In Reply to: Can we try this again? posted by msblucow on June 23, 2006 at 23:19:12:

I think MHK offered a valid point for discussion. Perhaps some involved didn't like the way it was phrased, or felt it was attacking them, or allowed old history to cloud it, but still.... what's wrong with discussing whether additional training is or should be recommended for depths at and beyoned "recreational" depths? If the people thjat do it think no trainng is involved, so be it.... but what about Johnny 100 dives? Thinks "hey, I can dive Osborne cuz Sea Divers did, etc." Maybe there should be a place where he can go and research what options are available?

FWIW, I rarely go below 100 because I like looooong slow dives. Unless there's is something amazing to see.

(1) Even if a dive is performed at "recreational limits" can it actually be "technical dive" instead?

I am assuming you mean by "technical" that additional training beyond OW/AOW/Rescue shold be considered. Of course. Go to 100 feet for 30 minutes. better have some deco plan in place and sufficient gas management and perhaps 02 to offgas with. Do that on a single 80 with air and you're in trouble.

(2) What are the risk/benefits of mixed gas vs. diving deep on air?

This is way beyond my peabrain knowledge, I am aware of anectdotal evidence re: EANx, but not aware of any studies showing any statistically significant result. There may be some, I'm sure Kendall Raine will know of them if they exist.

(3) In reporting on advanced - albeit recreational - dives, what responsibility (if any) does the poster have to communicate the risks of such diving?

Non, every diver has the responsibility to determine whether or not a dive like Osborne is within their skill set/level of interest. Osborne, could I dive it? Sure. Would I? highly unlikely.

• Beware of the fear of God fred tuttle 21:50:05 06/24/06 (2)
  • Bluegill dwill 09:15:45 06/26/06 (1)
    • Re: Bluegill fred tuttle 12:19:34 06/26/06 (0)