Posted by seahunt on June 27, 2001 at 21:57:26:
In Reply to: Written for those that are considering getting into tech diving... Long posted by MHK on June 27, 2001 at 17:55:28:
>If they said stay above 130', we rushed down to 200'..
Well that view explains a lot.
I'm glad you wrote this, because I too got an impression from this last incident. Before you posted this, I had already been working on an essay and funny thing, it's similar to yours in ways, but comes to different conclusions. I think it will go well here. Yer gonna love this one.
Aside from that, this is a good post, but I think it really illustrates some problems you haven't addressed.
***
I've stated that I have some minor objections to DIR. Well recent
exercises have led me to clarify some of my thoughts on the matter.
The first thought is simple. I think the biggest objection I have to
DIR is the push for rigid buddy diving. Aside from many questions I
might ask about it, I see it as a clash with human nature. Divers
are going to solo. Simple. So a diver who is planning for a
solo dive, intentional or not, should not rely on a system that isn't
functional without a buddy. Well, MHK's opinion aside, I think that a
lot of DIR stuff would work fine for a diver in a solo situation. So
this suggests that solo diving is not at all about gear, it's about what
really happens underwater or a decision made on the surface and that's
just how some people will always choose to dive. It may or may not be
less safe, but it's a choice, not a crime. Just ask S. B.
**
The other thing I noticed came up when I was comparing DIR procedures
to what I was thinking about as appropriate for Sport Divers. Well,
in most cases, DIR methods extend the divers range over what Sport
methods allow.
Think about the issue I recently bickered about. MHK suggested the
use of lines. I said that that was wreck/cave and meaningless in CA
sport diving. Well, I thought about that some and realize that that's
not true entirely. Years back when I was trying to come up with
solutions for problems of some deeper sport diving, I considered a reel
as a method of getting back to the anchor line for an ascent in a
spot deep enough to make an untethered ascent... challenging..
especially considering the importance of a controlled ascent
under those conditions... Say the HorseShoe Kelp or the Sea Cliff
in SD. These are both going to get you to a depth near Sport diving
depth limits. Say in the range of 100 feet.
In any case, the only reason for using the line would be the inherent
hazard from the depth. After some experimentation, I dropped the idea
though modern reels might make it more practical.
Using an anchored ascent line worked, but seemed unneeded for various reasons.
Another accessment of the dives, was that I sure couldn't bring most
people for a dive like that. Even though a buddy would be a nice
safety addition for myself, I would feel that I would be
endangering most divers taking them on a dive like this. While it is at
what is considered Sport diving depths, the depth is greater than most
CA Sport diving is done at. Charter boats will drop divers off in 100
plus feet of water, but very rarely and they don't like to unless it is
definately an experienced group. Very little hunting is ever done
at that depth, because it ruins bottom time, is unnecessary and adds a
hazard.
The point is that, while it is considered to be within Sport diving
depths, it still constitutes a fairly hazardous dive. So what I see
when I look at DIR methods, is that they seem pretty good. They open
up diving that is past Sport diving depths. Whoops. The question is
whether that is actually good. Looking at Sport diving, a major premise
is if it's hazardous, just avoid going there. No deco diving and limit
depths. The two go together. It is just something based on a historic
cumulitive lesson of California diving, that depth kills.
The same lesson was taught by the Florida caves and the DIR folks claim
that their procedures compensate for that. Maybe. I don't know about
that. The DIR proponents also say that their methods allow deep
diving to be done safely and there in, I think, lies my problem. I don't
think that anything allows that. Work by DIR practicioners to advance
both safety techniques and decompression/ascent methodology has been
fantastic and productive, but there is an inherent danger to deep
diving that I don't think they can do anything about.
So there is my problem. I don't think divers should go deep under any
circumstances. Mostly in California, there is no reason to go deep,
but now DIR advocates are promoting the practice and promoting trips to
dive sites that have been traditionally considered just unsafe to
visit because of depth.
With that clarified, the issue can be viewed more clearly. It suggests
that, as said before, gear is a moot point to the issue. DIR pioneered
deco procedures are not the issue. Both seem like good ideas, but the
promotion of the idea of deep diving being able to be consistantly done
safely, I don't think they have solved that problem. In that context,
it also irritates me to hear complaints about solo diving or minor
details of gear configuration.
Am I right? Only time will tell, but I have a good track record at
predictions and I have a funny feel about this one. I think we are
going to have a clear answer and I think it will be unpleasant. Deep
diving is foreign to California and I think that will be confirmed
that it remains a bad idea and that sport diving, that is
restricted forays into any of the danger zones, especially depth, is
a safer method of visiting the ocean.
I think that the result of some DIR practices is that some people are
going to think they can go deeper than they should. This will be because
of the DIR failure to adaquately address the diver as part of the
equation, in favor of claiming that the system will compensate.
(From an unfinished essay)
--'A Great Diver is humble, for the ocean can always swollow them'.
.. and all the systems in the world won't change that.
Will history repeat itself? We'll see. Some recent events suggest
so.
***
Lets see. Recent history is 4 of 5 posted fatalities were in the 300 foot range.
Enjoy, seahunt
*
*
*
>While I realize that this list is predominately recreational based diver's,
Not anymore. Do a topic count. This now seems like the gear/DIR BBS.
>it seems as though the lines between technical diving and recreational
>diving are becoming increasingly blurred
And you're the one blurring it. Only the future will show what that means.