- Messages
- 17,334
- Reaction score
- 13,743
- # of dives
- 100 - 199
Isnt this entire thread?
[-]ever so slightly[/-] over-the-top hyperbole, yes, I agree
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
Isnt this entire thread?
One tiny correction here. I'm the OP, and that's very much not what I meant
Sounds like you're asking about "deco on the fly" which is taught by an agency. Or,ratio deco. It's a system similar to what you're suggesting.This is one thread that I have watched because of the topic of how the need for unexpected deco recovery, OW diving, agencies and human nature all come into play. I particularly like TSM's post 173. The idea of CMAS covering deco in basic is a good idea. It either instills the reasons to be aware of your times or provides an excuse to ignore them. I would think that ow should cover some limited deco information to the extent of getting yourself out of a potentially threatening unexpected obligation. Sort of like emergency deco recovery to the level of CESA understanding.
What would be a rule of thumb for such a situation considering the worst of all factors? Such as:
--A new OW that believes his training covers them through out the recreational range of 130ft.
--He possesses a log book with 10 dives in it.
--This diver has a buddy with 9 dives in his book.
--They have computers that they use with minimal understanding. IE depth gage and clock and tank pressure if integrated.
--Some period of time they discover that the beeping is their computer telling them they have entered deco/exceeded NDL and from that point they dont understand the displays as deco displays are foreign to them.
I realize that any resulting rule of thumb will mostly be overkill for most dives but that is ok, because that is what a rules of thumb are. It is what is used when a lack of specific actions for a situation are not available.
Could we say something along the line of divide your depth by 3 and go to that depth (if greater than 20 ft) or 20 ft and stay for 3 times the time you think you were past ndl then proceed to safety stop for normal time plus an additional 3minutes and then spend 3 min going to surface. Then boldly call this a rule of 3s.
So if a diver is doing a repeditive dive and finds he is past ndl by maybe 2 minutes at 80 ft he would go to 1/3 of 80 or say 30 ft for 6 min and then go to safety stop for 6 min instead of 3 and then to the surface slowly and end diving for the day.
Something like this would cover . What to do if you find yourself suddenly past NDL. A less than optimal solution for a prior failure but a process that is concequence limiting.
My apologies... that was a misquote. I meant someone else
(note to self, next time check, don't assume)
What would be a rule of thumb for such a situation considering the worst of all factors? Such as:
--A new OW that believes his training covers them through out the recreational range of 130ft.
--He possesses a log book with 10 dives in it.
--This diver has a buddy with 9 dives in his book.
--They have computers that they use with minimal understanding. IE depth gage and clock and tank pressure if integrated.
--Some period of time they discover that the beeping is their computer telling them they have entered deco/exceeded NDL and from that point they don’t understand the displays as deco displays are foreign to them.
I realize that any resulting rule of thumb will mostly be overkill for most dives but that is ok, because that is what a rules of thumb are. It is what is used when a lack of specific actions for a situation are not available.
Could we say something along the line of divide your depth by 3 and go to that depth (if greater than 20 ft) or 20 ft and stay for 3 times the time you think you were past ndl then proceed to safety stop for normal time plus an additional 3minutes and then spend 3 min going to surface. Then boldly call this a rule of 3’s.
So if a diver is doing a repeditive dive and finds he is past ndl by maybe 2 minutes at 80 ft he would go to 1/3 of 80 or say 30 ft for 6 min and then go to safety stop for 6 min instead of 3 and then to the surface slowly and end diving for the day.
Something like this would cover . What to do if you find yourself suddenly past NDL. A less than optimal solution for a prior failure but a process that is concequence limiting.
Wouldn't it be simpler to provide training in this sort of thing in the OW course so that divers know what to do when they unintentionally stray into deco while diving with computers--that is, so what the computer tells them to do?
There's a significant difference between diving with tables and diving with a computer. With the tables, once you breach the NDL you're outside of the realm of the tables - terra incognita - so the emergency decompression rules have to be conservative to provide an adequate margin of safety for recreational NDL breaches (less than 5 minutes. more than 5 minutes). The rec computers tell a diver not to plan a decompression dive, but the algorithms still work when the diver has breached NDL, tracking depth and time despite being in breach . So the decompression procedures with a computer are less "emergency" and don't need to be as conservative to provide adequate margin of safety.Does the PADI computer-based course teach emergency decompression or not?
There's a significant difference between diving with tables and diving with a computer. With the tables, once you breach the NDL you're outside of the realm of the tables - terra incognita - so the emergency decompression rules have to be conservative to provide an adequate margin of safety for recreational NDL breaches (less than 5 minutes. more than 5 minutes). The rec computers tell a diver not to plan a decompression dive, but the algorithms still work when the diver has breached NDL, tracking depth and time despite being in breach . So the decompression procedures with a computer are less "emergency" and don't need to be as conservative to provide adequate margin of safety.
My PADI course is still table-based but I've been researching inexpensive computers especially in regard to what they do that the tables don't.
They do, don't they?
PADI RDP teaches simple rules for emergency decompression.
I believe that you, yourself, said in other threads that the computer version of the course doesn't dispense with anything that was in the RDP course... that is was just as robust and comprehensive.
Does the PADI computer-based course teach emergency decompression or not?
The rec computers tell a diver not to plan a decompression dive, but the algorithms still work when the diver has breached NDL, tracking depth and time despite being in breach . So the decompression procedures with a computer are less "emergency" and don't need to be as conservative to provide adequate margin of safety.