Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Banner Advert

Message Display

Subject: Re: Wings
Date: Sun, 31 May 98 22:57:46 -0400
From: Bill Wolk <BillWolk@ea*.ne*>
To: "Joel Silverstein" <JoelSilverstein@wo*.at*.ne*>
cc: "CAPTZEROOO@ao*.co*" <CAPTZEROOO@ao*.co*>,
     "Techdiver List"
On 5/31/98 6:41 PM, JoelSilverstein@wo*.at*.ne* wrote:

>Now... someone tell me what the difference is between diving a set of
>independant doubles and diving side-mounts.  Seems like gas management
>rules are the same, redundancy is the same, still need two first, second,
>and SPG's. 
>
>Some times a set of splits works just fine.


Joel -

In some rare situations a set of independents does work "just fine" -- 
when you're diving sidemounts in a sump and have no other choice is one; 
your example where you're extending your no-deco bottom time on a 30' 
reef in Bonaire in 100' viz is another.  However, Wrolf's mishap makes it 
clear that wreck diving in the Northeast is *not* one of those 
situations, nor frankly is any other type of deco diving because of the 
greatly increased *potential* of a serious problem.

Captain Zero's statement that "Wrolf's problems were due to DIVER error 
not equipment error" is wrong.  Wrolf's problem was due to both, because 
if he hadn't made the equipment errors of diving independents and 
overinflating his drysuit to compensate for diving without a BC, he 
wouldn't have been in a situation where a very *minor* diver error almost 
cost him his life. And let's face it: the diver error was minor, but the 
predicate the equipment error made it almost fatal.

You made the point that you've dived independent doubles successfully for 
years. Capt. Zero made the same point about buoyant drysuits without a 
BC.  Frankly, you've both missed the point of this thread: no one's 
saying that it *can't* be done, we're saying that it *shouldn't* be done 
because it adds unnecessary, easily preventable risks -- and those risks 
can cost your life.  

Two divers with your collective experience should not be taking these 
positions. Instead of promoting gear configurations that *eliminate* 
unnecessary risk, your statements boil down to "It's OK to dive high risk 
rigs -- we've done it and we survived."  Tech diving has enough risk as 
it is without adding extra ones you can eliminate.  After all the tech 
diving fatalities we've seen this year, that is just the wrong message to 
be sending.
--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

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]