Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00ED_01C24EA5.7EFA52E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For a period of time Tom was advocating using a poodle jacket retaining =
type device on the *hot mix* regulator in lieu of the series of checks =
that DIR promotes. If I recall Tom's position correctly the notion was =
that by putting some type of bungee, or silicone tubing around the 80% =
mix, that if the diver grabbed the 80% mix and not the 36% mix and went =
to put that in his mouth at depth, the retaining device would prevent =
the diver from using the wrong gas. Obviously missing from this idea is =
that fact that the retaining device could get dislodged during the dive, =
and the diver could use the wrong gas because the checks that DIR =
recommends solves that problem.
Bear in mind my intention of my original post is not to re-fight battles =
that have already long since been fought, the point of my original post =
was to ask people put aside the rhetoric for a second, and look =
objectively at the fact that when a fatality occurs you usually have =
George pointing out why that person died, and explaining why had that =
person followed DIR protocols why he would be alive today. On the other =
side of the argument it normally is the same cast of characters =
defending the fatality, and explaining why even though that person is =
dead why what he just died from is still a good idea.
So when you boil it all down, assuming sides need to be chosen, and =
given the historical context of the list that's a fair assumption, that =
who's side would you rather be on??? The side that is always defending =
the dead, or the guy that is explaining why he wouldn't have died if he =
followed DIR protocols???
The choice is yours, but it seems that even if you don't like how or =
why, the fact is I'll choose the side that seems to be defending the =
living rather then the dead.
Later=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Paul M. Deniston=20
To: MHK ; aquanaut=20
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on recent exchanges
MHK:
Please define "Poodle Jacket deco regs". I haven't heard that term. =
Thanks.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: MHK=20
To: aquanaut=20
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 4:21 PM
Subject: A few thoughts on recent exchanges
=20
<<SNIP >>
=20
If you dismiss the lofty rhetoric and focus in on the core message =
[in other word's, try to be objective for a second] I think you'll find =
something interesting. The common theme is George dissecting each =
fatality and some in the anti-DIR crowd, more often then not Tom Mount, =
justifying the deviation from DIR protocol directly in the face of the =
fatality. Whether it be the "poodle jacket" deco reg's, color-coded =
tank marking scheme's, deep-air, solo, heart attack's or whatever the =
fatality de jour is, the common themes that run consistently through the =
fatalities are diver's or agency leader's justifying the enabling and =
George pointing=20
------=_NextPart_000_00ED_01C24EA5.7EFA52E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For a period of time Tom was advocating =
using a=20
poodle jacket retaining type device on the *hot mix* regulator in lieu =
of the=20
series of checks that DIR promotes. If I recall Tom's position =
correctly=20
the notion was that by putting some type of bungee, or silicone tubing =
around=20
the 80% mix, that if the diver grabbed the 80% mix and not the 36% mix =
and went=20
to put that in his mouth at depth, the retaining device would prevent =
the diver=20
from using the wrong gas. Obviously missing from this idea is that =
fact=20
that the retaining device could get dislodged during the dive, and the =
diver=20
could use the wrong gas because the checks that DIR recommends solves =
that=20
problem.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Bear in mind my intention of my =
original post is=20
not to re-fight battles that have already long since been fought, the =
point of=20
my original post was to ask people put aside the rhetoric for a second, =
and look=20
objectively at the fact that when a fatality occurs you usually have =
George=20
pointing out why that person died, and explaining why had that =
person=20
followed DIR protocols why he would be alive today. On the other =
side of=20
the argument it normally is the same cast of characters defending the =
fatality,=20
and explaining why even though that person is dead why what he just died =
from is=20
still a good idea.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>So when you boil it all down, assuming =
sides need=20
to be chosen, and given the historical context of the list that's a fair =
assumption, that who's side would you rather be on??? =
The side that=20
is always defending the dead, or the guy that is explaining why he =
wouldn't have=20
died if he followed DIR protocols???</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The choice is yours, but it seems that =
even if you=20
don't like how or why, the fact is I'll choose the side that seems to be =
defending the living rather then the dead.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Later</FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dpdeniston@co*.ne* =
href=3D"mailto:pdeniston@co*.ne*">Paul M.=20
Deniston</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dmhkane@pr*.ne*=20
href=3D"mailto:mhkane@pr*.ne*">MHK</A> ; <A =
title=3Dtechdiver@aquanaut.com=20
href=3D"mailto:techdiver@aquanaut.com">aquanaut</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, August 27,
2002 =
7:59=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: A few thoughts
on =
recent=20
exchanges</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>MHK:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Please define "Poodle Jacket deco =
regs". I=20
haven't heard that term. Thanks.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dmhkane@pr*.ne* =
href=3D"mailto:mhkane@pr*.ne*">MHK</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dtechdiver@aquanaut.com=20
href=3D"mailto:techdiver@aquanaut.com">aquanaut</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, August 27, =
2002 4:21=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> A few thoughts on =
recent=20
exchanges</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> =20
<P><STRONG><<SNIP >></STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG> <o:p></o:p></STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG>If you dismiss the lofty rhetoric and focus in on the =
core=20
message [in other word’s, try to be objective for a second] I =
think you’ll=20
find something interesting.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> =
</SPAN>The=20
common theme is George dissecting each fatality and some in the =
anti-DIR=20
crowd, more often then not Tom Mount, justifying the deviation from =
DIR=20
protocol directly in the face of the fatality.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Whether it be the =
“poodle jacket”=20
deco reg’s, color-coded tank marking scheme’s, deep-air, =
solo, heart=20
attack’s or whatever the fatality de jour is, the common =
themes that run=20
consistently through the fatalities are diver’s or agency =
leader’s=20
justifying the enabling and George pointing=20
</STRONG></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00ED_01C24EA5.7EFA52E0--
--
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]