Diving to 200' and Beyond

[Lorenzoid]

This is getting tedious... she is NOT diving to 150 feet and the dive time was described as an hour (not one minute) by the OP - I think.

The whole idea that you can only spend one minute at 150 is ridiculous - almost as ridiculous as you continuing to try to define other people's recreational pursuits as valid or not. As an FYI, I can dive to OVER 150 feet in less than one minute. It does not take a whole lot of gas to get to 200 feet or more, if conditions are right and the diver is skilled at swimming, streamlining, equalizing etc... (you know the basic scuba skills).

I don't know which is more frustrating, the attempt to dictate recreational enjoyment or irrelevant comments from people who apparently have no clue about diving deep and what it might entail.

As the story has been related to us:
- "I believe she had a 40 cu. ft. pony with her (it was about 1/2 her 80 cu. tank)."
- "She . . . dives solo here . . . apparently 5 or 6 days out of 7, with a single 83 cu tank & a back-up pony bottle to depths of 200' or more, one dive each day."
- "I did ask her what she saw down there that kept her going back. She said the sponges were larger, the coral was 'more magnificent', and 'less ruined by pollution'. She also said she saw marine animals not seen frequently in the "shallow" water (meaning anything less than 130'-150' ). Before my husband & I turned around, we looked down, & we could see the top of a wall below us (and the end of the reef we were swimming, which others told us begins at about 130-150' deep). She said the "most beautiful" part begins at the top of that wall & continues 'even more so' as you drop down to over 200'."

So how many minutes can she possibly spend down there at, what 150, 200' ("or more")? This is surely a bounce dive. If it's only a few minutes spent at these depths at which she proclaims to see these wonders of nature, that seems out of touch with what most of us are taught today.

I don't know what you're referring to by "you continuing to try to define other people's recreational pursuits as valid or not" because I am not relating any opinion of my own. I am simply relating what the agencies seem to be trying to instill in divers nowadays: don't dive to any given depth without some reason to do it (beyond the satisfaction of living to tell the tale). This is nothing I made up. If the agencies are teaching it, then it represents the conventional wisdom of the worldwide dive community. The modern thinking seems to be that safety can be enhanced by considering the risk-reward balance in deciding what dives to do. Sure, people like you and this French lady and no doubt many others may dive in ways that are inconsistent with conventional wisdom, and nobody is saying that kind of diving is not "valid" as you put it. (I'm not sure what an "invalid" dive would be, but I'll go with your terminology.) If the picture we have of the French lady is accurate, her mindset is old school and not what the dive community promotes today. I have no idea whether old school thinking is "valid or not" because I have no idea what that means.

The original question was this: "would this intrepid & fascinating woman be considered a 'normal' advanced diver in certain parts of the world"?

I believe the answer is no, she is not representative of a "normal advanced diver in certain parts of the world" today. What she does--diving to 200' or more with an 83 and a 40 or so--is unusual today. And it's probably unusual today because the thinking has moved on from what it was decades ago.

 

[Nemrod]

For the sake of debate, what methods would she have learned 'back in the day'?

I did not say anything about "back in the day" now did I? Show me where I said that? I simply said she may have a method that is simply not being shared with the OP. And possibly they being fairly new fail to see really what she is doing. I have experienced divers ask me what kind of rebreather I am using. I am not using a rebreather. Same thing here. She may well have a methodology and science she is following. I do not believe in decades long runs of luck. Once or twice maybe, a few times it could happen. There is apparently some knowledge and application of that knowledge here or the whole story presented is bogus. Take your pick.

Why do people think I am on a rebreather, well, the double hose regulator, and that I am the last one back on the boat. If the captain gives us two hours and everybody is back in 30 minutes, guess what, at exactly two hours I emerge from the water. Must be a rebreather. I guess.

N

 

[dumpsterDiver]

As the story has been related to us:
- "I believe she had a 40 cu. ft. pony with her (it was about 1/2 her 80 cu. tank)."
- "She . . . dives solo here . . . apparently 5 or 6 days out of 7, with a single 83 cu tank & a back-up pony bottle to depths of 200' or more, one dive each day."
- "I did ask her what she saw down there that kept her going back. She said the sponges were larger, the coral was 'more magnificent', and 'less ruined by pollution'. She also said she saw marine animals not seen frequently in the "shallow" water (meaning anything less than 130'-150' ). Before my husband & I turned around, we looked down, & we could see the top of a wall below us (and the end of the reef we were swimming, which others told us begins at about 130-150' deep). She said the "most beautiful" part begins at the top of that wall & continues 'even more so' as you drop down to over 200'."

So how many minutes can she possibly spend down there at, what 150, 200' ("or more")? This is surely a bounce dive. If it's only a few minutes spent at these depths at which she proclaims to see these wonders of nature, that seems out of touch with what most of us are taught today.

I don't know what you're referring to by "you continuing to try to define other people's recreational pursuits as valid or not" because I am not relating any opinion of my own. I am simply relating what the agencies seem to be trying to instill in divers nowadays: don't dive to any given depth without some reason to do it (beyond the satisfaction of living to tell the tale). This is nothing I made up. If the agencies are teaching it, then it represents the conventional wisdom of the worldwide dive community. The modern thinking seems to be that safety can be enhanced by considering the risk-reward balance in deciding what dives to do. Sure, people like you and this French lady and no doubt many others may dive in ways that are inconsistent with conventional wisdom, and nobody is saying that kind of diving is not "valid" as you put it. (I'm not sure what an "invalid" dive would be, but I'll go with your terminology.) If the picture we have of the French lady is accurate, her mindset is old school and not what the dive community promotes today. I have no idea whether old school thinking is "valid or not" because I have no idea what that means.

The original question was this: "would this intrepid & fascinating woman be considered a 'normal' advanced diver in certain parts of the world"?

I believe the answer is no, she is not representative of a "normal advanced diver in certain parts of the world" today. What she does--diving to 200' or more with an 83 and a 40 or so--is unusual today. And it's probably unusual today because the thinking has moved on from what it was decades ago.

How long must she remain at depth for her dive to be deemed "worthy" by you? How long do the training agencies mandate that a dive must consist of?

If she derives enjoyment, satisfaction, challenge, adventure (or sheets and giggles) while she is down there- do you really think she cares if YOU or some training agency thinks she should be staying longer?

The whole attitude that her pursuit is not valid because it is too short is hard for me to reconcile. We have scuba divers using compressed air to dive 8 - 12 ft deep. Why not criticize them for this ridiculously shallow depth that can easily be attained by snorkeling alone? Shall I criticize other people for diving too shallow - or are only dives that are "too short" worthy of contempt?

Obviously chasing depths as the only goal of a scuba dive - especially for a beginner - is not a good idea and the training agencies SHOULD make students understand this concept.

As for how long can she dive at 200 feet? Who knows... depends on her SAC rate. I know I can do a pretty long dive to an average depth of around 190 - and use less than HALF a tank for the descent, bottom and a good bit of the ascent.. Of course that tank is larger than hers, but I would be willing to guess I'm probably bigger than her and use a lot more air.

 

[KeithG]

whut happened to the OP?

 

[gcarter]

You have to ask?

 

[KeithG]

You have to ask?

yep. my reality is very simple. black and white. no shades of grey.

this thread has produced 100 different interesting tangents. lots of conjecture. none of them based upon reliable feedback from the OP.

But I am impressed. next time i get all pissed up and want to troll i hope my post is as provocative as this one...

 

[Nemrod]

whut happened to the OP?

What goes down does not have to come back up.

N

 

[ajduplessis]

.....I have dove air at 175'. I was narc'd a lot less then when I dove the same dive on trimix. I had a much easier dive on air, hence was less narced....

The sad bit is, you actually believe this!

 

[Lorenzoid]

How long must she remain at depth for her dive to be deemed "worthy" by you? How long do the training agencies mandate that a dive must consist of?

If she derives enjoyment, satisfaction, challenge, adventure (or sheets and giggles) while she is down there- do you really think she cares if YOU or some training agency thinks she should be staying longer?

The whole attitude that her pursuit is not valid because it is too short is hard for me to reconcile. We have scuba divers using compressed air to dive 8 - 12 ft deep. Why not criticize them for this ridiculously shallow depth that can easily be attained by snorkeling alone? Shall I criticize other people for diving too shallow - or are only dives that are "too short" worthy of contempt?

Obviously chasing depths as the only goal of a scuba dive - especially for a beginner - is not a good idea and the training agencies SHOULD make students understand this concept.

As for how long can she dive at 200 feet? Who knows... depends on her SAC rate. I know I can do a pretty long dive to an average depth of around 190 - and use less than HALF a tank for the descent, bottom and a good bit of the ascent.. Of course that tank is larger than hers, but I would be willing to guess I'm probably bigger than her and use a lot more air.

If my premise that she can't spend more than just a minute or two at 150 or 200 feet "or more" (as the OP related the story) is incorrect, then the rest of my thoughts are based on an incorrect premise, and I apologize for taking my thoughts so far. My comments are limited to this supposed setup of an 83 cf tank and a 40 cf pony/stage/deco/whatever tank. I have dived a 120 cf tank, and I can't imagine that with the combined gas limitations and deco considerations, one can spend more than a minute or two down at 200 feet. But I very well could be wrong. Anyway, that was the premise of my comments: French lady's short bounce dive would be inconsistent with French lady's alleged description of how much beauty she observed down there.

How do you interpret anything I am writing as judgmental or critical or "worthy of contempt"? I couldn't care less what any other diver does. As I said, I'm sure many divers do some pretty unorthodox things that are not in line with modern training and mindset. What I said is that the dive community--not me--as represented by what the agencies are advising students, seems to discourage bounce dives because there is nothing that can be seen or done in just a few minutes down at the bottom. THEY seem to be advising that the risk isn't worth the reward. Their thinking reflects the thinking of today's dive community. If they think something is unorthodox, then it's probably not the "norm" for divers in any part of the world, which was the original question.

Your analogy with diving at 8-12 feet is inapt, because at many dive sites there is plenty to see and do at that depth, and you could spend hours there. That kind of diving is not unorthodox in the least. Blue Heron Bridge is one of the most fascinating dive sites I can think of.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

If my premise that she can't spend more than just a minute or two at 150 or 200 feet "or more" (as the OP related the story) is incorrect, then the rest of my thoughts are based on an incorrect premise, and I apologize for taking my thoughts so far. My comments are limited to this supposed setup of an 83 cf tank and a 40 cf pony/stage/deco/whatever tank. I have dived a 120 cf tank, and I can't imagine that with the combined gas limitations and deco considerations, one can spend more than a minute or two down at 200 feet. But I very well could be wrong. Anyway, that was the premise of my comments: French lady's short bounce dive would be inconsistent with French lady's alleged description of how much beauty she observed down there.

How do you interpret anything I am writing as judgmental or critical or "worthy of contempt"? I couldn't care less what any other diver does. As I said, I'm sure many divers do some pretty unorthodox things that are not in line with modern training and mindset. What I said is that the dive community--not me--as represented by what the agencies are advising students, seems to discourage bounce dives because there is nothing that can be seen or done in just a few minutes down at the bottom. THEY seem to be advising that the risk isn't worth the reward. Their thinking reflects the thinking of today's dive community. If they think something is unorthodox, then it's probably not the "norm" for divers in any part of the world, which was the original question.

Your analogy with diving at 8-12 feet is inapt, because at many dive sites there is plenty to see and do at that depth, and you could spend hours there. That kind of diving is not unorthodox in the least.

LOL.I post a video of a fat, old guy using less than half a tank on a 190 ft dive which clearly shows that the dive lasted more than a few minutes. Yet even after this; you STILL "can't imagine" a dive longer than a few minutes?

AND you want to argue that beauty can not be appreciated in a few minutes? How long do you think the people who summit Mount Everest "hang out" before they head down? Is their short time on the summit inadequate to take in the scene? Would you criticize them as well for not staying long enough?