Posted by seahunt on June 26, 2001 at 21:48:51:
In Reply to: Where is all that engineer brilliance? posted by JohnB on June 25, 2001 at 23:02:02:
>ANY low vis or occasion where the return path MUST be the same.
And that is where in California?
I developed my diving in Santa Cruz. It's the roughest seas and lowest vis in the state. We were taught to use lines for doing surveys. I've never seen any reason to use a line in sport diving. In CA there's almost no reason. It's simply counter productive, because it's going to restrict you to a tiny area... contra hunting. We don't swim in straight lines, we follow the reef. We have very few wrecks in this state, very few fixed objects UW and very few divers that visit them.
>This applies to any UNDERWATER situation. why can't you start
>back at 1/3? no one said get out of the water at 1/3
Start back where?
If you know where the boat is, that makes sense (though the return trip usually takes far less than 1/3 tank and you don't want to hunt the boat) and is natural to do, but many places where I dive, (Nic or Cortes for example) you usually have no idea where the boat is (I want to get an aqua trac). I gave up surfacing to look for good reason, so I just go up when it's time. It works well. It's normal procedure on a hunting trip and is why the long current line. What makes you think you know more than all these hunters that tend to average 20 years of intense diving? I think you are on the east coast. Are you aware that the CA hunting boats just pick up divers as a matter of course and few divers that get out there, even bother to swim back? I assure you, I have a better chance of finding the boat than most divers, it's just not always the goal.
>this applies to D A R K situations
Like which ones?
Where are you talking about? And 3 lights is 3 lights whether visible or not. They just are not needed... remember that part of DIR.
>Comfort level OR safe depth" says that no matter how uncomfortable as
>long as someone said its safe, go ahead with the dive.
Oh give me a break. That's obviously not what it means. Duh.. Comfort level. What's that?
The original post said:
>Never exceed your comfort level with respect to depth
>Shouldn't that be comfort level or safe depth.
In terms of logic, that means
Never exceed your comfort level with respect to depth OR
Never exceed your comfort level with respect to safe depth.
In terms of logic, that means either case. If it was AND, then you would have to violate both cases. How about XOR, one case, but not both, but logically, I can't express what you said.
Well, if you read that statement that way, I can see that there is a lot of room for misunderstanding here as well as lack of familiarity with local conditions.
Something else you may not understand is the history of this debate. This debate started last August. It has never been about DIR, it has always been about personalities. I don't think you know the history of what has happened. Just for luck, I'll find and send you a statement written by another DIR advocate that will explain this to you.
If you had followed this discussion for a longer period you would have noticed that I have said very nice things about DIR and always made it clear that it is the messenger that I have a problem with, not the message.
Enjoy, seahunt