Re: Deep Air and Adaptation

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

Posted by seahunt on July 01, 2006 at 08:22:37:

In Reply to: Deep Air and Adaptation posted by Kendall Raine on June 30, 2006 at 09:04:01:

I don't think that people have ignored the issue of impairment, but I know that people have ignored the issues of practicality I have repeatedly brought up.
I can only speak for myself, but this issue translates as is often the case, into to dive or not to dive.
1. Technical diving is a methodology is a resourse demanding way of diving. The lessons are a one time minor cost. The ongoing costs of gas, gear, time and buddies are huge.
2. Correct me if I am wrong, but you cannot simply switch between sport diving and technical diving. To safely do technical dives, one must always use technical dive methods and practice them consistantly. I have enough trouble switching between cameras. For a person (who has gone through technical dive training) to sport dive all year and then plan to dive with technical methods for an Osborn dive that has come up on the schedule, would be very risky.
I'm a sport diver and avoid deep dives, but I've been there more than once. Looking at my pictures from 165 feet at Gordo Banks, they are certainly no worse than my usual. As I recall, I had no problem handling the camera. Limited testing, but obviously narcosis was not disabling.
The funny thing is that as far as narcosis, like the DAN articles said, I have less problem with depth than cold. If cold, I can get significantly narced at 120 feet. If I am not cold, I haven't found narcosis to be a problem at much greater depths.
Another thing that seems different for me is that I well recognise narcosis, but it's not the impairment I notice, it is the paranoia. The tunnel vision doesn't bother me, but my judgement about the safety of the situation has always been based on the most noticable effect (for me). I ask myself if the paranoia is a problem. Actually, my judgement seems to be pretty good at depth. Since about half of my deep dives have been accidental and my judgement at depth was get out while the getting is good (though on those occasions I didn't feel that narced beyond tunnel vision).

So I have made two points here. One is that there are 2 impracticalities for most sport divers doing a tech dive if a deep dive gets scheduled, total cost and safety. If anyone wants to recognise that reality, fine. Secondly, when I have been deep but not cold, narcosis has not been a problem. That's just me, but as such, when in good health, I would not judge that the Osborn or Moody were unacceptably unsafe.
So you can argue about impairment, but you never mention cost or simple practicality. Why not acknowledge or respond to that? Maybe because it's true?

Anyone that says that the dives were made with no planning is incorrect. Every diver on that boat was thinking about the issue of depth well before the dive. They judged the kit and methods they used as adaquate. Some made practice dives. Some may have wished they had taken technical classes, but really, as I recall from Tim, mixed gas was not an option.

No one wants to mention that it is not feasable or desirable for most divers to go technical. So the reality is that the people saying only technical divers should go to the deep spots are really saying that sport divers should simply not go to the deep spots. Funny, but I remember a lot of this from the DIR discussions. No one should dive Wreck Alley. No one should dive solo, no one.... I don't listen to people that don't want me to dive.

Enjoy the diving, seahunt

Follow Ups:

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Post Background Color: White     Black
Post Area Page Width: Normal   Full
You must type in the
scrambled text key to
the right.
This is required to
help prevent spam bots
from flooding this BBS.
Text Key: