Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Susan, The point that is being made is not can you invent a situation where maybe you can find a need for a piece of equipment. The point is to determine what equipment is REQUIRED and what aditional equipment is just CLUTTER! If I lose my buddy I call the dive. The failure rate of a bottom timer is not so high that the chance of it failing after I lose my buddy is very high. As a matter of fact it is highly highly unlikely. I don't make a habit of losing my buddy, so the losing the buddy thing is an extremely rare occurance. If I lose my buddy regularly, then I there are other problems with either me or my buddy that need to be looked at. If you are saying what I lose my buddy, and then I lose my bottom timer, and I already have a signifigant decompression obligation. You are looking at double and maybe triple failure scenarios. In this case you had better examine all the double failure scenarios out there. If this is the case one can invent all kinds of stupid scenarios that can happen. What if you lose both your primary and backup mask? What if you lose both your fins deep inside a wreck? What if... Well you get the idea. It gets a bit silly looking at double failure scenarios doesn't it. Anyway I think this thing is getting a bit repetative now, and if you havn't already gotten it, you not going to. Mat. --- "susan m. innes" <premier@ma*.ac*.ne*> wrote: > Mat > This is exactly the point that William, Bigvon, me, > etc. have been making. > You are doing a serious dive and you lose your > partner,but unfortunately > your one and only BT is on the blink. How deep are > you? How long do you stay? > Are you willing to risk it all when a small > redundant BT would bail you out? > AS the scouts say...be prepared. > > > > >As far as I'm concerned if you are doing a serious > >dive and you lose your buddy it's time to call the > >dive. > > > > >Mat. > > > >--- William Allen <william@ca*.co*> wrote: > >> My point if you count your buddy as your > redundant > >> back up, how is that > >> safe? Never, Never, never count on some one else > to > >> pull your butt out of a > >> sling. If you do count on him, and while diving > get > >> separated what happens? > >> A buddy is nice to have, but to count on him how > is > >> that rational. We dive > >> in an area where buddy separation is a fact of > life, > >> turn your head, stop to > >> see something and he's gone, a feature of poor > >> visibility diving. I'm sorry > >> if I feel increased danger doesn't stop me from > >> enjoying things I like. It's > >> called risk management it's throughout one's life > >> from bankers, businessman, > >> to insurance people. You look at the risk, do > your > >> planning to minimize it, > >> than rationally decide is there an alternative > and > >> then you ask can I accept > >> this risk? > >> I think some of the most dangerous diving i have > >> ever heard of is what the > >> wkpp does. These guys know the risk, work every > >> posible angle to minumize > >> the risk. The accept a very real risk every time > >> they do this, should they > >> say no because of the risk? I know they look at > >> their dive buddies as a last > >> line of defense, there if all else fails. The > first > >> line should always be > >> you and your brain, your equipment, your personal > >> redundency. Most buddies, > >> unless you dive reguarly togther, share goals and > >> have similar skill levels > >> can add more risk than redundecy. > >> > >> ----Original Message----- > >> From: Sean M. Cary <SMCARY@MI*.CO*> > >> To: William Allen <william@ca*.co*> > >> Cc: TECH LIST <techdiver@aquanaut.com> > >> Date: Thursday, May 20, 1999 11:10 AM > >> Subject: Re: Redundant Equipment and Holgarth > >> > >> > >> >You tell me in an earlier post to "eat me" and > now > >> call my views against > >> >solo diving "irrational"? I guess I gladly > miss > >> the point, and choose to > >> >be irrational. My "sweeping statement" was > >> against Solo tech > >> diving...your > >> >definition of "Tech" is your own, but mines > >> involves deco, penetration, > >> >anything beyond the norm. I'd rather have > another > >> brain, another set of > >> >tanks, another bottom timer etc, then a vast > watery > >> void to assist me. > >> > > >> > No one says you have to DIR dive, I choose to. > >> The original poster wanted > >> >to know about redundancy...what better > redundancy > >> can you have then a well > >> >equipped buddy? You acknowledge the increased > >> danger of diving solo...is > >> >that not reason enough to _not_ do it? If a > buddy > >> is not interested in > >> >doing what your objective is on the dive, apply > >> Rule Number One. I for one > >> >would rather sit do nothing then endanger my > life. > >> > > >> >Back to non Deity status. > >> > > >> >Sean > >> > > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: William Allen <william@ca*.co*> > >> >To: Sean M. Cary <SMCARY@MI*.CO*> > >> >Cc: TECH LIST <techdiver@aquanaut.com> > >> >Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 5:08 PM > >> >Subject: Re: Redundant Equipment and Holgarth > >> > > >> > > >> >>Any time anyone makes sweeping statements such > as > >> yours they must be a > >> god. > >> >>So your telling me on deep, dark, cold tech > dives > >> there is no photography, > >> >>no digging, no hunting. In poor -20 most times > >> less than 15 ft visibility > >> >>dives everybody just buddy dives. Perhaps I > should > >> have asked you to > >> define > >> >>technical diving. Up here on many of our mixed > >> gas, planned deco dives we > >> >>have a plan that some times may consists of x > >> amount of time on the dive > >> >>than meet at the anchor or wherever we chose. > >> There are limiting factors > >> of > >> >>course, penetration, to name but one that we > would > >> chose not to solo dive. > >> >>Digging or photography some how I can't see me > >> sitting there while my > >> buddy > >> >>digs away (destroying all vis in the process) > and > >> of course it's just > >> great > >> >>watching somebody trying to get a picture of > >> something that intrigues him > >> >>while I float there waiting. Yes it not > something > >> to be taken lightly, and > >> >>yes it is GOD forbid more dangerous than some > >> other diving. But I've > >> pulled > >> >>a few of the members of the buddy teams out of > the > >> water near death. I've > >> >>heard these arguments both the irrational > >> statements like yours and some > >> >>very rational arguments for and against. I dive > >> solo at times and find it > >> >>very similar to buddy diving as I don't count > on > >> them to help or save me > >> if > >> >>the shit hits the fan. By the way I'm glad to > hear > >> about your diet, you > >> >>should watch chicken i understand the bones can > be > >> dangerous. Never eat it > >> >>solo as your buddy can do the hemlich if you > have > >> a problem. Bill > >> >>-----Original Message----- > >> >>From: Sean M. Cary <SMCARY@MI*.CO*> > >> >>To: William Allen <william@ca*.co*> > >> >>Cc: TECH LIST <techdiver@aquanaut.com> > >> >>Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 4:37 PM > >> >>Subject: Re: Redundant Equipment and Holgarth > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>>O great recreational diver, photographer, > hunter > >> etc. Please go back to > >> >>>Rec.SCUBA. The nature of this list is TECH. > Do > >> you not get it? Tech > >> >done > >> >>>solo is the thread, your buddy being redundant > >> gear was the discussion. > >> >>>Solo dive to your hearts content...that is NOT > >> DIR. That is my argument. > >> >>>And I guess I missed the part where I > professed > >> to being a dive God. I > >> >>limit > >> >>>my diet to things good for me. > === message truncated === _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com -- 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]