Average Depth Diving?

[SDAnderson]

lol... he doesn't reccomended it because you need to know what you are doing.

but it is a safe method of diving. he's still around and unbent, right?

Andy - be careful. There is a reason that most technical divers are so reluctant to discuss calculating deco on the fly and why even UP doesn't recommend the procedure: success relies upon more than just learning the math and experience has show that it is a lot harder to teach than it seems like it should be.

Telling untrained and largely undisciplined recreational divers that this method is safe isn't prudent - flying deco may be effective for a few but that is not the same thing as safe. It might be better if recreational divers stuck with rotting their brains.

Besides, it's not fair to hold up the Pug as an example - it's not just that he's smarter and more experienced than most of us, it's also a physiological fact that people that handsome can't get bent.

 

[H2Andy]

well... yeah... that's my point

this method *is* safe for Uncle Pug... he's still around... and for others with
the experience and know-how.

and it is a safe method *if* you know what you are doing

i don't see where you get that i am advocating that every diver out of OW
training take it up without further ado

read posts 13, 14, and 15 in context

and then read my post 10:

average depth is an advanced technique, and it is done succesfully by advanced
divers all the time, who don't get bent.

you just need to know how to do it right.

(i am neither (a) an advanced diver; nor (b) know how to do it right.... i'm just saying)

what you seem to miss from my response to Walter is that he is saying that
the technique is crazy and unsafe. that is not the whole picture. it's crazy
and unsafe for many divers, but not all.

 

[RTodd]

I am slowly learning to avoid most of the deco related questions because the village idiots are far more vocal than the people that know what they are doing. While this won't teach you how to do it, when most people are talking about using an "average depth" they mean the profile will bound within some range. Rather than penalizing themselves with using the max depth that may only be touched for a few minutes, they use the average. You can't teach this to new/ computer follower divers because they don't pay enough attention to their profile to get it right.

As long as you do this within a reasonable range it works just fine. Once again, many tend to get too focused on trying to following exactly what the theoretical model says rather than using it as a tool to understand this stuff. If you plugged in the actual variation for divers using average depth into deco software it would give you basically the same info, and, even if the decompression varied by a few minutes, (which it won't if done correctoly) the chances of that being the deciding factor that would get you bent is really, really low.

 

[Uncle Pug]

Telling untrained and largely undisciplined recreational divers that this method is safe isn't prudent - flying deco may be effective for a few but that is not the same thing as safe. It might be better if recreational divers stuck with rotting their brains.

Untrained and (largely) undisciplined recreational divers should not be looking for shortcuts such as profiling or any other rule of thumb method. My original (and ancient) thread on profiling was meant to get folks thinking... it wasn't meant to espouse a methodology because there are other elements that go into the mix.

Also: while I think all divers should learn tables first and have an understanding of the physiology of decompression... I realize that it just isn't going to happen.

And so I also agree with the premise that most divers are better off just sticking with dive computers.

Again: don't do depth averaging.

 

[RTodd]

Again: don't do depth averaging.

Enough with the disclaimers, just let Darwin do his job.

 

[Uncle Pug]

Enough with the disclaimers, just let Darwin do his job.

Things get taken out of context... important parts come up MIA... and... well... disclaimers are important at this point.

Just like folks get confused with *slower is better* ascents. They leave out critical little factors like *slower shallower*.

It is (as you know) more than just depth averaging.

 

[Uncle Pug]

I'm just asking if using average depths on the fly while diving is a useful way to double check the computer or to dive without a computer just using a timer and depth gauge plus having knowledge of the tables in your head.

Gray, paying attention to your depth profile as it unfolds and then checking that against your dive computer is an excellent learning exercise. Knowing the dive tables can't hurt either... but having an understanding of how decompression works is even better. You might also want to learn about dual phase gas models and how that is significant.

 

[friscuba]

Crazy? Maybe. But so far I'm unbent.

As long as you are willing to put the disclaimer on average depth diving in, you might want to take a look at the comment "so far I'm unbent". The sad thing is that a few posters on this board have used you as an example of proving that the theory is valid.

People get bent, and people haven't been bent, when they should have done otherwise. I've met a lot of crazy divers who do stupid stuff that's off the charts and haven't been bent... yet. I've met a couple people who were well within limits of their computers who got bent.

Computers and tables are no guarantee of avoiding the bends, but they make great guidelines. Trying to do it all in ones' head during the course of the dive is throwing caution to the wind.

later,

 

[H2Andy]

Trying to do it all in ones' head during the course of the dive is throwing caution to the wind.

as someone else has said, you don't know what you don't know

(and this goes for me too, btw)

 

[sitka diver]

Ok whos ready to do the pinnacles here in Sitka it starts @ 145ft...