Tom,

Let's cut to the chase here and put the hyperbole aside.  I am glad to hear
that your air affinity is a thing of the past, as is mine. Where we sharply
disagree is the location of the hashed line of risk where we cross over into
air twilight zone. The effects of narcosis are insidious and unpredictable
in the depth range of 130 to 170 ft. Your stated conviction that people can
be trained to accomodate this impairment is something I sharply disagree
with based on my own and the collective experience of the WKPP. While the
physical affects of narcosis may not be apparent the impairment of judgement
is definitive.  We have observed nothing but bad decisions, many with
potentially life threatening consequences, to occurr within this range,
particularly in a cave diving context.  What was eye opening was that these
flawed decisions were from people who are among the most experienced and
skilled exploration cave divers anywhere.  Should you doubt my contentions I
only can point you to the NACD cave diving fatality list and ask you to note
the depth range logged for most of the deaths.

Indeed there was a time, albeit many years ago, when I firmly believed that
one could be "trained" to overcome the deleterious effects of narcosis,
simply because there did  not appear to be an alternative to air diving and
all of the interesting challenges were "deep".  Add to this my mistaken
belief that the real challenge in diving was overcoming the decompression
problem and not the fact that I was diving on air and taking far greater
risks.  I also felt that covering myself with all sorts of technical
gadgetry would somehow give me the ability to survive. Now I realize that
this was equivalent to "pouring piss" on myself and running in to the
machine guns and all of the gear goofery was just a good luck charm.

I am glad to see that you have embraced the use of the helium mixtures in
the intermediate range, nevertheless you need to revisit your public
position with respect to your tolerance of air diving and the reality of
where the real risks begin.

Best regards,


Bill


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Mount <TOM.MOUNT@wo*.at*.ne*>
To: Bill Mee <wwm@sa*.ne*>; georget Irvine <kirvine@sa*.ne*>
Cc: a n <techdiver@aquanaut.com>; georget Irvine <kirvine@sa*.ne*>
Date: Thursday, October 07, 1999 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: INTD "normoxic" and other trimixes


>Bill
>Where do you get the Bull Shit of my comfort level to 220. That is crap and
>you know it but then again the truth does not bother you much to begin
with,
>
>Since the introduction of normoxic trimix I have taught basically Normoxic
>trimix and trimix.
>
>
>I have not dived to 220 on air since before you did your trimix course with
>me, in fact You and George have dived both dived that deep on air since I
>have. So get off the lies.
>
>Plus what does 170 have to do with 220
>
>To be honest I have not seen all the problems with divers between 130 and
>170 on air that you claim to have seen
>
>As I said one of the GREAT things about offering the technical diver course
>is how many opt to do normoxic trimix once they discuss it with the
>instructor when what they originally wanted was the deeper air program (to
>170)
>
>The other references you make have nothing to do with IANTD, so why waste
>your breath
>
>
>Respectfully yours,
>Tom Mount
>CEO IANTD World HQ
>http://www.iantd.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Bill Mee <wwm@sa*.ne*>
>To: Tom Mount <TOM.MOUNT@wo*.at*.ne*>; <kirvine@sa*.ne*>
>Cc: <techdiver@aquanaut.com>; <kirvine@sa*.ne*>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 5:35 PM
>Subject: Re: IANTO "normoxic" and other trimixes
>
>
>> Tom,
>>
>> " the technical diver program is taught they
>> >are forbidden to dive deeper than 170 feet. "
>>
>> Which means that they can dive up to 170ft on air. This is completely
>> indefensible and  results from  your own personal comfort level on air to
>> 220ft.
>> 170ft on air is is far too deep and is not only unsafe, because of the
>> insidious narcosis factor, but unhealthy in that successfully decoing
from
>> deep air diving is a questionable proposition.
>>
>> The problem is that many of your people, especially some of the
>instructors
>> living in third workd countries (where life apparently is cheaper),
>believe
>> this hokum.  Nobody is any good on air to these depths and I have
observed
>> or heard of, anecdotally, horrible charlie foxtrots and other near death
>> experiences in the 130 to 170ft depth.  I will bet that you personally
>have
>> watched even more horror shows, in this depth range, during your lifetime
>of
>> dive training. When you combine the shocking gear menageries practiced by
>> many of the IANTD adherents, such as the notorious Lusitania 99 comedy
and
>> recently some of the fatal antics up on the Doria, you begin to see what
>> happens when you mix intermediate air with complex dives.
>>
>> The air usage also results in other goofery too ridiculous to mention
such
>> as "air ponies", "air diluent" and air travel gas. It is an absolute fact
>in
>> the history of air diving in deep caves that no meaningful
accomplishments
>> have been made other than notable deaths.
>>
>> Tell me, why on earth is the subject of HPNS even brought up in the
>course.
>> HPNS is irrelevant to anything in meaningful, routine technical diving.
>> Where HPNS is even a consideration, the depths and rigors of the dives
>fall
>> into the category of commercial saturation diving, which is conducted by
a
>> far more repsonsible and rational set of rules.  I can only guess that
the
>> allure of "deep" and the assoication of "deep" with HPNS is the reason
for
>> injecting this subject matter into a course where the focus should be on
>far
>> more mundane issues. This is equivalent to filling a course in freshmen
>> chemistry with topics from quantum electrodynamics.  The implication is
>that
>> students need to be concerned with diving at depths of 400 to 500 ft,
>which
>> while romantic, is simply absurd.
>>
>> You need to seriously reconsider revisit these policies before somebody
>else
>> does so for you.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Bill
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Mount <TOM.MOUNT@wo*.at*.ne*>
>> To: kirvine@sa*.ne* <kirvine@sa*.ne*>
>> Cc: a n <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 11:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: INTD "normoxic" and other trimixes
>>
>>
>> >George
>> >the text includes the Technical Encyclopedia, the technical student
>> workbook
>> >a complete set of slides it is extremely well supported and in is our
>> >preferred dive program for people getting into deeper diving. The
>majority
>> >of instructors are able to get students who originally wanted to do
>> >technical diver to take this course as instead.
>> >
>> >I have no doubt that some people state they are comfortable on air toi
>> >greater depths however even if the technical diver program is taught
they
>> >are forbidden to dive deeper than 170 feet. The technical diver course
>does
>> >require two dives deeper than 130 and no dives below 170.
>> >
>> >The Normoxic course is basically the same course except it does dives on
>> >trimix instead of air. The student is NOTALLOWED to dive air deeper than
>> 130
>> >in this program. As has been stated several times on this list over the
>> past
>> >three years. The student does not have any requirement to have dived air
>> >deeper than 130 prior to getting into the course in fact they do not
even
>> >have to have been to 130 just deeper than 90 feet prior to the course.
>The
>> >Normoxic trimix is a heavy deep diving theory course it does not get
into
>> >HPNS and some other factors as these things are not of a concern to
>> Normoxic
>> >trimix. It is intense on skills and procedures. the course requires 3
>dives
>> >deeper than 130 and a max depth not to exceed 200. Depths are worked up
>to
>> >in increments no greater than 30 feet from one dive to the next.
>> >
>> >
>> >The HPNS and other issues are addressed in depth in the trimix course
>where
>> >dives may evolve into dives that that knowledge is mandated. The full
>> trimix
>> >course has six dives also 2 of which can be on air or mix as they are
>just
>> >skill dives and need not be deep. Four dives are on mix and must be
>deeper
>> >than 160 and no deeper than 260
>> >
>> >Again if people wish details go to the web page and read through the
>> >standards
>> >
>> >Respectfully yours,
>> >Tom Mount
>> >CEO IANTD World HQ
>> >http://www.iantd.com
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: <kirvine@sa*.ne*>
>> >To: Tom Mount <TOM.MOUNT@wo*.at*.ne*>
>> >Cc: a n <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
>> >Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 8:45 AM
>> >Subject: Re: INTD "normoxic" and other trimixes
>> >
>> >
>> >> T, that is not the question - the question is what materials are
>> >> available for these courses. I personally have zero interest in this,
>> >> but had it mentioned to me by an IANTD instructor on a dive boat the
>> >> other day, the implications being that these courses are an
>accomodation
>> >> to outside pressure and are neither well supported by IANTD, nor
really
>> >> intended to replace "deep air". I of course found this hard to believe
>> >> so sent you that question to see if it were really possible.
>> >>
>> >> Tom, there are people out there, believe it or not, who are so stupid
>as
>> >> to think ther is such a thing as an "ability" to dive deep on air, and
>> >> there are intstructors out there who are so stupid, and so
>irresponsible
>> >> that they say things like, "my personal comfort level on air is 200
>> >> feet" in front of students, who then take this to mean that unless
they
>> >> "can" be "comfortable" on air at "200 feet", they must not be cutting
>> >> the mustard.
>> >>
>> >> I know this is unbelievable to a pro like yourself, but I have heard
>> >> this direcdtly from the flapping lips of various instructors,
>> >> affilliation unknown.
>> >>
>> >> Anything that pays lip service only to the importance of proper gas
>> >> choices and true technical diving (which menas doing the dives
proeprly
>> >> and optimally), is a disservice to all of us, and in my opinion would
>> >> require the attention of a dive training "leader" such as yourself for
>> >> clarification.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Tom Mount wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Anyone interested should go to the web pages and check the standards
>> for
>> >the
>> >> > texts and also the skills. that should answer anyone's questions
>> >> >
>> >> > Respectfully yours,
>> >> > Tom Mount
>> >> > CEO IANTD World HQ
>> >> > http://www.iantd.com
>> >> >
>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > From: <kirvine@sa*.ne*>
>> >> > To: <TOM.MOUNT@wo*.at*.ne*>
>> >> > Cc: <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 3:45 PM
>> >> > Subject: INTD "normoxic" and other trimixes
>> >> >
>> >> > > Tom, I hear that there are little or no materials for your
>> "normoxic",
>> >> > > "intermendiate" or whatever "trimix" course. This would appear to
>> make
>> >> > > this course a case of "lip service" to those of us who have long
>been
>> >> > > critics of your "deep air" courses and policy.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >   While I like the fact that you to at least appear to comply with
>> >> > > intelligent thinking, I find it appalling that the reality is you
>> >still
>> >> > > may not.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >   Is this true?
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
>> Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
>
>
>
>
>

--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

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]