Redundancy Required for Decompression Diving?

[dumpsterDiver]

I have not taken any technical dive training, so I am curious about this topic. Recently, a technical instructor has indicated that he was "OK" with exceeding the no-deco limits and continuing a dive causing the accrual of a (moderate) decompression celing without the benefit of redundancy.

Is this consistent with current technical training? Is reliance upon a buddy's gas supply considered sufficient redundancy in this sort of situation? Based on training guidelines, would this be OK with a buddy and maybe not OK while solo diving?

Do the technical dive courses discuss this sort of thing or is it left to the discretion of the instructor or the diver?

 

[dreamdive]

I also heard a CCR instructor (unit and instructor deliberately not mentioned here) who advocates not carrying a bail-out since "his" unit never floods and (in his mind) there is no other reason why one need to bail-out.

Just because one is an instructor or other 'dive god', does not mean they have smarts and/or common sense.

My question to you is, what do YOU think? Obviously it caused you enough head scratching to ask this question here.

C

 

[DevonDiver]

Do the technical dive courses discuss this sort of thing or is it left to the discretion of the instructor or the diver?

I'm qualified (and teach for) several technical diving agencies... and have studied the relevant materials of numerous other agencies.

As far as I'm aware, the issue of redundancy is clearly defined in those materials and associated teaching.

If we can agree that technical diving isn't defined by parameters of the dives undertaken, but rather by the approach used to conduct those dives; then planning and doing dives without redundant individual life-support isn't technical diving at all... it's just recreational diving.

The prudence of conducting moderate decompression on recreational dives is a whole other debate...

 

[dumpsterDiver]

I'm qualified (and teach for) several technical diving agencies... and have studied the relevant materials of numerous other agencies.

As far as I'm aware, the issue of redundancy is clearly defined in those materials and associated teaching.

If we can agree that technical diving isn't defined by parameters of the dives undertaken, but rather by the approach used to conduct those dives; then planning and doing dives without redundant individual life-support isn't technical diving at all... it's just recreational diving.

The prudence of conducting moderate decompression on recreational dives is a whole other debate...

So how is the "issue" addressed? Is it required or not?

I'm not asking about "'prudence", I am inquiring about what is currently, and formally being taught/required for technical diving.

I thought recreational diving was no deco and less than 130 (for most agencies)? Is that the way recreational diving is taught now - Deco with no redundancy?

 

[The Chairman]

So how is the "issue" addressed? Is it required or not?

There are no Scuba police, although there are a few who like to play the part.

I teach as I dive. If i'm on a rebreather, I have a bailout... actually TWO bailouts and a redundant regulator. If I'm doing a 'tech' dive, I carry redundant gas. If I'm diving single, whether it's a tech or rec dive, I'm carrying redundant air.

 

[DevonDiver]

So how is the "issue" addressed?

If the "issue" was about instructors contradicting agency teaching during formal courses, then it'd be addressed via that agencies' Quality Assurance system.

Outside of that, there's only the issue of whether an instructor is deemed as 'representative' of their agency and was advocating something that the agency judges is actually unrepresentative of them (i.e. unsafe diving practices). That sort of thing is covered by agency membership agreements and codes of practice etc.

I don't see anything wrong with an instructor quoting a personal opinion, even if it differs from an agency stance, providing it's clearly communicated that the option is both personal...and doesn't represent the agency policy. That's sufficient to end confusion.

The only other issue is that of 'role-modelling'. An instructor, by merit of their status or qualification, may be deemed to be authoritative on varied subject by lesser qualified divers. Public comments by an instructor may inadvertently or unintendedly empower or encourage flawed decisions amongst divers who see the instructor as authoritative.

 

[guruboy]

You can take GUE rec 3 which allows some deco.

Do people ever bring back-ups for their deco gas?

 

[LiteHedded]

You can take GUE rec 3 with allow some deco.

Do people every bring back-ups for their deco gas?

with doubles and decompression cylinders

 

[tursiops]

Do people every bring back-ups for their deco gas?

No, they usually just deco longer on their primary (back) gas.

 

[WarrenZ]

Redundancy is absolutely not required to deco dive redundancy is only needed when something goes wrong. If you chose to go into deco without redundancy you are potentially betting your life on the fact that you wont have an equipment failure and you are accepting of the consequences as remote or as dire as they may be. Which is something Im unwilling to do.