How deep you could go on air is IMO way different than how deep you should go on air. That is if we assume that air is ever a good choice. You will get different numbers from different people.
Padi/Dsat gear configuration
- Thread starter rusky4u
- Start date
Please register or login
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
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I did everything to 130 on nitrox, mix for everything below that. IMO IANTD and ANDI are both good avenues for tech training.
Phil
It's not necessarily how deep you can go, its if you can make it back.
MHK
Guest
Mike,
This may well be an area that we may never agree on. Let me start out by saying that I'm against ALL deep air programs, irrespective of the agency.. I'll also offer that I was with Karl Shreeves and Grant Graves when they were beta tesing the RecTec program, and in fact Karl, Grant and myself did a dive for purposes of the beta test. I was on Helium and Karl and Grant were on air.. So my comments should NOT be taken in the form of PADI bashing, they are based upon real life experiences and based upon the fact that you simply can't teach someone to be good on air..
Furthermore, in my conversations I asked about an article that Drew Richardson wrote several years ago, I'm sorry I don't have a link handy but I'll find if it anyone wants it, but the article was an editorial from one of the VP's of PADI and it clearly stated in no uncertain terms that diving air to greater then 130' is excessivley dangerous and should NOT be sanctioned.. In fact, Drew went so far in his comments to suggest that any agency that teaches deep air should be publicly admonished.. So I asked Karl and Steve Mortell what changed since the days of PADI public outcry about the proliferation of deep air.. The only comments that I received was that the Eurpoean market share was such that they think Americans are arrogant for suggesting helium based diving, and the fact that the RecTec program was *safer* then IANTD because IANTD sanctioned to 170', whereas RecTec went to only 165'.. They also tried to offer some theory about isobaric counter diffusion which was quickly shot down when I pointed out how ridiculous the idea was.. In any event, my point is that NOTHING in the way of pysiology or technology has changed since PADI's very public editorial asking diver's to speak out against the Dangers or Deep Air, which was the title of the article.. The only thing that changed was the opportunity for market share..
Moreover, I'm fearful that the *everybody can do it* approach that permiates PADI may work it's way into the RecTec program despite repeated promises from Karl to the contrary.. Also, while I agree that PADI is capable of putting out commercially viable products, I think the content of the RecTec program is woefully lacking please see page 128 as an example.. BTW, this is exactly how NOT to shhot a lift bag.. I could go on, but I'm trying not to turn this into a bashing thread and there is a careful balance between offering comparison and contrast and bashing so I hope I haven't crossed the line..
Later
MHK,
I would like to hear more about what you see as "woefully lacking " in the DSAT program (outside of the deep air part). I am asking this only for my own information and don't have any strong feelings about the program one way or the other.
I agree with you about the use of helium. We (my wife and I) get teased alot because of the dives we do on trimix. Aside from the safety aspect which some will argue within a certain depth range I often site the fact that I enjoy the dive more. That doesn't leave any room for argument.
I would like to hear more about what you see as "woefully lacking " in the DSAT program (outside of the deep air part). I am asking this only for my own information and don't have any strong feelings about the program one way or the other.
I agree with you about the use of helium. We (my wife and I) get teased alot because of the dives we do on trimix. Aside from the safety aspect which some will argue within a certain depth range I often site the fact that I enjoy the dive more. That doesn't leave any room for argument.
MHK
Guest
Mike,
This si going to be very difficult in the context of trying NOT to agency bash, because I really have no intent of doing that.
However, in terms of content as you may imagine I'd like to see more attention to detail in terms of standardizing the gear configuration, and the use of 80% as a deco gas is ridiculous. But my biggest overall complaint with the program is that it doesn't answer the biggest question that it should.. In other words, for decades PADI has been preaching a 130' limit, and the potential for nitrogen narcosis at greater depths. Nowhere in the program does it answer the question of how to overcome narcosis.. The suggestion is that through repitition you can *adjust* to it, which I disagee with entirely. However, even if you play that scenario out, the next logical question then why don't they require the students to be taken to depth to learn this *adjustment* under the supervision of the instructor???
That all being said, the biggest problem I have with the program is that it purports to *teach* you how to overcome narcosis, even though it never tells you how to do it, but it ignores in a material fashion the real discussion issue which is the true danger associated with deep air diving.. C02 toxicity.. There's little, if any, valuable discussion points assigned to the topic, and my feeling is that it' because if the students knew the issue, rather then focusing the issue narrowly on to narcosis, they'd never sell a class.. C02 is 130 times more narcotic then nitrogen, as you well know the deeper you go, the denser the gas.. Accordingly what happens???
You have a more difficult time drawing a breath [ bear in mind the RecTec program does NOT discuss equipment recommendations so it's likley you want hear about regulator preformance] but nonetheless you start having a more difficult time drawing a breath so you breath harder, which causes a greater buildup of C02, which causes more narcosis and so on, we call it the vicious cylcle.. The buildup of C02 has the same symptoms of a heart attack so usually when he coroner rules he calls it a heart attack so this issue is rarely brought to the forefront..
So my answer to your question, as to what is lacking is any material answers to the relevant questions.. For decades they were aginst the practice of deep air, so what changed??? How can you overcome narcosis??? How can you avoid C02 build up??? Why use 80% as a deco gas, when 100% is more effective?? What effect does using 80% have on the oxygen windows??? What about back gas breaks and oxygen as a vasoconstrictor??
I could continue but I'm trying hard not to bash PADI, but I'm so opposed to this program that it's difficult to remain above the bashing context..
Later
MHK,
Thanks. I dont think you could be accused of agency bashing when discussing specifics as you did. Co2 retention and narcosis are real issues. Back gas breaks to control the adverse effects of prolonged elevated PPo2 and O2 for decompression are widely accepted techniques. Therefore, I don't think your position could be written off as an extreme opinion or agency bias.
One other question though, I think there have been two different times now when you infered that the student wasn't required to go deep in the course. The way I read the standards there are several dives where the student is required to dive below 130 and at least one diver when the student is required to dive below 145. Did I misunderstand something? could you explain?
Also, I noted in an earlier post that the course doesn't include much discussion of phisiology at all. Did Karl or anyone else offer an explanation?
Thanks. I dont think you could be accused of agency bashing when discussing specifics as you did. Co2 retention and narcosis are real issues. Back gas breaks to control the adverse effects of prolonged elevated PPo2 and O2 for decompression are widely accepted techniques. Therefore, I don't think your position could be written off as an extreme opinion or agency bias.
One other question though, I think there have been two different times now when you infered that the student wasn't required to go deep in the course. The way I read the standards there are several dives where the student is required to dive below 130 and at least one diver when the student is required to dive below 145. Did I misunderstand something? could you explain?
Also, I noted in an earlier post that the course doesn't include much discussion of phisiology at all. Did Karl or anyone else offer an explanation?
MHK
Guest
As to the depth issue, I have written memorandum from Steve Mortell indicating very clearly that * at the discrestion of the instructor* the class requires those depths. Steve and I were discussing the merits of the deep air program, and he is one of several people within DSAT that I have tried to get to answer the most fundamental question, which is please explain how you can teach overcomming narcosis and C02 toxicity.. In the context of that exchange I asked Steve why not add helium to the mix and his response was twofold 1) if the student bolts to the surface, helium is less forgiving and when they switch to EANx they suffer from isobaric counter diffusion.. To which I said you shouldn't be taking the student deep if there is a chance they'll bolt and he said that it's left * up to the discretion of the instructor* whether or not they'll go deep. To which I responded, isn't it a requirement that they dive deep and his response was if conditions and/or instructors judgement mandate no, then a student can get certified even if they don't complete the deep dives.. Which to me is utter hypocrsy, but not requiring them to dive deep on air may afterall be better in the long run ;-), however certifying them is a whole different matter..
When I asked Karl about the pysiology issues, his repsonse was that they thought they covered the subject in greater detail then IANTD so he was comfortable with the data. I pushed him on his position about isobaric counter diffusion, and the helium issue bearing in mind that I've dove with Karl both on air and helium and he said that " at this point" the DSAT position is that they are comfortable with what they've put out.. I took that to mean they'll be releasing a trimix program soon enough, but admittedly that's pure speculation on my part..
You made a comment suggesting that they RecTec program is the most thorough literature you've read on the subject matter out of everything you've read. I'm wondering have you read the GUE course material??? In my view, it is so much more thorough, but then again I helped write it so I'm a tad bit biased ;-)
Later
close to 2 hours in a LDS here talking to them about their "TECH" training, which is the DSAT/PADI Tec/Rec course.
We went through the basic curriculum and gasses used, and I noted there was no mix on the menu, yet the expected depths for the dives ranged to 165'. I asked why not, and whether or not it would be infinitely preferrable to dive Mix below 130', and why would you not use 100% for deco? After all, isn't the point the partial pressure gradient?
Things got real squirrelly about then, and suddenly the progression included getting a DM cert before taking the Rec/Tech series! Uh, I don't want to be a DM
Never mind that they don't really do mix there at all (wink wink nod nod)
Oh.
Anyway, that pretty much killed that path for me. Deep air my tailfeathers. I've never FELT narced, even at 110-120, but I'm sure I was. At 160? I'd probably be narced out of my mind, and to my way of thinking there is no reason at all not to run Mix at that depth.
We went through the basic curriculum and gasses used, and I noted there was no mix on the menu, yet the expected depths for the dives ranged to 165'. I asked why not, and whether or not it would be infinitely preferrable to dive Mix below 130', and why would you not use 100% for deco? After all, isn't the point the partial pressure gradient?
Things got real squirrelly about then, and suddenly the progression included getting a DM cert before taking the Rec/Tech series! Uh, I don't want to be a DM
Never mind that they don't really do mix there at all (wink wink nod nod)
Oh.
Anyway, that pretty much killed that path for me. Deep air my tailfeathers. I've never FELT narced, even at 110-120, but I'm sure I was. At 160? I'd probably be narced out of my mind, and to my way of thinking there is no reason at all not to run Mix at that depth.
rusky4u once bubbled...
so, my questions are:
- does any one in the board experienced any of the Padi`s/DSAT Tec Rec programs?
- If yes, any comments?
- If Padi/Dsat use and supports the above-mentioned gear whats the fuzz on the use of such gear in OWD training, both by students and instructors?
- Is Padi going en route for what seems to be a Tec boom???
Just to clarify about DSAT - It's got little if not nothing to do with diving - they are a media company. DSAT clients ranged from liquor manufacturers to fitness and exercise equipment.
From their website - DSAT WEBSITE :
What is DSAT?
DSAT is a customer-oriented, cutting-edge media production company.
We get your project done with:
Commercial quality video production
Scripting, production, shooting, editing and duplication
Promotion, entertainment and education instructional system design and program development
Task analysis, learner-oriented sequencing, instructional media development and Beta testing
Function driven, appealing layout and design for both printed and electronic media
Live event production and broadcast
Studio and Field still photography
Interactive multimedia production for promotion, entertainment or education
Electronic and printed catalog and brochure development
Technical, promotional and instructional writing and editing
Cost effective video, CD-ROM and DVD duplication
Printing
Similar threads
