Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
I do not want to comment on the comment on the pros and cons of IWR, I believe my views are in the archives somewhere, and they may even be accessible. I want to bring up a philosophical issue, in line with what Richard Pyle has suggested. Any diving that requires a large amount of staged decompression, whether this is deep or long duration air, trimix, or in water recompression (IWR), should be well structured, well planned and well equiped. Anyone who approaches this sort of diving with procedures and attitudes bred from surface oriented, short or no-deco bounce diving is inviting disaster. Richard's youthful brush with diving fizzyology is a good example. A useful IWR schedule, such as that proposed by Carl Edmonds, only takes 138 minutes (I haven't looked this up so I could be wrong) and, if using a demand regulator may only require a couple thousand litres of oxygen. This is in the range of decompression time and gas requirements for a modest trimix dive. While the planning is different, it is no more stringent. The diver will likely be exposed to a higher pO2 during IWR than during trimix or air decompression, so the risk of convulsion is greater, but still manageable. So, while the dogma that IWR is undesirable because of the amount of gas needed, the problems with cold during the long press, the risk of convulsions and the complexity is valid from the viewpoint of a "sport diving" mind-set, so other types of technical diving are also undesirable. You would be equally foolish to attempt IWR or a 90 metre dive without adequate planning, equipment and suitable enviromental conditions. regards, David Doolette ddoolett@me*.ad*.ed*.au*
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]