Back to the original question about a second BT. 
What is the harm of strapping to your console hose a BT or a Watch?

I have heard lot's about DIR preaching redundancy. Does this included a
second set of fins or mask? What about the people who dive with contacts or
glasses. I know this might get me flamed, however, If you loose your
prescription mask or your mask and contacts are you not fucked? Where is the
so called 100% DIR redundancy in that. Talk about really needing a buddy
now.

We dive with an accepted amount of risk. Just accept the fact that 100%
redundancy does not exist in diving, cave, wreck, ocean, salvage or the
military. With or with out a buddy or second Bottom timer. The more we train
with any given, tested and tried method the better we will become at it and
the more we will reduce the oh shit factor.

Robert A. Moriarity Sr.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sean M. Cary [mailto:SMCARY@MI*.CO*]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 1999 1:29 PM
To: Wrolf Courtney; William Allen
Cc: TECH LIST
Subject: Re: Redundant Equipment and Holgarth


Wrolf, don't even start.  When you have as many dives as the booties I am
wearing, then please feel free to comment...cyber diving does not count
Your self-avowed change to DIR is as hollow as Williams argument that you
can be as safe solo as you can with a buddy.  The argument presented is that
in dirty water, hunting, phototog etc, you can't be expected to stay with a
buddy...that is bull.  I know a ton of Force Recon Marines, who by the
nature of their jobs dive in the dirtiest, shittiest conditions possible,
yet they still practice and maintain 100% buddy integrity.  How would that
be any different from diving anywhere else?  I have done salvage jobs in
ZERO vis, and we still maintained buddy contact via a tug line.  The buddy
system is like anything else...it requires practice, vigilance and a
commitment by BOTH divers to give 100% during the dive.  Why do you find
that so hard to rationalize?

This entire argument started with someone asking about two bottom
timers...not the ability to solo dive.  My response was that in a technical
diving situation, you are 100% better off with a buddy (your redundant
bottom timer in this instance) then without.  Debate it all you want, the
proof is there that a bad (Derek Mcnulty) or a non-existent buddy (Check the
Doria deaths for Solo deaths) is more dangerous then a well trained,
reliable buddy.  If you don't have one, find one, dive with them in many
other conditions and THEN if your 100% comfortable do tech with them.  My
regular buddy has been unavailable to dive lately due to his work schedule,
so I passed on a trip to the Hydro today...and I wanted to go bad.  Unless I
have a buddy I can trust 100%, I don't go.  Dive Solo to your hearts
content, do the Doria solo until your blue in  the face...but don't ever
profess to be DIR while doing so...its a contradiction as Jim stated
earlier.  I don't get the "rush" Jim does by putting my life on the line
unnecessarily.

Sean


-----Original Message-----
From: Wrolf Courtney <wrolf@wr*.ne*>
To: William Allen <william@ca*.co*>
Cc: TECH LIST <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
Date: Friday, May 21, 1999 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Redundant Equipment and Holgarth


>
>William Allen 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.
>
>Couldn't agree with you more William, especially the last sentence.
>
>Do not expect to have a rational conversation with Sean.  It is like those
post
>dive
>conversations with the buddy who disappears.  They see themselves as in
>the right, now what's the question?
>
>--
>Wrolf              wrolf@wr*.ne*
>
>Wrolf's Wreck:     http://wrolf.net
>Wrolf's Net.Wreck: http://wrolf.net/netmgmt.shtml
>
>
>--
>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'.

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]