Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Richard Wackerbarth forwarded a piece of a private reply I made about tech training. To keep things in perspective, let me post the original message to the list. [\] Jeff ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On Thu, 14 Sep 1995 21:54:11 -0500 you said: >>(Before George asks me to lick his Ball Bag, let me clarify that I agree >>there are "best" ways to do things in a well-defined environment, such as >>clear, warm-water limestone caves in Florida, for example.) >Here I take exception. Although there are some methods which are clearly >unacceptable and other methods which are clearly superior, I do not accept >that there is ONLY ONE method which is ALWAYS superior, even when you >restrict the problem space to "clear, warm-water limestone caves in >Florida, for example." There are still variables. George and his clones >have clearly found procedures that work for them. OK, let me set myself up as flame-bait (direct to /dev/null) and make a comment as a non-hard-core-techie and possibly other more vulgar names you may wish to throw at me... George makes a hell of a lot of sense when he's posting information ( I won't comment on the flaming retorts). But from an outsider's view the issue is tech training (with every associated limitation for each level of training) versus George's "elite" position where there are absolutely no limitations. If you want to dive to 190', by traditional rules you do that on air or hypobaric EANx if you follow the training agencies; both are dangerous (high EAD and/or high ppO2). From George's standpoint you should be using mix -- a commodity not available to Joe Diver without getting trained in the previous skills. George's point is why take the risk when there are safer alternatives to your choice of bottom mix. The agency's point is you can't have mix until you have done these risky dives. If the purpose of training is to teach safety, I tend to side with George; but similarly the only gas available to the student at that point is air or hypobaric EANx. Go figure. You can't do trimix without a boatload of pre-requisite courses dealing with extremes of air and Nitrox. But is there a depth consideration for Trimix? No. That, in my stupid, ignorant, stroking, wimp opinion is the issue. Trimix is the "pot of gold" at the end of the rainbow. If you take George's advice, Trimix, or at least Heliair/Heliox should be taught much earlier to make the deep diving components safer. If you want to get specific to "deep/advanced/technical/etc" certifications, it should be at the Trimix level and certainly not Nitrox. I had an opportunity for a deep air/tech nitrox course a few months ago, but I turned it down (sushi, stroke, call it what you want). I've done 164 fsw on air and I wasn't my usual self by any means after about 5 minutes. Now I'm expected to deep air beyond that? I don't think so. At least I'll be a living sushi/stroke/whatever. Maybe the deep air, or more generally, deep EAD's are to expose the student to real narcosis. OK, fine, but you can't teach me a lesson that I already learned. Yeah, I was functional, and no, I didn't see things, but I knew full well I was impaired, though I'm very hesitant to admit it. If I could get a mix fill to lower the ppN2 (WITHOUT raising the ppO2) I would take it in a heartbeat. But that is several thousand dollars in the future (nevermind that I understand the theory). [\] Jeff Kell <jeff@ut*.ut*.ed*>
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]