Tony,

Anthony Martinez wrote:
> 
> Pete,
> 
> What can I say? You can continue to call bullshit, chocolate pudding, but
> it is still bullshit and tastes horrible. We're not talking about fully
> tested technology in the hands of rigorously trained professionals. This is
> technology that even in the envelope for which it was developed is still
> considered advanced and for advanced users only.

What do you consider an "advanced" user?


> Those guys screwed the pooch because they fucked up. Plain and simple. It's
> a shame, because I here they were nice guys but don't blame that accident
> on open circuit technology. The second they decided to penetrate an
> unfamiliar wreck, they extended their target risk.

Nobody blamed the accident on OC technology, point was rebreathers might
have made a difference in the outcome.

> Rebreathers (as they exist today) are neither sufficiently fault tolerant
> nor user friendly enough for them to be considered an added safety
> advantage. If you tell me you want one because they are cool or a challenge
> to dive or even because it will help you get laid, fine, those reasons I
> can accept. I will not accept that today's rebreathers are a safer means
> for sport divers to accomplish their goals. There are cases where
> logistically speaking, a rebreather may make a dive or a series of dives
> more feasible, but at a loss of reliability and safety. Ask Kevin how much
> of the Monitor he saw this summer. - Tony

On which rebreather(s) do you have the experience from which you speak?

Safe diving,

T.J. 
tjm@ea*.ne*

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]