PfcAJ
Contributor
Tell me what you disagree with, Victor
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
This I agree with. Well, not "deserve" like "you deserved it, so I wish you wouldn't have gotten away with it" but deserved the way we're using it. It was expected. It was caused by diver error. Even within PADI's RDP, if you ride your BCD up like a rocket ship you are likely to get hit. If you DID ride your BCD up like a rocket and DIDN'T get a hit, I wouldn't say you DESERVED one and should've gotten one....but I'd say you weren't within ascent protocol and I would've expected one. So, this I mostly agree with....as long as your connotation is what I think it is, "expected" vs "deserved".If you violate the your ascent parameters, you definitely deserve it.
But "underserved" and "unexplained" etc etc simply don't exist.
I think the confusion comes from not really having an understanding of statistics.
There is NO model with a 0% chance of DCS, even when followed to the letter. None. The PADI tables might come close, but its NOT a 0% chance. All the known, accepted models are non-zero chance models. Therefore, getting bent when following these models IS expected, just not often.
Now, add in some uncontrolled variables (hydration, fitness, exertion, nutrition, BMI, etc etc), and your model quickly becomes an approximation.
Moral of the story: DCS happens. Get DAN.
…Akimbo, how about "expected" vs "anomalous"? ...
… My point, though, is that if we track the anomalous hits (good phrase??) we might be able to track patterns…
I might be onboard with foreseen and unforeseen. I have been lucky and avoided DCS symptoms a few times when DCS was foreseeable but unanticipated circumstances compromised the dive.