Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Doug The lawsuit you refer to, was it the WPB 3 accident in FL . If so can you confirm the statement below that was emailed to me in private about the court case. How accurate is the info below. >The triple death in WPB well the instructor is an or was an excellent instructor and unlike what xxxxx states he did not smoke and he was not a drunk. He was a retired sgt Major from SP and had 4 tours of duty in Nam He went through swim school with the USN in February. He ran the US Army swim Scholl for a few years. He swim 2 miles 3 times a week up until the day he died and he ran for 20 minutes on the non swimming days .That comes from years of combat swims He was an excellent diver and an excellent instructor. xx was the expert witness against him or his estate the testimony is interesting. Unfortunately the insurance company settled for 450,00 instead of going to court as there is no doubt in the lawyers mind and evidently in their that the case would have been beaten.xxxxxx per se had been dropped out of the case 3 months earlier and the suit then was against xxxx estate, xxxxxxxxxxxxx, The boat Captain and the diver who tried to assist in the rescue until xxxxx sent him up because he was low on gas. . The suit had been for 9 million originally. The offer for 450,00 was made as that was the amount the insurance company figured they would spend in appeals once the plaintiffs lost the case. And that offer was put on the table at mediation called for by the plaintiffs attorneys the day before the case. The attorney at hat time had only offered them 50 thousand (basically the cost of a trial) So at 4 PM the offer was made and it was to be taken off the table at 8:30 PM at 7:50 xxxxx called and they took it. They then went to court against the diver (xxxxxxxx) who survived with xx testifying against him. Had they won this case that would have meant whatever you do do not try and rescue a diver. Fortunately the jury found that xxxxxxx efforts only helped the situation not contribute to it as xx was implying. Then the judge threw out the suit in regard to xxxxxxx the 3rd diver who died. xxxxxx was a close friend of xxxx but when they had a problem he had left and went up to deco on his lift bag. The last time xxxxxx saw him he was on his lift bag. He may have gone back down to assist or he may have had a problem of his own. He was not a student or anything that nature. He had not been with them on the three times they got up to 150 and then sank back to 200 plus before xxxxx left. As far as config there was a complete video of xxxxx xxxxxx taking the same equipment that was used by the deceased and ascending just using his BC. Then they have a scene with xxxxx ascending with four steal stages just to show that the BC would lift that much more. Now I understand that they are making an appeal against the boat captain because he has no insurance so will not have a lawyer to represent him. No they will not get any real money but they can set a example they could use in future cases against boat captains in similar situations. or any accidents for that matter. Thought you might want to know more about what happened than what is stated on tech diver END OF EMAIL At 07:26 PM 12/18/01 -0500, Doug Chapman wrote: >It is possible to orally inflate bondage wings at depth. I participated in >gathering evidence for a lawsuit that involved bondage wings where the >plaintiff claimed it was not possible to orally inflate the wings and get >sufficient buoyancy to become positive. So we took the dead man's gear, a >wetsuit, 15 or 20lbs of extra weight, two stages (if I recall I believe one >was steel), and an extra steel 72 stage which I carried and passd to the >diver at depth and went on a 230ft dive in freshwater (the fatality occurred >in seawater which would have been even more buoyant). > >We documented on video at depth that the diver could achieve buoyancy using >the power inflator and that after the wings were completely dumped they could >be orally inflated to achieve positive buoyancy (several times). The >demonstration proved the claim that the particular BC in question could not >provide the lift was false. End of my involvement (as a safety diver during >the exercise). > >Now if anyone would ask me if I would recommend a bondage type wing I would >immediately say no. I tell people to cut off the cords on the wings they have >but that still doesn't get rid of the baloon size some of these wings are >(e.g. 100# of lift). As mentioned by several people on this list, the bungeed >(bungled?) wings are not desirable IMHO because: > >1) The ability to precisely control venting is compromised by the positive >overpressure in the wing created by the elastic cords. The pressure anywhere >in a submerged air bubble (the bladder in your BC) is equal to the >hydrostatic pressure at the lowest (deepest) point on the bladder minus the >weight of the air to the point in the bladder in question. This small >pressure offset created by hydrostatic pressure is more than sufficient to >properly vent a BC, with a degree of fine control. > >2) A puncture in the wing may be catastropic as the cords tend to completely >squeeze the wing in size. in a BC that has no bungees, an air bubble can be >trapped within the wing and still offer flotation. > >3) The bungeed wings are typically monsterous in size and the drag created by >the crumpled mess can be prohibitive. > >4) The location of a bungeed wing (maybe unless it is fully inflated), on a >horizontal diver, causes the center of buoyancy of the diver (with tanks) to >be farther below the center of gravity of the diver (with tanks) and >therefore the stability of the diver is reduced. Note if you observe >non-bungeed wings you will notice the two wing tips will be alongside the >tanks. This is where the bulk of your nominal "in-flight" buoyancy should be >from a stability viewpoint. If you are weighted properly this volume will be >minimized offering sufficient reserve buoyancy if needed. > >5) I've had people tell me you need 100#s of lift in a BC in the event your >buddy loses buoyancy and needs help - therefore you should use bungees to >consolidate the large wing. To that I say bullshit. Of course you and your >partner should be weighted correctly. > >Yes you can inflate a bungeed wing orally and you can get sufficient buoyancy >in most cases, but the negatives far outweigh and perceived advantages (which >I can't think of) so why bother with something inferior? > >Think Occum's razor!!! > > >IMHO, >Doug > > > >-- >Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. >Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. "You can't learn to dive on the net, sooner or later you have to get in the water" Your Guide to Great Wreck Diving along the East Coast & more Web Site http://www.capt-jt.com/ Email captjt@mi*.co* -- 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]