef, and 350 when we finally end up in waist-deep water and come up for good. Now that's a dive plan! > If the sharing is done early, before reserves are hit, gotta agree, >although I'd not advise a newbie to do it. > > (Opinion limited to recreational OW diving.) In real life, you won't know that the sharing requirement is there until it comes up, which is later on in the dive. Since the option is limited to recreational OW diving only, the concept of reserves basically means, "can we make it to the surface?". > In real life, you won't know that the sharing requirement is there > until it comes up, which is later on in the dive. > > Since the option is limited to recreational OW diving only, the > concept of reserves basically means, "can we make it to the surface?". "Can WE make it _safely_ to the surface at any time sharing either one gas supply?" Curtis >> If the sharing is done early, before reserves are hit, gotta agree, >> although I'd not advise a newbie to do it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Since the option is limited to recreational OW diving only, the > concept of reserves basically means, "can we make it to the surface?". I did this recently, turning into an air fish when I hit 600 and my SO was still at 1400 or so. Sucked her tank (slowly, to be sure!) down to about 800 before returning to my tank. At that point we were within 50' of the boat and less than 20' (on a dive that didn't go below 35'). Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. > Awareness. Awareness. Awareness. > > You don't dive a profile waiting for a bell to ring like you're a > three minute egg. I never said different, in fact I mentioned the scenario above as a negative in the idea - complacent dependency. But I stand on the notion that given how important air alone is to the whole enterprise that a backup warning is merited for those who may from time to time get otherwise distracted. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On Feb 10, 10:44 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > Awareness. Awareness. Awareness. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > whole enterprise that a backup warning is merited for those who may from > time to time get otherwise distracted. In commercial scuba appliances a double independant pressure control is obligatory. One is to function in no vis environments. Matthias > On Feb 10, 10:44 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > In commercial scuba appliances a double independant pressure control > is obligatory. One is to function in no vis environments. I'm talking about a passive warning device, not a control. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On Feb 11, 10:46 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > On Feb 10, 10:44 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I'm talking about a passive warning device, not a control. I don't want to dive into kybernetics, but I am speaking of passive and active devices. The pointer of a gauge is controlled by the pressure. Same is the shutting action of a mechanical reserve valve, or a beep at the dive computer. For no viz dives, Draeger FFMs have the "pecker", something which vibrates againts your cheek. Matthias > On Feb 11, 10:46 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the "pecker", something which vibrates againts your cheek. > Matthias All I mean by passive is something that requires no active component, no power (other than the air pressure in hoses) is not in the way of air flow to the diver or the gauge and if it fails, it fails in a way that will not affect the gauge nor of course the air flow to the diver. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >You plan your dive. You dive your plan. You might, I don't. I jump in and react to what's there. I look at my watch, spg, and computer for useful information that helps me decide how long to stay down. Sometimes I simply follow the group. > I jump in and react to what's there. I look at my watch, spg, and > computer for useful information that helps me decide how long to stay > down. Sometimes I simply follow the group. Sounds like a plan to me ;-) SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de >>You plan your dive. You dive your plan. > > You might, I don't. > > I jump in and react to what's there. I ride my computer like a WFO dirtbike. Sometimes, I fall off... > I look at my watch, spg, and > computer for useful information that helps me decide how long to stay > down. Sometimes I simply follow the group. Yup. Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 > > I know it's been discussed before. But I'm getting into a discussion > > on another forum with some one about the history of those limits. And [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > -- > John Eells During the course of our discussion I asked this question in regards as to why having to have at least 500psi at the end of a dive was so important: "If you are hanging at 15 feet with less than 500 psi but with plenty of air time for a safety stop what exactly is going to go wrong?" I got this rather interesting reply: - OK, have you ever seen someone get bent while hanging on the safety stop bar? Actually, it happens a lot and I've seen it happen. With enough air the diver can descend intil the pain stops and, if necessary, wait for more air to be brought down so a prolonged deco stop can be executed." I found it a tad scary that he was advocating IWR as an excepted practice for treating a potential bends hit in a recreational diver scenario. By the way, any body else see or hear of "a lot" of people getting bent on the safety hang bar? Capt. Bill >> > I know it's been discussed before. But I'm getting into a discussion >> > on another forum with some one about the history of those limits. And [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > By the way, any body else see or hear of "a lot" of people getting > bent on the safety hang bar? He's daft. A "lot" of people don't get bent world wide, on a yearly basis. > Capt. Bill Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:01:59 -0800 (PST), "capt.bill11" >By the way, any body else see or hear of "a lot" of people getting >bent on the safety hang bar? Not me. > I know it's been discussed before. But I'm getting into a discussion > on another forum with some one about the history of those limits. And > whether or not they are arbitrary or not. And if they have any real > basis as being safer than say any other number. > > So anybody care to refresh my memory on the history of those numbers? I've had divers trained over a decade ago or longer, tell me the limit they were taught was 150'. Did it change to 130' over time or are they remembering wrong? Metric divers have a PSI limit of 40bar which is closer to 580PSI. I've been in groups where they plan around 50bar. Hi John, > I've had divers trained over a decade ago or longer, tell me the limit > they were taught was 150'. Did it change to 130' over time or are they > remembering wrong? Is it a limit or more like "If you pass the course you are trained to to dives within the limits of your course"-bullshit? Here in Germany we have declining depth recommendations from way over 50m to 40m to 30m considered "deep" within 15years. Accidents do not correlate. But buying plastic cards has increased. > Metric divers have a PSI limit of 40bar which is closer to 580PSI. Where? In EU it is for what you call "recreational" 50Bar. But you may still plan 70 or 100Bar depending on what you dive. > I've been in groups where they plan around 50bar. Yes. SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de > Is it a limit or more like "If you pass the course you are trained to to > dives within the limits of your course"-bullshit? It seems normal to me that new OW divers should limit their depth to 60ft. The courses reinforce that through "rules". It also means that divers will feel compelled to take AOW courses before going deeper. I don't have a problem with that, other than it should be one course with breaks to obtain dive experience. > I've had divers trained over a decade ago or longer, tell me the limit > they were taught was 150'. Did it change to 130' over time or are they > remembering wrong? Might be geographical. The 130fsw limit was typical to the USA, whereas BSAC & CMAS in Europe tended to use a different number. My recollection was that it originally was 50m (165fsw); this might have been changed over time to 45m (~150fsw). In the meantime, I personally recall classroom work for dive tables that involved air profiles to 180fsw. When asked "why so deep?", the instructor's response was that this was a typical depth on a local dive (NJ's "Texas Tower") and if we were going to be 'regular' divers, it was likely that we would be doing that profile within a few years. Needless to say, this was before the days of "fly someplace warm" resort diving became widespread popular. -hh > Might be geographical. The 130fsw limit was typical to the USA, > whereas BSAC & CMAS in Europe tended to use a different number. My > recollection was that it originally was 50m (165fsw); this might have > been changed over time to 45m (~150fsw). In France they still have a limit of 65m on air by law. Which is 200fsw? Joerg SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de <snip> > I've had divers trained over a decade ago or longer, tell me the limit > they were taught was 150'. Did it change to 130' over time or are they > remembering wrong? <snip> This has definitely morphed over time. In 1972, I was taught the limit was 300' on air (PPO2 around 2.1 ATM), something I think is completely insane to plan for today. If I recall correctly, Hal Watts used to teach people to dive up to 240' on air (PP02 about 1.7) until he retired (not long ago), as one of his students was one of my instructors. As something to experience in case one must bail out to air when deep, I can understand this, but to plan to dive that deep on air outside a carefully controlled training environment is something I personally would not care to do. From an O2 toxicity standpoint, anything past 220FSW (PPO2 1.6) seems rather risky to me. For recreational divers I think 130' is reasonable for most given the low frequency most divers dive and for the reasons I outlined in a prior post. (Then, there are divers whom I wouldn't consider safe in water deeper than their knees, but that's a different story.) SignatureJohn Eells > <snip> >> I've had divers trained over a decade ago or longer, tell me the limit [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > for most given the low frequency most divers dive and for the reasons I > outlined in a prior post. I dive a 1.6 at all times, as I was taught. Oxtoxes are grossly infrequent. > (Then, there are divers whom I wouldn't consider safe in water deeper than > their knees, but that's a different story.) Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 Hi Douglas, > I dive a 1.6 at all times, as I was taught. > > Oxtoxes are grossly infrequent. I don`t understand this. Do You mean a) within 1.6, Oxtox(Paul Bert)effects are grossly infrequent, but you had? b) within 1.6, Oxtox(Paul Bert)effects are grossly infrequent, and you never had? I would be interested in finding any source of oxtox within 1.6. Even considering 1.6 to 2.0 range with an resonable short 5 to 10 minutes exposure I doubt finding one. lg Joerg SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de > Hi Douglas, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Even considering 1.6 to 2.0 range with an resonable short 5 to 10 > minutes exposure I doubt finding one. Hi Joerg, Ingo F. of the Lusitania team had an oxtox on 1,6. FFM saved him. Otherwise, people who suffered an oxtox are now grossly infrequent, that's right. LG, Matthias > Hi Douglas, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I don`t understand this. Do You mean When I did IANTD Nitrox, in, '97, I think, we were taught to dive a PO2 of 1.6. ("Working" dives, a Navy term, would be at 1.4) That was back when the word "Nitrox" was verboten at DEMA. Since PADI and others finally got on the band wagon, the limit has been downed to 1.4 for generic liability reasons. > a) within 1.6, Oxtox(Paul Bert)effects are grossly infrequent, > but you had? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Even considering 1.6 to 2.0 range with an resonable short 5 to 10 minutes > exposure I doubt finding one. I agree wholeheartedly. But I would substitute the word "amazed" for "interested". > lg > Joerg Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 >> Hi Douglas, >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Since PADI and others finally got on the band wagon, the limit has been > downed to 1.4 for generic liability reasons. Neither PADI nor any of the other recreational agencies have the skills or will to do scientific evaluation of dive procedures. Even DAN's and NOAA's work is pretty lame. The NEDU is the only org that is doing any meaningful research, and they ain't sharing much. That leaves us all taking a "magic number", say 1.6 (2.1 in Belgium), and whacking a little off the top to make it "more conservative" (a totally bogus concept!). Where this all goes down the toilet is when these numbers are pulled out of someone's a.s with no knowledge of what they really mean or for what purpose they were derived. For example, as we speak Lambertson is researching an exposure limit of 0.8 Will PADI react with a recreational limit of 0.6? esg >>> Hi Douglas, >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > esg Navy changed the RB setpoint max to 1.3, and reduced the number of consecutive hours training on the LARV, mostly due to hyperoxic myopia, but there were a few "undeserved" O2 hits on RB's. >>>>Hi Douglas, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > consecutive hours training on the LARV, mostly due to hyperoxic myopia, but > there were a few "undeserved" O2 hits on RB's. But newer research has nothing to do with oxtox, or even with OTUs (see Hanson's reply). It's all about long term cumulative exposure, dozens of years, thousands of hours, way beyond the range of yer silly dive computers and techie tables, more exposure than we fun divers will ever see. And the thinking is that enough exposure, even low exposure - say 1.0 for 6,000 hours over 30 years - can do serious damage all over yer body. That's why I say, all this goes down the toilet when these numbers are pulled out of someone's a.s with no knowledge of what they really mean or for what purpose they were derived. My personal limit remains 1.7 which is simply 240' on air for the fun of it. esg > That's why I say, all this goes down the toilet when these numbers are > pulled out of someone's a.s with no knowledge of what they really mean > or for what purpose they were derived. And for one dive, the exposure time is important. A couple of minutes is different to 45 minutes. > My personal limit remains 1.7 which is simply 240' on air for the fun of > it. Which is 232ft? or 71m. The shown oxtox on my DC is quiete moderate. At 262ft it starts literally counting up in steps of 10s to reach 100%. Which equals 1.89 bar PPO2. joerg SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de >>> Hi Douglas, >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > esg What he said. Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 >>> Hi Douglas, >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >researching an exposure limit of 0.8 Will PADI react with a recreational >limit of 0.6? For very long decompression dives, that magic 1.4 often drops to 1.0 or even below depending on OTUs. I certainly wouldn't just automatically plan a dive with 1.4 for my bottom mix. > I know it's been discussed before. But I'm getting into a discussion > on another forum with some one about the history of those limits. And > whether or not they are arbitrary or not. And if they have any real > basis as being safer than say any other number. > > So anybody care to refresh my memory on the history of those numbers? I think setting more conservative limits than needed have been important to the dive industry, divers tend to be riskier people. We were told things as if they were hard and fast truths only to find out that they are loosely adhered to by typical divers and dive operations. The 500PSI and 130' limits may be there just to keep people above 150' and from surfacing with 0psi. The conservative limits work well. I've seen divers panic (just a little) when they exceed the limit by 1ft. And I can tell you how many times a new buddy has signalled end-of-dive because of low air and surfaced with well over 500PSI, because (s)he was worried about passing the 500PSI limit. Maybe it's a good way to teach one to monitor those things. Hi John, > I think setting more conservative limits than needed have been > important to the dive industry, Sure, to sell deep dive courses. > divers tend to be riskier people. Riskier than who? > operations. The 500PSI and 130' limits may be there just to keep > people above 150' and from surfacing with 0psi. The 50Bar is not. It is the assumption that 50Bar may be still there to be used in case of unexpected difficulties, may be used as bailout for your partner... etc. > The conservative limits work well. I would not call 50 Bar conservative, it is the minimum. > passing the 500PSI limit. Maybe it's a good way to teach one to > monitor those things No. Asskicking might be a tool to help them learn "buddy awareness" and to register air consumption and dive their plan. Or being/living a good standard. joerg SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de > > I think setting more conservative limits than needed have been > > important to the dive industry, > > Sure, to sell deep dive courses. No to reinforce the idea that diving is dangerous and prevent divers for going too far. Are you suggesting that "no limits" should be taught? > > divers tend to be riskier people. > > Riskier than who? Diving adds risk to your life, divers tend to be more risky. > > operations. The 500PSI and 130' limits may be there just to keep > > people above 150' and from surfacing with 0psi. > > The 50Bar is not. It is the assumption that 50Bar may be still there to > be used in case of unexpected difficulties, may be used as bailout for > your partner... etc. We learned the "rule of thirds" to conserve enough gas for our buddy. The 500PSI limit was taught for unforeseen contingencies, like having to dive immediately to avoid something. I can see your point that to rise from depth might take that much additional air to support a panicky buddy though. > > The conservative limits work well. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No. Asskicking might be a tool to help them learn "buddy awareness" and > to register air consumption and dive their plan. Dive planning is taught as a necessity but I rarely see it done properly practice. At resort dives it's the briefing, on unorganized dives it's usually over simplified. You can rest on your opinion that "asskicking" should be all that's needed but that won't work on everyone. > Or being/living a good standard. That I agree on. Hi John, >>> I think setting more conservative limits than needed have been >>> important to the dive industry, >> Sure, to sell deep dive courses. > > No to reinforce the idea that diving is dangerous and prevent divers > for going too far. Are you suggesting that "no limits" should be That is not what I said. In ancient times the diving course was sufficent to let educated divers dive within a much deeper ranger. To reach more people, education was simplified, the course much easier to pass. The educated diver could not reach eq 65m anymore. Therefore the agencies had to sell more advanced courses with same knowledge, which was included in the former, older courses. All I am suggesting is that divers should be trained for being autonomous, adult, responsible. Limits then are Kindergarten. Rest is self regulating Darwin. And would be still less dangerous than driving. >> Riskier than who? > > Diving adds risk to your life, divers tend to be more risky. huuh? Getting out of bed adds risk to your life. Diving is way less risky compared to skiing, driving (not to mention motorbiking) and even skateboarding. All this are accepted sports or tasks. > We learned the "rule of thirds" to conserve enough gas for our buddy. In my case, that is the mentioned 70bars. Given usually 200bars full tank. 50bar is 1 fourth of 200. Used for plain, warm dives. > The 500PSI limit was taught for unforeseen contingencies, like having > to dive immediately to avoid something. Is that about 1 fourth or 1 third of full tank? > I can see your point that to > rise from depth might take that much additional air to support a > panicky buddy though. First, exactly _this_ was not my point. The 50bar-1/4 is rest, buffer, reserve. It is not used. Only for unforseen purpose/emergency/not whalesharks. Second, "rise from depth" is way before reaching 50Bar. Depending on dive I plan and dive to be free of deko and in sight of ladder of boat at 50bar. On deeper dives due to safety/redundancy considerations this marker is set more to 70bar reserve. I do not dive with panicking divers. If I dive with people who might have a slight chance to panic, I do not do any deep/blue. I do not do any tasks. I do have air for both of us and make shure that the diver is not panicking at all, period. > Dive planning is taught as a necessity but I rarely see it done > properly practice. At resort dives it's the briefing, on unorganized > dives it's usually over simplified. I do not do "resort dives". It is more like "if we reach location, let my buddy and me go first and do not wait for us for supper". > You can rest on your opinion that "asskicking" should be all that's > needed but that won't work on everyone. If they want to dive with me, I prefer asskicking. Otherwise they do not dive with me. I am setting the minimum standard. What others do, is not of my interest. They don`t have to care about me. I am fine, as long as they do not imply any rules of theirs on me. joerg SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de > In ancient times the diving course was sufficent to let educated divers > dive within a much deeper ranger. > To reach more people, education was simplified, the course much easier > to pass. The educated diver could not reach eq 65m anymore. > Therefore the agencies had to sell more advanced courses with same > knowledge, which was included in the former, older courses. I can see the business sense that this makes. More divers=more income. I'm told that BSAC, for example, include OW, AOW and rescue in the basic training. Were the skill requirements for original courses that deep? > All I am suggesting is that divers should be trained for being > autonomous, adult, responsible. Limits then are Kindergarten. > Rest is self regulating Darwin. And would be still less dangerous than > driving. Relying on natural selection would result in government regulation of the industry. Higher fatalities would make diving appear more risky so fewer divers would dive. Fewer divers means fewer dive operations, shops, manufacturers resulting in fewer and more expensive options. It's not that economy is the goal, but, regardless of how or why people dive safely the more that dive the more choices divers have. > huuh? Getting out of bed adds risk to your life. > Diving is way less risky compared to skiing, driving (not to mention > motorbiking) and even skateboarding. All this are accepted sports or tasks. The perceived risk of getting out of bed just isn't there for most people. The others that you mention are more likely to injure than kill. Diving is a larger perceived risk for most people. Of the divers that I know many drive motorcycles and fly air planes, more than in other groups that I know. > In my case, that is the mentioned 70bars. Given usually 200bars full > tank. 50bar is 1 fourth of 200. Used for plain, warm dives. In our case that's 1000PSI (1/3 tank) remaining. The plan is generally to make it back to the mooring block, or close to shore on a shore dive at 1000PSI. If there is something worth seeing we doddle around until 800PSI (1/4 tank) or so before ascending. We then usually end up at 700PSi at the surface. With most of my buddies that puts me at 1000PSI to 1100PSI at the surface. When I have a buddy that's better on air. I plan to hit the surface at 500psi, but often get conservative on unfamiliar dives (or get bored on familiar ones) and end up at 700PSI. > Is that about 1 fourth or 1 third of full tank? 500PSI is 1/6th of a tank, even less for my 3200PSI tank. > First, exactly _this_ was not my point. The 50bar-1/4 is rest, buffer, > reserve. It is not used. Only for unforseen purpose/emergency/not > whalesharks. So even if you have an emergency at the bottom and end of a dive with both divers sharing your tank, you've planned to surface with at least 1/4 tank? > Second, "rise from depth" is way before reaching 50Bar. Depending on > dive I plan and dive to be free of deko and in sight of ladder of boat > at 50bar. On deeper dives due to safety/redundancy considerations this > marker is set more to 70bar reserve. There's one difference. The training I've had does not involve deco diving. Safety stops only. > I do not dive with panicking divers. If I dive with people who might > have a slight chance to panic, I do not do any deep/blue. I do not do > any tasks. I do have air for both of us and make shure that the diver is > not panicking at all, period. Replacing panicking with breathing hard, that's closer to what I meant. It would take a heavy breathing diver and me on the same 1/6th tank at 60ish feet to even come close to draining it. And that's including a safety stop. Now 130+ foot dives are different, but then I would be more conservative. > I do not do "resort dives". It is more like "if we reach location, let > my buddy and me go first and do not wait for us for supper". Is this a terminology problem? I've been on dive boats run out of resorts and operations that are standalone. They are quite similar in their disregard for huge parts of the dive "standards" I was taught, each in their own way. > If they want to dive with me, I prefer asskicking. Otherwise they do not > dive with me. I am setting the minimum standard. What others do, is not > of my interest. They don`t have to care about me. I am fine, as long as > they do not imply any rules of theirs on me. I've heard a lot of divers say they are really tough on bad divers similar to your "asskicking". I have yet to see that happen in the wild. Perhaps in your case we simply don't cross paths, but I suspect many might be exaggerating. Should we be firm irm on other divers? Sure, I think bad divers need to know when they've made a mistake, but not to the point of becoming an "asskicking" jerk about it, I haven't seen a disgression worth that yet.. So do you mean "asskicking" as really blowing up at the buddy or just being firm? On Feb 11, 5:07 pm, John Van Ostrand <john.van.ostr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Should we be firm irm on other divers? Sure, I think bad divers need > to know when they've made a mistake, but not to the point of becoming > an "asskicking" jerk about it, I haven't seen a disgression worth that > yet.. So do you mean "asskicking" as really blowing up at the buddy or > just being firm? I yell at Janna when I feel her buddy skills were lacking. (For instance, when I've surfaced for whatever reason and she doesn't follow for another half-hour.) I think it helps, but it probably just wants to make her stab me sometime. That's why I don't let her dive with a knife! <snip> > I'm told that BSAC, for example, include OW, AOW and rescue in the > basic training. Were the skill requirements for original courses that > deep? Judge for yourself. I was taught to do repetitive deco dives from US Navy tables in 1972. It took Deco Procedures to catch me up to my "original" level of training, excepting only accelerated deco using Nitrox, which did not exist (perhaps outside commercial diving) at the time. Though I have yet to take the class, much of the material in Rescue Diver was also part of the basic course then. Buddy breathing (no longer part of OW or AOW), doff and don (ditto), and fitness tests all factored into the course. We were made to demonstrate all skills (including doff, surface, dive, and don) in 20-25' (6-8m) of water on our certification dives, which were shore dives in the Atlantic with surf entry and exit. We had to know our SAC rates and be able to put together a gas plan--without SPGs, which were rate. We had to demonstrate buoyancy control with mouth-inflated horse collars. If I recall correctly, the course ran about three months twice a week with time split between classroom and pool, followed by two open water certification dives. Having said that, the equipment, training, and techniques for diving are *vastly* superior today, and the level of training we got back then for an OW cert (there was no other kind) was far beyond what is necessary for safe recreational diving within the NDL in my opinion. Back then, you were either a diver, or not a diver. Lots of people died learning how to extend the sport into places like wrecks, caves, and depths much beyond 250' with some degree of safety. I don't want to go back. Though I have an opinion about the level of training given for "advanced" OW it seems clear that the incremental approach works as well or better for most people, and I suspect many would be deterred by the Navy-style training regimen from the early 70's. Much more training is available now, it's just in smaller bites. On the balance, I think that's better, though I would plump for more skills I consider basic to be included much earlier in training--in particular, gas planning. SignatureJohn Eells > <snip> >> I'm told that BSAC, for example, include OW, AOW and rescue in the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Buddy breathing (no longer part of OW or AOW), We did buddy breathing in the pool for the PADI OW. In fact we did this on a 'tourist' dive in Cancun in 2003 as well. > doff and don (ditto), and If you mean the mask, of course we did that in the pool and in the OW dives. Our instructor also had a fetish for putting on equipment in the water. > fitness tests all factored into the course. We were made to demonstrate > all skills (including doff, surface, dive, and don) in 20-25' (6-8m) of > water on our certification dives, which were shore dives in the Atlantic > with surf entry and exit. We had to know our SAC rates and be able to > put together a gas plan--without SPGs, which were rate. We had to > demonstrate buoyancy control with mouth-inflated horse collars. We didn't do buoyancy control with our BCD mouth valve (though I can't see that as hard, just cumbersome), we did runaway BCD hose disconnection while holding the BCD purge valve open. > If I recall correctly, the course ran about three months twice a week > with time split between classroom and pool, followed by two open water [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that's better, though I would plump for more skills I consider basic to > be included much earlier in training--in particular, gas planning. The PADI OW cert thence to other grades seems really adapted to the tourism cycle. You can do the OW in a 1 week trip south and even add another boy scout badge while there. On other trips you can add a couple more boyscout badges each time. What I found bizarre was the insistence that we watch the PADI videos which were thin gruel compared to the manual. As my SO and I each read the manual (250 p) cover to cover, we each scored 100% on both written tests to the surprise of the instructor. I guess a lot of people write the exam based on the videos alone. Scary. (The videos don't go into the tables at all, you have to learn that from the table manual). Gas planning for the lowest levels seems to be "so, how long do you think a tank will last at 60'"? Answer: "if my SO is with me, it'll last 10 minutes longer." Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On Feb 12, 2:00 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > I was taught to do repetitive deco dives from US Navy tables in 1972. It I don't think there is deco training in the normal recreational PADI stream. Up here the deco training is done through technical agencies like GUE, although NAUI has a tech course that I know of. We did cover the contingency of deco in dive tables work. > > Buddy breathing (no longer part of OW or AOW), I took a NAUI-based OW course which covered buddy breathing. It was simple, a lap around the pool sharing a reg. > > doff and don (ditto), and > > fitness tests all factored into the course. We were made to demonstrate > > all skills (including doff, surface, dive, and don) in 20-25' (6-8m) of > > water on our certification dives, which were shore dives in the Atlantic > > with surf entry and exit. That sounds tough. Our doff/surface/dive/don was in 12 feet of water. A buddy handed the doffed reg and lead as soon as the diver reached the bottom. I can't imagine doing that to 20' of water in surf. > > We had to know our SAC rates and be able to > > put together a gas plan--without SPGs, which were rate. We had to > > demonstrate buoyancy control with mouth-inflated horse collars. No SAC rate stuff, not even mentioned. > > If I recall correctly, the course ran about three months twice a week > > with time split between classroom and pool, followed by two open water > > certification dives. OW was four 4 hour class and pool training followed by two days of two- tank open-water diving with training with interspersed QA and performance feedback. Pool skills included towing, distance swimming (200 meters or so), treading water, a surprise OOA or buddy panic situation, buoyancy, fin pivots, and more. In the OW dives we practiced emergency ascent, buddy breathing switching regs, natural navigation, mask r/r and clearing, and buoyancy control. I did the PADI AOW in a hot spring in Utah, but in the NAUI-based course it includes navigation, deep dive (100'), search and recovery and night dive. Each course involves a 400meter snorkel in full gear facing forward. The Rescue was physically tough, another 400 meter snorkel to warm up then lots of towing. The OW was the most challenging with medical, biological, math (tables), and gear. AOW and Nitrox could have been just book work. Rescue was a lot of diving specific medical memory work; dive site planning, monitoring and safety; diver stress monitoring and first-aid additions. I think the videos can help. Everyone learns differently, some learn better by reading, others by watching, some only by doing. Adding the video gives a well thought out and consistent video message. Seeing the same information in three formats helps to reinforce the message. Hi John, > It's not that economy is the goal, but, regardless of how or why > people dive safely the more that dive the more choices divers have. I`m getting your point. Here in my homeland they close freshwater lakes because of too much divers. So the divers acumulate at the remaining lakes and the overcrowding still gets worse. > people. The others that you mention are more likely to injure than > kill. Diving is a larger perceived risk for most people. In my homeland, you have way more killed bikers and the social healthcare has vastly higher costs by killed and injured skateboarders. >> In my case, that is the mentioned 70bars. Given usually 200bars full >> tank. 50bar is 1 fourth of 200. Used for plain, warm dives. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > at 700PSi at the surface. With most of my buddies that puts me at > 1000PSI to 1100PSI at the surface. If you do ndl dives in warm water 1/3 tank reserve is _very_ conservative. 1/4 at mooring is ok. >> First, exactly _this_ was not my point. The 50bar-1/4 is rest, buffer, >> reserve. It is not used. Only for unforseen purpose/emergency/not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > both divers sharing your tank, you've planned to surface with at least > 1/4 tank? That is not what I said. Emergency is end of dive, is ascend, is get out the water. The outcome of an emergency situation is not planable. What you can plan is: figure out what might happen, increase your chances by more air/reserve, more skills, more equipment, different equipm., better equipm, more briefing.... > There's one difference. The training I've had does not involve deco > diving. Safety stops only. And at dives with safety stops you don`t have decompression? The truth may hit you hard, even recreational diving and so called NDL dives do have dekompression in ascend. And the gas needs to go somewhere. Whether you call it safety stop or deko stop. Same thing happening there. > Replacing panicking with breathing hard, that's closer to what I > meant. It would take a heavy breathing diver and me on the same 1/6th > tank at 60ish feet to even come close to draining it. I would consider to do those dives without a tank. You don`t need a safety stop then either. ;-) > Now 130+ foot dives are different, but then I > would be more conservative. I daubt, you do a decent NDL safety stop dive on 130+ft. But right, 180 to 240ft on air is different. >> I do not do "resort dives". It is more like "if we reach location, let >> my buddy and me go first and do not wait for us for supper". > > Is this a terminology problem? Probably. > I've heard a lot of divers say they are really tough on bad divers No, I am not. I am not there. > Should we be firm irm on other divers? I don`t care. Those are not diving with me. > just being firm? When they dive with me, they want to learn. Then I am firm. Or they dive with me on an equal basis. Then they don`t fool around and I regard them as friends. And I don`t dive with spousses. SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de [Default] Thus spake "capt.bill11" <capt.bill11@verizon.net>: >I know it's been discussed before. But I'm getting into a discussion >on another forum with some one about the history of those limits. And >whether or not they are arbitrary or not. And if they have any real >basis as being safer than say any other number. > >So anybody care to refresh my memory on the history of those numbers? Because we've always done it that way. :-) As far as the 130 ft limit, I'm pretty certain Popeye's got that about right. Back when these sorts of things got written in stone, things like balanced regulators weren't around and somewhere around 130 ft they just quit breathing very readily. I remember a Cousteau special many, many moons ago where they pretty much said that. But that was at least 35 years ago, back when they carved tanks out of logs and used vines as hoses. Signature- dillon I am not invalid I love my country, It's my government I fear. Hey, turnabout's fair play. > As far as the 130 ft limit, I'm pretty certain Popeye's got that about > right. The only point I have to concede to Douglas is that modern education does not enable pupils in general to dive deeper than 130ft. So it may be better for them to stay shallow. I do not aggree to interprete this as limit for everybody. Because this has influence on my assurance, on my habit to dive f.e. in Egypt, Spain, USA... Because many dive operators would not let me dive by letting transport, bottle and lead solely. They can earn more money with more people treated like Kindergarten. 130ft or even 100ft is a number to sell cards or keep pupils dependent. And another ten years later from now, nowadays limit is set to 60ft and nobody suspects dives to 215ft or more possible on air. I say: it is not the depth killing people but poor education. Back when these sorts of things got written in stone, things > like balanced regulators weren't around and somewhere around 130 ft > they just quit breathing very readily. I remember a Cousteau special > many, many moons ago where they pretty much said that. But that was > at least 35 years ago, back when they carved tanks out of logs and > used vines as hoses. And 70 years ago Hans Hass diving 60ft on 100% Oxigen. SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de >> As far as the 130 ft limit, I'm pretty certain Popeye's got that about >> right. > > The only point I have to concede to Douglas is that modern education does > not enable pupils in general to dive deeper than 130ft. So it may be > better for them to stay shallow. We were talking about the historical origins, I thought. > I do not aggree to interprete this as limit for everybody. Because this > has influence on my assurance, on my habit to dive f.e. in Egypt, Spain, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 130ft or even 100ft is a number to sell cards or keep pupils dependent. In the U.S., initial dive training is so abbreviated that it requires different levels. They are only recommendations. But I do agree with you. > And another ten years later from now, nowadays limit is set to 60ft and > nobody suspects dives to 215ft or more possible on air. > I say: it is not the depth killing people but poor education. Nothing is killing people except fate- diving deaths are an infantismal fraction of dives. > Back when these sorts of things got written in stone, things >> like balanced regulators weren't around and somewhere around 130 ft [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And 70 years ago Hans Hass diving 60ft on 100% Oxigen. Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 >>> As far as the 130 ft limit, I'm pretty certain Popeye's got that about >>> right. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > We were talking about the historical origins, I thought. Pappy did 310 on air in a MK5. >>>>As far as the 130 ft limit, I'm pretty certain Popeye's got that about >>>>right. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Pappy did 310 on air in a MK5. Pappy also dove with at least two tenders. > Pappy also dove with at least two tenders. And comms. They sent him down to shackle a cable onto a mock up of a sub to haul a rescue bell down onto it, just to see if it could be done at that depth. 310 was about the limit of the compressor they had. I asked him "Weren't you narced?" "Man, you don't even know your name." >> Pappy also dove with at least two tenders. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "Man, you don't even know your name." You seem to know everyone whose done everything. Have you done anything yourself fucktard the bullshit artist? >>> Pappy also dove with at least two tenders. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You seem to know everyone whose done everything. > Have you done anything yourself fucktard the bullshit artist? Was this in response to the tenders or the comms? > >>> Pappy also dove with at least two tenders. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Was this in response to the tenders or the comms?- Hide quoted text - I hung out with one of Sylvia Earle's daughters for 10 days, diving and drinking and diving and talking and diving and drinking. She knew her mom. > I hung out with one of Sylvia Earle's daughters for 10 days, diving > and drinking and diving and talking and diving and drinking. She knew > her mom. What? No smoking? Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On Feb 25, 1:24 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > I hung out with one of Sylvia Earle's daughters for 10 days, diving > > and drinking and diving and talking and diving and drinking. She knew > > her mom. > > What? No smoking? I don't usually smoke and tell. What happens in Costa Rica stays in Costa Rica, and all that. But, yeah, there was smoking going on too. While I thought the boat a heap, it was a great trip due to excellent diving and excellent fellow passengers. Besides daughter Earle and her great stories, we had a curator from the Maui Aquarium experienced in shark rustling (he didn't smoke, but certainly helped me keep the kegs of draught beer from getting too foamy with disuse) with more interesting stories, and several accomplished guitarists and even a harmonicist to accompany them and us during those long lonely nights at sea. Exotic liveaboard diving is the epitome of recreational diving in my NSH opinion. Up to five dives a day (that Luddites could never make) in ever-changing locales, nights spent cruising under the stars, a relatively small craft in the middle of nowhere, experienced fellow passengers with plenty of dive tales to tell, the only disadvantages are being almost completely cut off from the rest of the world (except via sat phone or ship's radio) and seasickness. Luddites will never know what they're missing. > On Feb 25, 1:24 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > via sat phone or ship's radio) and seasickness. Luddites will never > know what they're missing. I'll try to talk my SO into it. How's the "eager newbie" tolerance level? (I don't think she could take the sea trip, however, w/o chucking her guts out). Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >I'll try to talk my SO into it. > >How's the "eager newbie" tolerance level? If you pay, you are a customer just like all the other customers on the boat. That's a good thing - liveaboard customers get treated well. Regarding the diving, in many cases you get as much or as little assistance as you want. In a few cases, Galapagos for example, everything is supervised. >> I'll try to talk my SO into it. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > assistance as you want. In a few cases, Galapagos for example, > everything is supervised. Supervised to death. Got it. Not to make light of that, but is it because they want to protect the locale or just plain mothering? Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >Not to make light of that, but is it because they want to protect the >locale or just plain mothering? The former. The Galapagos is one of Ecuador's greatest assets and they want to preserve them - including the underwater part. By the way, if you want to dive as often as you can from a liveaboard, but still live on land, consider Sunset Waters in Curacao or Iberostar in Cozumel. Trip reports here http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/Trips/ > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:26:37 -0500, Alan Browne > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but still live on land, consider Sunset Waters in Curacao or Iberostar > in Cozumel. Trip reports here http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/Trips/ For that matter, consider the entire island of Bonaire. There are all sorts of dedicated dive resorts around the world that offer similar. Cocoview in Roatan is very popular. So is the place where I'm going in May: www.wakatobi.com One difference between dive resorts and liveaboards is the absolute ease of diving since, on most boats at least, your gear stays set up for the entire duration of your trip and nothing is more than a few steps from anywhere else. Take off your gear at your assigned seat, hang up your wetsuit, rinse in the deck shower, dry off with the towel they hand you still warm from the dryer, and walk up a few stairs to where a hot meal awaits. Some resorts almost make it that easy, but there's usually a lot more walking involved and often the need to carry some or all the gear to the boat. Another difference is the number of people aboard. Some liveaboards have a larger capacity (Nekton Pilot holds up to 32) and some resorts have smaller capacities (some with less than 32; Wakatobi can hold 52, I believe), but in general, liveaboards offer a more intimate experience with many boats holding only 16-18 at most and often travel with smaller loads. I did a week in Turks & Caicos with 9 passengers total (including me), and a crew of 5. I did a Bali-to-Komodo liveboard with 8 passengers total, and a crew of 18(!). You can imagine the level of service that passenger/crew ratio entails. You also get to know your few fellow passengers (and crew) very well, since you do all your dives and eat all your meals with the same people every day. The close proximity can be a downside for some. If you don't like people, liveaboards probably aren't for you. Seasickness can vary depending on the itineraries - some boats make downright vicious open- ocean crossings, whereas others primarily putz around in easy seas or lagoons and spend their nights in sheltered coves. Another disadvantage to some is the utter lack of nightlife - you're responsible for making your own good time, whether that be watching a movie in the lounge, wine-fueled conversations under the stars, or reading a book back in your cabin. If you want disco disco, you certainly won't find it on a liveaboard, though there are some dedicated dive resorts that are reasonably close to towns where nightlife can be found. >> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:26:37 -0500, Alan Browne >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > there's usually a lot more walking involved and often the need to > carry some or all the gear to the boat. I don't mind walking and carrying gear. Did a lot of that in San Andres on the coral rocks getting to the edge dives (my tank/gear + SO's) - or similar to the boat (though the dive center wheeled tanks, etc. to the boat). It seems a near necessary part of the ritual. For 2 dives no problem. (Like dragging ski equipment from the parking lot to the lifts...). 5 per day would get old pretty quick, I guess. Having everything ready to go seems luxurious. Q: do they have on boat compressors? I would assume so running 24/7 to keep the bottles charged. > Another difference is the number of people aboard. Some liveaboards > have a larger capacity (Nekton Pilot holds up to 32) and some resorts [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > since you do all your dives and eat all your meals with the same > people every day. Assuming the people match up well, that can be pleasant. > The close proximity can be a downside for some. If you don't like > people, liveaboards probably aren't for you. Seasickness can vary [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > dedicated dive resorts that are reasonably close to towns where > nightlife can be found. We tend to vacation low key - no need for disco. A late evening chatting or reading over a glass of wine, beer or scotch is great. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On Mar 2, 1:32 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > I don't mind walking and carrying gear. Did a lot of that in San Andres > on the coral rocks getting to the edge dives (my tank/gear + SO's) - or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 5 per day would get old pretty quick, I guess. Having everything ready > to go seems luxurious. Exactly. It's all relative to the number of dives. For instance, my last shore diving was on Catalina Island, California, where we stayed a couple nights in a hotel closest to the Underwater Park. We still had to walk our cold water gear, in mesh bags with backpack straps, about a half-mile or so to the shore diving site. That hike and a few cold water dives ended up exhausting us, whereas on a liveaboard with minimal exertion and lots of nitrox, five dives in a day doesn't even make one tired. > Q: do they have on boat compressors? I would assume so running 24/7 to > keep the bottles charged. Yes indeed, but hardly 24/7. A single compressor with multiple fill whips can easily "recharge" the tanks in the space of a PADI- sanctioned one-hour surface interval. Varying air and nitrox fills slows 'em down a bit, but they have systems in place to rapidly identify which tanks get which gas, and the individual nitrox diver is always required to personally analyze, then log the mix in his or her tank. Woe to the non-nitrox diver who doesn't analyze, however, and quite possible could get an accidental nitrox mix and therefore a potentially lethal and unknown MOD. > > I did a Bali-to-Komodo > > liveboard with 8 passengers total, and a crew of 18(!). You can [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Assuming the people match up well, that can be pleasant. Yes indeed. Honestly, I've only suffered one liveaboard trip with a majority of rather "unsufferable" people aboard, and even then we managed to make some friends and have a very good time. On the other hand, on most of the rest of the liveaboard trips I've done, I've managed to find one or more very simpatico fellow divers and end up making the trip an excellent social venture as well as a great dive voyage. On my second liveaboard in the Galapagos, for instance, a 10-day trip on the Peter Hughes Sky Dancer, not only did we run into a couple that we met on the Okeanos Aggressor (Cocos Island) a couple years before, who coincidentally were booked on our Sky Dancer itinerary, but I ended up passing most of my surface interval time with a very interesting tech-trained Croatian-born Torontan (or is it Torontite?) and we entertained each other night after night with plenty of stories, lots of the local Ecuadorian cerveza, and a bit of smokin' too. It wasn't just the two of us that had fun, by the last night of the trip we had a few other passengers and the lady responsible for cleaning the cabins and such, all dancing on the sundeck to some local music until a grumpy guy, one half of a relatively unsociable couple aboard, emerged to complain about the loudness. We good people cranked it way down after that, but it's too bad we felt we had to yield. I've done dive-shop liveaboard charters that can be even more fun when you "own" the entire boat for a week. > We tend to vacation low key - no need for disco. A late evening > chatting or reading over a glass of wine, beer or scotch is great. In that case, a liveaboard that includes all of that might be just up your alley. The Aggressor Fleet boats tend to include local wine and beer, and there's no prohibition on bringing and drinking your own scotch or whatever. Peter Hughes boats offer not only beer and wine, but also a decent selection of liquors. And then there are lots of boats where you can bring your own, or they might sell beer, wine, and cocktails and you run up a tab to settle at the end of the trip. No matter how the booze is handled, hanging out on the top deck with an amazing view of stars and black ocean water (oceans are black at night) is always a sublime experience, and a little smokin' only makes a great thing greater. Honestly, that Galapagos trip I spoke of is the only liveaboard "disco" I've ever seen attempted and it didn't pan out too well. Still, seeing Mike the radar engineer waltzing with Marta the cabin stewardess, with the rest of us dive bums cheering them on, was a very heartwarming end to an very incredible dive trip. You just can't have those kind of experiences and comraderie on land. > On Mar 2, 1:32 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > whips can easily "recharge" the tanks in the space of a PADI- > sanctioned one-hour surface interval. Wow, didn't realize it was that fast. I would think the bottles would need cooling time in order to hit the pressure. > Varying air and nitrox fills > slows 'em down a bit, but they have systems in place to rapidly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > quite possible could get an accidental nitrox mix and therefore a > potentially lethal and unknown MOD. Ouch. I hope they keep the shallow bottles well separated from the technical bottles. I've seen the bottles with various loud illustrations on them indicating they are a breed apart - so I'd assume mix ups are rare. <snp> > On my second liveaboard in the Galapagos, for instance, a 10-day trip > on the Peter Hughes Sky Dancer, not only did we run into a couple that > we met on the Okeanos Aggressor (Cocos Island) a couple years before, > who coincidentally were booked on our Sky Dancer itinerary, but I > ended up passing most of my surface interval time with a very > interesting tech-trained Croatian-born Torontan (or is it Torontite?) Torontonian (aka: "Americanus Wannabe Erectus"). > and we entertained each other night after night with plenty of > stories, lots of the local Ecuadorian cerveza, and a bit of smokin' [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > yield. I've done dive-shop liveaboard charters that can be even more > fun when you "own" the entire boat for a week. I would tend to both respect and want a reasonable noise curfew, say 23:00 - after that party quietly. (As a barmaid here used to say at closing time "those who didn't hitch up aren't about to..." >> We tend to vacation low key - no need for disco. A late evening >> chatting or reading over a glass of wine, beer or scotch is great. > > In that case, a liveaboard that includes all of that might be just up > your alley. The Aggressor Fleet boats tend to include local wine and My alley. Convincing my reserve air carrier, oops, my SO and dive buddy is something else... > beer, and there's no prohibition on bringing and drinking your own > scotch or whatever. Peter Hughes boats offer not only beer and wine, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > heartwarming end to an very incredible dive trip. You just can't have > those kind of experiences and comraderie on land. Yeah, reminds of my last trip to the asteroids and no gravity dancing. I'll have to tell you about that sometime... Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On Mar 2, 3:09 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > Yes indeed, but hardly 24/7. A single compressor with multiple fill > > whips can easily "recharge" the tanks in the space of a PADI- > > sanctioned one-hour surface interval. > > Wow, didn't realize it was that fast. I would think the bottles would > need cooling time in order to hit the pressure. They really probably should be filled slower, but it's not done in practice. A few minutes per tank, that's all. > Ouch. I hope they keep the shallow bottles well separated from the > technical bottles. I've seen the bottles with various loud > illustrations on them indicating they are a breed apart - so I'd assume > mix ups are rare. On liveaboards, the distinction of who gets nitrox and who doesn't might be as precarious as a green valve cap versus a black one. Still, the standard mix on most liveboards is 32%, which means that even if someone wrongly received nitrox in their air tank, they'd still have to exceed recreational limits in order to ox-tox. Since most liveaboards tell their divers to stay within recreational limits, I guess they're covered. > Torontonian (aka: "Americanus Wannabe Erectus"). Does "Wannabe Erectus" imply they're all impotent? > I would tend to both respect and want a reasonable noise curfew, say > 23:00 - after that party quietly. (As a barmaid here used to say at > closing time "those who didn't hitch up aren't about to..." Yeah, well this was the last night and we got our "noise complaint" at only 10:30 pm. Still, we unhappily acquiesced, and whispered our way through the next hour of visiting with each other before we all called it an night. At least we retired to bed knowing we were a lot more fun than the boring folks who lodged the complaint. > My alley. Convincing my reserve air carrier, oops, my SO and dive buddy > is something else... Lie, and if she has a bad time, tell her you were mistaken. But she won't have a bad time. No one does. > > Honestly, that Galapagos trip I spoke of is the only liveaboard > > "disco" I've ever seen attempted and it didn't pan out too well. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yeah, reminds of my last trip to the asteroids and no gravity dancing. > I'll have to tell you about that sometime... The difference being, perhaps, that I actually experienced my exotic liveaboard disco experience, and you're just making sh.t up (unless you're really a shuttle pilot and have discoed with Russian cosmonauts on your space station rendevoux, in which case I'm jealous). > On Mar 2, 3:09 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > They really probably should be filled slower, but it's not done in > practice. A few minutes per tank, that's all. I would think that the pressure would drop as they cool. I'm not going to do the partial pressure math here, but overall that's a 400:1 pressure change for the air. That's got to give off a lot of heat from the bottles. Am I missing something? >> Ouch. I hope they keep the shallow bottles well separated from the >> technical bottles. I've seen the bottles with various loud [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Does "Wannabe Erectus" imply they're all impotent? It's a double parry, so to speak. To Montrealers, Torontonians act too much like Americans. Adding the "erectus" was 'cause I couldn't "latinize" wannabe... in the end I get a double hit on Torontonians. >> I would tend to both respect and want a reasonable noise curfew, say >> 23:00 - after that party quietly. (As a barmaid here used to say at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Lie, and if she has a bad time, tell her you were mistaken. But she > won't have a bad time. No one does. I like the way you think - but I'm a happy tenor. >>> Honestly, that Galapagos trip I spoke of is the only liveaboard >>> "disco" I've ever seen attempted and it didn't pan out too well. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you're really a shuttle pilot and have discoed with Russian cosmonauts > on your space station rendevoux, in which case I'm jealous). ;-) Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >> On Mar 2, 3:09 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I would think that the pressure would drop as they cool. I'm not going > to do the partial pressure math here, but overall that's a 400:1 Doh! (200:1). Oh well - NOVA's on - Pluto ... > pressure change for the air. That's got to give off a lot of heat from > the bottles. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > ;-) Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:57:22 -0500, Alan Browne >I would think that the pressure would drop as they cool. I'm not going >to do the partial pressure math here, but overall that's a 400:1 >pressure change for the air. That's got to give off a lot of heat from >the bottles. > >Am I missing something? You are overthinking the situation. If you are a passenger on the boat, it's not your problem. All you have to do is remember to remove your first stage after you dive and replace it before you dive again. > All you have to do is remember to remove > your first stage after you dive and replace it before you dive again. I sure do hope there is an alarm on computers to warn you if you forget to do this....... > I sure do hope there is an alarm on computers to warn you if you forget >to do this....... There is often a crew member giving you a quick glance as you make your way to the water. >> I sure do hope there is an alarm on computers to warn you if you forget >>to do this....... > >There is often a crew member giving you a quick glance as you make >your way to the water. I think the first breath off the regulator at the gate before the stride might be a clue too. :) Doesn't everybody sit on the stern platform reaching over their heads with both hands and assemble their first stage and open their valves? > Doesn't everybody sit on the stern platform reaching over their heads > with both hands and assemble their first stage and open their valves? Limber tech divers should be able to do that with their feet. >> Doesn't everybody sit on the stern platform reaching over their heads >> with both hands and assemble their first stage and open their valves? > > Limber tech divers should be able to do that with their feet. One foot. The other is assembling the camera system. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. > On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:57:22 -0500, Alan Browne >> I would think that the pressure would drop as they cool. I'm not going >> to do the partial pressure math here, but overall that's a 400:1 (er, 200:1). >> pressure change for the air. That's got to give off a lot of heat from >> the bottles. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > boat, it's not your problem. All you have to do is remember to remove > your first stage after you dive and replace it before you dive again. While happy to let others do their jobs, I'm inquisitive and I like to know how things work and why. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. Hi Greg, > They really probably should be filled slower, For 2 reasons: Wear and fatigue of the bottle is increased and lifetime reduced. I just don`t know how relevant this is. And according to fill pressure and reached temp, pressure drops when water is entered for dive. Or you fill much higher end pressure to have 200bars when cold. This increases wear of compressor. > On liveaboards, I am instructor, nitrox Instructor, tech nitrox instructor. I still ask for air. No questions asked. Or I change boat. > might be as precarious as a green valve cap versus a black one. Besides the two colours, I have blue and white ones too. lg Joerg SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:09:28 -0500, Alan Browne >Ouch. I hope they keep the shallow bottles well separated from the >technical bottles. I've seen the bottles with various loud >illustrations on them indicating they are a breed apart - so I'd assume >mix ups are rare. Few if any tropical liveaboards have tech bottles. Nitrox bottles are usually coloured different than air bottles, and that's as complicated as it gets. >> Not to make light of that, but is it because they want to protect the >> locale or just plain mothering? > > The former. The Galapagos is one of Ecuador's greatest assets and > they want to preserve them - including the underwater part. I suspected as much. That's fine. > By the way, if you want to dive as often as you can from a liveaboard, > but still live on land, consider Sunset Waters in Curacao or Iberostar > in Cozumel. Trip reports here http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/Trips/ Thanks. That may be a better compromise for my SO. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. I dont even bother with the filters for you anymore little girl, you change nyms more often than Obama and Biden lie. > I dont even bother with the filters for you anymore little girl, you change > nyms more often than Obama and Biden lie. I own you, pussy. The only thing you own, punk, is the reputation of being the ebola of usenet. Additionally, cowards like you are a feather in the liberal cap. Thats twice. 2 more before you have to shift nyms again. > The only thing you own, punk, is the reputation of being the ebola of > usenet. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 2 more before you have to shift nyms again. This is too easy. > Pappy did 310 on air in a MK5. Anyway, who is Pappy? What do you want to express? SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de >> Pappy did 310 on air in a MK5. > Anyway, who is Pappy? Unfortunately, because of shitheads like Catl, I am not going to post his name here. > What do you want to express? Just exactly what I did. What did you want to hear/read? Forget it. excuse my asking. SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de Hi Douglas, > We were talking about the historical origins, I thought. Yes, kind of. But I interpreted these origins as grossly wider standards as we got today. And a filing problem so nobody now knows that diving was not impossible 10....20....30 years ago. And you are willing to excuse my glitches in english writing. > In the U.S., initial dive training is so abbreviated that it requires > different levels. As a spin off in EU it is the same. Only that in EU the CMAS is still pretty big as counterpart. And we realize the sort of "downgrading" education but unfortunatly for several reasons there isn`t much left except bragging. > They are only recommendations. Yes, but we in Germany in justice/law have a thing called "common sense". Common sense is "what would your gandma tell you if you would have asked her?". Not a law. But the recommendation gets the status of a law, because many people do NDL-dives and less people know better/different. And that´s why other people`s way of diving bothers my way of diving. > Nothing is killing people except fate- diving deaths are an infantismal > fraction of dives. ;-) SignatureDie neuen Knips-Fotos aus dem Urlaub: http://www.notabstieg.de/maledives-4-2009/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de > Hi Douglas, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And you are willing to excuse my glitches in english writing. I enjoy your contributions here greatly, -especially- when we disagree. Intelligent disagreement provokes thought. >> In the U.S., initial dive training is so abbreviated that it requires >> different levels. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > education but unfortunatly for several reasons there isn`t much left > except bragging. I have always been at ease with the downgrading of requirements- Many sport or "vacation" divers simply have no need of extensive training. Basic warm-water resort diving just isn't that complex, and no reasonable or affordable basic training regimen will cover every given aspect of the variety of diving available today. And if, like for me, it becomes a great enthusiasm, all manners of training are available. >> They are only recommendations. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > many people do NDL-dives and less people know better/different. And that´s > why other people`s way of diving bothers my way of diving. That I can understand. >> Nothing is killing people except fate- diving deaths are an infantismal >> fraction of dives. > > ;-) Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Feb 25, 8:27 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye8...@gmail.com> wrote: > Intelligent disagreement provokes thought. There will unfortunately always be those who refuse to intelligently disagree, claiming they Do It Right and any disagreement is heresy. Personally, I believe heretics have more fun. > I have always been at ease with the downgrading of requirements- > > Many sport or "vacation" divers simply have no need of extensive training. Apparently "don't hold your breath" and "hold the DM's hand" suffice as training to get many diving deep enough to be dangerous without any training. Yet if all these "discover" divers were dying like flies, we'd probably hear about it. Supervised diving is indeed safe. It's only when we get away from authorities so we can do stupid things like run out of air or dive in caves that we start dropping. > Basic warm-water resort diving just isn't that complex, and no reasonable > or affordable basic training regimen will cover every given aspect of the > variety of diving available today. A lady died barely a couple weeks ago off the Galapagos Aggressor II. The Galapagos aren't warm, nor a "resort", yet dive liveaboards ply the water just like they do in warm resort areas. Warm-water resort divers dive off these liveaboards (using computers so they can do much more diving than Luddites), assuming their basic training was enough. My basic training was enough, since I learned in conditions similar to those in the Galapagos. The lady who died was a schoolteacher from Texas. She may have trained in a lake or in the warm Caribbean or Gulf, who knows? I did my certification dives in strong surge and current at Cortes Banks, considered "advanced" California diving. I therefore found the Galapagos as easy as my certification dives, hence easy. No, basic warm-water resort diving is not that complex, but I believe one can be far more prepared for more complex diving by taking a more comprehensive course (mine was 3+ hours a week for 8 weeks) and certifying in cold rough ocean water. If one only plans to do easy warm-water resort dives, certifying in rough cold water might seem extreme. But how else will the warm-water- only diver be able gauge how they'll react to cold water or rough water diving if they've never been trained for it? Conditions in some of the warmest spots can turn extreme, and some "warm" spots can be cold at times. (Incidents like the recent one in the Galapagos are still rare IMO - this latest one was only pointed out to me because I was making the claim on a different forum that Galapagos diving must be safe since you never hear of incidents, and had my foot shoved firmly in my mouth by someone who posted news about this very recent tragedy) > And if, like for me, it becomes a great enthusiasm, all manners of > training are available. Yessiree! Especially training that contradicts basic training, i.e. advanced photography classes that tell you to "hold your breath" to remain still in the water column (I taught myself that, no class necessary), or even my vaunted "Solo Diver" certification, which completely fouls up any notion of buddy diving. And of course there's the full range of "tech" training that ignores all those "safe diving limits" of shallow depth and no-decompression. Here in the U.S., we too call it common sense. Common sense that all the rules and physics of safe basic warm-water diving are enough to fill the heads of most recreational divers, yet advanced training is very available for those who seek more. I still think we're too limited (retarded might be a better word, but I come under fire every time I use it :). It took me two "tech" courses in order to get certification to dive to 150', even though I'd already gone deeper than that. They (the agencies) want to charge me more big bucks for "extended range" training if I ever want to dive to 180' on air - what more could I possibly learn about that might occur between 150-180' except for more narcosis? Today, the latter course is being supplanted by trimix training beginning at shallower depths so "extended range" is now optional. One can go directly to trimix after "deco procedures" in TDI and I believe IANTD is similar. Rogue agencies like GUE won't even teach deeper diving on air since they assume everyone can pull helium out of their a.ses. I should get me that extended range card before they become obsolete. Is Hal Watts still in business? . Is Hal Watts > still in business? Nope...he sold 40 Fathoms a couple of years ago and last I heard it is closed to casual divers even with a "guide". SignatureTwo most common elements in the universe- Hydrogen & Stupidity > (Incidents like the recent one in the Galapagos are still rare IMO - > this latest one was only pointed out to me because I was making the > claim on a different forum that Galapagos diving must be safe since > you never hear of incidents, and had my foot shoved firmly in my mouth > by someone who posted news about this very recent tragedy) Still doesn't mean you were wrong. The point is- what actually -happened- to her? Anybody know, or just speculation? SignaturePopeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Feb 25, 11:16 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye8...@gmail.com> wrote: > > (Incidents like the recent one in the Galapagos are still rare IMO - > > this latest one was only pointed out to me because I was making the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Anybody know, or just speculation? Separated from her buddy and the rest of the group, she was found hours later and much deeper with half a tank of air left. We can at least speculate that she didn't run out of air. Too young to have a heart attack, panic/drowning seems the most likely cause, likely either predicated by losing contact with her buddy or worsened after losing contact with her buddy. Or maybe a buddy wouldn't have helped with panic or equipment issues because it might have been a medical issue. Who knows? > On Feb 25, 11:16 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye8...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > with panic or equipment issues because it might have been a medical > issue. Who knows? Such is my point. Was this a training issue or not? Why do we just assume it is? How did she die with a 1/2 tank, and why would someone prone to panic leave her buddy? Which agency is it, in OW, that teaches "buddy ditching"? If people go against their training (or even basic common sense), it's not the agency's fault. Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.