Deep Bailout Gas Choice for ~70M / 230FT

IMHO bailout for CO2 only works when the teams gas is considered holistically - standard mixes, return to shot discipline, expectation to help, common run-times.

Otherwise you're not planning for a CO2 incident and you have to think carefully about not causing an incident in the first place. In general, the diving I see is a very long way away from this approach.

Matt.
 
My 2 cents on the subject:
There are two drastically different situations here:
Overhead, and not.
Not is easy: carry a reasonable amount of gas, and surface before it runs out. No gas= dead, bent=alive. So even if you can't get back on the loop, (which is not a forgone conclusion) you need enough gas to deal with a CO2 event at depth and get up to your rich mix depth. So you are at 70m with an AL 80 of bottom mix. So from 70m to 20m an average depth of 45m with 2400l of gas. So that is about 9 min at about 45l/m. Not unreasonable, and after you get your shit together you could get back on the loop SCR at 30m 40m and take some more time there.
Overhead completely different. I would think you would want a whole 80 of bottom mix to get organized and try to get your resp rate down, perhaps more as that would be about 5 min at depth. Then enough gas to swim out and decompress--essentially as a group you have to plan the dive as OC at least for one diver at a minimum.

My personal experience with a CO2 hit was at about 40m. I think the biggest issue is surviving the first 2 or 3 min. I didn't have a BOV (I ordered one the next day) and it took all my will power etc to hold it together and shut off the DSV and get the bail out reg in my mouth. Next problem was controlling buoyancy, which I managed by holding on to a boulder. After about 5 min I was able to get back on the loop etc. The headache etc didn't go away for a day, and I was barely able to drive home an hour after the dive.

Also this thread started with deep bail out choice. 10/50 is stupid lazy mans gas in my opinion. Why would you carry anything you can't breath on the surface if you don't have to. So for 70m something like 16/60 or even 18/50. 18/50 would be 1.44 ppo2 at 70m, and gives you better SCR if you can get back on the loop.
My personal gas would be a 12l blown to 300 bar (a hoop wrapped luxifer 80) of 18/60(so 3600l average depth of 45m would give me 1200l to get my act together and 10 min at a sac of 43 to get to say 20 or 30m), a 3l of 30/30 and 3l of O2, and the worst case plan (CO2 hit with complete loop failure diving solo) is ascend on the bottom mix until its gone switch to the rich mix ascend till its gone and breath the O2 till its gone at 20ft. My v planner is off line, but I think this is survivable.
Kevin
 
10/50 is stupid lazy mans gas in my opinion. Why would you carry anything you can't breath on the surface if you don't have to.

Hello Kevin. You make some excellent points and thanks for sharing your story.

The reason I suggest picking a low PO2 mix for the deep bail-out (call me lazy and stupid if you like :moon2:) is because; 1) high CO2 pre-disposes to oxygen toxicity and 2) it allows for simplicity through diluent matching (simply computer switch to OC, no gas swap).

Matt.
 
As a non-CCR diver, I can't see the need for a gas you can breathe from 70m to the surface if you have bailed out.

You are not going to be on that gas at the end of the ascent. If you are, you are going to be fizzing like anything, so being hypoxic may not be your major concern when coming up from 6m where you can breathe it...

Regards
 
Mark,

I have spoken to Howard about this. His recollection which I use as a case study for Human Factors in Diving Incidents was different to what you recount.

He didn't have a CO2 hit but was working hard and was still having head games from his CO2 hit 3 weeks previously. He bailed onto his Al80 as he thought he was having a CO2 hit and made the rapid ascent when he realised that he was going to run out of gas. He didn't use the reg that his buddy offered to him. He ran out of gas approximately 30m and changed to 50% knowing he was going up quickly. He lost control of the ascent and flooded his loop to stop him hitting the surface (good move).

Sending a bag up to get more gas was a good thing.

AFAIK, he and his buddy have a much more conservative view on buddy skills now.

You keep saying that people can't keep up that level of breathing and yet there are those who have.

The consensus appears that if you are going to ignore CO2 hits, then you can carry enough bailout at depth for you because you are unlikely to have elevated breathing rates. However, if you are going to try and mitigate CO2 hits, then you are not going to have enough gas once you get down much past 60-70m.

Regards

Let me give you a few facts about the dive and perhaps you can possibly have a re think on the case.

Howard and j were diving as a pair and i was diving with George. George had a scooter failure so we ended fining. Howard and j were scootering.
We all met up on the bottom and were looking for the big guns but viz was poor and we only found one of the small ones. Howard and I had an underwater hand signal discussion about where we should be looking and he at that time seemed perfectly lucid and happy. I had dived over 100 dives with Howard at that time and I noticed nothing about him at that moment to suggest he was in trouble. J can confirm but apart from a course we all did together I don’t think J had more than 5 -10 trimix dives with Howard before this trip.

We separated and George and I headed for the shot. Only on ascent when we discovered Howard and Js tag still on the line did I realise there was a problem.

After the event I talked in great detail to Howard about what happened. He was bunking with me and George with J. The over whelming thing was his feeling of impending danger, his stress and his feeling of being overloaded by the scooter and the dive in general. Classic paranoia symptoms of narcosis. But he had a shed load of He in his mix so narcosis shouldn’t have been an issue. Add to this that for some time he’d been complaining about the WOB of his Mk1 Golum BOV. These Mk1 units were truly awful. I was told that in testing (so you can guess who told me) that the Mk1 Golum was 200% higher WOB than than the JJ BOV in CCR mode.

I had got the Golum Low Work of breathing kit for my BOV and it had made a significant difference which you didn’t need a machine to notice. I had tried to convince Howard to get one.

Have a chat with Rob Dobson about his feelings of WOB on the Mk1

J told me that he was trying to end the dive but Howard wasn’t following him back to the shot. Howard was in fact scootering off out into the blue. Repeated attempts to get Howard to come back to the shot failed and it was decided to go up. In the attempt Howard did a rapid ascent and J lost contact with him.

So now we have an overview of the incident.

J for reasons which baffle me, is convinced it wasn’t a C02 event. Howard didn’t remember much about the end of the incident prior to the rapid ascent when we talked about it at the time.

Personally I see it as odd that a diver I have dived with for years and one I’d describe as being positively chilled out under water even in extreme conditions, suddenly has a panic attack.

The previous trip to Malin Howard and I dived together every dive and as usual he was relaxed. On the last dive of the trip we did a freighter in 65m on the Scottish side and Howard and I went down the shot together fighting against the current all the way. Conditions were incredibly tough and most of the other divers aborted the dive. Once at the bottom Howard was panting hard and also decided to bin the dive. He went back up and I carried on solo. No drama no big issue but then that year Howard didn’t have the Golum BOV he had the standard Inspo mouthpiece.

From Js description of events Howard became unresponsive to suggestions and was scootering erratically off in the wrong direction. When offered help he didn’t take it.

J had very little experience of deep diving with Howard so perhaps this is why his conclusions are different from my own but I can tell you Howard is in the water as he appears to you and I on land, a calm diver who’s not easily flustered and treats most situations as a laugh. Possibly his recent run in with C02 (missing 0 ring on the scrubber) had a significance but id suggest that was to induce the bad narcosis trip rather than the happy mermaids narcosis.

The only explanation I can offer for Howards reaction under water is narcosis as a result of elevated C02 levels brought on by working too hard at depth against a Golum BOV with a very poor CCR WOB.

Scootering is supposed to be less work than fining but anyone who’s tried scootering for the first time will tell you that its bloody hard work till you get it right.

Nothing about the incident suggests a panic attack. The loss of buoyancy could, but not the erratic behaviour leading up to this event. I was adamant then it was a retained C02 event and j was adamant that it wasn’t, but I don’t know what he’s basing his premise on.

As for the revision of buddy skills since this incident? I love to know what j could have done differently? Short of going up with Howard I am sure he did his best.

This was in September 2009 and I very much doubt if j has dived with Howard more than a dozon times since then. Howard usually dives as a three with J and I and he’s done 4 trimix dives with us in the last three years. On all of those dives I have no knowledge of any change in our working practices.

ATB

Mark
 
As a non-CCR diver, I can't see the need for a gas you can breathe from 70m to the surface if you have bailed out.

You are not going to be on that gas at the end of the ascent. If you are, you are going to be fizzing like anything, so being hypoxic may not be your major concern when coming up from 6m where you can breathe it...

Regards

Something has changed since I went to skool as 70m used to be a deep dive: That's how I dive it anyway. What I see in this thread is that plenty of eCCR divers have not moved on from OC thinking.

Matt.
 
Last edited:
Mark,

If you want to see the breathing rates that are possible, have a look at this paper on the Rubicon Exercise tolerance at 4 and 6 ATA



Above 100l/min is possible and has been show in this paper, with the added issue of N2 narcosis...

Regards

I cant see much relevance to C02 hits in diving in this document


5 min bycycle ride?

So they could maintain it for 5mins? and some at 6 ATA complained of feelings of loss of conciousness? What does this prove except high SACs are possable for short periods? Which is what i have said all along.

70m is 8 ATA's

What was the comparison to breathing resistance on a CCR?

What effect did highly elevated C02 levels have on the subjects.


I think we have established the only reasion for SUSTAINED high SACs in diving is a C02 hit


If we could recover from a C02 hit in 5mins then planning for a 50 -100 lpm SAC in order to do this may have some relevance, but recovery from C02 is
a protracted process so how do we plan for this?


ATB

Mark
 
I cant see much relevance to C02 hits in diving in this document

I'm totally unclear, Mark, why you so strongly believe you are correct and everyone else with whatever experience or research they offer is wrong. You're fast to dismiss everything to the contrary yet only offer anecdotal hearsay evidence to support your claims. It just doesn't make sense?

Matt.
 
I'm totally unclear, Mark, why you so strongly believe you are correct and everyone else with whatever experience or research they offer is wrong. You're fast to dismiss everything to the contrary yet only offer anecdotal hearsay evidence to support your claims. It just doesn't make sense?

Matt.



Dave Shaw passing out and dieing after about 5mins of a retained C02 hit and monster SAC


explain why?

ATB

Mark
 
If we could recover from a C02 hit in 5mins then planning for a 50 -100 lpm SAC in order to do this may have some relevance, but recovery from C02 is a protracted process so how do we plan for this?

So why are you lugging 3 cylinders to 75m?

Matt.
 
Mark,

Thanks for the information on Howard. My information had come from Howard. Psychological pressures from his CO2 hit probably had a major influence on his thought processes having only dived once since his CO2 hit three weeks before and that was to 60m+ the day before.

The reason I posted that article isn't because of the retained CO2 issue, but because those involved could maintain a RMV of in excess of 100l/min for a sustained period of time. Whether it is CO2 induced or 'exercise required' isn't the point. The same point was made to add to Nigel's post elsewhere, that he wasn't sure you could sustain that level of respiration. If your body wants you to breathe at a rate 'unconsciously' because of a physiological trigger, it will. You will be unlikely to control it unless that trigger is taken away - be that exercise or through a chemical imbalance (which the exercise may trigger).

Dave Shaw passing out and dieing after about 5mins of a retained C02 hit and monster SAC

explain why?

ATB

Mark


I am intrigued by your comment 'retained CO2', do you mean Dave was a CO2 retainer or that the system was unable to clear CO2 from the breathing loop?

If you mean the former, I am not sure you are correct when looking at Dr Simon Mitchell's paper

"Fatal respiratory failure during a technical rebreather dive at extreme pressure". Aviation, space, and environmental medicine 78:2, 81-86 (2007). Mitchell, SJ, Cronj***233;, FJ, Meintjes, WA, and Britz, HC.

where he talks about

"The most likely cause of death was acute respiratory failure and CO2 toxicity. This hypothesis is based on the following considerations which will be expanded on later: 1) the progressive dyspnea culminating in uncon-sciousness over a period of time is consistent with the diagnosis of CO2 toxicity; 2) CO2 accumulation is plau-sible in the context of the dive; 3) the aberrations in the rebreather assembly would predispose to CO2 accumu-lation; 4) the diver***8217;s efforts to flush the rebreather counter-lung with fresh diluent gas indicate that he suspected hypercapnia to be the cause of his dyspnea; and 5) there is no evidence to implicate any other ter-minal event."

Regards
 
So why are you lugging 3 cylinders to 75m?

Matt.



Because I have filled all my bailout tanks already and i dont do custom mixes for bailout.

I have 15/65 18/45 50% and 80% I plan bailout for a max 3 hour run time reguardless of depth. I plan on an average SAC of 25lpm


I cant do a lost drop tank plan on 15/65 and 50 so i have to carry 18/45 in a 7ltr on return to shot dives or 15/65 in a 7ltr on imediate ascent dives.

ATB

Mark
 
Matt / Mark / GLOC,

I am not seeing such a wild difference in opinions to justify the dissent that's being spun up. I think it's fair to say that those first few minutes if it's a serious CO2 hit are not yours to control. A partial bypass or an over-breathing hit might be better but a high bypass or retained CO2 hit is going to to have you monstering through OC gas and doing little for a few minutes. It's also pretty much assumed that if you can't get it down in a few minutes your facing s troke or heart attack.

IF however you can get it down and IF you can start recovery then odds are it was a good day and no matter how bad you feel your SAC will drop and although you might blow through stops and wish you were never born you will be making choices on the matter. I have decided that about 5 minutes of mad breathing is as much as I can plan for and the degrading average of a heck of a lot to a lot means something akin to 50LPM for the 5 minutes but 50, 40 or 30 is not going to matter much if I can't get past the first 3...

More than anything this topic has made me take up running again to get my cardio fitness up, I want to know that I can sustain more than 190BPM for a few minutes comfortably more than I have gas to breathe....
 
Last edited:
Dave Shaws incident was not the result of scrubber beak through or any other form of scrubber failure. The CCR was perfectly capable of scrubbing the C02 but Dave wasn't capable of expelling the C02 due to a static imbalance in the lungs which caused the collapse of the exhalation path in the alveoli.

The C02 was the result of retention in the body due to work of breathing.

The Work of breathing was the result of gas choice (high END gas mix = high density gas at great depth = increased friction) combined with the incorrect assembly of a felt pad on the CCR which increased the effort of breathing well over that of the standard unit.



Retained C02 is different from inspired C02 in that the body can not exhale the C02 properly where as with inspired C02 the body is functioning properly but is simply breathing dangerous levels of C02 into the lungs.

Inspired Co2 will result in retention because as the SAC rises the breaths will become more violent and shorter and this will cause the collapse of the avoil in the same way as a WOB related Co2 hit.

QED by the time your in the C02 cycle flushing the CCR with fresh diluent will have little immediate effect as the problem will have switched from inspired to retained.


ATB

Mark



Mark,

Thanks for the information on Howard. My information had come from Howard. Psychological pressures from his CO2 hit probably had a major influence on his thought processes having only dived once since his CO2 hit three weeks before and that was to 60m+ the day before.

The reason I posted that article isn't because of the retained CO2 issue, but because those involved could maintain a RMV of in excess of 100l/min for a sustained period of time. Whether it is CO2 induced or 'exercise required' isn't the point. The same point was made to add to Nigel's post elsewhere, that he wasn't sure you could sustain that level of respiration. If your body wants you to breathe at a rate 'unconsciously' because of a physiological trigger, it will. You will be unlikely to control it unless that trigger is taken away - be that exercise or through a chemical imbalance (which the exercise may trigger).




I am intrigued by your comment 'retained CO2', do you mean Dave was a CO2 retainer or that the system was unable to clear CO2 from the breathing loop?

If you mean the former, I am not sure you are correct when looking at Dr Simon Mitchell's paper

"Fatal respiratory failure during a technical rebreather dive at extreme pressure". Aviation, space, and environmental medicine 78:2, 81-86 (2007). Mitchell, SJ, Cronj***233;, FJ, Meintjes, WA, and Britz, HC.

where he talks about

"The most likely cause of death was acute respiratory failure and CO2 toxicity. This hypothesis is based on the following considerations which will be expanded on later: 1) the progressive dyspnea culminating in uncon-sciousness over a period of time is consistent with the diagnosis of CO2 toxicity; 2) CO2 accumulation is plau-sible in the context of the dive; 3) the aberrations in the rebreather assembly would predispose to CO2 accumu-lation; 4) the diver***8217;s efforts to flush the rebreather counter-lung with fresh diluent gas indicate that he suspected hypercapnia to be the cause of his dyspnea; and 5) there is no evidence to implicate any other ter-minal event."

Regards
 
Matt / Mark / GLOC,

I am not seeing such a wild difference in opinions to justify the dissent that's being spun up. I think it's fair to say that those first few minutes if it's a serious CO2 hit are not yours to control. A partial bypass or an over-breathing hit might be better but a high bypass or retained CO2 hit is going to to have you monstering through OC gas and doing little for a few minutes. It's also pretty much assumed that if you can't get it down in a few minutes your facing s troke or heart attack.

IF however you can get it down and IF you can start recovery then odds are it was a good day and no matter how bad you feel your SAC will drop and although you might blow through stops and wish you were never born you will be making choices on the matter. I have decided that about 5 minutes of mad breathing is as much as I can plan for and the degrading average of a heck of a lot to a lot means something akin to 50LPM for the 5 minutes but 50, 40 or 30 is not going to matter much if I can't get past the first 3...

More than anything this topic has made me take up running again to get my cardio fitness up, I want to know that I can sustain more than 190BPM for a few minutes comfortably more than I have gas to breathe....



Hio Pete thanks for the input.

I personaly dont feel any heat in the debate. Its just a healthy discussion on a tricky subject.

SOrry to anyone if my posts come across as heated. i am supossed to be working and I write them quickly :D

ATB

Mark
 

Good link, here's the relevant quotation for those who do not wish to read it all.

Matt.

Simon Mitchell said:
Dive-Oz Discussion Forums - We've Gone Virtual!! - Australian Story - Doco on David Shaw

The primary cause of the [David Shaw] accident was CO2 toxicity.

The CO2 toxicity arose because a combination of increased CO2 production (because of increased work of breathing) and decreased CO2 elimination due to hypoventilation. The hypoventilation in turn was related to the increased work of breathing (see below) and the adoption of a disadvantageous rapid, shallow pattern of breathing. The physiological basis for this breathing pattern is beyond the scope of this discussion, but we will elaborate on it in the paper.

The possibility of CO2 scrubber failure (allowing "break through")as a potential contributor to the CO2 toxicity cannot be excluded because it is known that the dynamic efficiency of scrubbers falls with depth. In addition, the scrubber was not packed in the conventional manner. Significantly less material was used than required to fill the scrubber to the canister rim and consequently, there may have been scope for the material to shift and for channeling of gas to occur.

The dramatic increase in the work of breathing was related primarily to the increased gas density at extreme depth. However, there may have been a critical contribution from other sources. First, the non-standard moisture pad under the scrubber canister substantially blocked the gas flow path (which is left clear by the standard / factory pad). For completeness, it was revealed by industry sources at Oztek that Dave tried to obtain standard pads prior to this dive, but none were available at the time. Second, the order of the moisture pad and plastic screen on top of the scrubber was reversed in what appeared to be an assembly error. This allowed the pad to settle over the gas flow path holes in the scrubber canister. Third, the fine grade sorb material used would have provided a greater resistance to breathing than a co****r grade.
 
Back
Top