Air integrated computer and tec diving

[PfcAJ]

Here's the thing... everyone 'breaks' when they go deep. Those who rely on 'feelings' to know when they are narced are only fooling themselves. PDCs just don't get narced. They are a far superior way to monitor and adjust your dive to reality, not some fantasy you had during the planning stages. The hubris that believes that humans are somehow superior to PDCs because they don't have batteries, fails to take any of this into account.

If you're so narced that you don't know your depth and time, then you made a huge mistake before you even got in the water. No computer is going to make it better.

Plan your dive, dive your plan, be prepared for deviations from the plan. Its not fantasy...are you unable to dive your plan and make adjustments as needed? If so, you're over your head, simple as that.

Scary...

 

[The Chairman]

If you're so narced that you don't know your depth and time, then you made a huge mistake before you even got in the water. No computer is going to make it better.

Plan your dive, dive your plan, be prepared for deviations from the plan. Its not fantasy...are you unable to dive your plan and make adjustments as needed? If so, you're over your head, simple as that.

Scary...

I tell my students to avoid deluded divers who don't understand how sneaky narcosis is. You would fit in with that group. Scary indeed!!!

 

[boulderjohn]

I thought we're talking about tec40/45, or at least OW tech...not technical wreck (same as cave... profile dictated by topography).

But yes, at entry level tech, I focus on 'plan the dive, dive the plan'... as I believe that, once ingrained, a precision approach forms the foundations of all that follows.

But let's also not forget that multideco etc do allow multiple levels. Plan the dive, dive the plan. It needn't be 'square', but what you plan must predict what you do underwater...

That said, I'd plan series (non-penetration) dives on the same wreck in levels. Why not?

Indeed, why not?

The trimix students I will be teaching in March were with me for Tec 40, 45, and 50, and they have done multi-level dives. We did indeed plan them in Multi-deco and execute them following a written plan. I have no problem with that aspect of training.

My response was to what you apparently wrote about diving wrecks being the reason for doing a flat profile dive. It seems to me that the opposite would be true. On one our last Tec 50 dives, in which students must plan and execute a mission, we were in a huge sinkhole, and they measured the changing width of a rock formation at different depths for mapping purposes. They preplanned the depths and plugged it into Multiideco. It was a very nice and interesting dive. It would seem to me that a wreck would be tailor made for similar missions. The only reason I can think of to dive a wreck as a flat profile would be to fulfill a desire to dive a flat profile, despite the dive environment.

 

[PfcAJ]

I tell my students to avoid deluded divers who don't understand how sneaky narcosis is. You would fit in with that group. Scary indeed!!!

Yeah, my 80ft (typically less) ENDs are just sooooooooo aggressive....

Give me a break, Pete. If there's anyone on your forum who's super conservative when it comes to narcosis, it's me.

 

[The Chairman]

There's a lot of narcosis at 80ft. Perhaps you're not as conservative about this as you assume. It's manageable, but add in unfamiliar task loading (student or newbie) and there are bound to be errors. One problem can confuse even a veteran diver. Oh, I know that everyone thinks they are 'all that', but that's the type of diver I avoid and encourage my students to avoid.

 

[PfcAJ]

Monitoring your depth and time is so extremely fundamental, I can't even get over it that were discussing it in the technical forum.

A a dive computer does not relive you of the responsibility of monitoring depth and time or understanding the relationship between depth, time, and decompression obligation.

Again, if you're so new that you can't do a task as fundamental to diving as monitoring depth and time, you have zero business in a technical environment. In my opinion you shouldn't even be training for technical dives if you're unable to do this. "Oh I have a dive computer, I can just 'go' and sort it out later" is backward and dangerous thinking.

 

[The Chairman]

Again, if you're so narced [-]new[/-] that you can't do a task as fundamental to diving as monitoring depth and time,

I fixed it for you. You're simply not conservative about narcosis at all. It's not about being new: it's about being narced. Training helps, but not as much as experience at depth. Neither can remedy the situation completely and being delusional about it certainly won't help.

 

[DevonDiver]

The trimix students I will be teaching in March were with me for Tec 40, 45, and 50, and they have done multi-level dives.

Yes, and I should clarify that training us very student specific. Earlier, I was talking about Tec40/45.. which generally presumes much more focus on foundational tech competencies and mindset development.

As you say, it makes a big difference if a student trained with you previously. For me, teaching tech is all about understanding students individual competencies, strengths and weaknesses....and adapting training to push the individual challenge.

Where students demonstrate weaknesses, I focus training on eliminating them. The weaknesses common in most students initially transitioning from rec to tech are usually quite evident. I see them as low precision... Imprecise buoyancy, imprecise drills, imprecise gas management, imprecise dive planning, imprecise plan adherence etc etc...

Precision mindedness comes first. Thereafter, all things get done well. Mindset is important because it dictates how the student will continue developing once the (relatively short) training programme concludes.

If I can achieve one thing with a student, it's to develop a mindset that enables positive, quality, development in their own time afterwards.

Contrary to what some may assume, that means creating thinking divers... not robots. Someone can be a thinking diver, but still committed to proven principles, a high degree of risk mitigation and to strive for optimization and excellence.

'plan the dive, dive the plan' is a great means to develop mindset. Obviously, as the level of training rises, so does the complexity of the plan. Even within a given level if training, student performance and competency is a big determining factor on the complexity I introduce. K.I.S.S. It's a process... and the longer I gave with a student, the further we progress in challenge and complexity... relative to their individual starting competency and rate of learning...

 

[PfcAJ]

Pete.

You STILL have to monitor your **** no matter what. Narced or not it's extremely important. A dive computer does not magically mean you don't need to monitor your dive parameters, and the potential of narcosis again does not alleviate you of that responsibility.

Getting in the water without a full understanding of the dive and possible variants is foolish no matter what equipment you're wearing. Bimbling along just waiting for your box to tell you what to do is beyond the pale.

And your edit is fine with me. If you are so narced out of your gourd that making sense of depth and time is impossible you have no business in a technical environment. Either your decision making is HIGHLY suspect (getting yourself into that situation), your technique is poor (inability to devote enough mental bandwidth to the tasks at hand/ co2 buildup) or you aren't fit enough (co2 again) to do the dive.

 

[DevonDiver]

Monitoring your depth and time is so extremely fundamental,.... if you're so new that you can't do a task as fundamental to diving as monitoring depth and time, you have zero business in a technical environment.

I agree. All else is excuse making and denial.

Back 'in the day' when deep air was commonplace, there were no issues with time/depth accuracy. I firmly believe that if a skill is ingrained, then it doesn't suffer significant degradation from narcosis. What suffers is problem solving... and trying to apply superficially learned skills is a form of problem solving. If a function has been made instinctive, then it remains instinctive even when intellectual brain function is compromised.

I used to dive ~70-90m on air. Amnesia was commonplace. I don't deny it was dangerous. But... never because core competencies were degraded.

From personal experience, I'd say Pete was dead wrong in his understanding of skill retention/application whilst narcosis compromised. If he suffers skill decline at depth, he's got the wrong culprit in his cross-hairs.

As an aside... if someone wants to take steps to reduce narcosis at minimal depths... then a gym membership is a lot cheaper than a trade account with a helium supplier.