I'll tell you, this thread is giving me a whole bunch of reasons to stick to one deco bottle dives . . . 
Standard MOD
- Thread starter iztok
- 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 use roughly 1.4 and I don't HAVE to breath it at that depth either. I might dip to 1.4 for short dives or short portions of longer dives though. So marking 1.2 does not make sense to me since I am generally willing to exceed 1.2 For how long and under what circumstances depends on the dive.
the "it's mine or not" is irrelevant since in DIR we all use the same scheme for marking stuff. (Or at least we all thought/hoped/assumed we did before this thread took a U-turn across the cabbage patch a few pages ago
You missed the memo
(which incidentally actually cites a "working ppO2 of 1.4 or less" not a max 1.2 or such which has been pushed more lately with the "new" MODs of 100ft for 30/30 and 150ft for 21/35. Personally as long as the markings pass the laugh test I'm cool with that.)
limeyx
Guest
limeyx
Guest
Greetings all,
My overview of these posts leave me feeling you guys have covered the issues well. I am pleased to see people promoting the benefit of maintaining a standard as I find that the most compelling benefit within DIR. I have always felt people let themselves get too worked up about the nuances of a standard rather than appreciating the utility of standard approaches. Sitting at a desk tapping out a post or maybe a blog can cause one to get their head twisted around and forget the intention of standards that guide complex forms of diving. The more experience one has with complex dive plans in various environments, the more obvious the need to remain consistent. I say this regardless of the form this consistency takes i.e. whether or not the person practices DIR.
I appreciate that many divers are not interested in complex diving or in managing procedures that support aggressive diving in varying environments among divergent teams of divers. However, I would argue simple and consistent procedures are the best support for simple and complex dives; more importantly they lay the critical foundation for a nearly infinite diversity of diving activity. I dont see the value in trying to guess how complex my diving will get in the future (by creating policies geared to support simple tech dives). I especially dont see the value in confusing long standing procedures to accommodate an arguably trivial concern (which I still dont quite understand in this case). Changing a standard methodology should only be done with great reluctance and after a COMPELLING benefit can be established. Otherwise there is really no value to the idea of the standard, no real standard and therefore nothing that resembles DIR methodology.
In closing I can think of a multitude of problems related to not marking my bottom stages. These problems include everything from acknowledging that back gas/stages are NOT breathable at all depths (and therefore require consistent marking/switching procedures) to appreciating the risk in not having buddy verification (how will my buddy know if my sticker is obscured, has fallen off or just is not being used). EVERY bottle in the water needs an MOD so that you, your team and other teams can verify gases carried/breathed, help one another, allocate collective resources, and most of all manage the endless unforeseen circumstances that inevitably develop when people dive aggressively (or even just dive frequently). Whether I am on a dive that requires travel at multiple depths (with different bottom mixes that may not be safe/diveable/preferred during parts of this dive) or I am seeking to use a dive buddy to support our team with bottle verification (which breaks down significantly when the process is inconsistent), I need a reliable way to Identify ALL bottles quickly and easily. This becomes very obvious in large scale aggressive dives but I believe it remains a critical habit in all forms of diving where various mixes in different bottles are used. Without this core principle in place, teams cant operate efficiently (or safely) which corrupts the very point of standardization. From my perspective people are always free to modify working principles and dive as they please. But this becomes very problematic when these principles are marketed as DIR within a construct that pretends to support a DIR community while eroding the very base from which that community derives its strength.
But that is just my two cents. I wish you all the best in sorting out where you stand on the issues.
Sincerely,
My overview of these posts leave me feeling you guys have covered the issues well. I am pleased to see people promoting the benefit of maintaining a standard as I find that the most compelling benefit within DIR. I have always felt people let themselves get too worked up about the nuances of a standard rather than appreciating the utility of standard approaches. Sitting at a desk tapping out a post or maybe a blog can cause one to get their head twisted around and forget the intention of standards that guide complex forms of diving. The more experience one has with complex dive plans in various environments, the more obvious the need to remain consistent. I say this regardless of the form this consistency takes i.e. whether or not the person practices DIR.
I appreciate that many divers are not interested in complex diving or in managing procedures that support aggressive diving in varying environments among divergent teams of divers. However, I would argue simple and consistent procedures are the best support for simple and complex dives; more importantly they lay the critical foundation for a nearly infinite diversity of diving activity. I dont see the value in trying to guess how complex my diving will get in the future (by creating policies geared to support simple tech dives). I especially dont see the value in confusing long standing procedures to accommodate an arguably trivial concern (which I still dont quite understand in this case). Changing a standard methodology should only be done with great reluctance and after a COMPELLING benefit can be established. Otherwise there is really no value to the idea of the standard, no real standard and therefore nothing that resembles DIR methodology.
In closing I can think of a multitude of problems related to not marking my bottom stages. These problems include everything from acknowledging that back gas/stages are NOT breathable at all depths (and therefore require consistent marking/switching procedures) to appreciating the risk in not having buddy verification (how will my buddy know if my sticker is obscured, has fallen off or just is not being used). EVERY bottle in the water needs an MOD so that you, your team and other teams can verify gases carried/breathed, help one another, allocate collective resources, and most of all manage the endless unforeseen circumstances that inevitably develop when people dive aggressively (or even just dive frequently). Whether I am on a dive that requires travel at multiple depths (with different bottom mixes that may not be safe/diveable/preferred during parts of this dive) or I am seeking to use a dive buddy to support our team with bottle verification (which breaks down significantly when the process is inconsistent), I need a reliable way to Identify ALL bottles quickly and easily. This becomes very obvious in large scale aggressive dives but I believe it remains a critical habit in all forms of diving where various mixes in different bottles are used. Without this core principle in place, teams cant operate efficiently (or safely) which corrupts the very point of standardization. From my perspective people are always free to modify working principles and dive as they please. But this becomes very problematic when these principles are marketed as DIR within a construct that pretends to support a DIR community while eroding the very base from which that community derives its strength.
But that is just my two cents. I wish you all the best in sorting out where you stand on the issues.
Sincerely,
OP
Wow, how this came out for a debate when all I was asking was pretty simple. So I thought
Interesting debate none the less but I promise when I posted I really didn't want people go all upset about something.
Interesting debate none the less but I promise when I posted I really didn't want people go all upset about something.
Wow, how this came out for a debate when all I was asking was pretty simple. So I thought
Interesting debate none the less but I promise when I posted I really didn't want people go all upset about something.
Sorry if I appear "upset". It is merely a sense of frustration over tinkering with long standing and successful standards where no benefit is gained but confusion and risk are created. It reminds me of the days when we had to argue about Nitrox banners on tanks. I can't imagine having a bunch of bottles with and without MOD stickers and sorting through them and checking my dive buddy while trying to pretend I can verify a bottle with no marking. It would drive me insane but then again maybe I am already there
. I have to get some work done. Hope you all have a nice day.
limeyx
Guest
Jarrod,
First off, thanks for weighing in. I dont think anyone really has an issue marking bottles, and a lot of the messages here are people playing devils advocate.
Is there a GUE standard document that covers MOD labeling for bottom stages, and procedures for how to deal with two gases potentially having different MOD (as a deco and stage) and not getting things mixed up that you could share a link to ?
First off, thanks for weighing in. I dont think anyone really has an issue marking bottles, and a lot of the messages here are people playing devils advocate.
Is there a GUE standard document that covers MOD labeling for bottom stages, and procedures for how to deal with two gases potentially having different MOD (as a deco and stage) and not getting things mixed up that you could share a link to ?
Similar threads
