Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Roderick Farb wrote:
> Date sent: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 08:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Roderick Farb <rfarb@em*.un*.ed*>
> To: kens@uf*.ed*
> Copies to: IANTD <iantdhq@ix*.ne*.co*>, techdiver@terra.net
> Subject: Re: safety-deep-limits
> Ken, for weeks your caveman guru has trashed IANDT and Tom Mount in an
> incredibily abusive manner about the very matters discussed in the long
> post. You pick out two sentences from the entire post, sign Mount's name
> and thank him. What do you object to about the rest of his post?
>
> On Fri, 6 Oct 1995, Ken Sallot wrote:
>
> > > Trimix I beleive is self explantatory it is the only safe method to do
> > > deep water exploration. Trimix should be used on dives that are deeper
> > > than 180 feet and definetly those below 200 feet based on o2 risk,
> > > narcosis risk and carbon dioxide retention risk.
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > Thank you for the posting. Especially this statement. I hope some of
> > the people going "DEEP AIR DEEP AIR RAH RAH RAH" read it and take it
> > to hart.
First, I didn't sign the name Tom. I was starting off a letter by
addressing it to Tom, whom I assume is the author of that message.
Then the question was asked, "What do you object to about the rest of
his post?"
What makes you think I object to anything else in his message? He was
stating what IANTD's standards are. I may disagree with some of them,
but I can't object to his statement of what they are.
However..
"Safety and deep air. First folks on the net should define what they
are referring to as deep. It appears that dives to 150 to 200 feet or
being compared to dives below 300 feet and that is like comparing a
30 foot snorkel dive to a 130 foot scuba dive. It is not the same
animal."
I didn't see anyone comparing deep air to dives below 300' on air. As
for the definition of deep air, that's a tough one. I would have to
define deep air (for me) as any depth where the NDL is greatly
reduced, or the narcosis is great, or the ppO2 is too high. Probably
130' would be the limit in my definition (based on NDL & narcosis),
170' on ppO2.
This is MY definition. No one elses. I am not trying to
define a name for a course.
"NOTE!! ALL IANTD COURSES MAY BE ENTERED BY EITHER PROGRESSING
THROUGH COURSES ARE BY ENTRY THROUGH EQUIVALENT PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE."
I was glad to see that this was the case and that a student didn't
need to take "Technical Deep Air" or "Technical EANx" to get trimix
training.
"The po 2 MOD (maximum operational depth) in recreational diving is
1.6 ATA. The working POD (planned operational depth limit) in our
text is reflected as 1.4 ATA. Reference page 50 of the Enriched Air
Nitrox Student Manual and Workbook."
I personally disagree with this ppO2. I think 1.6 is a little too
rich for some people's blood. Even deco is pushing it, but at least
there you're at rest.
"Other recreational programs by IANTD include open water, advanced
open water, (these programs are more skill and theory orientated than
most other open water training programs), dive master, intro
rebreather, rebreather, overhead environment, intro to cave, gas
blender, and speciality diver."
I personally disagree with the idea of IANTD offering cave
certifications. I realize Tom Mount has a lot of experience in cave
diving and cave diving training. However, I'm just not convinced we
need more agencies in the states besides the NACD and NSS-CDS for cave
training.
"In technical diving programs which IANTD defines as: All dives
requiring a deco stop, all dives deeper than 130 feet and all
penetrations into an overhead environment beyond surface light are
technical dives."
I'll agree with this definition. I think it's a good definition.
Then we have "Technical EANx" mentioned. This is considered technical
diving, and not recreational diving. So we can't follow the
recreational MOD of 1.6ata ppO2. So, we have written:
"MOD in this program is 1.5 ata POD is 1.4 ata. Reference the IANTD
advanced deep air student workbook and the IANTD technical EANx
student workbook. "
Once again, I think 1.5 ppO2 is a little too rich. Also, why are
there three sepereate EANx courses? Aren't two (or one?) sufficient?
"Technical Deep Air <snip>"
I personally feel 190' is too deep for air diving. I disagree with it
being taught.
"Divers will do as many of us did and learn by survival, and some do
not succeed, if not given the chance to be taught with proper skills,
theory and equipment. It would be irresponsible not to offer deep air
training as has been proven in the past, afterall that is why we
started this program in the first place. This program actually does
more to convince divers to continue deep dives on mix more so than to
increasae their desire to repeat these depths or go deeper on air."
This is a compelling argument for deep air. The part about convincing
divers to continue deep dives on mix is also very good to see. But,
and the main issue I've been saying all along, is that divers who do
not know their own limits are too often fooled into thinking that you
can be "good on air deep" and "to be a stud diver you have to dive
deep". Deep diving is glamorized. It shouldn't be.
"Billy Deans and myself have propossed to decrease the technical deep
air diver to 180 feet which will need approval by the BOA, and our
international franchises. If approved this would go into effect in
our standards for the 1996 1997 year beginning in July of 1996."
How about eliminating the class and informing interested participants
that deep air is extremely dangerous and there are safer alternatives
such as mix?
"<part I previously quoted removed> Trimix like deep air does have its
own specific risk such as a more intense deco risk, physiological
considerations, and equipment dependency needs."
Plus other risks too. However, respectively speaking, it's safer then
deep air.
"Currently IANTD has approximately 80 trimix instructors worldwide.
Today IANTD has its own soft ware and waterproof tables for diving
trimix."
I suppose I should object to the word "software" being written in two
words.
A couple of other things to note:
George Irvine is not my "caveman guru". I respect his and WKPP's
accomplishments, and personally think George is a decent individual.
I however disagree with him on some diving related issues and feel
that his public attitude on techdiver hasn't always been the
greatest.
I'm not out "IANTD Bashing". I disagree strongly on the deep air
issue. I do feel that too many unexperienced divers think deep diving
is the only way to define themseves. There are many worst offenders
then IANTD ("PSA - We train you hard to 300'!"). I do disagree with
the 1.6ppO2 and 1.5ppO2 for "Operational Depth" (even if the word
Maximum is used) in diving except in deco where you're at rest. I
personally try to run 1.2-1.3 operational depth with a "Maximum
Usable Depth" at 1.4.
Also, I think one of the reasons IANTD is in the spotlight on this
one is simply because they're the leaders in the "Technical
Diving" industry. They CAN set the standards as far as "Technical
Diving" is concerned. There is a certain amount of responsibility
involved when you're the standard setter; I'm not sure if advertising
diving to 190' on air is responsible.
At least they are (apparently) recommending Trimix in excess of 180'.
Now if that could be curtailed back even just a tad bit more...
You, on the other hand, are more reprehensible with your constant
messages of "WE DIVE DEEP AIR! GET IT! GET IT!". Do you get it?
From this point on I'm not going to bother replying to any of your
messages because seriously, they're a waste of my time and bandwidth.
Stepping off the soapbox,
Ken
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ken Sallot "High ppO2's can be hazardous to your health"
CIRCA - Ronnie Bell
(904) 392-2007
kens@uf*.ed*
http://grove.ufl.edu/~ken
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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]