Unnecessary thread splitting

[steinbil]

In Tursiops thread about why tables are not used in OW training anymore in the basic forum, half of the posts regarding using average depth on tables were separated into a thread in the advanced forum.

I do understand moderation is not easy, so this is meant as constructive criticism and also to clarify certain things about those two subforums.

My take:
- The OP brings up not being able to do multilevel diving on tables
- Unless the OP is misplaced, the following discussion about the same topic should belong in the same forum
- I don't think diving tables are too advanced for the basic forum
- I don't think the depth averaging method I learned in my OW class is too advanced for the basic forum

The simulations to show how it is possible might look a little "advanced" or theory-heavy, but if you can't argue why using a OW method is safe for diving, then it's strange to allow the original statement that it is not.

Finally, the way it was done, separating half of the posts regarding this discussion makes either thread less valuable.

 

[tursiops]

I don't think the depth averaging method I learned in my OW class is too advanced for the basic forum

It is an unvalidated and sometimes demonstrably wrong and dangerous procedure. It should not be in ANY forum.

 

[steinbil]

It is an unvalidated and sometimes demonstrably wrong and dangerous procedure. It should not be in ANY forum.

Really? Straw man much? The method I explained seems to hold up, and I backed it up with simulations that shows that.

Of course you can come up with other depth averaging methods that will be dangerous, but that is completely irrelevant. Scuba is filled with procedures that can be dangerous if you don't follow them correctly.

 

[jale]

+1 with Steinbil

 

[jale]

It is an unvalidated and sometimes demonstrably wrong and dangerous procedure. It should not be in ANY forum.

To come back to the MT92, the validations have been done by COMEX. Don't know what you need...Oh you mean, you have demonstred that the COMEX guys were wrong

 

[L13]

It is an unvalidated and sometimes demonstrably wrong and dangerous procedure. It should not be in ANY forum.

As long as the procedure requires monotonically decreasing depth after the initial decent, it will always be more conservative for tables based on Buhlmann than Buhlmann itself is. The same is true for tables based on any algorithm substantially similar to Buhlmann. It is overstating things to call it wrong (it is an approximation just like Buhlmann is), or dangerous if strictly followed.

With a few extra constraints (such as second half must average less than first half, and max depth < 125% of avg) it will never be less conservative by more than a few %GF, even with deeper segments at the end of the dive.

The only real danger is that it is complicated enough that some might use it without following all the constraints, violating its assumptions. But that is true of any procedure.

 

[Wookie]

Annnnd now you know why controversial procedures are split off of Basic into advanced.

There was a time before ScubaBoard when nitrox use would have been split off of basic as well.

 

[steinbil]

Annnnd now you know why controversial procedures are split off of Basic into advanced.

There was a time before ScubaBoard when nitrox use would have been split off of basic as well.

I guess my problem with the way this is handled is that it only leaves arguments on one side. Now the posters saying you can't do multilevel dives on tables keep on spreading half-truths in the basic forum, and they're even continuing with arguments and computer simulations in the same vein, while the other side has been stifled. So, either the whole thread should have been moved or deleted, or none of it. Should it really be controversial, just because some loud voices claim that it's dangerous (without even understanding it)? Is it also not allowed to say that you don't always need to hold your breath in the basic forum? This leaves a little bit of a bad taste in my mouth..

 

[steinbil]

Edit:
Obviously I meant "Is it not allowed to say that it's OK to hold your breath (when not ascending").

Note to self:
I shouldn't not always never don't post when I'm too tired to make sure I write proper sentences that make sense...

 

[johndiver999]

Playing with tables like that is beyond stupid. Of course you can do it and it might make sense in an emergency, but to discuss it as a method of planning when a $250 computer does it all without guessing is stupid. I am all for freedom of discussion, but this is not the game to play with the health of your spinal cord..