Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
That is BS on the visability part. I think I dive in pretty much shitty viz, the average is probably around 15ft here in the sound. It only gets better up north, but most my diving is here. I don't have any problem with buddy seperation. For example, the worst visibility for me usually occurs around JJ. for some reason, none of anybody's light work and everyone has some sort of failure or three. There is no buddy seperation ever. Period. That is what training is for. The buddy is key. That is why rule #1 is #1. At 11:42 AM 5/20/1999 -0400, "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. >>>> >>>>Sean >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: William Allen <william@ca*.co*> >>>>To: Sean M. Cary <SMCARY@MI*.CO*> >>>>Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 4:10 PM >>>>Subject: Re: Redundant Equipment and Holgarth >>>> >>>> >>>>>O great dive god. Eat me. Solo diving is a way of life for >photographers, >>>>>hunters, diggers, or people like me who go diving for the peace and >quiet >>>>>and really dive with one of the best buddies you can have now go back to >>>>>rec.scuba with such garbage. >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: Sean M. Cary <SMCARY@MI*.CO*> >>>>>To: susan m. innes <premier@ma*.ac*.ne*> >>>>>Cc: techdiver@aquanaut.com <techdiver@aquanaut.com> >>>>>Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 4:01 PM >>>>>Subject: Re: Redundant Equipment and Holgarth >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Diving solo is tantamount to deep air...folks do it, both are stupid >and >>>>>>will get you killed sooner or later. If you want to do the solo diver >>>>>>debate, please move to REC.SCUBA. You are obviously neither DIR, nor >in >>>>>the >>>>>>companionship of someone you consider a good buddy. I observe Rule #1 >>on >>>>>>ALL TECH DIVES, period, no questions asked, zero tolerance. If you >want >>>>to >>>>>>dive solo...I'm sure Rob Palmer could use the company. >>>>>> >>>>>>If your going to reply, please reply to REC.SCUBA, I'm sure you can >find >>>a >>>>>>great argument there. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sean >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>From: susan m. innes <premier@ma*.ac*.ne*> >>>>>>To: Sean M. Cary <SMCARY@MI*.CO*> >>>>>>Cc: techdiver@aquanaut.com <techdiver@aquanaut.com> >>>>>>Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 2:37 PM >>>>>>Subject: Re: Redundant Equipment and Holgarth >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Have you ever made a solo dive? Were you self-sufficient? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Total reliance on self-sufficiency is NOT DIR. Let's argue about >>>>bungee >>>>>>>>wings now, or maybe bottle marking, your reply was equal to both. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I forget the quote, but it is something like only a fool would be >>>stupid >>>>>>>>enough to defend themselves in court. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sean >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>From: susan m. innes <premier@ma*.ac*.ne*> >>>>>>>>To: Sean M. Cary <SMCARY@MI*.CO*> >>>>>>>>Cc: techdiver@aquanaut.com <techdiver@aquanaut.com> >>>>>>>>Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 1:30 PM >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Redundant Equipment and Holgarth >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>So is DIR opposed to self-sufficiency? Are you saying you are not >>>>>>>>>self-sufficient every time you go diving? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>As a side point; defending yourself in court does work when you have >>>>>>valid >>>>>>>>>explanations backed up by sound reasoning. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Self-sufficiency is like defending yourself in court...it does not >>>>>work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Sean >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. >>>>>>Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to >`techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. >>>>> >>> >>>-- >>>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. >>>Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. > >-- >Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. >Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. > ----------------------------------------------- Kevin Connell <kevin@nw*.co*> NW Labor Systems, Inc http://www.nwls.com And I suppose you want a user interface with that..... ----------------------------------------------- -- 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]