Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
I'm feeling a bit talkative this morning, so I'll comment: On Wed, 20 Jul 1994, Scot Anderson wrote: > 1) There are well-established techniques for keeping regulators > straight and not getting confused. These techniques work > just fine for folks that go to the trouble to use them. Agreed. But also, different people in different situations benefit differently from these techniques. In other words....don't fall into the trap that "This is a standard way of doing it, so EVERYONE should do it THAT way." > 2) Folks that breathe Air at depths deeper than 210 fsw are > asking for trouble, and eventually end up offing themselves > when they try it on a bad day. I'm concerned that their > disregard for known hazards does not end up interfering > with the freedom of others who are willing to work within them. I feel the need to respond that I believe this is too much of a sweeping generalization. I know many people out here in Hawaii who have made many thousands of dives well beyond 210' on air, some of whom have been diving for more than 30 years (one since 1946). Many of these people are, IMO, among the best & most capable divers in the world - and are probably less likely to die at 225' on air than a good many new trimix divers are at the same depth. Some of them I consider as good friends. Three of my deep air diving friends have died - one in a motorcycle accident, and two in a helicopter crash. Now....before everyone lights up their flame throwers....this is not to say that I advocate deep air diving for everyone - certainly NOT! Deep air diving is very risky. But let's not kid ourselves - SO IS DEEP TRIMIX DIVING! My main point here is that drawing a line at ANY depth - be it 130' or 210' or 350', and saying there's no justification for it, is the kind of attitude a lot of us are trying to get away from. Sorry, Scot. I really didn't intend this to be a flame - and it's not :-> > 3) Simplicity and direct application to need in the water are > second on only to redundancy. There is a point > where redundancy planning results in a diver that > looks like a refugee from a fire sale. And that diver > is a hazard to many, including himself and the folks > who must go back to recover. Folks that are doing it > because they like goofing with gear, or acting important, > well, what can I say? YES!!! A lot of people develop their own ideas about what an "adequate" level of redundancy should be, but "adequate" can vary tremendously among different situations. "More" is not always "better". Each diver must be familiar with the sort of diving they intend to do, and be cognizant of the various risks. You can't reduce all risks simply by throwing more backup-gear into the equation. In many cases, doing so creates even more risks. Defining "adequate" for levels of redundancy takes a lot of time & experience. There's no one formula to follow. Ahhh. There! That feels better.....I think I've got it pretty-much out of my system ....for now.... Aloha, Rich deepreef@bi*.bi*.ha*.or*
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]