DIR: God's gift to diving or Hell spawn?

[MikeFerrara]

I have posted this point of view before but I will do so again. While IANTD teaches to 170 on air they do not advocate deep air. They, however, define it differently than GUE. From the GUE standards as posted on their web site the max allowable end is 100 +- 30, In other words 130. Another 40 feet, in the case of IANTD and 35 feet for DSAT and others, is not a death sentence. While you may think it is to deep it is a far cry from the depths where air divers seem to drop like flies. NACD and NSS-CDS suggest a max Depth (END) of 130. This is one of the accident analysis derived rules of cave diving. Sheck Exley was a major contributor to the development of these rules and he made many deep air dives. Of course there hasn’t always been trimix. Tom Mount is NACD instructor number 1. I think he also had something to do with the evolution of the rules. JJ, I believe, is Instructor number eighty something and GI I believe is absent from the list. The 130 limit did not originate with GUE or DIR or GI or JJ. Tom Mount was there in the beginning and was instrumental in making it possible for the rest of us to be able to use nitrox and trimix. One should read the IANTD “Technical diver Encyclopedia” to see what IANTD says about deep air, narcosis, diet and fitness before judging.

Narcosis is one of the many risk factors that a diver, especially a deep diver, must manage. All risks must be balanced against our ability to control them and the perceived benefit of the dive objective. I know divers who engage in exploration and sometimes go deeper than I care to on air. They do so in places where, due to availability or logistics, you are not going to get He. They know the risks, maybe better than anyone else. They feel that the exploration is worth the risk. Many may not agree. And that explains why they are not explorers. Explorers must by the very nature of exploration take risks. An explorer can better justify the risks of pushing their PN2 than most of us can justify the risks in doing any deep dive regardless of gas. Why? They are exploring we are just having fun.

It is one thing to use He for every dive in Florida where you can buy trimix two miles from the cave at unbelievably low prices. In this case it would be very hard to justify PN2 related risk. Elsewhere it is a very different matter. If everyone were so rigid, we would be way behind the learning curve, as most of the exploration would never have taken place.

 

[Lost Yooper]

My point is not individuals evaluating and taking risks. It's when they don't know (read - not taught) the actual or potential risks involved. When someone says that narcosis adaptation is possible, they are either LYING or are ignorant. All of these guys have said it in one form or another. The result is thousands of divers believing in a lie. They may not have known better before, but they certainly do now and have for at least ten years.

I'm not hammering any of these guys for doing the dives they did. They are/were the daredevils of scuba diving. That's fine with me -- more power to them. Deep air was the norm -- that's fine with me too, we've all done it. None of that makes it right, IMO, and is certainly not an example by which to follow. They have lied; they continue to lie; and I don't respect that. I respect those who have done foolish things, but are honest enough to admit it and lead others away from making the same mistakes. That is what a true leader does.

Mike

 

[WreckWriter]

OK, while I'm still not advocating deep air for anyone....

While true physical adaptation to narcosis may not be possible, I do feel that there are several realities within this realm.

One is that some folks simply function better while narced than others. Another is that the more often one dives in this realm the better one is able to function. I've noticed a major difference after not diving deep for awhile.

Everyone is impaired, but some are more impaired than others.

How about psychological adaptation? You buy that as possible? My experience says it is.

Tom

 

[Lost Yooper]

Absolutely. The more you dive deep air, especially without problems, the more you think you can handle it. Studies have shown that a diver will feel like they are better at dealing with narcosis over time, but, they are still narced at the same level (as determined by motor tests).

Mike

 

[wrecNcaver]

Have not heard G Gentile speak in many years......does he still advocate not running a reel to penetrate a wreck but rather memorize the wreck a little at a time with repeated dives? That was one thing I personally did not agree with. For me, makes more sense to run a reel; and safer. But it was many years ago I heard him speak.

 

[MikeFerrara]

LY,
I have read the IANTD texts and have not caught them in a lie. The results of numerous studies are referenced and they do not state that one can overcome the effects of narcosis. They caution against this line of thought. One may, not suprisingly, find conflicts in some of the test results. There does, however, seem to be a difference in the regidity of the max END recomendation within 30 or 40 feet, but no lies. From memory (you should read the stuff yourself) the studies show that the effects are not consistant even for one individual. They also show that some functions are effected more (different) than others.

Are you aware of the various studies that have suggested that if you tell someone they will be impaired they tend to be impaired. This type of study has been conducted more than once (I could dig through my stuff to find more specific references). Teach one group that they will be impaired at a given depth and teach another group that they will not. Then the two groups tend to perform as they have been told they would.

 

[Lost Yooper]

They still tell their students they can train for narcosis. They offer courses that do just that. Look, IANTD isn't the worst of the bunch and neither is Tom Mount. Sure, he's said some pretty dumb things like:

"In fact mix training in open water/ wrecks is most likely the most hazardous diver education program taught."

Excuse me!

"IANTD will be a responsible organization and provide the programs most suited to the demands and needs of the industry and to the most effective means of increasing diver safety."

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times -- supply and demand ($$$).

"As I have told you earlier for the logistics , cost etc, like of ease of bailout, I personally will always opt to dive air to the 180 mark."

What a fine example of leadership and discipline . It's easy; it's fast; it's convenient ... what's a little narcosis in the mix?

Here's a good one:

"We have already established mix as the safest alternative to deeper diving, the need to do this is also one of the other reasons we must teach deep air to the depths we do. If we did not we would not reach 80% of the divers we do."

"Believe me insisting on mix at 100 feet will not fly in the industry.
This past weekend 100's of divers dived between 100 and 160 feet on non technical dive charters and that is a routine every weekend practivce and we would rightfully become the laughing stock of the industry if we demanded that.
Why don't you ask many in the international community about how difficult it is in some places to get the community there away from 240' air dives. Telling these people they would have to dive mix at 100 feet would totally destroy their and IANTD's creadiability."

Boy, wouldn't that hurt the 'ole pocket book, eh ($$$)! What are the real issues facing these agencies? Pretty obvious to me.

I know you guys think I make this stuff up, but when so many so-called "leaders" and "respectable" training agencies get up and say "mix is the best route, but air is good enough with training", then you have wonder what their real motives are ($$$). These guys know that deep air is no good, but the demand is there, and someone has to supply it. It may as well be them, eh? Morals vs. money... hmmm.

Mike

 

[WreckWriter]

does he still advocate not running a reel to penetrate a wreck but rather memorize the wreck a little at a time with repeated dives?

Progressive penetration is offered up as another option. In my opinion it's used in different circumstances than a reel is used. it DOES result in one learning the wreck better which results in a better chance of coming out alive should your line get cut.

Progressive penetration is, however, one of the things Gary esposes that I don't follow. I like a line.

Tom

 

[Divesherpa]

Gary Gentile offers pointers that can make a better diver, like all true scuba professionals. These factors from different individuals are what makes a better diver. I attempt to learn from the positive results of others and combine functional methodologies with sound reasoning.
Gary Gentile's books are a great source of information, but not an all inclusive guide for every type of wreck diving.

Run a reel is my vote.

 

[roakey]

Originally posted by Green_Manelishi
cripes, that's kinda harsh, don't you think?

I didn't mean for it to be harsh, I was just trying to point out that just because you're alive doesn't mean that there's not a better way to stay that way.

We have a lot to thank Gary for, he was a true pioneer. I do think that diving has reached another level since his pioneering days, and he hasn't kept up. That's not to say he should be shunned or ignored, but that point should be kept in mind.

There are some great analogies I could use from shooting, but there's not a wide enough knowledge base in that area for the analogy to be useful.

Roak