Ken Kurtis and the Solo -v- Nitrox discussion/promotion


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by MHK on January 11, 2001 at 14:19:30:

Since I'm in Florida and on a borrowed computer I can't spend a substantial amount of time discussing both topics but I wanted to give Ken some lead time to digest the following thoughts, ( all other's are invited to participate in this thread to the extent we can keep the flames out ).

Ken, I'm unclear of your logic respecting the two issues at hand. On the one hand you take great pains to highlight the fact that you acknowledge that solo diving is less safer than buddy diving, and stipulate as to the additional risks associated therewith. You have further gone so far as to post a * How to Solo* diving set of suggested paramaters. In that regard you suggest, atleast as I read your posts, that those that are willing to understand/acknowledge the added risks should feel free to solo dive. ( As you know I no longer solo and disagree with your conclusion.) However what puzzles me in this juxtaposition regarding the two issues is as follows:

As I understand one of your objections ( and I understand this to be your main objection ) is that a diver diving Nitrox put's himself at risk for Oxygen toxicity ( OxTox). So my question to you is given that you believe a diver can be trusted to follow a given set of paramaters vis-a-vis the solo issue, why can't that same diver be trusted to stay above the Maximun Operating Depth ( MOD ) for a given mix.

In other words, a diver diving Nitrox 32% is recommended to stay above 130' before a POSSIBLE OxTox hit could occur. If the same hypothetical diver can be trusted using your recommended suggestions ( and you can define them however you want them to be ) to dive solo than why can't he be trusted to understand/acknowledge that he shouldn't dive deeper than 130'????????????

You have often stated that you have a *legal liability issue* with respect to Nitrox. Primarily, I understand that one of your *alleged* liabilty issues involves the fact that a DM who is not trained in Nitrox could supervise a dive that has a diver diving Nitrox. I state for the record that NAUI ( your agency ), PADI, IANTD, TDI, GUE, BSAC, ANDI, Lesser and Assoc., & Jardine all disagree with your position, but be that as it may, could you please state ANY legal authority, precedent, legal analysis and/or opinion that supports your position..

Furthermore, you often cite that you have been an instructor for 20+ years, dive shop owner, etc. as a resume enhancer for your positions, but in all fairness I believe that it important to disclose that you have never taken a Nitrox class, you have never used an enriched air mix, nor have you blended a tank with Nitrox.

So in short Ken, my question is why are you willing to allow ( for lack of a better word ) a diver to acknowledge, assume and understand the added risks affiliated with solo diving but fail to allow license with respect to Nitrox. One the one hand Nitrox is taught, allowed and covered under standard insurance policies, whereas solo diving is denounced by the overwhelming majority of agencies and to the extent it is allowed it requires a seperate waiver ( which you do not require on your boats ).

And as a side note, I'll add that in my view a diver using Nitrox ( allowing for the added risks ) is substantially safer than a diver soloing, all other factors being equal........

I'll be back Monday, but I may have access to a terminal prior to my return...

Later


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]