Posted by seahunt on June 28, 2001 at 22:02:42:
In Reply to: Re: Written for those that are considering getting into tech diving... Long posted by MHK on June 28, 2001 at 09:39:43:
Pardon if I lace my responce in yours, but it seemed the best way to respond.
Seahunt,
First off let me try to address the NUMEROUS issues in your post.. I've found
over the years that it is entirely to difficult to answer your numerous issues
item for item.. Plain and simple, your posts just go on forever and it's damn
near impossible to answer every question, short of a thesis..
>So is that the crutch of the biscuit?
>So where on the DIR web sites or in your essay, do you say 'don't go deep'.
>You say 'this is DIR, with our techniques, we can do it'.
>You always mention 300 foot dives, but you never
>mention what a reasonable maximum, non-tech dive, depth is.
Overall, not surprisingly, you missed the point of my post with respect to the
cave diving numonic.. I was referring to a mind set, not necessarily the specific
item for item application.. Do you ever think outside the box or see the bigger
picture???? I'm really not trying to flame you it's just that you are so anal
that it is impossible to advance a theory by speaking in generics when you are
involved..
>Why didn't you just say don't go deep? That's what is important in California
>diving. You never say that and look back a bit historically and that is what has
>killed people here.
Furthermore, you keep going on about diver's in California don't dive deep.. You
have admitted to not frequenting charter boats so I'd suggest you defer to Chris
in this regard. As I noted Chris is on charter boats all the time, as are we..
Deep diving is happening with WAY more frequency than you are willing to
acknowledge..
>I have no idea what Chris thinks of this. I get the same short notes you do.
>I have no doubt he goes deep, but I bet it's not often because charter boats
>rarely drop divers deep and the hunting is rarely deep. Maybe at osborne or
>Begg, but you are talking unusual places.
>In the past 30 years of sport diving (aside from the rigs), the boats I have
>been on have dropped divers in 100+ feet of water extremely rarely. Now, I
>suspect that on the boats you go on it's more common for the same reason that
>is rare for me to see.
>You always seem to be talking about 300 feet and occasionally 200 feet. I know
>that they are doing deep dives, but it's not as often as you claim. How often is
>there an Osborn trip and how hard is it to get Tim to go there. He hates it.
>Besides, Sea Divers is an unusual club in that regard, just look at the boat
>schedules in CDN. I just picked up the April Issue with April and May boats.
>There is one trip scheduled to Farnsworth by the GE, 5 rig trips by the Peace
>and one Cortes trip by the Horizon. Where are all these deep spots? All the
>rest are islands. Mostly the inner ones.
>In any case, the problem with this is - does the fact that some people are
>doing it make it OK or is it just evidense of a short memory?
>Also what depth are you talking about? You always are mentioning 300
>and occasionally 200 feet. The only time I've even known of a diver
>going beyond 140 feet was Collin at the rigs and he was teched for it.
Every time we go to the rigs, farnsworth, Moody, Palawaan, ship rock etc. etc.
you have MANY, MANY divers that are exceeding the recognized 130' limit.. My
position is that rather than ignore the fact that it is happening, I say confront
it and encourage them to do it right ( no pun intended)...
Furthermore, you keep insinuating that wreck diver's don't exist out here.. Once
again, you are incorrect.. Dives such as the Yukon, Olympic, Valiant, Moody and
Palawaan are dived EVERY single weekend.. You just ignore the fact that there is
an emerging market and you bury your head in the sand..
>And who is creating that market? You are the one opening up that diving. The charter
>boats used to never go to the deep wrecks or the Matterhorn. You yourself have said
>how hard it was to get a trip to the Moody, that the boats hadn't gone there in years,
>since the accident with the Douglas', but you said that you were able to talk them
>into going again.
Whether we like it or not, now that PADI has thrown there hat into the tech diving
arena the number of tech divers are going to increase.. That's a fact you can
either accept or ignore, but they will be turning them out in droves..
>Great. Again, the result of that will only be seen over time. My opinion about
>PADI doing that is similar to your own.
The title of my post was specifically written for those considering getting into
tech diving. You've stated that you have no such intention so one must question
why you continue going back to the sport diving issue??? In your world, everyone
dives solo, swims as far away from the boat/buddy as can be humanely possible,
wear to much lead and stick your head into a reef looking for bugs.. That's your
way.. Good for you, but as much as you keep saying that my way is inapplicable
out here, I would very, very strongly suggest that your way is much more in the
minority than mine.. Given that bug season doesn't start again until October, one
must wonder why the boats are sold out every week right now if they were following
your diving habits... This may surprise you but there are more diver's that do NOT
hunt for bugs than that do.. It isn't the be end and end all of diving...
>Bug hunters also dive in summer and
>where have you ever distinguished between tech diving and DIR?
You also say that deep diving is *foreign* to California, then I'd ask you to
check with your buddy Chris. He, and his club [Sea Diver's] dive deep all the
time.. I mean all the time... You are advancing a baseless accusation and your
own buddy is dispositive of the theory...
I've had many disagreements with Dale Sheckler and Ken Kurtis over this very
issue.. I'll allow Dale and Ken to add their own views but the fundamental
difference is that they believe that by saying that diver's should stay above
130' and then basically ignoring that they routinely dive deeper than that,
that somehow insulates themselves from the issue. Since they staunchly denounced
the practice.. I, on the other hand, believe that is irresponsible. We know
absolutely that diver's are diving deeper than 130' so why not encourage it to
be done safer???? ie; proper mix, support diver's and the like...
>Again, the answer to this will only be known over time.
>Sometimes, it is just best to deny that something is ever done, never admit to
>it and discourage it from being done. That way, when it is done, the person
>doing it starts out with a healthy caution. It's how we used to do it with solo,
>but there is one difference between deep and solo. Deep seems to be far more
>dangerous than solo.
>Do we tell Johnney about sex and worry about if it gives him ideas or should
>we shut up and hope he has enough discression to hold off on his own for a
>while is we tell him scary stories?
So I see that you are somehow trying to advance the theory that we are
encouraging diver's to dive deep.. I say just the opposite, I say if you are
already doing it, do it safer...
>That's not the opposite. You're saying if you do it, do it this way. Not very
>discouraging, but really, this still relates to that unknown that we disagree
>on. Can recreational divers divers go deep safe? I suspect that even your very
>good DIR methodologies are not enough... Only time will tell.
If you think that my little diatribes in this
list are promoting deep diving, then what do you think that PADI's marketing
machine is doing with their deep air class???
>Look, I've never been a fan of the agencies. The most popular post on my site
>is 'Flame the Industry'.
As for solo diving and it's association with the subject matter of this thread
[ ie; tech diving] since you have no experience in tech diving it's hard for me
to take your ideas seriously.. Again, it's not a flame inasmuch as it is a
statement of fact.. You have never been faced with hours of deco before you can
surface and then having to solve a problem at depth.. You have never been task
loaded with double tanks and multiple stage bottles.. You have never had your
body stressed from the added ATA's.. You have never been faced with mutliple gas
switched at varying depths.. You have never been faced with missing the line and
doing floating deco for hours... Tech diver's are the epitomy of self-reliant
diver's, we just aren't so consumer with our own ego's to recognize that at some
point we may need help and we may not be able to surface if a problem arises..
>I think that getting in that position is just a bad idea.
Seriously, until you know what you are talking about you should really be silent
when advancing a dangerous practice.. Remember, this thread is about tech diving
and what applies [ or more accurately ] what you can get away with in the
recreational diving environment, does NOT mean it applies to tech diving...
>No, solo didn't relate directly to the post.
I'm trying very hard to not be harsh with you, but plain and simple you should
not be advancing theories when it comes to tech diving because you are ill-equipped
and you lack the appropriate experience, training and mind set...
>I have proposed no theories about technical diving except that historically in
>California, deep diving has killed rather too often. Something may change what
>caused this, but I don't think gear or training is enough to make this change.
>As far as I know, it wasn't usually gear or training that got people the
>people that were deep. I think that has to do with the diver themself and luck.
>We're going to know.
Enjoy, seahunt