Talk:Deep diving

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intro[edit]

Really don't like the new intro to this article. Not accurate (there is clearly a level of deep diving that is not technical diving, and a level of deep diving that is beyond technical diving), and conflicts directly with the next set of bullet points. Any other views? --Legis (talk - contribs) 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it either, for several reasons:
  • The lead should introduce the topic, providing a definition, and then summarise the rest of the article;
  • Prose should be used, not lists and tables;
  • I disagree (as you do) that deep diving should be defined in terms of technical diving.
Is it possible to work out a first paragraph that accurately reflects the concept of deep diving? Here's my suggestion:

Deep diving is underwater diving where the depth of the dive becomes an important consideration in planning the dive. For an inexperienced diver, this may be any dive deeper than they have done before. The diver's level of training and equipment also determine what may be considered deep diving, since deeper dives present greater problems should the diver run out of air or suffer other problems. The risks of decompression sickness, nitrogen narcosis and oxygen toxicity also increase rapidly with depth, and any dive where these factors need to be planned for may be thought of as a deep dive.

Something like this would need sourcing, probably from a training agency's manual. The issues there could be expanded in the body of the article. The list and table could then be moved into the body, expanding and re-writing the "Problems" section. The next section ("Precautions"?) could then cover how depth is planned for. Finally a couple of paragraphs should be added to the lead as summary of the rest of the article. Feel free to hack my suggestions, What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an excellent start. I don't have any major agency deep diving manuals, but I have the PADI encyclopedia, which has a sub-chapter on deep diving, so I will take a look and see what it says after work. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The PADI encyclopedia doesn't really contain a definition as such - although it does indicate in the text that deep diving for recreational divers is diving between 60 and 130 feet. I'll see if I can locate a better source. --Legis (talk - contribs) 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The SAA Club Diver manual says: "A deep dive is considered as any dive deeper than the deepest the individual has dived before."[dd1 1] It also "... strongly endorses a maximum depth of 50 metres ...". It then goes on to mention equipment, buddy choice, narcosis and oxtox. Not as prestigious as the PADI encyclopedia, but still part of a significant agency's training.
  1. ^ Brittain, Colin (2004). "Diving Air and Deep Diving". Let's Dive: Sub-Aqua Association Club Diver Manual (2nd ed.). Wigan, UK: Dive Print. pp. 80–2. ISBN 0-9532904-3-3. Retrieved 15 November 2009.
There's also a chunk of perspective from the Comex trials that doesn't belong in the lead. If you think that's a reasonable source, I'll go ahead with a clean-up soon. --RexxS (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems a little bit misleading[edit]

I know nothing about SCUBA other than what is written on wikipedia and a couple other sites I found by googling, but it seems to me that a clearer distinction needs to be made in this article between ultra deep diving in Atmospheric Diving Suits and technical deep SCUBA diving, which to a layman like me is quite confusing. I say this because divers have descended considerably deeper than 1000 ft in Atmospheric Diving Suits and statements like "Only eight (or possibly nine) persons are known to have ever dived below a depth of 800 feet (240 m) on self contained breathing apparatus recreationally", while I suppose technically correct give the impression that ADSs are included (I realize it's wrong but I had thought that SCUBA simply meant that you carried your own air supply which is also true for ADSs).

Overall, I would like someone with knowledge in the field to add a little blurb discussing the distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.55.47 (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article omits mention of some deep dives made by Hannes Keller (see his article in Wikipedia), who dived to 305M in 1962. Some of this history is accounted in the book 'Handbuch Technisches Tauchen' by Dederichs, Floren, Waldbrenner and Wilhelm, 2004, on pages 14-24 (unfortunately only available in German). See also http://www.rubicon-foundation.org:8080/dspace/bitstream/123456789/6003/1/SPUMS_V29N2_7.pdf and http://www.auas-nogi.org/hist_oil_field_keller.pdf. -- Alan Hodgkinson, alan@softxs.ch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.221.23.33 (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing required[edit]

The section on Ultra-deep diving is lacking citations to reliable sources, in particular the table "Verified SCUBA dives below 800 feet". If these dives are notable, where are the reliable sources? At the moment, this section is a magnet for IPs to alter a depth and no-one can tell whether they are correcting an error or vandalising. I've adopted the philosophy of simply reverting these if they contain no edit summary.

Unless reliable sources can be found for these claims, I propose the entire section is removed as it completely lacks encyclopedic integrity at present. --RexxS (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This dive: Pascal Bernabé Mediterranean 330 metres (1,080 ft) 2005 is definitely not "verified" as the Guinness Book of Records refused to acknowledge it. I've deleted that one. Marchino61 (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section image caption[edit]

@Catsmeat:, You changed the caption of the lead image to include information which, while probably correct, is not directly relevant to the subject of the article. I think that the name and nationality of the diver are irrelevant to the lead, and are more of a distraction than useful. The purpose of the image is to show the equipment configuration, so I intend to adjust the caption accordingly. Feel free to discuss if you have any objections. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. If it happens to be a generally well-known person then maybe - maybe - it adds some punch to reference a name. But in this context I don't think it is appropriate. --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra deep diving[edit]

Been thinking a bit about this section in all the discussions that have followed from Guy Garman's death. Whilst I do think that ultra deep recreational scuba dives are inherently notable, more and more I think that we need better context.

Firstly, it is not at all clear from the context that these are recreational divers, and that these limits have been far exceeded in both military and commercial diving. These "records" are only really records at all when you restrict the sample pool.

Secondly, Guy Garman's death is a reminder of just how patently dangerous these attempts are. Guy's attempt was horrifically, horrifically flawed (as has been endlessly dissected on the various message boards). But these uber deep dives claim a lot of dives of otherwise highly skilled divers. Just look at the list: Dave Shaw (dead), John Bennett (dead), Sheck Exley (dead), Don Shirley (nearly died), Mark Ellyat (nearly died). That is probably as notable at the "records" themselves.

Other views?

The Ultra-deep diving section lists Mark Ellyatt as dead. I haven't heard this and cannot find any sources to back this up either so I presume he is still alive?

--Legis (talk - contribs) 16:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. Any suggestions? Or just go ahead and make improvements. Cheers,• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. Separately, I put together a short article on Guy Garman yesterday. That whole episode still makes me shake my head. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class review[edit]

B
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.

    2. References essential for record claims. ☒N
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.

    3. Looks OK checkY
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.

    4. Looks OK checkY
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.

    5. Looks OK checkY
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

    6. Reasonably illustrated checkY
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

    7. Looks OK checkY

General criticism[edit]

My name is John S Poteet. I was a U.S. Navy First Class Deep Sea Diver and Medical Technician graduating from the School of Diving and Salvage at the D.C. Navy Yard in 1979. After discharge in 82 I worked for 30 years in Gulf of Mexico Commercial Deep Sea Diving performing surface diving, saturation supervising and as a consultant and site rep on underwater construction projects including Nakika Riser Team, Auger Flexhead replacement, Blind Faith, Thunderhorse gas buy back, Atlantis SCR clump weight installation and commissioning of the Mardis Gras Pipeline System. This includes several years of cumulative experience overseeing ROV work. I supervised on over 2000 saturation diving bell runs between 89 and 98.

I recommend considering these issues in/re your page: Deep Diving.

Separate articles are needed for the work dives and the play dives. Shakespearean acting should be judged by the work of those trained in that craft. Not beginners putting on a show in the barn. In this case conflating the two poses life and death risk. It is like promoting faith healing to people with cancer.

Sport diving is most dangerous in the top 33fsw, where gas volume doubles on ascent and can rupture the alveoli. This produces a more dangerous form of stroke than found in nature in that it must be treated in a Hyperbaric chamber; an item on all professional dive jobs rarely seen around those who sell “adventure” to people on vacation.

Going deeper than 130 fsw (Feet Sea Water) in SCUBA, or using anything with that gear but the No D tables is reckless. There is no professional need for it unless you make a profit selling tanks, trips and color coordinated gear.

PADI and other “Certifiers” try to make or supplement their income from the misconception (Which I stipulate they may suffer from) that playing in traffic is fun and appropriate.

Deep Sea Diving is Surface Supplied. For depths beyond 200 fsw Saturation diving is now most often used to maximize the work time on site. Decompression after each excursion dramatically increases risk and cost while decreasing efficiency. In SAT diving decompression is deferred until the job is completed. Since the human system is “saturated” by its’ fluids, in which the compressed gas is dissolved, a very slow decompression is needed. As a rule of thumb a day for every 100 fsw of deepest excursion plus a day. I knew working divers who remained pressurized in SAT for over 8 weeks. 4 to 6 is more common.

The article should warn of Barotrauma and Gas Embolism. Foolish amateurs (a redundant phrase in this context) are exposed to these risks at shallow depths. Amateur “Technical” dives are professional shorthand for “very stupid” dives.

ROVs are generally used today below 1000fsw. Any human dive done in a laboratory or pool is not a dive. It is an experiment. I supervised a 930 fsw dive off the Balmoral Sea and a 987 fsw dive off the Cal Diver 1. I would not now agree to be associated with any human dive below 750 fsw.

Advertising the attempts to dive SCUBA to 300 meters, as if that is a worthy goal, makes you complicit. I suspect you do not encourage people to drink and drive or smoke at all. You should not play into the fantasy that an out of condition 40-year-old, often dehydrated from drinking the night before, should be so much as swimming in open water. Adding compressed air and a smile to that individuals’ day may well kill them. It is like putting Grandma in the Grand Prix.

The main point of all articles on SCUBA should begin, include in the body and end with the fact that is an existential risk not to toyed with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspoteettn (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deep diving. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deep diving. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra deep dives[edit]

I feel like 2 names (probably more) are missing from the list of divers past the 230m mark.

Richard Harris & Craig Challen went to 245m in the “Pearse Resurgence” in New Zealand in 2020. 2A02:A420:61:3CBF:5014:8C38:ED77:E741 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Alfie↑↓© 07:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ADS depth consistency[edit]

The article says "An atmospheric diving suit allows very deep dives of up to 610 metres (2,000 ft)", but the ADS page says "An ADS can enable diving at depths of up to 700 metres (2,300 ft) for many hours". Perhaps this page should be updated? 58.80.201.106 (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Alfie↑↓© 12:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deep_diving&oldid=1202641298"