Sign up for our monthly newsletter so you never miss the latest from InDepth!
by Jarrod Jablonski
Header Photo by JP Bresser
Technical diving means different things to different people, opening legitimate arguments about different time periods and personalities involved in shaping this activity. Our purpose is more confined as I wish to focus mainly upon the development of decompression procedures. Leading figures like Jacques Cousteau (1910–1997) performed reasonably significant “technical” dives including both deep and overhead exposures. Yet, his dives were relatively short, often on air, and absent a community of fellow tech divers with whom to evolve varying strategies. Meanwhile, military or commercial activities reached significant depth with notable exposures but used different technologies and procedures. Hopefully, the following overview will be independently interesting—although I also hope to illustrate what I consider an intriguing wrinkle currently lacking in most debates over the best ascent schedule for a decompression dive.
For our purposes, I mark the 1980s as the period in which technical diving truly started to become a globally recognized activity. Of course, numerous significant projects occurred before this period, but the 1980s established a growing global awareness that amazing diving feats were possible by enthusiasts. The 1990s and the developing internet age brought these ideas progressively into the mainstream. Most importantly, these global communities could now easily communicate information and, of course, disagree about the best way to do one thing or another.
The 1980s and 1990s were also an interesting period of development because people were doing more aggressive dives but still lacked important support tools that would take another decade to materialize. For example, most early tech dives were using some form of military, commercial, or scientific tables, such as the U.S. Navy, Oceaneering International, Inc. or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which were often not well-suited to the dive at hand. This is because there were no decompression programs available. Divers were unable to calculate their own profiles and would trade whatever tables they could gather. In many cases, they were forced to choose from tables that were calculated at a different depth, time, and/or breathing mix to the planned dive.
Over time, the physiologist Dr. R.W. “Bill” Hamilton (1930–2011) began creating custom tables, but the lack of flexibility, as well as the cost, discouraged frequent use for most divers, especially when considering a range of depth profiles and their various time adjustments. This problem was especially prominent in deep cave diving where variable profiles and long bottom times created numerous complications . This landscape encouraged, if not demanded, that exploration divers be creative with their decompression practices. For example, Woodville Karst Plain Project (WKPP) explorers George Irvine and I began to explore ways to extrapolate from existing tables. The birth of what is now called ratio decompression originated with this practice.
By exploring the way decompression schedules develop, we began outlining simple ratios that allowed divers to adjust their decompression based upon a ratio of time spent at depth. Then, in 1998, I went on to form Global Underwater Explorers (GUE), and such practices became part of the process for helping divers appreciate the structure of decompression while supporting adjustments to profiles when depth or time varied from that expected. Regrettably, some individuals took this too far and began promoting complex adjustments and marketed them as superior to the underlying algorithms from which they had been derived.
We should leave a more in-depth review of ratio deco for another time. For now, I intend to illustrate that “rules” such as ratio deco had their roots in limited availability of decompression tables and evolved as a useful tool for understanding and estimating decompression obligation. The fact that early tech divers had limited ability to calculate profiles encouraged a “test-and-see” philosophy, further fueling the early popularity of ad hoc adjustments to decompression profiles. This was most notable in the DIR and GUE communities through ratio-style adjustments and also prominent with non-DIR advocates who used a modification known as Pyle-stops, originating from ichthyologist Richard Pyle’s early deep dives and his attempts to refine efficient ascent protocols. One common adjustment in these approaches involved a notable reduction in ascent speed, adding additional stops known as “ deep stops ”
Driven by self-discovery, the migration toward deep stops resulted in rare agreement among technical divers, and the practice developed a life of its own in conference symposiums, being advocated far and wide by a healthy share of technical divers. The earliest phases of these modifications were driven in part by limited access to decompression tables, though by the end of the 1990s there were a variety of decompression programs available. This was a big improvement, although it was still true that divers had a limited baseline of successful dives while planning mixed-gas dives in the 50 to 100 meter range and beyond. Today, most divers take for granted that technical dives planned with available resources and within today’s common use (a few hours around 90m/300 ft) are relatively safe in terms of decompression risk. When these programs first came to market, there remained many question marks about their efficacy.
The availability of decompression programs was a big advantage for technical divers, as they now had more sophisticated tools at their disposal. Yet, the output from many of these programs produced tables that were sometimes different to profiles thought to be successful by some groups. Typically, the difference related to an increase in the total decompression time and/or a distribution of stops that varied from developing consensus. These divers were keenly interested in the developing tools but reluctant to change from what appeared successful, especially when that change required additional hours in the water. A debate developed around the reason for these differences, bringing the already brewing interest in bubbles well into the mainstream.
At the time, all tables were based upon dissolved gas models like Buhlmann, and thus not directly modeling bubble development during an ascent. Dissolved gas models preference ascents that maintain a reasonably high gradient between the gas in tissues and the gas being breathed, which should be supportive of efficient elimination from tissues. Dissolved gas models manage—but do not explicitly control for—bubbles and were thus labeled (probably unfairly) as “bend and mend” tables. In fact, dissolved gas models are designed to limit supersaturation (explicitly), because this is supposed to limit bubble formation. Haldane references this control of supersaturation in his pioneering publication .
Those advocating for different ascent protocols imagine that a lack of deep stops creates more bubbles, which then need to be managed during a longer series of shallow decompression stops. In this scenario, a slower ascent from depth, including “deep stops,” would reduce the formation and growth of bubbles while reducing time that might otherwise be needed to manage previously formed bubbles. Support for these ideas gained momentum in diving and professional communities, although some of these individuals were arguably conflicted by a vested interest in promoting deep stop models. Eventually, the practice received more critical consideration but during the intervening years deep stops were largely considered as common knowledge.
The idea of controlling bubbles became extremely popular through the 1990s, encouraging deeper stops designed to limit bubble formation and growth. The “test-and-see” approach developed by early tech divers appears to have fueled the promulgation of deep stops though the determining characteristics remained poorly defined. Early tech divers embraced the uncertainty of their activity, realized that nobody had the answers, and decided to “experiment” in search of their own answers. In fact, divers were experimenting with a lot more than deep stops, altering gases breathed, the placement of various decompression stops, and the total amount of decompression time utilized. This meant that divers were sometimes aggressively adjusting multiple factors simultaneously.
For example, divers using a decompression program might input significantly less helium than was present in their breathing mixture. This was done because the algorithm increased decompression time with elevated helium percentage, sometimes known as the helium penalty . In other cases, divers would completely change the structure of stop times. For example, divers would invert the way a profile should be conducted by doing more time near a gas switch and less time prior to the next gas switch, believing the higher-oxygen gas only 3m/10ft away was time better utilized.
I do not intend an exhaustive or detailed review but only to assert the many, sometimes radical approaches being taken by tech divers who often perceived success with these various strategies. In some cases, it appears these practices may have been leading the way toward improvements (eliminating the Helium penalty) while other adjustments might prove disadvantageous. In both cases, it is important to note that divers understood—or should have understood—these actions to be potentially dangerous, accepting risk as a natural part of pushing into uncertain territory where definitive guidance and clear borders are rarely available.
None of this is to argue that divers should engage in aggressive decompression or challenge convention or place themselves at risk to unknown complications. I merely wish to clarify the atmosphere under which these adjustments were conducted, while highlighting that conventional ideas of risk mitigation are inherently complicated against a backdrop of novel exploration. A sense of relative risk dominated most of these trials since there are also risks associated with lengthy, in-water exposure. Eliminating what might be an avoidable decompression obligation could reduce risk from other obvious factors, including changing weather, dangerous marine life, being lost at sea, hypothermia, and oxygen exposure. Decompression experimentation was but one of many attempts to establish new protocols during extensive exploration projects.
During this time, deep stops and similar adjustments were part of the “norm” for aggressive technical explorers who were sometimes notably reducing in-water time as compared to available tables. It is interesting to note that individual differences in susceptibility seemed among the most prominent variables across the range of tested adjustments, and we will return to this in a later discussion. For now, we should acknowledge that the “success” being achieved (or imagined) is greatly complicated by a small sample size of self-selected individuals who were simultaneously experimenting with a range of variables. On the other side, I do not want to entirely discount the results being seen by these divers. We should remember that development of safe decompression ascents for the general diving community was not the goal of most tech divers. These divers were interested in maximizing their personal and team efficiency during decompression. These strategies may or may not have been objectively successful or broadly applicable, but many teams imagined them so, at least within the narrow scope being considered. Later, we will return to these important distinctions with careful consideration for the potentially different interests being pursued by divers evaluating different decompression profiles.
Fortunately, a desire to create broadly useful tools was high on the list of priorities for some individuals in the technical diving community, leading to a relevant and important contribution. This inventive approach would introduce a new way to think about decompression, remaining to this day at the center of the debate about deep stops.
Creating a New Baseline
Despite the popularity of deep stops and other modifications presented previously, technical divers lacked a common language for comparing the results, especially across different profiles. Compounding this problem was the variable way decompression programs considered a dive to be more or less “safe.” For example, some programs developed “safety factors” which increased total decompression time by an arbitrary factor, i.e., made them 10% longer. Other programs used different strategies, though it was not clear whether any of the various safety factors actually made the decompression safer. Whether safer or not, these factors were typically inconsistent and added complications when comparing various profiles. Just as these debates were reaching a fervor, help arrived from an unlikely place. An engineer by trade and decompression enthusiast by choice, Erik Baker had developed a novel solution.
Baker was seeking a way to establish consistency in considering the safety or lack of safety between various profiles. The term Baker applied was Gradient Factor (GF). I will not invest considerable time exploring the science behind GF, as many useful resources are widely available. For our purposes, it is sufficient to say that GFs allows a user to establish a lower threshold than the maximum recommended by a dissolved gas algorithm. This maximum pressure or M-value is assigned to “compartments” having an assumed amount of tolerance relative to the flow of blood they receive. Decompression theory is complicated by many factors but when the pressure of a gas in a compartment nears the M-value, it is thought that the risk of decompression sickness becomes higher. By adjusting a profile through the use of GF, one presumably reduces the risk. However, this also means there is less gradient between the gas in tissues and the gas in blood, reducing the driving force for the removal of gas and probably requiring additional decompression time.
Gradient factors took an important step toward using a consistent language when talking about a variety of adjustments divers might make to their decompression. As part of his work on GF, Baker had developed a keen interest in the decompression adjustments by leading technical divers. Baker and I began working together while evaluating some of our most extreme diving profiles. This collaboration led to a number of productive developments including GUE’s DecoPlanner, released in 1997, and among the first to utilize GF methodology. These collaborations further highlighted what appeared to be a discrepancy between the decompression expected by dissolved gas algorithms and the decompressions being conducted by many technical divers.
Decompression experimentation tended to cluster in small groups whose size was likely affected by self-selection with members who would stop or reduce aggressive dives when experiencing decompression sickness. Yet, it seemed possible that there was more to the story. These divers were doing several things that should have exposed them to notable risk and yet were repeatedly completing decompressions of more than 15 hours. Deep stops were only part of the story as these divers were ignoring conventional wisdom in several areas while notably reducing decompression time. What was behind this discrepancy? Were deep stops right or wrong? Was the conservative approach to helium right or wrong? Were these individuals lucky? Were they unusually resistant to decompression sickness, or were there other factors lurking in the background?
Note: I will outline many of these developments in the upcoming Part Three, where we more directly consider the modern challenges to deep stops and most especially the assertion they are dangerous. In the interim, I hope to hear from our readers. Do you have different experiences from this period? Do you think such experimentation is reckless or inadvisable? Please let us know your thoughts.
Jarrod is an avid explorer, researcher, author, and instructor who teaches and dives in oceans and caves around the world. Trained as a geologist, Jarrod is the founder and president of GUE and CEO of Halcyon and Extreme Exposure while remaining active in conservation, exploration, and filming projects worldwide. His explorations regularly place him in the most remote locations in the world, including numerous world record cave dives with total immersions near 30 hours. Jarrod is also an author with dozens of publications, including three books.
The Thought Process Behind GUE’s CCR Configuration
GUE is known for taking its own holistic approach to gear configuration. Here GUE board member and Instructor Trainer Richard Lundgren explains the reasoning behind its unique closed-circuit rebreather configuration. It’s all about the gas!
By Richard Lundgren
Header photo by Ortwin Khan
Numerous incidents over the years have resulted in tragic and fatal outcomes due to inefficient and insufficient bailout procedures and systems. At the present time, there are no community standards that detail:
- How much bailout gas volume should be reserved
- How to store and access the bailout gas
- How to chose bailout gas properties
Accordingly, Global Underwater Explorers (GUE) created a standardized bailout system consistent with GUE’s holistic gear configuration, Standard Operating Procedures(SOP), and diver training system. The system was designed holistically; consequently, the value and usefulness of the system are jeopardized if any of its components are removed.
Bailout Gas Reserve Volumes
The volume of gas needed to sustain a diver while bailing from a rebreather is difficult to assess, as many different factors impacts the result— including respiratory rate, depth and time, CO2 levels, and stress levels. These are but a few of the variables. All reserve gas calculations may be appropriate under ideal conditions and circumstances, but they should be regarded as estimates, or predictions at best.
The gas volume needed for two divers to safely ascend to the first gas switch is referred to as Minimum Gas (MG) for scuba divers. The gas volume needed for one rebreather diver to ascend on open-circuit during duress is referred to as Bailout Minimum Gas (BMG). The BMG is calculated using the following variables:
Consumption (C): GUE recommends using a surface consumption rate (SCR) of 20 liters per minute, or 0.75 f3 if imperial is used.
Average Pressure (AvP or average ATA): The average pressure between the target depth (max depth) to the first available gas source or the surface (min depth)
Time (T): The ascent rate should be according to the decompression profile (variable ascent rate). However, in order to simplify and increase conservatism, the ascent rate used in the BMG formula is set to 3 meters/10 ft per minute. Any decompression time required before the gas switch (first available gas source) must be added to the total time. One minute should be added for the adverse event (the bailout) and one minute additionally for performing the gas switch.
BMG = C x AvP x T
Note that Bailout Minimum Gas reserves are estimations and may not be sufficient! Even though catastrophic failures are unlikely, other factors like hypercapnia (CO2 poisoning) and stress warrants a cautious approach.
Decompression bailout gas volumes are calculated based on the diver’s actual need (based on their decompression table/algorithm), and no additional reserve is added.
It should be noted that GUE does not endorse the use of “team bailout,” i.e. when one diver carries bottom gas bailout and another diver carries decompression gas based on only one diver’s need. A separation or an equipment failure would quickly render a system like this useless.
Common Tech Community Rebreather Configuration
- Backmount rebreather (note side mount rebreathers are gaining in popularity)
- Typically, three-liter oxygen and a three-liter diluent cylinder on board (each hold 712 l/25 f3)
- Bailout gas in one or more stage bottles which could be connected to an integrated Bailout Valve (BOV).
Containment and Access
Rather than carry bailout minimum gas (BMG) in a stage bottle, which is typical in the rebreather diving community, GUE has designed its bailout system as a redundant open-circuit system consisting of two 7-liter, 232 bar cylinders (57 f3 each) that are integrated into the rebreather frame, and called the “D7” system, i.e. D for doubles, 7 for seven liter. Note that GUE has standardized the JJ-CCR closed-circuit rebreather for training and operations.
These cylinders, each with individual valves, are linked together using a flexible manifold. This system holds up to 3250 liters of gas (114 f3), of which only about 10% is used by the rebreather as diluent. Hence, close to 3000 liters (106 f3) is reserved for a bailout situation. This gives a tremendous capacity and flexibility in a relatively small form factor for dives requiring additional gas reserves (when direct ascent is not possible or desirable).
The following advantages were considered when designing the bailout system:
- The D7 system is consistent with existing open-circuit systems utilized by GUE divers. A bailout system that is familiar to the user will not increase stress levels, which is important. A GUE diver will rely on previous experience and procedures when most needed.
- The system contains the gas volumes needed according to the GUE BMG calculations as well as the diluent needed for a wide range of dive missions.
- The system is fully redundant and has the capacity to isolate failing components, like a set of open-circuit doubles and still allowing full access to the gas.
- The overall weight of the system is less, compared to a standard system with an AL11 liter (aluminum 80 f3) bailout cylinder. In addition, it contains 800-900 liters/20-32 f3 more gas available for a bailout situation compared to the AL11 liter system. Weight has been traded for gas.
- The system does not occupy the position of a stage bottle which allows for additional stages or decompression bottles to be added.
- If the ISO valves on each side were closed, the flex manifold can be removed and the cylinders transported individually while still full.
Bailout gas can be accessed quickly by a bailout valve (BOV), which is typically configured as a separate open-circuit regulator worn on a necklace, consistent with GUE’s open-circuit configuration. However, some GUE divers use an integrated BOV. After evaluation of the situation, while breathing open-circuit from the BOV, the user can transition to a high-performance regulator worn on a long hose if the situation calls for it.
The long hose is carried under the loop when diving the rebreather. The chances of having to donate to another GUE rebreather diver is low, as both carry redundant bailout. Still, GUE maintains that the capacity to donate gas must be present. The process is more likely to involve a handover of the long hose rather than a donation.
Still, if needed, such a donation is made possible by either removing the loop temporarily or by simply donating the long hose from under the loop.
Bailout decompression gasses are carried in decompression stage bottles. If more than three bottles are needed, the bottles that are to be used at the shallowest depths are carried on a stage leash (i.e. a short lease that clips to your side D-ring to carry multiple stage bottles). Maintaining bottle-rotation techniques and capacity through regular practice is important and challenging, as this skill is rarely used with the rebreather.
Bailout Gas Properties
The choice of bailout gas is extremely important, as survival may well depend on it. It is not only the volume that is important, the individual gas properties will decide if the bailout gas will be optimal or not. As the D7 system contains both the diluent and bailout gas, both gasses share the same characteristic. The following gas characteristics must be considered when choosing gas:
The equivalent (air) gas density depth should not exceed 30 meters/100 ft or 5.1 grams/liter. This is consistent with the latest research by Gavin Anthony and Simon Mitchell that recommends that divers maintain maximum gas density ideally below 5.2 g/l, equivalent to air at 31 m/102 ft, and a hard maximum of 6.2 g/l, the equivalent to air at 39 m/128 ft. You can find a simple gas density calculator here.
Ventilation is impaired when diving, due to several factors which increase the work of breathing (WOB); when diving rebreathers, the impairment is even more so. High gas density, for example, when diving gas containing no or low fractions of helium, significantly decreases a diver’s ventilation capacity and increases the risk of dynamic airway compression. CO2 washout from blood depends on ventilation capacity and can be hindered if a high-density gas is used. The impact of density is very important, and the risk of using dense gases is not to be neglected. Note that this effect is not limited to deep diving. Using a dense gas as shallow as 30 meters/100 ft reduces a diver’s ventilation capacity by a staggering 50%.
The (air) equivalent narcotic depth should also not exceed 30 m/100 ft, or PN2=3.16. Rebreathers and emergency situations are complex enough without further being aided by narcosis.
The PO2 should be limited to allow for long exposures. GUE operating standards call for a maximum PO2 for bottom gases of 1.2 atm, a PO2 of 1.4 for deep decompression gases, and a PO2 of 1.6 for shallow decompression gases. GUE recommends using the next deeper GUE standard bottom gas for diluent/bailout when diving a rebreather in combination with GUE standard decompression gases.
Bailout gasses are not chosen in order to give the shortest possible decompression obligation. They are chosen in order to give the best odds of surviving a potentially life-threatening situation.
GUE’s D7 bailout system is flexible and contains the rebreather’s diluent as well as bailout gas reserves needed for a range of different missions. The familiarity the system, along with the knowledge that they are carrying ample gas reserves, gives GUE divers peace of mind. Choosing gases with properties that will aid a diver in duress while dealing with an emergency completes the system.
GUE did not prioritize the ease of climbing boat ladders or reducing decompression by a few minutes. These are more appropriately addressed with sessions at the gym, combined with finding aquatic comfort. Nothing prevents a complete removal of the entire system at the surface if an easy exit is needed.
Founder of Scandinavia’s Baltic Sea Divers and Ocean Discovery diving groups, and a member of GUE’s Board of Directors and GUE’s Technical Administrator, Richard Lundgren has participated in numerous underwater expeditions worldwide and is one of Europe’s most experienced trimix divers. With more than 4000 dives to his credit, Richard Lundgren was a member of the GUE expeditions to dive the Britannic (sister ship of the ill-fated Titanic) in 1997 and 1999, and has been involved in numerous projects to explore mines and caves in Sweden, Norway, and Finland. In 1997, in arctic conditions, he performed the longest cave dive ever carried out in Scandinavia. Richard’s other exploration work has included the 1999 filming of the famous submarine, M1, for the BBC; the side scan sonar surveys of the Spanish gold galleons outside Florida’s Key West in 2000; and the search for the Admiral’s Fleet, an ongoing project that has already led to the discovery of more than 40 virgin wrecks perfectly preserved in the cold waters of the Swedish Baltic Sea.
The Thought Process Behind GUE’s CCR Configuration
GUE is known for taking its own holistic approach to gear configuration. Here GUE board member and Instructor Trainer Richard...
The Joys and Challenges of Teaching Kids To Dive
We all lament the fact that we don’t see more young people getting into diving. British instructor and content creator...
Decompression Series Part Four: Finding Shelter in an Uncertain World
In the final of this four-part series on the history and development of tech decompression protocols, GUE founder and president,...
Understanding Oxygen Toxicity: Part 1 – Looking Back
In this first of a two-part series, Diver Alert Network’s Reilly Fogarty examines the research that has led to our...