The deep air angle - split from Missouri Fatality

[DCBC]

I just want to know why nearly every accident that occurs from a dive greater than about 100ft has an END greater than 100ft. I'm pretty sure you know why, but you don't want to say it because it would negate your argument.

I don't believe that END is the big factor that you would like me to believe it is. END doesn't negate a decompression requirement, poor dive planning, running out of air, panic, heart attack or air embolism. END isn't the biggie!

Too many people are not properly trained, they don't have the experience, are over-weight and are not in good physical condition. They run into a problem that they can't handle. Some live through the experience, scare the cra* out of themselves and never dive again. Others have an accident. Too many divers quite simply dive outside of their safety envelope. I've seen this with too many newly certified divers who shouldn't even be out of the pool, but are running around the world with C-Cards.

I agree that the conversation is wandering off the subject matter. We should wait until more information is posted that relates to this unfortunate accident.

 

[PfcAJ]

I don't believe that END is the big factor that you would like me to believe it is. END doesn't negate a decompression requirement, poor dive planning, running out of air, panic, heart attack or air embolism. END isn't the biggie!

Too many people are not properly trained, they don't have the experience, are over-weight and are not in good physical condition. They run into a problem that they can't handle. Some live through the experience, scare the cra* out of themselves and never dive again. Others have an accident. Too many divers quite simply dive outside of their safety envelope. I've seen this with too many newly certified divers who shouldn't even be out of the pool, but are running around the world with C-Cards.

I agree that the conversation is wandering off the subject matter. We should wait until more information is posted that relates to this unfortunate accident.

Ya, you're right. Driving drunk isn't the problem. I guess they didn't have the driving skillz, control of their car, or good health (im sure they had a heart attack just before smashing into another car). After all, I know a guy thats driven drunk 73 times, and hes fine, so it must be ok. Fail.

Being impared reduces your ability to handle anything that happens underwater. This isn't rocket surgey. And like I said before, there are "classes" that teach (ya right) people how to "handle" narcosis. Imagine if we offered a drunk driving class...

 

[DCBC]

...what it does is take narcosis out of the equation. and you've admitted that narcosis reduces a diver's safety. and you're right, it's not available everywhere. but I'm pretty sure it was available to this diver. deep air proponents readily admit that diving deep air is LESS SAFE but rush in to point out that it cant be narcosis that contributed to an incident. I don't get it.

Yes, but it has also been pointed-out that diving isn't safe to begin with. It's up to the individual to determine what level of risk they feel is acceptable. If they choose to dive air, who is anyone to say otherwise?

No one said that this incident wasn't narcosis related. We don't have to wait and see.

It was the proponents of Trimix that stated that the problem was with deep air without knowing the facts in-issue. Lets make this point clear.

 

[David_57]

Yep DCBC that just about sums it up, how many times have I seen a new diver (20 or so dives) do a bounce dive to 140ft then come on board and boast about it, now if said diver had got into trouble and never made it back on board I'm sure the aforementioned people would have blamed it on Narcosis due to deep air.

And think maybe we should split this thread or stay on the original OP subject as no one can say this accident occurred due diving on air in lieu of Trimix causing Narcosis.

 

[Cave Diver]

I fail to see how the equipment a diver is wearing contributes to his/her ability to dive safely when it comes to nitrogen narcosis.

Maybe I can enlighten you to my thought process then.

If you're tethered, then I'd have to assume your surface support probably has an idea of what your depth is. You're not going to accidentally end up 20, 50 100' deeper than your intended depth because you didnt realize you're a bit fuzzy and not paying attention to your depth like has been known to happen to people on SCUBA.

If you're using comms then you have direct voice contact with your support team. If you're on SCUBA and a bit narced you might miss a hand signal, or misinterpret the hand signal. Maybe you'd mistake lets go up 5' feet for let's stay 5 minutes longer.

If you're on comms, your team can probably tell of you're breathing too hard, due to excess exertion, which might aggravate a C02 hit or "dark nark." You have an unlimited supply of gas and you likely have a some sort of chamber standing by. If you encounter a problem, it's more matter of course and less a cause for concern than it would be for two guys diving on a wreck.

Also, having that voice contact may help you focus and "ground" you to the task and keep your attention from wandering because you're narked.

Certainly if a tethered diver ran into a problem, he could be removed from the hazard. On the other hand, being in communication with the surface allows the diver to be monitored. There was obviously nothing experienced by the tender that would have lead him to suspect that I wasn't safe, or the dive would have been immediately terminated. Also, there was never any indication that the quality of my work being performed was sub-standard during this time period. I suggest that this is suitable evidence that I was able to perform complex tasks at depth while breathing air at depth. Thousands of commercial divers do this daily.

I never said your work was substandard. I just said that comparing techniques are apples and oranges.

The only dive I terminated on air resulting from narcosis, was one that I did to 250'. As soon as I noticed that I was starting to experience some difficulty with direction, I terminated the dive. I was using scuba at the time. Nitrogen narcosis isn't the Boogie Man. You can feel the affects build and can terminate the dive accordingly.

To answer your question, of the commercial time I've listed, only about 100 hours would qualify on scuba over 150'. Although I haven't checked my other logs, I suspect that I could add an additional 300 recreational hours and another 200 hours with the Navy to this figure (scuba breathing air over 150'). Considering my years at DCIEM as a test diver, there would be a considerable amount more time to add, but that's not with scuba.

So basically, all this to say that the answer to my question was "yes."

 

[DCBC]

Ya, you're right. Driving drunk isn't the problem. I guess they didn't have the driving skillz, control of their car, or good health (im sure they had a heart attack just before smashing into another car). After all, I know a guy thats driven drunk 73 times, and hes fine, so it must be ok. Fail.

Being impared reduces your ability to handle anything that happens underwater. This isn't rocket surgey. And like I said before, there are "classes" that teach (ya right) people how to "handle" narcosis. Imagine if we offered a drunk driving class...

There are some that can do a decompression dive to 200' more safely on air than others who dive to the same depth on Trimix. How's that for an interesting thing to think about?

 

[LiteHedded]

There are some that can do a decompression dive to 200' more safely on air than others who dive to the same depth on Trimix. How's that for an interesting thing to think about?

totally irrelevant

anyway this thread has been done to death before. I'm gonna check out till more info comes out.
thoughts and prayers with the family and hopefully people learn from this

 

[PfcAJ]

Your definition of "safe" is clearly skewed a bit.

There is nothing "safe" about a 200' dive on air. Likewise, there is nothing "safe" about a 200' dive on gas if the person doesn't have the skillset to perform the task.

Similarly, there is nothing "safe" about a drunk driver with 10 years of experience, and there is nothing "safe" about a first time driver hitting the road.

Can a diver perform a dive to 200' on air? Probably. Can a diver without the skillset perform a 200' dive on gas? Probably. Can either of them perform adequately in the face of a problem? Possibly, but at least one has the advantage of not being impared by an anesthetic.

Can the drunk get home? Possibly. Can the newbie driver get around without getting into a wreck. Possibly. Can either of them manuever effectivly to avoid a collison if a car pulls out? I don't know, but at least one of them is sober.

 

[PfcAJ]

I have tried to stress that people "should dive within their personal safety envelope." What that envelope is, is dependent upon that individual's training and experience. This is however subject to that individual's assessment. All too often, the new diver cannot properly assess this because they are often unaware of the hazards that exist.

Like a guy taking a tech deep course on air? Hmm...

 

[DCBC]

Maybe I can enlighten you to my thought process then.

Perhaps this is best discussed in the commercial diving area. I have already stated that in my opinion, a diver's equipment has nothing to do with the diver's ability to dive safely from a narcosis perspective. The diver can either function in a safe manner and perform his job properly, or he can't. The workplace health and safety regulations governing the safety of the diver are clear. If there is a safety hazard, the dive must be terminated.