No.  Air is OK to 130'/40M maximum depth, though Nitrox is better from
60' to 130'.  Nitrox is also only good to 130' - you need Helium below
that to reduce narcosis.

"Robert M. Carmichael" wrote:
> 
> I think it is time for a public vote on Deep Air. Tom may just need our
> support to get over this awkward hurdle.
> 
> A simple yes or no from everyone on the Cc list above as to whether or not
> you are in favor of continuing leading the youth of diving into assuming
> narcotic diving is a reasonable alternative to safer diving practices.
> 
> BDI, will you keep the score card?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> RMC
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Mee [mailto:wwm@sa*.ne*]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 5:31 PM
> To: Tom Mount; bdi@wh*.ne*; techdiver@aq*.co*
> Cc: techdiver@aq*.co*; Christian Gerzner; Mark the Nark Andrews; Afonso
> Pinheiro Junior; Barrie Heard; Bill Nadeau; Dick Rutkowski; Erika Haley;
> Fabio Amaral; Fabio Ruberti; Frans Vandermolen; Garry Howland; Gil; Gina &
> Mark Leonard; Gregg Stanton; IANTD Czech; IANTD Germany; IANTD Greece; IANTD
> Holland; IANTD Ireland; IANTD JAPAN; IANTD Japan Training; IANTD Korea;
> IANTD Micronesia; IANTD Philippines; IANTD Philippines Alex; IANTD Portugal;
> IANTD S.E. Asia; IANTD Scandanvia; IANTD South Africa; IANTD Spain; IANTD
> Sweden; Jill Heinerth; Jim Mims; John Thornton; Joseph Dituri; kevin gurr;
> Kim Cochrane; Lamar Hires; Nick Jewson; Paul Lijnen; Paul Neilsen; REG BOER
> @ BARBARA HENSBY; Richard Nordstrom; Richard Pyle; Shelley orlowski; Vebjørn
> Karlsen; Victor Williams; William J Turbeville II; Jr."; bdi@wh*.ne*;
> cavers@cavers.com; Jim Cobb; kirvne@sa*.ne*; "Jess Armantrout"; Dan L.
> Volker; "Jody Everett"; Lawrence Orchard-London; john@ro*.co*.uk*;
> "Robert M. Carmichael"; "Chris Werner"
> Subject: Re: Re:IANTD vs 70 m air instruction and 158 m air dives You gotta
> be kidding
> 
> Tom,
> 
> Your polite response to this Mark Andrews lunatic is laudable.  I will never
> forget the occasion when we both observed the "late" Nick Comoglio
> "training" himself for a deep air record off the coast of Pompano Beach.
> Two days later this ended in a predictable tragedy. Variations on this same
> tragedy have continued to repeat themselves with a diminishing regularity;
> however the real "face" of deep air has morphed into a more subtle and
> dangerous form within your own agency.
> 
> Diving to 51 meters(165ft) on air is deep and irresponsibly dangerous. In
> fact diving to any depth on air is pointless and flies in face of the whole
> underlying purpose of "technical diving". I remember very well sitting
> through one of your first courses ever on mixed gas diving and recall the
> point you made about air being a bad gas at any depth. We know now that this
> is an incontrovertible fact.
> 
> Our experience in the WKPP erased any doubts regarding the insidious nature
> of narcosis and it's affect on judgement in the 100 - 150ft range and some
> years ago the use of air was permanently proscribed from any organization
> related diving. You may recall that Rob Palmer's death really brought the
> curtain call down on deep air. You also probably remember the publication of
> the NACD historical death list.  Most all of these fatalities occurred
> within the 100 - 200 ft depth range.
> 
> Technical diving is all about good judgement and we are constantly reminded
> that death is the bedfellow of poor or questionable judgement. Deep air
> diving is the very definition of bad judgement and I defy anybody on this
> list to make a convincing argument that 165fsw on air is not deep.  I know
> that there are lots of testimonials out there and I don't think you want to
> go there.
> 
> This nonsense has got to stop. What on earth is the point of technical
> diving if IANTD endorses, via it's other face,  a dangerous, obsolete and
> proven failed practice.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Bill Mee
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Mount <TOM.MOUNT@wo*.at*.ne*>
> To: bdi@wh*.ne* <bdi@wh*.ne*>; techdiver@aq*.co*
> <techdiver@aq*.co*>
> Cc: techdiver@aq*.co* <techdiver@aq*.co*>; Christian Gerzner
> <christiang@pi*.co*.au*>; Mark the Nark Andrews
> <extreme@de*.fr*.co*.uk*>; Afonso Pinheiro Junior
> <afonso0@ib*.ne*>; Barrie Heard <bheard@dc*.ne*.au*>; Bill Nadeau
> <tekdiver@na*.ar*.co*>; Dick Rutkowski <dick@hy*.co*>; Erika
> Haley <haley@ca*.ky*>; Fabio Amaral <fabio_amaral@ya*.co*>; Fabio
Ruberti
> <ruberti@io*.it*>; Frans Vandermolen <75204.1243@co*.co*>; Garry
> Howland <ghowland@fw*.gu*.ne*>; Gil <gildiver@di*.co*.br*>; Gina & Mark
> Leonard <ginamark@at*.ne*>; Gregg Stanton <gstanton@ma*.fs*.ed*>;
> IANTD Czech <kony@un*.cz*>; IANTD Germany <iantd@su*.de*>; IANTD
> Greece <iantdgr@at*.mb*.gr*>; IANTD Holland <tekkie@xs*.nl*>; IANTD
> Ireland <IANTDIRL@ao*.co*>; IANTD JAPAN <iantdjp@di*.co*>; IANTD
> Japan Training <iantdjp@di*.co*>; IANTD Korea <aad@sa*.co*>; IANTD
> Micronesia <psdivers@ku*.gu*.ne*>; IANTD Philippines
> <iantd-rp@i-*.co*.ph*>; IANTD Philippines Alex
> <techsec@i-*.co*.ph*>; IANTD Portugal <po12210@pt*.ib*.co*>; IANTD S.E.
> Asia <khooss@si*.co*.sg*>; IANTD Scandanvia <egil@av*.fi*>; IANTD
> South Africa <iantdsa@ia*.co*>; IANTD Spain <iantdspa@ma*.ii*.es*>;
> IANTD Sweden <info@ia*.co*>; Jill Heinerth <heinerth@gt*.ne*>; Jim
> Mims <divetek@oc*.co*>; John Thornton <Johnpt@sc*.co*>; Joseph
> Dituri <dive4wrk@pi*.co*>; kevin gurr <100044.3401@co*.co*>; Kim
> Cochrane <Cochrane@ac*.co*>; Lamar Hires <lamar@di*.co*>; Nick
> Jewson <NickJewson@co*.co*>; Paul Lijnen <paull@vi*.uu*.be*>;
> Paul Neilsen <mandarin@ga*.ne*.hk*>; REG BOER @ BARBARA HENSBY
> <regboer@bi*.co*>; Richard Nordstrom <74663.1663@co*.co*>;
> Richard Pyle <deepreef@bi*.or*>; Shelley orlowski
> <orlowski@at*.ne*>; Vebjørn Karlsen <karlsenv@on*.no*>; Victor
> Williams <diving@sp*.co*>; William J Turbeville II
> <bturbo@ga*.ne*>
> Date: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 2:30 PM
> Subject: Re:IANTD vs 70 m air instruction and 158 m air dives You gotta be
> kidding
> 
> >Mark
> >
> >Having had the description of your dive read to me over the phone I would
> >like to offer the following comments:
> >
> >1. First the dive sounded like the biggest screw up I have ever seen
> >published. You were obviously out of it, lets see blind, overinflation of
> BC
> >to the point of rupturing the bladder, estimates of 130 meter/min ascent
> >rate due to loss of buoyancy control. etc etc.
> >
> >2. It sounds like you are damn lucky to be alive and that if anything this
> >should have taught you the reason to avoid ultra deep air divers rather
> than
> >have a desire to teach it to 70 meters.
> >
> >3. That your mental frame of mind as to the approach to do deep dives is
> >outdated by 30 years or so and numerous deaths are proof of this outdated
> >mind set
> >
> >4. You must be unaware that IANTD only offers air diving courses to a max
> >depth of 51 meters and that a sister program to this course is Normoxic
> >Trimix
> >which is essentially the same program except all divers deeper than 40
> >meters are made on trimix and it will allow dives to 60 m. With your goal
> to
> >teach deep air to 70 + meters you certainly do not need an affiliation with
> >IANTD where this practice is expressively FORBIDDEN
> >
> >5. After completing the dive you did and still wish to promote this type of
> >activity as such you would represent everything IANTD is trying to
> >discourage and avoid, thus you crossing over to IANTD is a little absurd.
> >
> >6.  While if you had learned from this experience and god knows you had
> some
> >good clues dropped to you on the dangers of this type of activity
> >A. Blind at 100 m (but you continued the dive to 158m) time for a sanity
> >check,
> >B. explosive ascent due to loss of control for whatever reason
> >C. The need to do a omitted deco procedure because you could not recover
> >your buoyancy on the dive and various other comments you made concerning
> the
> >dive.
> >
> >As stated if you had learned instead of being intrigued by that dive, you
> >may have had good rational to share with divers about avoiding ultra deep
> >air diving but it seems your primary goal is to teach air diving to depths
> >that exceed accepted oxygen and nitrogen limits, Sorry that is something
> >that will not be done under the IANTD umbrella. I recommend you stick with
> >your present training agencies maybe they will allow this but we will not.
> >
> >7. While I agree with your statement on the rights of an individual to take
> >risk on a personal level I cannot share your enthusiasm about wanting to
> >encourage others to do this type (ultra deep air)activity. Plus I find it
> >difficult to see your logic in wishing to do a 158 m air dive in the first
> >place when there are other ways to have adventure and take risk that are
> not
> >proven both in theory and in practice physiologically insane endeavors.
> >
> >8.All you proved is for some reason on this one day, you as one person,
> >survived a dive to 158 m. I hope you at least picked up enough warnings
> from
> >the events that happened to you to avoid this kind of a dive in the future.
> >
> >9. Deep diving even on propre mixes has its share of danger why try to
> >exceed well documented physiological risk limits.
> >
> >10. In closing while my philosophy agrees with a statement by Dr Gil Milner
> >along time ago.
> >
> >"You Have The Obligation to Inform One Honestly of the Risk, And As a
> Person
> >You Are Committed to Educate Yourself to the Total Risk In Any Activity!"
> >"Once Informed & Totally Aware of the Risk, Every Fool Has the Right to
> Kill
> >or Injure Themselves as They See Fit!"
> >
> >So if you really understand and accept the risk then you have the right to
> >kill yourself, but Mark we do not want you to be responsible for training
> >IANTD divers if you feel ultra deep air diving is something you want to
> >promote and teach them. So as long as your stated goal is to teach air to
> >great depths,
> >then we really would prefer that you were not an IANTD instructor
> >
> >So I do not know at what part of your instructor crossover you are at or
> who
> >with but I will have to prevent its completion at this time maybe when and
> >if you "grow up we can reconsider this action".
> >
> >Respectfully yours,
> >Tom Mount
> >CEO IANTD World HQ
> >http://www.iantd.com
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: bdi@wh*.ne* <bdi@wh*.ne*>
> >To: Tom Mount <TOM.MOUNT@wo*.at*.ne*>
> >Cc: techdiver@aq*.co* <techdiver@aq*.co*>; Christian Gerzner
> ><christiang@pi*.co*.au*>; Mark the Nark Andrews
> ><extreme@de*.fr*.co*.uk*>
> >Date: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 11:46 PM
> >Subject: Re: Darwin Award winner -'Mark the Nark'Andrews
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aq*.co*'.
> >Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aq*.co*'.
> >

-- 
Wrolf

Wrolf's Wreck: http://wrolf.net

"Thank you for your support"  -- 1980s Bartles and James advertising
slogan.

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]