PADI TecRec

[Mako Mark]

#
no-one is ever narced on air.

perhapt the air is different where you are, but sure as hell it is narcotic in most places.

Narcosis is a complex issue though, and I believe that it is rare that average divers are very aware of it ,however it is crucial for tec divers to be aware of it.

The fact that it alters your judgement, alters your ability to recognise it.

The undeniable fact remains though; narcosis is present on all dives.

When teaching tec divers, we need to teach them how to recognize THEIR individual predisposition and response to this narcosis, and how to avoid this narcosis reaching unmanagable or dangerous levels.

Management of narcosis can be done (while diving on air) either by control of depth, or control of tasks (task sharing, limiting mission complexity, monitoring and checking team members during crucial gas swiches etc)

This is clearly covered by the DSAT book if you bother to read it. However like all dive courses, it requires instructor elaboration and further discussion, to adapt to local protocols and conditions, and the needs of the individual students.

I must admit with both you and MHK, that I do my bag launch a little different from the way discribed in the book, but that is instructor elaboration right, to offer local protocols and alternative explanations or methods.

 

[MikeFerrara]

My prefered method of controling narcosis is with helium.

 

[flw]

perhapt the air is different where you are, but sure as hell it is narcotic in most places.

Narcosis is a complex issue though, and I believe that it is rare that average divers are very aware of it ,however it is crucial for tec divers to be aware of it.

The fact that it alters your judgement, alters your ability to recognise it.

The undeniable fact remains though; narcosis is present on all dives.

When teaching tec divers, we need to teach them how to recognize THEIR individual predisposition and response to this narcosis, and how to avoid this narcosis reaching unmanagable or dangerous levels.

Management of narcosis can be done (while diving on air) either by control of depth, or control of tasks (task sharing, limiting mission complexity, monitoring and checking team members during crucial gas swiches etc)

This is clearly covered by the DSAT book if you bother to read it. However like all dive courses, it requires instructor elaboration and further discussion, to adapt to local protocols and conditions, and the needs of the individual students.

.

Guess you missed the irony in the statement, a UK/US variation of English I suppose
Anyhow, I completely disagree that tech divers need to be able to 'handle' narcosis by reducing task loading etc - they simply need to know how to avoid it - ie by switching to a He based gas somewhere around the 40m mark - personally use Heliar diluent on all dives regardless of depth.
If you have a whole team at depth on air, they will all be impaired - 10 or 15 years ago, fair enough, now there is no reason to do so.
I have a video somewhere of me putting up a dsmb at around the 60m mark on air, at the time I'd have denied I felt narced, watching the video, making a complete hash of it I quite clearly was, I had no recollection of making a mess of it afterwards.

rgds
F

 

[MHK]

When teaching tec divers, we need to teach them how to recognize THEIR individual predisposition and response to this narcosis, and how to avoid this narcosis reaching unmanagable or dangerous levels.

Management of narcosis can be done (while diving on air) either by control of depth, or control of tasks (task sharing, limiting mission complexity, monitoring and checking team members during crucial gas swiches etc)

This is clearly covered by the DSAT book if you bother to read it. .

Mark,

I must say that you are one of the more reasonable guys coming from the PADI side of the discussion and I appreciate the way you've handled yourself and that I've enjoyed this discussion.

That being said, I'm conflicted in your comments above. Specifically I'm troubled by the concept that the way to "control" narcosis is via depth or limiting of complexity to the exclusion of introducing helium. While in a perfect world that approach may hold some water, the notion of air at 165' is still beyond the comfort realm AFAIC, specifically because we all know that an impaired diver is more apt to get "beyond" the limits of control notwithstanding events beyond a divers control, ie; swift currents, equipment problems, valve failures et. al., meaning that by design you have a diver going into an environment that specifically increases the risk with the hope that "if nothing goes wrong" they may survive the dive. Many of us that oppose the deep air phenomenom believe firmly that the faulty logic inherint in the Deep Air program is that no amount of pre-dive planning can account for all the reasonable possibilities that could go wrong underwater, so by having a team of "impaired" divers only egsaserbates the problem. Some may be able to get away with ad hoc solutions in the recreational environment, and at recreational depths, but that mindset and that approach has absolutely no business working it's way into tech diving so that is why you see us objecting so forcefully to this program. PADI has a long tradition of marketing and gaining of market share and those of us that have read the PADI program and are in a position to discuss the stark ineffeciences of the program are stunned that no representative from PADI is willing to comment, or when they do comment we hear justifications for reasons to put students on their knees, or the need for this program because of market considerations in Europe, or unrealistic theories such as isobaric counter diffusion. Those aren't the technical answers we were hoping would come out of PADI if they expect that anyone would respect their efforts.

Hope that helps..

 

[Otter]

What Equivalent Narcotic Depth do you plan for? Is it deeper than say 70fsw, and if so, are you not at least slightly impaired? I think the real solution is to manage narcosis through a combination of gas mix, depth, and task loading.

 

[Mako Mark]

Mark,

I must say that you are one of the more reasonable guys coming from the PADI side of the discussion and I appreciate the way you've handled yourself and that I've enjoyed this discussion.


"control" narcosis is via depth or limiting of complexity to the exclusion of introducing helium.


a team of "impaired" divers only egsaserbates the problem.



no representative from PADI is willing to comment,


Hope that helps..

thanks Mike, I appreciate the compliment, but it also makes the point that is the the instructor not the agency, and I guess I was one of the few people out there who was willing to try and answer some of the tough questions as the discussion seemed to be a bit one sided at the beginning.

a team of "impaired" divers, OMG you are going to give me nightmares, I have seen it happen, and seen it happen during tec training.

The helium issue I kinda didnt discuss that in the context of the thread being tec deep, not tec trimix, but you are right.

no matter what, you will be affected at these depths, and as you have indicated your advice would be adding helium about the 30-40 meter mark. this would be the best way of reducing narcosis, but I think generally there is a lot of aprehension about this gas. There are a lot of myths, and in many places there are logistical problems of supply.

One thing, I know it is symantic, but the book says "Account for narcosis" not control or deal with. Maybe I am interpreting that in a different way.

As far as PADI not wanting to comment, I guess that is why Im here, (bring it on guys, im not scared, lol,) even though I am not a PADI representative, I know a little more than most about PADI and its philosophy.


FLW: I once saw a bunch of navy recruits at 60 meters in a chamber doing written tests, and they were virtually helpless. They were told to circle all the F's on a page of text which they didi diligently, not knowing or realising that every letter on the page was an F. I can imagine your video, what a great lesson.

This has been a great discussion, I also have enjoyed it, lets keep it up.

 

[flw]

Personally I go for a 10/50 diluent for most things to about 70-75m and then switch to a 10/70 below that - I don't like narcosis, and the additional deco you add on through high He mixes isn't great - I also stick with He back to 6m to avoid a big n2 load on ascent. Up to about 30m or so, then narcosis isn't really disabling, below that it can be if it all goes wrong. If I'm going to take a lot of effort to go and visit a wreck, I at least want to be able to remember every detail of it, particularly if its a new undived site.

 

[MHK]

What Equivalent Narcotic Depth do you plan for? Is it deeper than say 70fsw, and if so, are you not at least slightly impaired? I think the real solution is to manage narcosis through a combination of gas mix, depth, and task loading.

Otter,

The END concept is the misdirection. The idea is to standardize your gases and you'll never wind up with an END of over 100', but much more importantly then worrying about END's is the C02 accumulation. Try to remember that the C02 retention is much more of a concern to us that narcosis. Not that we are suggesting that an END of 165' is acceptable, but it's too subject of a subject to convince anyone that has a pre-disposed point of view. Certainly managing the pre-dive plan to limit depth, and task loading is a wise idea, but more often then not an accident happens not because a diver stayed within his dive plan, but because something happened to take the diver out of his dive plan. Using air to 165' provides for little, to no margin for error and a 165' underwater isn't the place to be limiting your survival options, it's the place to be increasing your survival options.

We have a saying in our classes that goes " You're chasing the wrong duck", and it means that you're focusing on the least concerning of the two issues. The agencies that offer Deep Air training would prefer to keep the debate focused on narcosis because they can sell you on the fact that "you can build up a tolerance". All of the available studies say that you can't but since it's subjective they continue the mantra. If the debate really get's focused on C02 retention then they have no defense so every day the debate centers around narcosis is a victory for the agencies that offer Deep Air..

Remember C02 is 130 times more narcotic then N2, so if your plan is off even a little, or the current picks up, or your regulator starts preforming poorly, of if you work a little harder then you planned you start accumulating C02 130 times more then N2 and your risk(s) increases substantially..

Hope that helps..

Later

 

[MHK]

The helium issue I kinda didnt discuss that in the context of the thread being tec deep, not tec trimix, but you are right.

no matter what, you will be affected at these depths, and as you have indicated your advice would be adding helium about the 30-40 meter mark. this would be the best way of reducing narcosis, but I think generally there is a lot of aprehension about this gas. There are a lot of myths, and in many places there are logistical problems of supply.

I think you make a great point here. About 10 years ago, or so, those divers diving Nitrox weren't even allowed at DEMA as Nitrox had so many myths and misconceptions that most agencies and shops denounced Nitrox as voodoo gas and snake oil only to be understood by commercial and military divers. And most shops or agencies felt that divers wouldn't be able to control their buoyancy and would ultimately sucumb to oxygen toxicity hits left and right. Well fast forward 10 years and today you can get your Nitrox certification over the internet without ever having to meet an instructor. I'm sure somewhere in the middle of these two conundrums is the appropriate balance, but the point of course is that today you have very similiar myths and misconceptions about the "complexity" of helium. Only this time the "concern" is that divers may bolt to the surface on a gas that uptakes 2.65 times faster, and as a result they will embolize and/or get bent at a greater rate. That idea is as similiarly proposterous as the notion that a diver will tox because they can't control their buoyancy. 10 years of historical data have proven that to be a false concern.

As soon as the agencies figure out that there is money to be made in helium based diving in the recreational ranges they will jump on the bandwagon. My feeling is that the larger agencies are waiting and watching to judge the success of our Recreational triox program and once we do the hard work and educate the diver's they'll come in with their big marketing budgets and say that they were for it all along, just like they did with Nitrox. But until then, I hope to educate as many divers as I can as to the benefits of helium based diving and would hope that many will recognize the unnecessary dangers associated with Deep Air diving.

Regards

 

[Helmet]

Wow, I'm actually posting.. I promised never but alas I have to put in my two cents worth.

I find it interesting that people post about something they apparently have no experience with or understanding of.
I'll use a few examples:

1) I see a lot of comments on how people should go get certified to do technical by an agency with some experience with technical diving. Does anyone actually know who designed the DSAT program? The people are the ones who are the offspring so to speak of Bill Stone's caving projects. This includes the female record holder for longest cave penetration. How much experience is required before one is to be considered experienced? How does one get experience without starting somewhere? Personally, not having been in a cave, I feel willing to trust those that have and have come back to tell me about the systems and techniques they used rather than reinventing the wheel or discussing all kinds of hypothetical situations. I'm no expert. The people who designed the DSAT program are. They have been there and done that. Also, the training materials are not photocopies of something written by a diver who knows nothing about pedagogy. They are designed by divers who are also highly trained educators. Anyone ever taken a university course by an expert in biology who clearly doesn't know how to teach? Ring any bells? I also find it interesting that people are convinced that there are going to be deaths because PADI promotes the philosophy that everyone can dive. Well, this is a DSAT course which is a separate arm of PADI, that does not advocate at all that technical diving is for everyone. If people would take the time to read the materials it would be clear that there is a strong and deliberate difference between the recreational courses and philosophy and the technical levels which talk openly about risk, error chains being short, and death being a distinct possibility if people don't take it seriously. It's made quite clear that technical diving is not for everyone.
2) PADI/DSAT acknowledges that helium is a great gas ideally. However, we do not live in an ideal world. Can a person never dive below 130 without helium? Countless dives have been done that deep without a problem. Is there more risk? Certainly. Is there a better way than deep air? Arguably yes. Can it be done without helium? Sure, if one is prepared for the increased risk. If the team is prepared to take on additional risk then why should anyone tell them they shouldn't? If you you aren't.. great. The reality is that helium is a relatively rare gas and hence expensive and in many parts of the world hard to find. The key is for each diver to be educated and to make informed choices about how they choose to dive and how their team is choosing to dive. I find there is a lot of pontificating on this board about which way is right or wrong. I feel it is more complex than black or white.
3) Why is it a sin to make money at diving or teaching diving? We live in a capitalist society yet we hate the Bill Gates' of the world and apparently the PADIs too. God forbid anyone make a living at something they enjoy. There are a lot of crap PADI instructors out there and it annoys the hell out of me. However, dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. The system shouldn't be condemned simply because some of the players don't follow it as it was intended or because some people are able to make money at it. I challenge anyone else to improve the system. How many have actually read the training standards they so happily like to comment on? GUE is doing a good job of trying to improve the industry but they have the enviable position of not having to train people to actually dive in a competative marketplace. It's a different kind of student who seeks out a GUE course compared to an entry level certification level course. Try to teach a person to dive properly when all they want to pay is $99. I most certainly didn't get into diving to make money. Don't you know how to make a million dollars in the diving industry? Start with 2 million isn't it? It amazes me how many people post here about how they think instruction should be better but then are also seeking out deals on their gear or parts kits or servicing. How is instruction supposed to get better when people are simply not willing to pay for the time it takes? Gear sales subsidize training. Buy online and there is even less money to pay for training. I teach diving because I fell in love with the sport and wanted to share my passion with others. I invested a lot of time and money to get to the level where I can do that. I work hard to continually improve and to provide the best services I can as an instructor. However, I've never encountered any other profession where people want so much service and are so cheap about what they are willing to pay for it. "I want you to teach me how to use this life support equipment safely and effectively but can I have a discount?" Do people start up discussion threads about their optometry discussing how eye health could be better and cheaper if done ourselves and that really we all should just start servicing our own eyes and skipping visits to the optometrist in exchange for making our own glasses at home and doing our own eye tests annually? (I know, run on sentance but aren't most rants?) Trust me.. I've had some of the worst diving instruction I can imagine so I don't blame people for their frustration but asking for a discount is not the way to improve things.

Well.. I would be curious to see what this rant results in. I"m hungry now so I'll leave it at that to go make some dinner and to service my reg. Does anyone know where I can get some APEKS parts kits? I have to get my rig ready for my 150 foot solo deep air night current dive that I'm planning. Don't worry everyone.. I've invented a new sidebackponymountedindependentredundantmultigasswitchingdoingitmyway scubasystem that is bound to keep me alive just as soon as I've finished with a few minor modications that will improve things beyond belief. Patent pending.