On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 07:11:47 -0400, Dave Sutton wrote:

>
>>
>>A thinking man's deco line?  Think about this:  Use a live boat and
>>dive with sufficient surface support.  Shoot a bag and deco under that,
>>while your surface support follows you.
>
>
>Yup. I'll be hapy to ask the charter boat to fuck-off and ignore
>the other 20 guys that have paid to dive that day so they can
>follow me while I deco. Or maybe I'll recieve a grant from the
>Make-A-Wish foundation that will allow me to charter my own
>private boat and crew so I can live-boat. Get friggin real.

You can do live boating with just the charter vessel's tender, if you
plan to stagger entries and exits according to each team's dive plan. 
Probably not with 20 people, but that is such a cluster it's an
invitation to disaster no matter what you do.  Economics aside, I
notice that you didn't argue with the logic behind live boating and
drifting decompressions, as opposed to the alternative.  Perhaps you
wish to elaborate here?


>>I am a strong opponent of souvenir hunting, but do not wish to argue
>>further on that point.  From the perspective of having to carry mission
>>specific tools for a given objective, I prefer to stow these items in a
>>horizontal orientation, clipped off to the rear crotch d-ring and held
>>tight to the bottom of the backplate by surgical tubing loops.
>>Anything that is too large, and by that I mean anything that presents
>>an entrapment hazard or that noticeably affects my drag in the water,
>>or that is simply too heavy, goes in a separate tool bin supported by
>>its own lift bag.
>
>
>
>I'd like to see you come out and demonstrate doing that
>with any measure of success on a deep NE wreck. It's patently
>obvious that you have never done this sort of diving. Your first
>sentence says it all: You don't -do- what I do, but you feel it's OK
>to challenge our technique even though you have never tried it.

Souvenir hunting or not, there's a lot to be said about thinking
everything through to the last detail.  Diver safety should be the
primary objective, with everything else secondary to that.  You're
correct that I do not do what you do.  Challenging your technique is
like telling a heroin addict how to shoot up... irregardless of the
method, it's stupid.

I believe you mentioned in a previous post that you were a commercial
diver with 25 years experience in the field.  I find it difficult to
believe that someone in your position would not appreciate the
importance of reduced complexity in the diver system, and isolation
from objective specific equipment, such as the tools you describe.  You
mention that your sledgehammer is an integral part of your weighting. 
Conventional wisdom would preclude use of this device as a tool in this
case, for removing it from the diver compromises the diver's weighting,
unless you are already overweighted.


>For tools:
>
>4 pound sledge hammer with welded 2 inch diameter D ring on top.
>This attached to a 6 pound curved hip weight by truck-tire inner tube
>band, attached this way it does not hang below the plane of the divers
>belly when swimming. I can swim -4 inches- over the bottom and nothing
>drags on the bottom rigged this way. Once detached for use, the hammer
>is re-clipped to a dogsnap on the backplate, since it's near impossible to
>reattach it to the weight since working rubber bands with mitts on is
>nearly impossible.

Doing anything with mitts on is impossible.  Have you tried using five
finger dry gloves with proper insulation and equalized to the drysuit,
which is on an argon system?  I have used this system quite effectively
for 90 min working dives in glacial lakes.

>
>Crowbar: This resides attached to left side of doubles with rubber truck
>tire bands, hook at top and hook turned backward to reduce snagging hazard.
>A small D ring is also welded to the bar, so it can go up on a lift-bag once
>removed and used to detach artifacts.
>
>The above two items are considered part of my weighting system. They add
>zero total weight to my rig, and are there 100% of the time. Added utility,
>zero penalty. See? You can have your cake and eat it too.

Perhaps you can explain this statement.  These items are an integral
part of your weighting system, even though, according to you, the
crowbar and the four pound sledgehammer add zero weight?!  If they are
there 100% of the time, then they can not be used as tools, since to
use a tool you need to remove it from your person, thus changing the
diver's weighting.  The crowbar goes up on a lift bag, and the
sledgehammer cannot be returned to its original stowed location after
use, and must be suspended in a suboptimal location for the rest of the
dive.  Have I got this correct so far?  Good to see you're thinking
everything through...


>Goodie Bag: Attached to light along with 'working knife' and backup light.
>This system allows the diver to 'slat-off' the light and all entangling
>goodie bag
>items, etc., should he need to bail from an entanglement. 

Why not remove these items from the diver altogether, to reduce the
probability of getting entangled in the first place?  I guess I would
have to be a souvenir hunter to understand the justification for
putting myself at risk like that...  I just keep a low profile knife
and a pair of shears together in a sheath on my waist belt.  

I think you really need to make the distinction between life support
equipment (which includes lights, knives, etc), which is necessary on
every dive and which is all that should be integral to the diver
system, and objective specific tools which should not in any way
compromise the function of the life support system.  Tools should be
jettisonable without compromising the diver's safety, and should be
able to be carried without presenting an unreasonable entanglement
hazard or affecting the ability of the diver to deal with emergencies. 
Heavy wrenches, crowbars, sledgehammers, chainsaws, explosives, pillow
bags, bulldozers etc., when necessary for successful completion of a
dive objective (and this is something that should be planned beforehand
with the entire dive team, including the surface support) should be
transported to the site via means other than the diver's person.


>I do not use a
>canister light in the NE, as the wire (unless fitted with a quick-pull
>connector)
>poses an unacceptable hazard for anchor-line wrap during a bailout. 

Could you explain in detail the exact scenario you envision here?  I'm
having trouble picturing what you mean.

>The
>'working knife' on the light allows access to a knife that is 'close at
>hand'
>but tis of course is a disposable system and there are two other knives
>elsewhere: One on forearm, and one on inner thigh. These are small
>commercial
>fishing knives and are 'razor' sharp.
>
>Of course all of this is going to go out the window in a few weeks as I put
>my
>Mark 15 rebreather into 'The loop".  The things is just too small to bungie
>a
>crowbar onto the side, and I'm going to be carrying side-mounts of bailout
>gas
>where I normally would carry tools.

Could you explain, for the benefit of the list, what sort of diving you
are doing that requires a closed circuit apparatus to operate more
safely than conducting the same dive on open circuit.  Preventing
dehydration and hypothermia are two considerations that I can think of,
but you must be doing some incredible bottom times for these factors to
outweigh the additional complexity incurred by using a rebreather.


>Cave-diving? Nope. Wrreck diving? Yup. Universal technique?
>It is anywhere serious wreck diving is practiced.

Hmmm.  I think your definition of "serious" is a little subjective.  I
dive wrecks all the time in both inshore and offshore waters of
Washington, British Columbia and Alaska, and in interior lakes as well,
and have never seen anyone dive the way you describe.  Far from
universal, but I guess the universe consists solely of New Jersey and
dark matter...


>PS: we -need- more guys that don't believe in artifact hunting up here.
>it's that more for the rest of us "Wreck Rapers"....  Want to know some
>stuff about the safe and legal use of explosives? Now -thats- technical
>diving. Been there, done that.

No, Dave.  That is professional, commercial diving.  Different gear,
different risks, different operating guidelines.  The analysis of risk
to the diver based on environment, equipment or objective changes
considerably when you are in a hard hat on surface supply with hardwire
comms, and someone topside is worrying about your deco obligation for
you.


>Seriously, when I serve dinner at my house the first thing the guests notice
>is that the china des not match. It's because it's been collected from about
>a dozen wrecks over the last 25 years.

When the NJ wrecks are stripped to mere skeletons, and lose any
character or historical significance they may have had, will you invite
the diving community to your house for dinner, so that we may see these
artifacts and get a glimpse of history without getting our feet wet?

>Dave Sutton

Your comments are welcome,

-Sean


--
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]