JT, I told you why that guy got sued. He needed to be arrested, in my
opinion. I talk to the Sheriff all the time. Let me tell you this , not that
it applies to you, but so that everyone out there who thinks the "release"
is a licenses to be a moron: sheriffs of BOTH counties (Palm Beach and
Broward) have told me in discussing some of the accidents that occur here
that if they could get a case prosecuted without it costing a fortune, they
would be filing murder charges in some of these, and they might yet get one
that fits to make an example. I keep educating them and the Coast Guard, and
they keep turning up the heat on the assholes who cause it. Just ask the
asshole who's post you put out with yours how he liked being grilled with my
questions by the Coast Guard.

Think about that , you dive instructors out there who don't get it and keep
doing stupid things. One of these days it is going to happen.

Accountability is real, JT, and I believe in it. So do you or you would be
doing what IANTD teaches instead of what you do.


-----Original Message-----
From: Capt JT [mailto:captjt@mi*.co*]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 9:38 AM
To: Trey; dougch@ea*.ne*; techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: RE: Bondage wings inflation.


Trey, I made no mention of the OMS wings nor do I use them or suggest to
anyone else they use them. My concern is the fact that divers are being
sued when the buddy dies or now even if they are in the water at the same
time and not even the buddy at the time, the case in point suggest the
divers that got sued were not even the deceased divers buddy at all, but
only tried to help when there was a problem.My point about the whole thing
is the Lawyers and those that back them are forcing everyone to dive solo
and may cause them to not help anyone they see in trouble. The lawyers are
slowly forcing everyone go to rule number one, that's rule number one of
LIFE = CYA, dive solo, see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing. I prefer to
dive as a buddy team on real dives, but understand why others may not want
to have a buddy the way things are going. Even a one eyed toothless trouser
snake should be able to see that.

Give it up, I don't align myself with anyone unless they dive with me ALL
THE TIME. I live in the real world of diving and tell the truth. Get over
the bullshit about Mouth, I've never even met him. As for Doug, let him
speak for himself. He is much more detailed in private.



At 06:53 AM 12/21/01 -0500, Trey wrote:
>JT, it is pretty obvious that bondage wings are complete nonsense, and Doug
>Chapman and others have covered a lot of the reasons why. I do not know why
>you have to defend idiocy that you yourself do not believe in, and then do
>so with a malpropic, nonsensensical  , illiterate stream of consciousness
>from an obvious moron. There are not may people stupid enough to have
>written that, so I will personally bet it  was Mouth.
>
>The fact is that the video ( which the dive shop owner tried to destroy but
>one of his disgruntled employees copied it and gave it to the lawyers),
>showed that the guy could not control his buoyancy. However, who knows if
it
>was the bondage wings, the "steal" ( what a moron) tanks with the wetsuit,
>or just that fact that the guy had no business doing the dive in the first
>place.
>
>Maybe you should ask mouth about the guy who died in the rock quarry in PA
>by jumping in with "steal" stages and bondage wings, and could not get them
>to hold enough gas due to the bungees triggering the OPV. Maybe you should
>ask me about when I tried to lift Jane Ornstean from the ocean floor with
>her bondage wings and the same things happened.
>
>Chapman just said he got asked to test the wings in that case, he made no
>other comments about the situation. Notice that whoever wrote that slop was
>so happy about only paying 450 grand. No mention of the three dead, the
wife
>of the cop who died and could not collect insurance due to no body and
could
>not pay her bills (
>until I had to go to court as an expert witness to why he was dead), or the
>family of the guy from New York who died in that dive, and IANTD "class".
>
>I think two things are clear here from your post: 1) whoever wrote that is
>an illiterate moron, and 2) whoever wrote this is an unscrupulous scum bag
>of the lowest order. The fact is that nothing about what happened that day
>has been corrected, and nothing about what happened to Jane Ornstein has
>been corrected.
>
>Aligning your self with known assholes and scumbags is not making you look
>too good, especially when none of that has anything to do with the topic at
>hand, and none of it has anything to do with how you practice this sport or
>with what you know to be correct.
>
>The rest of that thing is a complete fabrication, with none of the facts
>that need to be told about that accident. I did 23 dives at my own cost on
>weekends when I could have been doing something a lot more fun and took the
>two per day , back to back 250 foot drift dives offshore in howling current
>and bad weather to try to find those guys. I had to go to court and see the
>cop's wife crying face. You are wrong here for perpetuating mouth's lies
and
>dangerous stupidity. Mount is scum, and he has proven it over and over. Let
>the asshole make his own posts to this list and I will rip him to pieces
>with what was wrong there and continues to be wrong in his organization.
>Anyone can take OMS apart - you don't have to be much more than a Downes
>Syndrome case to see through that crap
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Capt JT [mailto:captjt@mi*.co*]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:08 PM
>To: dougch@ea*.ne*; techdiver@aquanaut.com
>Subject: Re: Bondage wings inflation.
>
>
>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'.

"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]