FB posting - standards violations - how many can you pick out?

[Marie13]

The Instructor seems to be NAUI.
Helitrox is the third tech class, after Intro and Deco. Not sure how it would still be introductory tech.

Naui Technical Equipment Configuration (NTEC) for Open Circuit Technical Dive Training (2010) says:
"Twin primary cylinders connected by a dual-port manifold with an isolation valve are required for all training that will involve actual or simulated decompression stops. For training that does not involve decompression, a single primary cylinder with an “H” or a “Y” valve is acceptable."
The 2017 standards list that for Into, but leaves off spelling it out for Deco and Helitrox, beyond the standards intro referencing NTEC.
That gear looks a wild mess. Beyond being not doubles or a H or Y valve.

4:1 ratio if deco, 6:1 if no deco, unless an assistant, then 6:1 under ideal conditions. Not clear if one of the 5 was an assistant.
Depth limit is 150'.

Does NAUI allow Helitrox to be combined with their Deco Procedures class, as TDI does? This whole thing caught my eye since I’m doing TDI AN/DP/Helitrox.

 

[Mouth Breather]

I have no time to be offended by things that don't matter to me.

This should be on a bumper sticker, a fortune cookie...something

 

[MichaelMc]

Does NAUI allow Helitrox to be combined with their Deco Procedures class, as TDI does? This whole thing caught my eye since I’m doing TDI AN/DP/Helitrox.

Yes, NAUI Helitrox and DP can be combined.

From the 2017 Standards:
"If this course is combined with NAUI Technical Decompression Diver, then the combined
course will require a total of 10 dives, of which four dives will be with helitrox."
(DP by itself has 7 dives, Helitrox 4. And Intro 4)

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Do you think my choice of using an air2 as an inflator is accepting deviance? Is my Air2, like my split fins and my spare air going to kill me? FTR, I don't use a spare air or split fins, but I do dive with a 13 ft3 pony, every dive, which will get me almost to the surface on those very deep dives.

I have to figure out the rest of the way on my own.

You are free to dive however you wish, plus I have no idea on the extent of your dives. While I expect your questions were rhetorical, I'll still have a go. If you (and I don't mean you Frank, but the general you) can deal with an absolute worst case scenario of a first stage failing shut (My Own Out of GAS Experience) either through redundancy or always being quickly in reach of a donated second stage, then great. My guess is that I'm a more conservative instructor than most, as I will not teach diving on air past a gas density value of 5.2 per Dr. Mitchell's recommendation (Alert Diver | Performance Under Pressure). Some people probably mock me for doing so, and I'm okay with that. Now I teach an augmented Advanced Buoyancy Course that has some elements of fundies. I'll accept students in a jacket style BCD and split fins. The performance requirements of backfinning and helicopter turns don't change. If they want to do that in split fins and will be able to do so well enough, then no problem. It comes down to this. If you can handle any realistic emergency, then great. If you can't, then there's a problem.

I'm pretty hard against PADI's stance on overheads as I've experienced how they are implemented from when I didn't know any better and thought I could trust dive professionals (restricted swim through in Cozumel, single file, one diver jammed in after another, some bouncing off the coral like a pinball machine).

If a student comes to me with an SpareAir, I'm chucking that f-ing thing as far as I can.

 

[Storker]

I don't dive deeper than 300 as I think I'm too old for that.

I don't dive much deeper than 30-ish meters as I don't appreciate being noticeably impaired while diving and don't know enough to add He to my gas.

Dive and let dive, but respect the boundaries that others have set for their own diving.

Cave diving is too dangerous for me.

You wouldn't see me down a cave underwater even if you put a gun to my head. I like to believe I have a decent idea about what I don't know, and I have a low risk tolerance. Besides, my wife would really kill me if I went and got myself killed that way. And I really don't want to p*** her off.


(Edited to remove what was intended as a light-hearted poke, but which seemed to ruffle a few feathers)

 

[Tecomah]

The Instructor seems to be NAUI.
Helitrox is the third tech class, after Intro and Deco. Not sure how it would still be introductory tech.

Naui Technical Equipment Configuration (NTEC) for Open Circuit Technical Dive Training (2010) says:
"Twin primary cylinders connected by a dual-port manifold with an isolation valve are required for all training that will involve actual or simulated decompression stops. For training that does not involve decompression, a single primary cylinder with an “H” or a “Y” valve is acceptable."
The 2017 standards list that for Into, but leaves off spelling it out for Deco and Helitrox, beyond the standards intro referencing NTEC, which may have seen some update to accommodate sidemount.
Also, NTEC: "A wing type buoyancy compensator is required" And rigid plate is highly recommended.
That gear looks a wild mess. Beyond being not a wing, doubles or a H or Y valve.

4:1 ratio if deco, 6:1 if no deco, unless an assistant, then 6:1 under ideal conditions. Not clear if one of the 5 was an assistant.
Depth limit is 150'.

I'll admit I can't read. They definitely violated a boatload of standards then and that should be dealt with accordingly. I had assumed tdi. Someone posted this as the supposed profile as well, which is fairly telling. This only reiterates the fact I need caffeine before I internet.

 

[MaxE]

Most of the times you violate standards you don't become dead. Because standards are made to give you a good probability for not ending up dead. Like, better than a 9:10 probability. Hopefully better than a 99:100 probability for not ending up dead.

Do something that gives you a 9:10 probability of not ending up dead five times in a row, and you still have better than a 1:2 probability of not ending up dead. Heck, do something that gives you a 99:100 probability of not ending up dead 68 times and you still have better than a 1:2 probability of not ending up dead. Would you voluntarily roll the dice several times if you had a 1:100 probability of ending up dead each time you rolled the dice? I wouldn't.
.

The probability of ending up dead is 1:100 each time you roll the dice. It does not change as a result of how many times you have previously rolled. The probability of 50 rolls will not be 1:100 but the probability of each roll individually is still 1:100. Flip a coin 99 times get heads every time, the probability of heads on the 100th flip is 50/50, even if the probability of 100 consecutive heads is like 100million to 1.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

This should be on a bumper sticker, a fortune cookie...something

Just added to my signature.

 

[Storker]

The probability of ending up dead is 1:100 each time you roll the dice. It does not change as a result of how many times you have previously rolled. The probability of 50 rolls will not be 1:100 but the probability of each roll individually is still 1:100. Flip a coin 99 times get heads every time, the probability of heads on the 100th flip is 50/50, even if the probability of 100 consecutive heads is like 100million to 1.

And your point is...?

Like most of those reading this forum, I'm a diver. Diving carries a certain risk of being killed. Since I'm planning to be diving for some time, I really like to minimize that risk. I'm not thinking of my next single dive, which you seem to be arguing about. I'm thinking about all of my future dives.

 

[gbirch]

Most of the times you violate standards you don't become dead. Because standards are made to give you a good probability for not ending up dead. Like, better than a 9:10 probability. Hopefully better than a 99:100 probability for not ending up dead.

Do something that gives you a 9:10 probability of not ending up dead five times in a row, and you still have better than a 1:2 probability of not ending up dead. Heck, do something that gives you a 99:100 probability of not ending up dead 68 times and you still have better than a 1:2 probability of not ending up dead. Would you voluntarily roll the dice several times if you had a 1:100 probability of ending up dead each time you rolled the dice? I wouldn't.

That's why we have standards based on reasons that people have died while diving. And because people usually don't die when they violate standards we see a lot of normalization of deviance.

It's a bit worse than that because chance has no memory so, from the point of view of probability, since your sixth dive doesn't know about the previous five you still have a 9:10 probability of not ending up dead. I say "worse" and not "better" because this just reinforces the normalization of deviance.