Going to deep.... worth it?

[Puffer Fish]

[quote=ianr33;90939]

Originally Posted by Puffer Fish

Actually that is not true. Anybody doing a 300 foot dive (or at least anybody with half a brain cell) plans it to allow for one complete failure. e.g total loss of one divers back gas.

IMHO a well trained and equipped buddy pair at 300 feet are probably a lot safer than a new AOW diver at 130 feet on a single 80.

You are most likely correct on the 130 ft air diver. But, there are lots of things that can go wrong that have no backup... an O2 sensor failure, for example. As a great many use rebreathers, an absorbent material failure. or water leak into the system.

A couple of divers at 60 ft still have a few zero defect items (like no CO in their tanks), but it is a very short list, which accounts for why death rates for divers go way up as the depth goes down, even while the skill level is going up.

[mm2002]

Originally Posted by texdiveguy

IMO-- Most folks whom are diving deep are certainly not thrill seekers in the common sense....it is a very calculated dive when diving deep, regardless of it within a cave system/wreck or open water site. It deff. is not for everyone, but for a small group whom enjoy the technical challenges and are willing to evaluate and accept the risks it is an enjoyable event not matched by many others one can engage in.

I can definitely see that it is a "calculated" risk, but surely you have to have a tad bit of "thrill seeker" in your blood to want to do it eh??
Any extreme sport can be made more extreme if you so desire, and the more you push the envelope, the higher the risk factors.

When I took up skydiving, I made the commitment to not "push it". While people weighing 200 lbs were zipping in at 40 mph landing stupid tiny parachutes, I always flew a relatively large canopy, and landed nice and slow and soft. I still think I had every bit as much fun as they did, but the risk of hurting (or killing) myself on a landing was far less than theirs. I also saw people opening at 2000 feet, where if something bad happens you likely don't have enough time for emergency procedures. I always had a good canopy at 4000 feet, and I planned to never change that practice, no matter what all of the "daredevils" said.

I know I'm going to do a deep dive in AOW, but I seriously doubt I'll ever go deep again. From what I've seen and read, there's more to see and do in 40-50 ft of water than I could ever do in my lifetime anyway. By keeping my equipment serviced regularly, practicing skills regularly, performing thorough equipment checks before EVERY dive, and limiting myself to conservative depths, I feel that I'm calculating my risks within my comfort zone. I sure don't want my kids to end up without a dad just because he was pushing the envelope.

With that said, you guys that want to dive deep, more power to ya! I love seeing the pics! Same with cave diving. Wave hi to me on your way up, I'll be the guy tooling around in the shallows checking out the wildlife!

[ianr33]

[quote=Puffer Fish;90953]

Originally Posted by ianr33

You are most likely correct on the 130 ft air diver. But, there are lots of things that can go wrong that have no backup... an O2 sensor failure, for example. As a great many use rebreathers, an absorbent material failure. or water leak into the system.

A couple of divers at 60 ft still have a few zero defect items (like no CO in their tanks), but it is a very short list, which accounts for why death rates for divers go way up as the depth goes down, even while the skill level is going up.

Who brought rebreathers into this??
I dont dive a rebreather so am no expert,but my understanding is that an O2 sensor failure should not be a major problem. Just look at the remaining 2 sensors. A totally flooded loop should not kill a diver if he has open circuit bail out.

Where is your evidence that the death rate goes way up as the depth increases? This may well be so but I would be interested in the references.

My main point here is that doing deep,even 300 foot dives, is not an adrenaline crazed death wish IF you know what you are doing.

Now if you want to talk about an 800 foot dive then I will agree with you.

[texdiveguy]

Originally Posted by mm2002

I can definitely see that it is a "calculated" risk, but surely you have to have a tad bit of "thrill seeker" in your blood to want to do it eh??
Any extreme sport can be made more extreme if you so desire, and the more you push the envelope, the higher the risk factors.

When I took up skydiving, I made the commitment to not "push it". While people weighing 200 lbs were zipping in at 40 mph landing stupid tiny parachutes, I always flew a relatively large canopy, and landed nice and slow and soft. I still think I had every bit as much fun as they did, but the risk of hurting (or killing) myself on a landing was far less than theirs. I also saw people opening at 2000 feet, where if something bad happens you likely don't have enough time for emergency procedures. I always had a good canopy at 4000 feet, and I planned to never change that practice, no matter what all of the "daredevils" said.

I know I'm going to do a deep dive in AOW, but I seriously doubt I'll ever go deep again. From what I've seen and read, there's more to see and do in 40-50 ft of water than I could ever do in my lifetime anyway. By keeping my equipment serviced regularly, practicing skills regularly, performing thorough equipment checks before EVERY dive, and limiting myself to conservative depths, I feel that I'm calculating my risks within my comfort zone. I sure don't want my kids to end up without a dad just because he was pushing the envelope.

With that said, you guys that want to dive deep, more power to ya! I love seeing the pics! Same with cave diving. Wave hi to me on your way up, I'll be the guy tooling around in the shallows checking out the wildlife!

I am about as conservative//none risk taker as you will ever come across--lol.....3 grown sons,,great wife,,and good health....I am not a thrill seeker by any stretch. I find the technical challenges of deeper diving enjoyable and rewarding...not a thrill or rush as one might experience on a roller coaster-of which I am not comfortable riding on--wuss! And there is nothing wrong with diving to only 30-50ft. and watching wildlife!! You hit it on the head when you said we all must dive within our 'comfort zone'....we should never disregard our inner feelings, nature has given us that means of letting us know when we do step to far outside our individual envelope.

[mm2002]

"Individual Envelope"

That's perfect! And yes, everyone has one.

[texdiveguy]

Originally Posted by Puffer Fish

You are most likely correct on the 130 ft air diver. But, there are lots of things that can go wrong that have no backup... an O2 sensor failure, for example. As a great many use rebreathers, an absorbent material failure. or water leak into the system.

A couple of divers at 60 ft still have a few zero defect items (like no CO in their tanks), but it is a very short list, which accounts for why death rates for divers go way up as the depth goes down, even while the skill level is going up.

You sorta lost me on the rebreather twist to the thread....maybe I missed something? Most deep divers (divers in general) still use open circuit systems. I would be interested in your facts regarding the death rate statistic you referred to...I have not found that to be quite the case.

[in_cavediver]

As a person who does both shallow and deep dives, sometimes well into overheads, I wanted to make a few observations.

1) Purely from a risk analysis point of view, depth adds risk. Overheads add risk. Its simple physics and limits and pretty much isn't up for debate.

2) Divers who venture to depths beyond rec limits have significant additional training and equipment to mitigate risks. Many rec divers don't have or know how to use these techniques (and equipment) to mitigate some of the risk. In some cases, rec divers may not even know these exist.

3) 'Deep' divers generally are current and profiecient in thier emeregency procedures, some done each and every dive. This cannot be said of most rec divers. 'Tec' divers are driven and committed, which again cannot be said of most rec divers.

4) Its quite common for un-informed individuals to draw very bad conclusions from limited data and soundbites. When you make a judgement about going 'deep' and those who do it, what personal knowledge do you bring? Do you have a reasonable background to truly understand the risks (or even identify them all) so you can make a reasonable determination?

Now, we all know that if you have to solve a problem, its better to be at 60' than 300'. The real question is can a tec diver better solve a problem at 300' than a rec diver at 60'? In many cases, I think they can.

Still, the decision to dive rests solely with the individual. That single individual must make their own determination of risks and thier personal risk tolerance.

EDIT: For the record - Number 4 was NOT aimed at anyone, just a general observation about people in general. I apologize to anyone who may have taken offense.

[mm2002]

Originally Posted by in_cavediver

4) Its quite common for un-informed individuals to draw very bad conclusions from limited data and soundbites. When you make a judgement about going 'deep' and those who do it, what personal knowledge do you bring? Do you have a reasonable background to truly understand the risks (or even identify them all) so you can make a reasonable determination?

If that statement was aimed at me, I apologize if I offended you. I never made any "judgements" about you or anyone else, and again I apologize if you took it that way. As far as having a reasonable background to understand risks and the calculations thereof, yes I do. Is that background SCUBA specific?...no it's not. The knowledge I bring is merely common sense, and my perception of the increased risks involved as you go deeper in water. Plus, even though I only have 16 dives, I DO dive. It's not like someone who's never tried it trying to hand out opinions. I've also done tons and tons of reading and research about diving, and that knowledge far outweighs my "hands on" experience.

In my eyes, no matter what training or equipment you have at 300 feet, or in a deep overhead environment, your options (in an emergency) are likely substantially less than if diving relatively shallow, and your chances of survival in a true emergency are probably going to be a tad more slim. Is that not true? Why?

Remember, I'm here to learn, not to offend anybody.

(if that post wasn't aimed at me, then disregard this post! )

[BuzzF117]

I really have no desire to "go deep" execpt I would like to hit the flight deck on the Oriskany and maybe one deep dive in chuk but thats it......no really thats it....hmmm rumor is there is a submarine somewhere in Lake Michigan!

[texdiveguy]

Originally Posted by BuzzF117

....hmmm rumor is there is a submarine somewhere in Lake Michigan!

The UC-97. The wreckage of the UC-97 was located in 1992 by A&T Recovery, but it's location has not been made public. The hulk lays at a depth of approximately 250 feet. The Navy's records indicate that the location of it's sinking was 42 deg. 10' N, 87 deg. 20' W, which would place it about 20 miles east of Highland Park, IL. A&T Recovery side scanned over 140 square miles of Lake Michigan to find the submarine's location. Future plans for the UC-97 remain to be seen.