So what algorithm is "plugged into" UTD RD, since it doesn't follow any conventional schedule?
Gaming the software with RD2.0 compared to ZH-L-16 with GFs, what do you feel it looks like, roughly?
30/70 or something to that effect?
As for Cascade Deco, it's built around the 30-minute compartment.
There's nothing radical about that.
And it tells the experienced user everything he needs to know about the limitations of it and what to do about it if need be.
However, it is still a decompression protocol and as such should be given proper scrutiny and held accountable for the increased numbers of DCS associated with it.
Personally, I think if you go to 6.000m with any algorithm or solution, and don't adjust for altitude, you'll be poor off.
Shy of that eventuality - which I wouldn't hold against any algorithm or solution itself - actually in either case, I think it's fair to prompt for substantiation to the claim that the DCS incidence is higher when using RD.
It's a
very specific and tangible claim.
I know we've been down the road of "risky"/"irresponsible" versus "less optimal" before, so let's not revisit that avenue once again;
I think we've both made our points clear on that, anyway.
I certainly understand it's Not an algorithm. As far as I can tell, there is no scientific basis for RD at all which is why there is no study to justify it. None, nada and squat. However, it is still a decompression protocol and as such should be given proper scrutiny and held accountable for the increased numbers of DCS associated with it.
Fudge factors. Let's face it, gradient factors are indeed fudge factors. We have a paradigm, which has been scientifically derived and proven to be safe, and we're trying to make deco even safer with these fudge factors. RD was derived from a hunch that's not based on science but on sheer conjecture and chutzpah. Now you're applying your own fudge factor trying to make RD a bit safer by moving to shallower stops. Kudos for doing that, but why even start with a protocol that's not based in science? It's a faith-based paradigm as opposed to a science-based paradigm like Buhlman.
This is why many of us, including a number of notable scientists, are frustrated with you trying to debunk the science behind GF while completely ignoring the absence of science in RD. If you held RD to the same standard you would not bother with it.
As best as I can tell, RD was born out of a misguided distrust of computers and more chutzpah. There's absolutely no scientific basis for that: only emotional ones.
Good, okay, we agree it (RD) is not an algorithm and that adaptations are kosher.
Look, let me put it this way, I think you might agree with it:
If I were advocating that RD without adaptations employs the optimal level of deep stop emphasis, I could
certainly understand objections!
It probably doesn't, but doesn't claim to either - it's less of a GPS and more of a compass-and-map. It will rarely if ever be more accurate.
Personally, I loathe - loathe - GPS's. That doesn't mean I need to prove that compass-and-map is more accurate. I just need to decide if I like it, or see advantages to it, and whether it's dangerous.
I don't see anything to indicate RD is dangerous, least of all the most commonly referenced trials (NEDU and Spisni). Nothing.
I'll say this to be fair: I
do admit that I have some reservations about the NEDU-study, yes,
but with Spisni, we can say with some comfort that greater deep stop emphasis than the CDM-group is very likely suboptimal.
It doesn't say where the optimal line is. Nor does NEDU, for that matter.
How much further would/could you place the deep stop emphasis and comfortably claim that you
know to be right?
Surely then, in that light, you can understand why an agency doesn't do a 180 without stronger or rather, more accurate evidence, but rather incrementally adjust with the increased knowledge.
Remember, they clearly encourage adaptations, and they don't force anyone to use RD in their courses.
I
personally see it as an advantage to have a "standard deco"-paradigm, and I think that's a separate question from what the optimal deep stop emphasis may be. That's neither because of misguided mistrust in computers, personal cultism or narrative.
I simply feel that it's more practical, and a very strong tool for developing situationally aware divers.
I'll reiterate that divers make their adjustments (just like they'd use GFs if using a computer).