Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
NAUI7874@ao*.co* wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/22/98 1:39:40 PM, you wrote:
>
> >so once again please state what
> >exactly is wrong with the OMS wings
>
> I personally feel Dan is not the one to ask these quesions to. I know of three
> people how could give you a better answer.
>
> 1. Jane Ornstein - who died using them, the offical ME report stated that the
> failure of her wings contributed to her death.
>
> 2. Derick McNultty - her iantd instructor who sold them to her, set her up,
> and then just watched as she sank to her death. I personally think the coward
> froze like a Doe in a rednecks headlights, fixxin to get blown away.
>
> 3. Me
>
> Any more questions or comments???
>
> Alan Pelstring
> s fl
In support of Alan and Dan, the reason that I went with the regular
DiveRite Classic Wings, over the OMS so-called "bondage" wings, was due
to the discussion on techdiver.
It seemed to me that if a bunch of smart experienced divers all agreed
that product A was good, but had vehement differences over whether
product B was a little better for much more money, or was instead a
lethal death trap - I would choose product A.
I also went through the discussion in quite detail at the time, as the
engineer and nerd that I am. Some bench tests were proposed by the
"bondage is good" crowd, which were responded to with "you are a stroke"
flames. I think that that is a shame, since if bondage is bad, then a
Richard Feynmann style demonstration could save lives.
Anecdotal evidence was presented by the "bondage is evil" crowd, but
with no statistical summary or analysis. And since practically all new,
and most existing techdivers seem to use "bondage" wings, observing that
any particular number of techdiver deaths were on "bondage" wings, seems
to mean as much as that the observation that they were wearing all
wearing fins.
Specific analysis of a set of "bondage" wings involved in an accident
could, of course, yield results.
Alan, was there any specific failure mode noted by the ME in
Jane Orenstein's case? Or was it just a vague general statement.
Also, did they have anything to do with anything? Or is there any
evidence that e.g. once she got up to twenty feet, the overpressure
valve popped.
If so, then she must have been drastically overweighted, near the end of
the dive, to have massive negative buoyancy.
My understanding, and let me know where I go wrong, is:
1. Jane switches to her 80/20 instead of to her 50/50 at 70 feet.
Instructor faults = 1.
2. At 30 feet, Jane shows her empty 80/20 gauge to instructor.
Perhaps not realizing that her O2 clock must be blown, perhaps not
realizing the implication that she had been breathing the 80/20
instead
of the 50/50, he fails to give her an "air" break by switching her
for five minutes to the trimix.
Instructor faults = 2.
3. Instead he sends her by herself to 20 feet. That is to say,
unaccompanied.
Without himself in physical contact, monitoring her for ventid,
controlling her
buoyancy. Without the appropriate gas, which she has just shown.
Instructor faults = 3. Two big ones, plus one almost incredible
one.
4. Then when he sees here on the way down, presumably after she
twitched out, he
fails to give any chase.
Fuck the instructor faults. Time to call a guy called Vinnie.
What does any of this have to do with any of her equipment? What am I
missing?
Wrolf
Wrolf's Wreck: http://www.concentric.net/~Wrolf
P.S. At the request of Ken Sallot <kens@ac*.ne*>, I am
"keep[ing] this shit off of Cavers."
--
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]