Bill Mee (WKPP) post from tech diver Re: Deep Air Death of Rob Palmer---The real story finally came out.
Dan L. Volker
in view of all of the hypocritical righteous indignation from the TDI crowd
after it occurred. The cover up surrounding this incident was one of the
great classics of disinformation and bs ever. This incident in particular
was an important catalyst in the war against deep air and perhaps, in my
opinion, marked the begiining of end for TDI.
Unfortunately, these lessons never seem to be fully learned. After the well
publicized bottle marking related deaths of the past two years we have
another fine example of training agency related incompetence. This example
is pitched to us as a heroic rescue by technical diver extraordinaire Kevin
Gurr (IANTD UK representative). The diver under instruction breaths an
unanalyzed, unmarked bottle of gas (can you believe that such idiocy is
still tolerated by IANTD?) and suffers a near death accident. Most of the
discussion involved blaming the dive shop. The real culprit in this classic
piece of bozonity was none other than the instructor and the training agency
which allows this buffoonery. This incident is like the arsonist fireman who
proudly shows up on the scene with an extinguisher after personally setting
the blaze.
It is my opinion that these training agencies have either got to go or get
reorganized or disbanded. There is still a hidden deep air agenda in both
agencies and an obvious refusal to do even the most basic things right,
particularly as relates to bottle markings. This attitude of resistance to
tried and proven common sense is totally incomprehensible. Fortunately,
there is a great hope and that is Global Underwater Explorers (GUE). GUE is
not plagued by false pride or stubborn revisonism and encompasses not only
DIR, but a vast knowledge base and staff, which unlike the sad lesson of the
Bantin article, practices what they preach.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: kir...@safari.net <kir...@safari.net>
To: Ken Sallot <sal...@mindspring.com>
Cc: techdiver <tech...@aquanaut.com>; cav...@cavers.com
<cav...@cavers.com>; Cost effective home improvement
<free...@condor.circa.ufl.edu>
Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 6:22 AM
Subject: RIGHT AGAIN wasRe: [Fwd: Rob Palmer's demise]
>I was right about Palmer , TDI, and all the rest, again. By the way,
>after taking PSI.net to court, we were able to extract the name of the
>scumbag who sent the fake email out in my name. Stay tuned, now we are
>going to set the record straight in a fashion that nobody will ever
>forget.
>
>You all know who it was. Anyone who participated in anything to do with
>that better get ready.
>
>Ken Sallot wrote:
>>
>> http://www.divernet.com/profs/palmer399.htm
>> --
>> "What's terrible is to pretend that the second-rate
>> is first-rate."
>> -- Doris Lessing
>> (British writer)
>
>--
>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `tech...@aquanaut.com'.
>Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdive...@aquanaut.com'.
>
SO MOTE IT BE
I'm curious to know more about GUE, as I am a mememeber(no I don't have
stutter j ust a sticky key) of the special operations diving association and
have been since 1984 and they produce a journal called Globex (global
explorer) this is very similar - some coincidence. So is there any relation
between the two in history i wonder.
alex.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxx
Ventwind
<The diver (snip) suffers a near death accident. Most of the discussion
involved blaming the dive <shop. The real culprit in this classic piece of
bozonity was none other than the instructor and the <training agency which
allows this buffoonery.
I would assert (an opinion) that it's the individual diver's fault, being a
believer in reponsibility for one's own actions. But, okay Dan, WE'LL GO YOUR
ROUTE! Recentlly, a diver (in training) with your beloved crowd nearly drowned.
Wkpp said it was the diver's own fault for not managing his gas supply
properly. But as you have stated in this latest rant, it's the FAULT of the
INSTRUCTOR and the AGENCY. The Wkpp instuctor FAILED and so did his agency.
THEY recruited someone they later determined unfit for their program (and well
into the training cycle, at that). THEY then did not protect him from himself.
THEY obviously did not pay any attention to him during the course of the dive.
Even if they were not training, GOOD DIVERS keep up with their buddies and
their gas situation. Most PADI DM's do better than this instructor (this ought
to hurt, because it's true). Explain this away for us, Dan!
Rich Lesperance
agency, headquartered in Gainesville, FL. They have an _excellent_
reputation, among people who know of them. I have not yet had any training
with them, but am going to take a cave course with them in a few weeks.
One of the premises of GUE seems to be that no, Virginia, technical diving
is NOT for everyone, you must have a certain level of fitness and
commitment. They have an excellent web page, that also describes their
training philosophy, at www.gue.com .
Now for my question to you - what is the Special Operations diving
association? I have never heard of this.
Rich L
H NED Huntzinger
it was a bit non-intuitive to find...its at this URL:
http://www.divernet.com/profs/palmer399.htm
-hh
Kuty
Thanks. It was very interesting to read. Sounds very similar to a
few of our local deep air accidents (committed by highly respected
Israeli instructors). The temptation to think that one is immuned to
nature's laws is great. The problem is that nature has its way of
proving those guys to be wrong.
Regards,
Kuty
nobody special
<snip continuation of I hate all agencies except WKPP's own GUE
rhetoric>
Here's another glimpse at the fuhrer of the I hate Brett Club,
and the kind of people that grind their axes on on Palmers back:
Dan L. Volker
Ventwind <vent...@aol.com> wrote in message The Wkpp instuctor FAILED and
so did his agency.
>THEY recruited someone they later determined unfit for their program (and
well
>into the training cycle, at that). THEY then did not protect him from
himself.
>THEY obviously did not pay any attention to him during the course of the
dive.
>Even if they were not training, GOOD DIVERS keep up with their buddies and
>their gas situation. Most PADI DM's do better than this instructor (this
ought
>to hurt, because it's true). Explain this away for us, Dan!
You have your facts wrong.
The diver you refer to was bringing stages to an area that an exploration
team could use ( bottles are dropped in designated areas for exploration
teams). This particular diver kept signalling to JJ he had plenty of
backgas, each time JJ queried him, because he wanted to appear to be a
"tough guy" ( he had just finished a short earlier dive, and said his back
gas was nearly full( frequently you breathe off of stages and leave back gas
full). Ultimately, he ran out of backgas, and then had to deploy a reg from
one of the stages he was carrying. What he should have done was tell the
truth about his gas supply, at the dive beginning and then later during the
dive, he should have indicated low gas. He did not. Next, well before
running out of gas, he should have pulled the reg out on one of the full
stage bottles he was towing, and switched to it---as well as alerting his
buddy. He instead, hid the fact of his low air, trying to look "tough".
When he finally ran out of gas, and THEN tried to deploy a reg, in his
paniced rush to breath, he inhaled some water and suffered a laryngiospasm,
which put him OUT. Jarrod saw this, dropped everything, and scootered him
straight out of the cave, foregoing his own deco. The "toughguy" was revived
on the beach, and everyone was OK. The behavior of this gas shuttle diver
broke so many rules of WKPP, that he could no longer be allowed to dive with
the team. Prior to this he had followed the rules--perhaps this time out he
was looking for some status or decided it was time to prove something--in
any event, there is no room for a person like this in the WKPP.
Before you make accusations, you might check your story a little better :-)
Regards,
Dan Volker
Dan L. Volker
written by a magazine owned by Brett Gilliam, written for and by Brett
Gilliam, would in some way accurately depict Brett's greatest detractor.
The article "Fear and Loathing" on the internet, was a cowardly attempt to
take "out of context" posts on the tech diver list, (some which were fakes,
some real), and by stringing enough of these misrepresentations together, to
discredit George Irvine. Brett obviously hoped if he could discredit George
enough, maybe it would take the heat off of himself from the fires George
had started over the mounting TDI deep air death toll.
Apparently, NObody Special is a deep air miscreant, one who probably has
great envy toward men who can drive 90mph on two bottles of tequilla, or
those who can dive on air to 300 feet. From an earlier post, in which he
praised force fins, I'll deduce he has the fitness of Gilliam or even less,
in which case any comments by him are even more ridiculous.
Dan Volker
nobody special <som...@notdot.com> wrote in message
news:37149B2B...@notdot.com...
MHK
Dan L. Volker wrote in message <7f26f6$1mt6$1...@news.gate.net>...
. The behavior of this gas shuttle diver
>broke so many rules of WKPP, that he could no longer be allowed to dive
with
>the team.
So Dan, what you are saying is that if an agency sets up rules, and then
those rules are ignored by a diver, the agency shouldn't be held accountable
because it had rules in place.
I don't want to rehash the last thread regarding this incident, but I still
think you are being hypocritical regarding this issue.
And by the way, it really doesn't take a particularly inventive agency to
set a rule that requires having gas in your tank under water. Obviously,
this guy screwed up but to suggest that an agency is better than another
because they require there divers to have gas in their tanks while diving is
stretching it a bit.
>Before you make accusations, you might check your story a little better :-)
>
That would be pot calling the kettle black.
Regards
Janediver
"This particular diver kept signalling to JJ he had plenty of
backgas, each time JJ queried him,"
Like the man says, PADI DM's LOOK at the pressure gauges of other divers. You
know, with human error, a person might misread their gauge. Seems like you guys
might learn something from PADI.
"Jarrod saw this, dropped everything, and scootered him straight out of the
cave, foregoing his own deco.The "toughguy" was revived on the beach, and
everyone was OK. The behavior of this gas shuttle diver broke so many rules of
WKPP, that he could no longer be allowed to dive with the team."
Still seems that WKPP did have a "Tremendous Failure" in their selection
process. Other agencies have rules too. You do not allow this bullcrap argument
to be used by other agencies, so why should we allow it from you, the WKPP,
GUE, or whoeverelse this event reflects on.
Also the jury is out on everybody being ok. Let's ask JJ when he's 60 and has
swiss cheese bones-necrosis-from foregoing decompression.
Mike
Janediver wrote in message
<19990414173558...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...
>Dan rebuttals a post,
>
>"This particular diver kept signalling to JJ he had plenty of
>backgas, each time JJ queried him,"
>
>Like the man says, PADI DM's LOOK at the pressure gauges of other
divers. You
>know, with human error, a person might misread their gauge. Seems
like you guys
>might learn something from PADI.
Bullshit. It's rare that a DM from any agency looks at another diver's
gauges. Some of them will ask on occasion though.
>
>"Jarrod saw this, dropped everything, and scootered him straight out
of the
>cave, foregoing his own deco.The "toughguy" was revived on the beach,
and
>everyone was OK. The behavior of this gas shuttle diver broke so many
rules of
>WKPP, that he could no longer be allowed to dive with the team."
>
>Still seems that WKPP did have a "Tremendous Failure" in their
selection
>process. Other agencies have rules too. You do not allow this
bullcrap argument
>to be used by other agencies, so why should we allow it from you, the
WKPP,
>GUE, or whoeverelse this event reflects on.
The track record of the WKPP still outshines that of any technical
training agency available today, and they are NOT a training agency.
>
>Also the jury is out on everybody being ok. Let's ask JJ when he's 60
and has
>swiss cheese bones-necrosis-from foregoing decompression.
Who gives a rip. He's having a ball TODAY.
Mike
vi...@sonydnse.com
"Mike" <mwal...@ro.com> wrote:
> Bullshit. It's rare that a DM from any agency looks at another diver's
> gauges. Some of them will ask on occasion though.
Come & dive with BSAC - we regularly check each other's gauges.
It's often easier to show a gauge than to deal with using hand signals to
indicate air left with any degree of resolution (we often signal in tens of
BAR left; whilst you could signal up to 210 BAR without repetition, it gets
chilly in British waters ;)
Vic.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Art Greenberg
> Like the man says, PADI DM's LOOK at the pressure gauges of other divers. You
> know, with human error, a person might misread their gauge. Seems like you guys
> might learn something from PADI.
Bullshit. Any DM that asks for my contents state gets a single-finger
response. Any DM that grabs my gauge (or any part of me or my gear for
that matter)gets knifed. I avoid going to prison by not diving anywhere
near a DM.
--
Remove <nospam> to reply:
Art Greenberg
ar...@nospameclipse.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment.
By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,
whichever is greater, for each violation.
Dan Volker
WKPP is NOT a training agency. They are a group of exploration divers who
work with scientists to discover hydrogeologic features and relationships
previously unknown. In order to accomplish the scientific and exploration
goals, WKPP created DIR diving, as a rule set.
The diver we are talking about was NOT a novice. In an exploration level
dive, you are trusting your life to your buddy. Thus the importance of Rule
Number One.
While signalling your air can be done by actually showing the guage, this
can also be accomplished by hand signals, which is the common proceedure as
it requires less interuption of dive time and distance covered. Trust is
implicit here. A diver who shows he can not be trusted, can not be allowed
to be a buddy.
This diver had showed trust in the MANY dives previous to this, and if you
guys remember, many divers in the past have whined that WKPP makes you do
enormous numbers of support dives in the basin and just beyond before any
real penetration occurs. There is a huge weeding out proceedure here. That
in 6 years there has only been one single bad apple which got through,
should be enough to show that this system is working. Many drop out long
before they have any shot at doing exploration level dives, just because
they don't like paying their dues.
As to the rule about divers needing air/gas in their tanks, the implicit
trust is the issue here----exploration divers have to trust each
other....this diver LIED to JJ while still on the beach, and repeatedly
underwater.
AND, he actually had enormous amounts of gas with him, in the stage bottles
he wasd shuttling---but he chose not to use them. This needs to be
understood by both of you. Cave divers typically dive by breathing off the
stage bottles clipped to their left side, leaving the back gas untouched.
For this diver to ignore the huge volume of air he was dragging in stages,
allowing himself to run out of back gas prior to switching to them is
amazing. Yet this is what he did. He did in fact, HAVE enormous amounts of
gas in his tanks ( stages), so in no way did he get into the water with
empty tanks-----he had huge reserves---he just chose not to use them, and
this poor choice showed a mindset that could never be trusted again.
Why you guys want to try and use this accident is clear enough, you want to
show GUE is fallible. But it was NOT a GUE issue----it was a WKPP issue
different purpose, different population of divers, different objectives and
exposure levels )
And, WKPP rules did not break down, human nature just showed that people
need huge amounts of screening before being allowed into exploration level
diving, or even support level diving, and apparently even with the strictest
screening, a bad apple CAN slide through once in a while. Luckily, its been
only once. As DIR rules are always fluid and self modifying by the WKPP, it
would no longer be possible for this same scenario to happen again today.
Regards,
Dan Volker
--
Dan Volker
South Florida Dive Journal
http://www.sfdj.com/
The Internet magazine for u/w photography and mpeg video
MHK wrote in message <7f2ifl$1sca$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>Dan L. Volker wrote in message <7f26f6$1mt6$1...@news.gate.net>...
>. The behavior of this gas shuttle diver
>>broke so many rules of WKPP, that he could no longer be allowed to dive
>with
>>the team.
>
>
MHK
Dan Volker wrote in message <7f4l5r$2mso$1...@news.gate.net>...
< snip>
Dan,
Give us a break. Your tortured logic and verbal gymnastics defy logic. Why
is it so hard for you to admit that a system ( any system ) that relies on
human beings is susceptible to faults ? BY your own admission, WKPP and by
extension of logic, GUE has an implicit mechanism built within, trust in
your buddy. Thus, rule # 1.
But your logic breaks down when you try to defy logic and suggest that an
extensive weeding out process will develop such trust in your buddy that you
may unilaterally trust your buddy. It may come as a surprise to you but a
buddy, even a WKPP or GUE trained buddy, may screw up.
You indicate in your last post that * WKPP is a fluid and self modifying and
it would no longer be possible for the same scenario to happen again today.*
Are you living in WKPP denial land or are you just ignorant to basic facts.
If a diver *lied* before a future diver can *lie* again. What safeguards
have been implemented to prevent a trusted member from lying again in the
future?
You would make a perfect stooge for the White House. When confronted with
basic facts deny, deny, deny and when denials no longer work attack the
accuser, stall, obfuscate and hope the issue fades away.
Let's face it Dan, you lack the independence or basic credibility to advance
your cause any longer. While the WKPP team, and by extension GUE, have
modified existing technology and made advances that are noteworthy, your
fundamental and steadfast reluctance to admit that which is obvious to every
one but yourself precludes you from being taken seriously.
Regards
jammer six
>€ Come & dive with BSAC - we regularly check each other's gauges.
Stroke alert.
Checking someone else's gauge gives you one piece of information.
Asking someone else how much gas they have gives you four pieces of
information.
It gives you how much gas they have, it tells you whether they are in
condition/ paying attention to understand your hand signals, it tells
you whether they are in condition to read and understand their gauges,
and it tells you whether they are in condition/able to give hand
signals.
Of these four pieces of information, how much gas they have is the
least important.
In a real buddy team, a loss of communication is far more serious than
a loss of gas.
Sounds like I need to avoid the BSAC, since you are speaking for them.
--
"C'mon, you sons of bitches, you want to live forever?"
-First Sergeant Dan Daley
Brian Greenberg
>As DIR rules are always fluid and self modifying by the WKPP, it
>would no longer be possible for this same scenario to happen again today.
And how is that?
The guy in question apparently was an exemplary diver, until he decided to
fuck up. I think current WKPP doctrine is that no new diver is allowed on
site without an existing member to sponsor and mentor him or her. If JJ
had not been willing to sponsor him, would he have been willing to dive with
him?
Not a flame of the WKPP or JJ. But you cannot make rules against stupidity.
Idiots are simply too ingenious.
Brian.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ grn...@cc.umanitoba.ca + University of Manitoba Libraries +
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ rw-rw-rw-: The file protection of the beast -- Thomas Koenig. +
Jason
wrote:
>Bullshit. Any DM that asks for my contents state gets a single-finger
>response. Any DM that grabs my gauge (or any part of me or my gear for
>that matter)gets knifed. I avoid going to prison by not diving anywhere
>near a DM.
You must be a real joy to dive with. So, if your buddy asks you how
much air you've got left, and you respond with a single finger, does
that mean they can do the same when you start making out of air
signals? Presumably they're also allowed to knife you if you reach for
their octopus?
Jason
--
See www.volnay.demon.co.uk for trip reports on Spain
the Maldives, Barbados, Gran Canaria and Australia
Art Greenberg
> On 15 Apr 1999 12:07:22 GMT, ple...@dont.spam.me (Art Greenberg)
> wrote:
>
> >Bullshit. Any DM that asks for my contents state gets a single-finger
> >response. Any DM that grabs my gauge (or any part of me or my gear for
> >that matter)gets knifed. I avoid going to prison by not diving anywhere
> >near a DM.
>
> You must be a real joy to dive with. So, if your buddy asks you how
> much air you've got left, and you respond with a single finger, does
> that mean they can do the same when you start making out of air
> signals? Presumably they're also allowed to knife you if you reach for
> their octopus?
Learn to read. My buddy/teammate is NOT a DM. Get it?
My buddy almost never has to ask about my gas supply, nor I hers. We plan our
dives together and dive the plan, and have been for 250+ dives over the past
four years in lots of different conditions from the North Atlantic to caves in
Florida to the Caribbean. We have built a good understanding of each other's
gas consumption and a good set of team skills, the most important of which is
team communications. The most common status signal given in our dives, given
exactly once per dive, is "turn the dive", and we know when that should be.
Team diving is wonderful when done right.
When I cannot dive with my buddy, I don't dive, or under very specific and
benign circumstances when properly equipped, I dive solo. I have on occasion,
and will if asked nicely, dive with someone who is not my buddy. I consider
diving with an untested buddy to be diving solo. On such dives we do exchange
status information more often, which is appropriate as we probably do not have
the same understanding or team skills. But this person is not a DM, either.
Dan L. Volker
MHK <MHK...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:7f58da$3a9k$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
>Dan Volker wrote in message <7f4l5r$2mso$1...@news.gate.net>...
>< snip>
>
>Dan,
>
>Give us a break. Your tortured logic and verbal gymnastics defy logic.
Why
>is it so hard for you to admit that a system ( any system ) that relies on
>human beings is susceptible to faults ? BY your own admission, WKPP and by
>extension of logic, GUE has an implicit mechanism built within, trust in
>your buddy. Thus, rule # 1.
>
MHK,
Again, you are living in NEVER, NEVER LAND. We are NOT dealing in
hypotheticals or this Utopia you have in your addled brain---we are living
in a place where "Humans R Us", and the proper way to look at this, is how
can humans function the most effectively and safely. This is what WKPP does,
and DIR as its implementation shows.
>But your logic breaks down when you try to defy logic and suggest that an
>extensive weeding out process will develop such trust in your buddy that
you
>may unilaterally trust your buddy. It may come as a surprise to you but a
>buddy, even a WKPP or GUE trained buddy, may screw up.
If you can't see the value in weeding out the unacceptable, I'm sure you'd
have a wonderful time in bootcamp or SEAL training. We take this as far as
possible. We take this MUCH, MUCH farther than any other diving group or
training agency.
>
>You indicate in your last post that * WKPP is a fluid and self modifying
and
>it would no longer be possible for the same scenario to happen again
today.*
>Are you living in WKPP denial land or are you just ignorant to basic facts.
>If a diver *lied* before a future diver can *lie* again. What safeguards
>have been implemented to prevent a trusted member from lying again in the
>future?
>
Personalities have to be well known. The group becomes even more of a family
than it was before. Anyone new is not really new, because they are already
well known to primary group members. WKPP can do far more than GUE in this
regard, because they do NOT want to many new members---they want only a few
of the best.
>You would make a perfect stooge for the White House. When confronted with
>basic facts deny, deny, deny and when denials no longer work attack the
>accuser, stall, obfuscate and hope the issue fades away.
People who jump right in without provocation (like you do) with a seemingly
aggressive posture, charicterize the "wimp turned BIG GUN" which so
frequently annoys people on newsgroups. I respect intelligence AND physical
presence; if you are missing one of these, you are not worthy of attention
in a discussion such as this. Certainly you will continue to annoy, but you
will not be worthy of any serious consideration.
>
>Let's face it Dan, you lack the independence or basic credibility to
advance
>your cause any longer.
MHK,
I dive with George and Bill. I am on buddy teams with them in the most
demanding deep ocean dives. I started diving with George around 1989, and
have most probably done more exploration dives at great depth than you have
done shallow recreational profiles. Even if you have done thousands of
recreational profiles, what have you done that allows you the "credibility"
to dispute mine. what have you offered to technical diving---to its founders
like George Irvine, Tom Mount, or even the slob himself ( sorry, if you are
a tech diver you'll know who I mean).
My contributions to the sport itself have been in methods of deep drift
diving, in VO2 max testing, and in getting the WKPP into rebreathers. Right
now I am helping to get a nutrition product produced that will limit ox tox
on huge exposures ( on 15 hour dives, ingested glucose tends to cause a
hypoglycemic reaction that increases the toxicity reaction of oxygen,
already at a critical level). Certainly this is conceptually beyond MHK
needs or interests, but it still relates to what I do for tech diving, and
what you do is still in question.
WKPP team, and by extension GUE, have
>modified existing technology and made advances that are noteworthy, your
>fundamental and steadfast reluctance to admit that which is obvious to
every
>one but yourself precludes you from being taken seriously.
>
>Regards
MHK.
What is obvious, unless you'd like to clear it up, is that you have no
credentials, no experience in what you are attempting to be an expert on,
and no credibility. Why not go on techdiver and make some of your simple
minded attacks directly to George, Bill, or JJ. So far the few posts you
have placed on tech diver have been almost as devoid of useful information
as your posts on rec.scuba have been.
Dan Volker
jammer six
<jas...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>€ So, if your buddy asks you how
>€ much air you've got left, and you respond with a single finger,
That's not what he said, is it?
Don't read what you're looking for, read what's there.
MHK
Dan L. Volker wrote in message <7f5er3$303q$1...@news.gate.net>...
>
>MHK,
>Again, you are living in NEVER, NEVER LAND. We are NOT dealing in
>hypotheticals or this Utopia you have in your addled brain---we are living
>in a place where "Humans R Us", and the proper way to look at this, is how
>can humans function the most effectively and safely. This is what WKPP
does,
>and DIR as its implementation shows.
>
Dan,
Once again you miss the boat. Your intentional disregard for facts makes it
nearly impossible to converse logically with you. YOU IDIOT, my very point
is that any system that has a human component to it contains a failure
point. You are to obsesed and blinded by Goerge and JJ's ass that all you
do is attack and defend rather than think and listen. So since you are to
simple minded or stupid to figure it out let me suggest to you that a
starting point for a system is that no matter what, if humans are involved,
the opportunity for breakdown exsists. DIR, GUE, WKPP , XYZ , ABC who gives
a shit what labels you attach, it's a fact of life that people screw up. If
you would get off your high HOG horse and deal in reality you would see
that. Except that you are too arrogant to admit that the DIR system has the
ability to fail.
>If you can't see the value in weeding out the unacceptable, I'm sure you'd
>have a wonderful time in bootcamp or SEAL training. We take this as far as
>possible. We take this MUCH, MUCH farther than any other diving group or
>training agency.
>
You shortsightedeness is amazing, so what you think is that because you take
it further than any other training agency or group, I'm sure the Navy SEALS
would disput that, but you don't solve the problem by extending the weeding
out process, you only serve to limit the problem, NOT FUCKING SOLVE THE
PROBLEM. You arrogantly believe that by setting the bar higher that you
eliminate the problem. You don't eliminate shit, you just reduce the
likelyhood of an accident. You pontificate about problem solving and mental
fitness for diving but your limited vision and intelligence allows you to
see and solve a couple of problems and then you get on the mountain top and
proclaim your victory. Your premature victory laps are in direct conflict
with your assecrtion that you are a fluid and evolving movement. Either you
have all the answers, at which case there should be no cause to evolve or be
fluid, or you recognize that there is still work to be done, at which case
you should shut the fuck up and stop congratulating yourself. Either way
you are still trying to have it both ways.
> People who jump right in without provocation (like you do) with a
seemingly
>aggressive posture, charicterize the "wimp turned BIG GUN" which so
>frequently annoys people on newsgroups.
You invite provaction and analysis just by posting to a public forum and to
suggest, given your history of harsh rhetoric and inflamatory statements,
that anyone has a seemingly aggressive posture is laughable. Wasn't it you
who wanted to charge Tom Mount with murder? Didn't you label a triple
fatality * Murder on the IANTD Express* So before you suggest anyone else
of being annoying you may want to review your own rants and tirads.
I respect intelligence AND physical
>presence;
As do I which I why I continually challenge you. You, and your loudmouth
cronnies, believe that whoever barks the loudest will be proven correct.
And you are quick to assail anyone who dares challenge the sacred DIR
method. But when someone calls you to the mat for your inconsistencies you
cry like a little baby.
>I dive with George and Bill. I am on buddy teams with them in the most
>demanding deep ocean dives. I started diving with George around 1989, and
>have most probably done more exploration dives at great depth than you have
>done shallow recreational profiles. Even if you have done thousands of
>recreational profiles, what have you done that allows you the "credibility"
>to dispute mine.
Factually and continually point out your inconsistencies. And I am quick to
point out that I distinguish you, in your capacity as an individual, from
the accomplishments of the WKPP team. It seems to me Dan that you are
always looking to have it both ways. When you rant and rave like a two year
old spolied child you take the position that you are not *officially*
affiliated with the WKPP team. But when someone challenges you on facts you
attempt cast yourself as a WKPP team member and ride their coat tails.
Mind you, I have NO problem withh WKPP, GUE, JJ or George. And I believe
they are distinguished divers deserving of respect. My problem is with
loudmouth morons like yourself who believe in the end justify's any and all
means. Novice divers post innocent questions routinely on this forum and
rather than explain things you hit them over the head with a 2 X 4 because
they don't dive DIR. Grow up Dan, because many new divers outside of
Florida don't know who the hell WKPP, DIR, GUE are.
what have you offered to technical diving---to its founders
>like George Irvine, Tom Mount, or even the slob himself ( sorry, if you are
>a tech diver you'll know who I mean).
>
A typical example of your arrogance and shortsightedness. You verbally
assault Tom & Brett routinely and then link your butt buddy to them in an
attempt to highlight his prescence.
And BTW nothing you say or do is beyond my awareness.
>
>MHK.
>What is obvious, unless you'd like to clear it up, is that you have no
>credentials, no experience in what you are attempting to be an expert on,
>and no credibility.
1,200 + dives Max depth 400'. Dive cold water, currents and deco diving
every weekend. Never been bent, never embolised and never encountered a
problem under water that I couldn't handle. So if that makes me a stroke
who cares?
Why not go on techdiver and make some of your simple
>minded attacks directly to George, Bill, or JJ.
I have no problem with George, Bill or JJ. They go about there business and
do less posting and more diving. If more were like JJ your movement would
have much more steam now than it does.
I have repeatedly stated that my objection isn't against the three named
above or the WKPP team or GUE. As I have stated I hope JJ has much sucess,
but you ignore those facts because it doesn't then make for a good tirade on
your behalf.
So anyway, if you ever have the balls to dive in colder waters, stronger
currents, no vis come to So Cal and we will see if you are worth anything in
the water or if you are just a bag of wind.
FWIW, I did my wreck training with Billy Deans and have dove the Floridian
waters many times since ( the Wilkes Barr is my favorite ) and our waters
are much more challenging.
Regards
Jason
wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:54:38 GMT, Jason wrote:
>> On 15 Apr 1999 12:07:22 GMT, ple...@dont.spam.me (Art Greenberg)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Bullshit. Any DM that asks for my contents state gets a single-finger
>> >response. Any DM that grabs my gauge (or any part of me or my gear for
>> >that matter)gets knifed. I avoid going to prison by not diving anywhere
>> >near a DM.
>>
>> You must be a real joy to dive with. So, if your buddy asks you how
>> much air you've got left, and you respond with a single finger, does
>> that mean they can do the same when you start making out of air
>> signals? Presumably they're also allowed to knife you if you reach for
>> their octopus?
>
>Learn to read. My buddy/teammate is NOT a DM. Get it?
>
>My buddy almost never has to ask about my gas supply, nor I hers. We plan our
>dives together and dive the plan, and have been for 250+ dives over the past
>four years in lots of different conditions from the North Atlantic to caves in
>Florida to the Caribbean. We have built a good understanding of each other's
So you're saying that you never have to dive with anyone else other
than your buddy? You're fine doing any sort of diving without a guide
whether you've got local knowledge or not?
There are plenty of dives out there which would be a lot safer if you
dived with someone who knew the site and the particular hazards. There
are also plenty of dive when having someone who knows the site well
greatly improves the dive. If you agree to dive in a group lead by
someone else, then you've got to accept that they may want to monitor
your air consumption.
I have on occasion got a bit annoyed with over keen DMs asking your
air every 5 mins. I must confess to once deliberately annoying this
officious German woman by purposely ignoring, but if they ask me a
couple of times I don't take it as a sleight on my diving abilities.
>When I cannot dive with my buddy, I don't dive, or under very specific and
>benign circumstances when properly equipped, I dive solo. I have on occasion,
>and will if asked nicely, dive with someone who is not my buddy. I consider
>diving with an untested buddy to be diving solo. On such dives we do exchange
If you've agreed to dive with someone, you're not diving solo. You've
got a duty of care to look after them which in some countries is
legally enforceable. In some cases this is worse than diving solo,
mostly I'd say it was better.
>status information more often, which is appropriate as we probably do not have
>the same understanding or team skills. But this person is not a DM, either.
So you'll only dive with people without a DM card then? Doesn't this
rule out some of the more experienced potential buddies on the boat?
MHK
seemingly
>aggressive posture, charicterize the "wimp turned BIG GUN" which so
>frequently annoys people on newsgroups
Dan,
a further thought to my earlier post vis-a-vis the above snip. Did you
bother to read your own post that started this thread? Let me refresh your
memory:
" the hypocritical righteous indignation from the TDI crowd"
" the cover up.... and great classics of disinformation""
Who the hell are kidding with you child like bantering about * aggressive
posture*. If you don't like to be aggressively postured perhaps you should
reconsider your own aggressive posturing. You are like a school yard bully
who just got his ass kicked and is now whimpering in the corner like a
petrified little girl.
You, Dan Volker, are a hypocrite. Your attempts at turning this into a
anti - GUE, WKPP thread have failed and the spotlight is directed directly
at you.
If you don't like it when it's done to you, stop doing it to others. By for
crying out loud do something other than act like a baby.
Regards
Dan Bracuk
>Any DM that grabs my gauge (or any part of me or my gear for that matter)
gets knifed. <
Ooh - such a big brave scuba diver.
Dan Bracuk
Toronto, Canada
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
rec.scuba faq http://scifi.squawk.com/scuba.html
JRCo1
<For this diver to ignore the huge volume of air he was dragging in stages,
Firstly, if a WKPP diver is unaware of gas that he has, why should these WKPP
divers be concerned about labeling them properly in the first place?
Secondly, I thought WKPP divers used nitrox to travel to about the 85 -100 foot
range to instantly switch to trimix? What's this air buisness. Could Dan have
confused his own facts?
Thirdly, since Dan would never lie or confuse or just make-up his facts, I mean
read the quote, I was wondering how the WKPP correctly labels cylinders
containing air. Probably something like, "DANGER! Contains Air! Do not use!
Drown if you must!"
jammer six
<jas...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>€ So you're saying that you never have to dive with anyone else other
>€ than your buddy? You're fine doing any sort of diving without a guide
>€ whether you've got local knowledge or not?
Absolutely, and yes.
Aren't you? If you're not, you're a statistic waiting to happen.
>€ If you've agreed to dive with someone, you're not diving solo. You've
>€ got a duty of care to look after them which in some countries is
>€ legally enforceable. In some cases this is worse than diving solo,
>€ mostly I'd say it was better.
Which is precisely why it's so stupid to dive with someone you don't
know.
Strangers and strokes need not apply. Solo is better.
>€ So you'll only dive with people without a DM card then? Doesn't this
>€ rule out some of the more experienced potential buddies on the boat?
No, it usually rules out the least experienced on the boat.
Sounds like you need to find better boats.
Look for one with NO divemasters.
Steve Kramer
> Solo is better.
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.......
When your only choice is solo because no one will dive with you, it's
easy to believe that solo is better.
Steve Kramer
Osaka, Japan
Seven months, three weeks, five days, 11 hours, 6 minutes and 13
seconds. 5961 cigarettes not smoked, saving $894.23. Life gained: 2
weeks, 6 days, 16 hours, 45 minutes.
--
"The real voyage of discovery is not in seeking new lands,
but in seeing with new eyes!"
John Brett
<snip>
>Sounds like I need to avoid the BSAC
Not necessary. We teach hand-signals, and don't nursemaid divers
>, since you are speaking for them.
No, he isn't.
John Brett
vi...@sonydnse.com
jammer six <jam...@oz.net> wrote:
> In article <7f49l8$1rt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <vi...@sonydnse.com> wrote:
>
> >€ Come & dive with BSAC - we regularly check each other's gauges.
>
> Stroke alert.
Stroke? I hope not. I've not had any problems with blood flow to the brain
before. How do you tell? I'm sure medical agencies around the world would love
to benefit from the ability to predict any kind of blood-vessel failure.
> Checking someone else's gauge gives you one piece of information.
>
> Asking someone else how much gas they have gives you four pieces of
> information.
>
> It gives you how much gas they have, it tells you whether they are in
> condition/ paying attention to understand your hand signals, it tells
> you whether they are in condition to read and understand their gauges,
> and it tells you whether they are in condition/able to give hand
> signals.
>
> Of these four pieces of information, how much gas they have is the
> least important.
Spot the out-of-context response; I was replying to a post that said that
no-one checks each others' gauges. I was not implying that this is a better
method than communication (look for the smiley on the end of the paragraph -
it's a hint that a sense of humour is a required item for full appreciation)
> Sounds like I need to avoid the BSAC, since you are speaking for them.
Sounds like you do - but I was not speaking for BSAC.
> "C'mon, you sons of bitches, you want to live forever?"
Yes, actually.
Art Greenberg
> So you're saying that you never have to dive with anyone else other
> than your buddy?
I never *have* to dive. Period. Diving is a nonzero risk activity which I
engage in for recreational purposes. If everything is not exactly as I want it,
I do not dive.
> You're fine doing any sort of diving without a guide
> whether you've got local knowledge or not?
I obtain the local knowledge on the surface, before the dive. Just as I decide
upon my gear configuration and dive plan before the dive. Waiting until you're
in the water to do these things is stupid.
> There are plenty of dives out there which would be a lot safer if you
> dived with someone who knew the site and the particular hazards. There
> are also plenty of dive when having someone who knows the site well
> greatly improves the dive. If you agree to dive in a group lead by
> someone else, then you've got to accept that they may want to monitor
> your air consumption.
Any dive where it is necessary to rely on another diver's knowledge of the site
for my safety during the dive is called a "trust me" dive, and participating in
this kind of diving is not my cup of tea.
Having someone with local knowledge locate a particular marine specimen is a
service which I do accept from time to time.
If the particular site is frought with "hazards" which make it unsafe for me to
dive after a surface briefing, and/or by conservative exploration using
appropriate techniques, I do not dive there.
> >When I cannot dive with my buddy, I don't dive, or under very specific and
> >benign circumstances when properly equipped, I dive solo. I have on occasion,
> >and will if asked nicely, dive with someone who is not my buddy. I consider
> >diving with an untested buddy to be diving solo. On such dives we do exchange
>
> If you've agreed to dive with someone, you're not diving solo. You've
> got a duty of care to look after them which in some countries is
> legally enforceable. In some cases this is worse than diving solo,
> mostly I'd say it was better.
I equip myself and cut a plan that is appropriate for solo diving, since I
cannot rely on my new "buddy" in any way. Of course I carry out my obligation
to look after this person.
> >status information more often, which is appropriate as we probably do not have
> >the same understanding or team skills. But this person is not a DM, either.
>
> So you'll only dive with people without a DM card then? Doesn't this
> rule out some of the more experienced potential buddies on the boat?
You have missed my point entirely. I apologize if I have been unclear. I have
nothing against divers who elect to take DM training, or practice same in the
field. However, I will not dive in a situation where my well being, or the well
being of my teammate(s), is dependent upon someone playing that role.
Dan L. Volker
MHK <MHK...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:7f5sqg$2f16$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
MHK,
Apparently you did not notice ( as if the real facts are ever important to
you :-) , but this first post was NOT mine.....It was a post BY Bill Mee on
the tech list, which I felt had enough substance in it to be of interest to
the rec.scuba crowd. Then you took it upon yourself to attack me, and it was
an unprovoked attack. ****CLUE***look at the subject line, and the signature
on the initial post.
Then of course, by my stooping to your level and becoming obnoxiuos in
return, I helped prove the old adage, "if you wrestle with the pigs, you'll
end up smelling like them".
Right now we both need to get out of the barnyard, as continueing like this
will not help rec.scuba discussions.
If you want meaningful arguement and insults, you will need to visit S.
Florida and dive / argue with me in person.
Regards,
Dan Volker
Dan L. Volker
JRCo1 <jr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990415222333...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
Very funny.
As I'm sure your well aware, rec.scuba has had many threads on OOA
scenarios.
I used the word "air" in this capacity, even though "gas" is the word that
would have been technically correct. Would you care to go through each of my
posts and do a spell and grammar check?
Regards,
Dan
Dan L. Volker
MHK <MHK...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:7f5khi$62i$1@newssvr01-
>Dan,
>
>Once again you miss the boat. Your intentional disregard for facts makes
it
that you are too arrogant to admit that the DIR system has the
>ability to fail.
>
I never said that. All I have said is that its the most fluid and effective
system today, and it is constantly evolving in response to any new issues.
>>If you can't see the value in weeding out the unacceptable, I'm sure you'd
>>have a wonderful time in bootcamp or SEAL training. We take this as far
as
>>possible. We take this MUCH, MUCH farther than any other diving group or
>>training agency.
>>
>
>You shortsightedeness is amazing, so what you think is that because you
take
>it further than any other training agency or group, I'm sure the Navy SEALS
>would disput that, but you don't solve the problem by extending the weeding
>out process, you only serve to limit the problem, NOT FUCKING SOLVE THE
>PROBLEM. You arrogantly believe that by setting the bar higher that you
>eliminate the problem. You don't eliminate shit, you just reduce the
>likelyhood of an accident. You pontificate about problem solving and
mental
>fitness for diving but your limited vision and intelligence allows you to
>see and solve a couple of problems and then you get on the mountain top and
>proclaim your victory. Your premature victory laps are in direct conflict
>with your assecrtion that you are a fluid and evolving movement. Either
you
>have all the answers, at which case there should be no cause to evolve or
be
>fluid, or you recognize that there is still work to be done, at which case
>you should shut the fuck up and stop congratulating yourself. Either way
>you are still trying to have it both ways.
MHK, read this very slowly so you can understand it...and so your lips don't
get to tired :-)
I have ALWAYS said DIR is EVOLOVING. It NEVER stops evolving. Some things we
have standardized are unlikely to change, some other elements may change
some day---it depends on the experiences and ideas of WKPP exploration team
members.
I have also NEVER said DIR is going to ELIMINATE danger---it will reduce or
minimize it, compared to OTHER dive systems, and behaviors like Personal
Preference and MHKism's. I have said DIR as a system has the BEST safety
Record in diving, and I stand by that. In the future, as it continues to
evolve, it will get even better--particularly for recreational divers, as
this is an area we are working on right now.
>
>
>> People who jump right in without provocation (like you do) with a
>seemingly
>>aggressive posture, charicterize the "wimp turned BIG GUN" which so
>>frequently annoys people on newsgroups.
>
>
>You invite provaction and analysis just by posting to a public forum and to
>suggest, given your history of harsh rhetoric and inflamatory statements,
>that anyone has a seemingly aggressive posture is laughable. Wasn't it you
>who wanted to charge Tom Mount with murder? Didn't you label a triple
>fatality * Murder on the IANTD Express*
Except I was saying this on diveboats Tom frequented, saying it to him on
the phone, and he has every opportunity to confront me directly if he
wanted. And I still believe he was an accomplice to negligent manslaughter
of Jane Orenstein, by culpable negligence.
We both live in S. Florida. There were a few weeks where it looked like he
would drive up to Sheppards Karate Gym and go a few rounds with me ( he
claims to be a 5th don---at his advanced age, I'd look like a butthead if I
beat him up, and even worse if I lost :-)
I was looking forward to it just the same, but he left it at talk, and
never showed.
The issue of tank marking ( or lack of), which was central in the Jane
Orenstein Death, is being discussed again on tech diver, and Tom is having
his head blown off by every list member in the discussion with half a brain.
This IS Tom Mount's fault, as the man MOST responsible for the most
important of IANTD policies.
So before you suggest anyone else
>of being annoying you may want to review your own rants and tirads.
>
>I respect intelligence AND physical
>>presence;
>
>As do I which I why I continually challenge you. You, and your loudmouth
>cronnies, believe that whoever barks the loudest will be proven correct.
>And you are quick to assail anyone who dares challenge the sacred DIR
>method. But when someone calls you to the mat for your inconsistencies you
>cry like a little baby.
So far I have seen no inconsistencies. Point to one and I'll post an audio
file of me crying :-)
>
>>I dive with George and Bill. I am on buddy teams with them in the most
>>demanding deep ocean dives. I started diving with George around 1989, and
>>have most probably done more exploration dives at great depth than you
have
>>done shallow recreational profiles. Even if you have done thousands of
>>recreational profiles, what have you done that allows you the
"credibility"
>>to dispute mine.
>
>
>Factually and continually point out your inconsistencies. And I am quick
to
>point out that I distinguish you, in your capacity as an individual, from
>the accomplishments of the WKPP team. It seems to me Dan that you are
>always looking to have it both ways. When you rant and rave like a two
year
>old spolied child you take the position that you are not *officially*
>affiliated with the WKPP team. But when someone challenges you on facts
you
>attempt cast yourself as a WKPP team member and ride their coat tails.
I am "Officially" on the WKPP Deep Ocean Team. Ask Bill Mee, George Irvine,
Robert Carmichael, or Jarrod Jablonski. If you need e-mail addresses, let me
know.
>
>Mind you, I have NO problem withh WKPP, GUE, JJ or George. And I believe
>they are distinguished divers deserving of respect. My problem is with
>loudmouth morons like yourself who believe in the end justify's any and all
>means. Novice divers post innocent questions routinely on this forum and
>rather than explain things you hit them over the head with a 2 X 4 because
>they don't dive DIR.
Bullshit. I tend to be MUCH kinder to newcomers than you do, and I go to
extreme lengths to help each one that asks me questions. Beyond that, I
contribute in articles about dive training and equipment, on a regular
basis. If you visit http://www.gue.com/equipment/index.html
you will find an example of what I do.
Grow up Dan, because many new divers outside of
>Florida don't know who the hell WKPP, DIR, GUE are.
>
> what have you offered to technical diving---to its founders
>>like George Irvine, Tom Mount, or even the slob himself ( sorry, if you
are
>>a tech diver you'll know who I mean).
>>
>
>
>A typical example of your arrogance and shortsightedness. You verbally
>assault Tom & Brett routinely and then link your butt buddy to them in an
>attempt to highlight his prescence.
Well, of the three divers, there is little doubt who the BEST is. There is
also little doubt as to who directly has contributed the most to current
theory of the safest way to tech dive.
The big difference beyond that is that George does not Profit from
techdiving, as Tom and Brett do.
>
>And BTW nothing you say or do is beyond my awareness.
>>
Oh yeah? What did I just do?
:-)
>>MHK.
>>What is obvious, unless you'd like to clear it up, is that you have no
>>credentials, no experience in what you are attempting to be an expert on,
>>and no credibility.
>
>
>1,200 + dives Max depth 400'. Dive cold water, currents and deco diving
>every weekend. Never been bent, never embolised and never encountered a
>problem under water that I couldn't handle. So if that makes me a stroke
>who cares?
>
OK,
You've got some good experience. Maybe your diving is better than your
demeanor.
> Why not go on techdiver and make some of your simple
>>minded attacks directly to George, Bill, or JJ.
>
>I have no problem with George, Bill or JJ. They go about there business
and
>do less posting and more diving. If more were like JJ your movement would
>have much more steam now than it does.
It's Bill's post you started ranting about, not mine.
>
>I have repeatedly stated that my objection isn't against the three named
>above or the WKPP team or GUE. As I have stated I hope JJ has much sucess,
>but you ignore those facts because it doesn't then make for a good tirade
on
>your behalf.
>
>So anyway, if you ever have the balls to dive in colder waters, stronger
>currents, no vis come to So Cal and we will see if you are worth anything
in
>the water or if you are just a bag of wind.
I think you will find our currents of of Jupiter and Boynton's deep sites
are far beyond anything you have in So Cal.
Offering me cold water and low vis, when I typically enjoy 80 to 150 foot
vis on my tech dives, with some days over 300 feet, makes the invitation
less than appealing for use of my vacation time. Our winter dives get water
temps on the bottom as low as high 40's ( fahrenheit), which should be cold
enough for you. I think this is an inversion with the Newfoundland current
pushing in under the Gulfstream---it happens with some regularity in winter
months.
>
>FWIW, I did my wreck training with Billy Deans and have dove the Floridian
>waters many times since ( the Wilkes Barr is my favorite ) and our waters
>are much more challenging.
>
>Regards
>
We don't waste our time diving anything inn the keys. They have no decent
tech dives, relative to Pompano Beach, Boyton or Jupiter.
The best spots are RB Johnson/Cory'n Chris ( Pompano), the Skycliff and
Hydro in Boynton, and the deep 185 to 240 ft deep monstrous ledge of Jupiter
( which runs for many miles). Expect monster fish, monster sharks, 13 foot
marlin, stuff that hasn't visited the key's for 10,000 years.
Regards,
Dan Volker
John Goodwin
wrote:
snip
>I have also NEVER said DIR is going to ELIMINATE danger---it will reduce or
>minimize it, compared to OTHER dive systems, and behaviors like Personal
>Preference and MHKism's.
But what if someones personal preference happens to be the next step
in the DIR evolution ?
JG
Dan L. Volker
John Goodwin <J...@opticon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:371759f8....@news.demon.co.uk...
or
>>minimize it, compared to OTHER dive systems, and behaviors like Personal
>>Preference and MHKism's.
>
>in the DIR evolution ?
>
>
>JG
John,
When I use the term "personal preference", I am referring to someone who
one of us has shown a clear and better alternative to, and they ignore the
logic and function, instead choosing to do what they have always done,
saying it's their "personal preference".
If someone comes along with an element George, JJ, Bill and Brent, Robert
and a few others think has merit, they will experiment with it, and if it
proves itself, it will be "ASSIMILATED".
Regards,
Dan
MHK
Dan L. Volker wrote in message <7f7gd0$1t2o$1...@news.gate.net>...
>Right now we both need to get out of the barnyard, as continueing like this
>will not help rec.scuba discussions.
>
We finally agree on something. FWIW, I liked the one about MHKism's :-)
>If you want meaningful arguement and insults, you will need to visit S.
>Florida and dive / argue with me in person.
>
You would be breaking rule #1 if you dove with me. Sorry but I'm not
totally HOG.
Me & my HOG buddy will be diving the Wilkes Barr in July if your up for it.
Regards
John Goodwin
wrote:
>
>John Goodwin <J...@opticon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:371759f8....@news.demon.co.uk...
>>On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:28:57 -0400, "Dan L. Volker" <d...@gate.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>
>>>I have also NEVER said DIR is going to ELIMINATE danger---it will reduce
>or
>>>minimize it, compared to OTHER dive systems, and behaviors like Personal
>>>Preference and MHKism's.
>>
>>But what if someones personal preference happens to be the next step
>>in the DIR evolution ?
That *was* supposed to be tongue in cheek <g>
I wonder if anyone would understand "<tic>" as a qualifier.
>>
>
>John,
>When I use the term "personal preference", I am referring to someone who
>one of us has shown a clear and better alternative to, and they ignore the
>logic and function, instead choosing to do what they have always done,
>saying it's their "personal preference".
>If someone comes along with an element George, JJ, Bill and Brent, Robert
>and a few others think has merit, they will experiment with it, and if it
>proves itself, it will be "ASSIMILATED".
Christ the WKPP have been taken over by the Borg !
JG
Dan L. Volker
MHK <MHK...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:7f7uuj$49o0$1@newssvr03-
>Me & my HOG buddy will be diving the Wilkes Barr in July if your up for it.
>
>Regards
>
Well, If you are visiting Florida anyway, why not try one of the deep wrecks
we like to brag about :-)
The RB Johnson/Cory'n Chris would definitely blow your mind. Carmichael is
supposed to be getting some video of it soon, and we could put it up on a
web site for download....
Top of RB is 225, it sits directly on top of Cory"n Chris, and bottom of it
is at 290. Each freighter is about 350-400 feet long. Typical resident
include a few Jewfish FAR BIGGER than we are ( Volkswagons with lips) , 4
and five foot amberjacks by the tens of thousands, and 40 pound groupers
populate it like grunts in the keys ( slight exageration here, but there are
plenty.).
Regards,
Dan
MHK
Dan L. Volker wrote in message <7f83rm$1vgc$1...@news.gate.net>...
>
>Well, If you are visiting Florida anyway, why not try one of the deep
wrecks
>we like to brag about :-)
Do you have some shops to recommend that has gas and/or boats trips???
The wrecks sound great. BTW, what part of Fla. are they in?
Regards
Dan L. Volker
Try the Grateful Diver as the boat, and the shop would be the Brownies 3rd
Lung shop on Cordura, just off of 17th street Causeway, Fort Lauderdale. The
boat and shop can be reached at 954-467-1236
All gas, all gear, everything you might need. You can even check out "DIR
Gear" :-)
Regards,
Dan
Dan Bracuk
>I wonder if anyone would understand "<tic>" as a qualifier. <
Probably not. Are you going to start using it now?
JRCo1
<Bullshit. Any DM that asks for my contents state gets a single-finger
<response. Any DM that grabs my gauge (or any part of me or my gear for
<that matter)gets knifed. I avoid going to prison by not diving anywhere
<near a DM.
then a day later-
<You have missed my point entirely. I apologize if I have been unclear. I have
<nothing against divers who elect to take DM training, or practice same in the
<field. snip
I read somewhere that hyperbaric studies, that involve the use of Helium as a
breathing gas constituent, suggest that permanent changes in the brain occur
and that these changes often manifest as dramatic swings in emotional state
from day to day. Think about it.....
JRCo1
<Would you care to go through each of my
<posts and do a spell and grammar check?
It would probably be alot easier to do than trying to reconcile your
"statements of fact" with the reality that the rest of the world shares:-o~
John Goodwin
wrote:
>John Goodwin wrote
>>I wonder if anyone would understand "<tic>" as a qualifier. <
>
>Probably not. Are you going to start using it now?
Well, if it's unlikely that anyone's going to understand it there's
not a lot of point.
JG
H NED Huntzinger
>
> John Goodwin wrote:
> >"Dan L. Volker" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I have also NEVER said DIR is going to ELIMINATE danger---it will reduce
> >>or minimize it, compared to OTHER dive systems, and behaviors like Personal
> >>Preference and MHKism's.
> >
> >in the DIR evolution ?
> >
>
>
> one of us has shown a clear and better alternative to, and they ignore the
> logic and function, instead choosing to do what they have always done,
> saying it's their "personal preference".
But what about a variation that cannot definitively be determined to be
any "better" or "worse" than something else?
This is PURE personal preference with no strings attached and IMO, its
probably more likely to be the case anyway, for a good diver.
> If someone comes along with an element George, JJ, Bill and Brent, Robert
> and a few others think has merit, they will experiment with it, and if it
> proves itself, it will be "ASSIMILATED".
Just curious: do you, George, JJ, Bill, Brent and Robert all dive the
same exact brand and models of regulators?
-hh
Jason
wrote:
>> There are plenty of dives out there which would be a lot safer if you
>> dived with someone who knew the site and the particular hazards. There
>> are also plenty of dive when having someone who knows the site well
>> greatly improves the dive. If you agree to dive in a group lead by
>> someone else, then you've got to accept that they may want to monitor
>> your air consumption.
>
>Any dive where it is necessary to rely on another diver's knowledge of the site
>for my safety during the dive is called a "trust me" dive, and participating in
>this kind of diving is not my cup of tea.
OK then, hypothetical situation:
I'm the DM on a boat somewhere warm. The site we're going to do today
is the best we do. I draw a map of the site and talk you through it. I
explain that you should keep away from one end of the site where
there's a vertical dropoff because sometimes there are strong
downcurrents there. The boat isn't anchored but I indicate where on
the map we will enter the water.
Would you do the dive?
If the answer is yes, and I'll be surprised if it isn't, you've just
relied on my knowledge of the site. You've also relied on my map. (And
I got a D at O-level art). And you've also relied on my knowledge of
where we enter the water. If that's wrong it could be hard to get your
bearings.
If I do exactly the same briefing, tell you I'm going to lead you and
your buddy, and go through the plan with you. I've dived the site
twice a week for the last year and know the site very well. I'm not
limiting the dive time or depth other than the boat limits. Aren't you
going to now have a safer, and probably more interesting dive?
Are you really going to stab me for asking you your air a couple of
times? Even if I check, because people have been known to lie?
Art Greenberg
> On 16 Apr 1999 13:06:44 GMT, ple...@dont.spam.me (Art Greenberg)
> wrote:
>
> >Any dive where it is necessary to rely on another diver's knowledge of the
> >site for my safety during the dive is called a "trust me" dive, and
> >participating in this kind of diving is not my cup of tea.
>
> OK then, hypothetical situation:
Ut-oh ... this could be trouble! I don't test well.
> I'm the DM on a boat somewhere warm. The site we're going to do today is the
> best we do. I draw a map of the site and talk you through it. I explain that
> you should keep away from one end of the site where there's a vertical
> dropoff because sometimes there are strong downcurrents there. The boat isn't
> anchored but I indicate where on the map we will enter the water.
>
> Would you do the dive?
>
> If the answer is yes, and I'll be surprised if it isn't, you've just relied
> on my knowledge of the site. You've also relied on my map. (And I got a D at
> O-level art). And you've also relied on my knowledge of where we enter the
> water. If that's wrong it could be hard to get your bearings.
You still can't read. I will not do the dive if I need to rely on you *during
the dive* (okay, maybe I should have typed *in the water*).
Suppose you croak mid-dive, and I'm unfamiliar with the site. Very bad.
> If I do exactly the same briefing, tell you I'm going to lead you and your
> buddy, and go through the plan with you. I've dived the site twice a week for
> the last year and know the site very well. I'm not limiting the dive time or
> depth other than the boat limits. Aren't you going to now have a safer, and
> probably more interesting dive?
No. If you're able to give a decent briefing, I don't need you leading me
around. If you know the site as well as you say you do, you ought to be able to
give a damned good briefing. If the site is particularly tricky or complex, and
if you really care about doing your job well, you'd have taken the time to
produce a very good map and have it stowed so you can whip it out and impress
us with your knowledge and skill.
Give me the best briefing you know how to deliver on the surface, where the
necessary communication is much easier and the clock is not ticking. If I still
have questions about the site, I will ask. If you can't answer them, and the
missing information is important enough to me, I will not do the dive. If I
feel that all the information I need has been made available to me, I will cut
a plan and dive that plan. Simple.
> Are you really going to stab me for asking you your air a couple of times?
> Even if I check, because people have been known to lie?
Why on earth would I lie about my gas status? I have no death wish. My buddy
and I plan our dives and turn the dive when the plan calls for it. Your
presence and incessant doting over us would be nothing more than unwelcome
interference. We don't need you hanging around blocking the scenery just so
you can monitor OUR execution of OUR plan.
If I can be allowed to link this back to the original topic:
The thrust of this entire line of discussion is RESPONSIBILITY. The WKPP diver
in question failed to honor his responsibility, and narrowly escaped with his
life. We cannot know why it happened. But the suggestion that the solution,
particularly in advanced diving where the diver is expected to be very skilled
and teamwork and personal responsibility are so very important, is to
relinquish some or all of that responsibility to an appointed overseer is
ludicrous.
Ventwind1
>You still can't read. I will not do the dive if I need to rely on you *during
>the dive* (okay, maybe I should have typed *in the water*).
Tell us, were you born a tadpole, or did you learn your OW from an instructor.
I would guess that you DID do at least check-out dives while depending on an
instructor. Did he check your air during the dive, and did you knife him for
it?
Sometimes it pays to think first and type later. Then you won't look so silly
as often.
Jesse Sands
Of course there's a point; you're forgetting that this is Usenet. The
few who read the original explanation will take years of joy in
knowing that the unwashed masses think you've got a facial muscle
problem, when really only the cognoscenti know the truth.
Jesse
Spam filter: remove bob to reply
Art Greenberg
> >You still can't read. I will not do the dive if I need to rely on you *during
> >the dive* (okay, maybe I should have typed *in the water*).
>
> Tell us, were you born a tadpole, or did you learn your OW from an instructor.
> I would guess that you DID do at least check-out dives while depending on an
> instructor.
I wrote about the present, not the past. You obviously have trouble reading,
too. But since you asked ...
I *wish* I could say my OW instructors taught dive planning. I *wish* they
taught about personal responsibility. They did not. The list of stuff they
didn't teach, and should have, is long. They were clearly more concerned with
cranking out dependent divers who would purchase overpriced gear from their
shop, who would sign up for more classes and for shop sponsored trips so they
could go for free. They awarded me an OW certification after four very short
dives in an artificial lake, where if I wanted to go deeper than 28 feet, I'd
have needed a shovel. The awarded me an AOW certification without my ever
having gotten near a boat, and never going deeper than 35 feet. At least that
was in salt water.
After about 50 dives, only a few in local (NJ) waters and off boats, I finally
came to the realization that I didn't know enough about diving here to do it
safely. I sought out and located a *real* instructor, and took an advanced
wreck class. That's where I began to learn about these things.
I'm still learning. That is, to me, one of the joys of diving. And, when I do
dive with an instructor, I DO NOT DEPEND UPON THAT INSTRUCTOR FOR MY SAFETY.
The instructors I have been learning from understand the importance of that.
Do you?
> Did he check your air during the dive, and did you knife him for it?
Actually, no. My OW and AOW instructors never asked, since the size of the
cylinders we used, the shallow depths, and the short duration of the dives all
made it close to impossible to use more than half the gas supply anyway. That
was their plan.
In subsequent classes, the only status request from my instructor(s) has been
"ok?".
> Sometimes it pays to think first and type later. Then you won't look so silly
> as often.
Methinks you would be well advised to follow your own advice. Oh, and learn to
read.
Jason
wrote:
>> If the answer is yes, and I'll be surprised if it isn't, you've just relied
>> on my knowledge of the site. You've also relied on my map. (And I got a D at
>> O-level art). And you've also relied on my knowledge of where we enter the
>> water. If that's wrong it could be hard to get your bearings.
>
>You still can't read. I will not do the dive if I need to rely on you *during
>the dive* (okay, maybe I should have typed *in the water*).
>Suppose you croak mid-dive, and I'm unfamiliar with the site. Very bad.
But what's the difference? You've based your entire dive plan on
information I've told you. If I did the map completely wrong, then
you're in trouble. If I did croak during the dive, you would abort it
immediately and hopefully perform a bouyant lift on me. I might not be
dead.
Why is relying on someone in water to provide extra safety worse than
relying on them to give a proper briefing? After all, on some boats,
you're relying on the DM to count you back in. If they leave you on
the reef, you're probably dead.
>No. If you're able to give a decent briefing, I don't need you leading me
>around. If you know the site as well as you say you do, you ought to be able to
>give a damned good briefing. If the site is particularly tricky or complex, and
At the end of the day all the maps in the world are not as good as
previous knowledge of a dive site. It can be difficult to know exactly
where you are is the underwater topology looks the same.
I had a bit of a cockup on a dive a few years ago in the Maldives. We
were drawn a map and given a briefing. The plan was to go along an
outer reef towards a channel opening. When we got to the corner we
were supposed to swim out into the blue water a bit because there
would be an inward current into the channel. Then we were supposed to
stay at the mouth of the channel and look out for sharks, tuna etc.
So we got in and there were about 12 of us and one DM. So I didn't
follow the DM because I don't like diving in herds. We weren't under
any obligation to follow, just dive the same plan.
The problem was that it was quite difficult to tell where the channel
started. One patch of coral wall looks much the same as any other and
the reef curved in and out in places anyway. So we were too close to
the reef near the channel. The current pulled us in and we had a
rather exciting drift down the channel.
When we surfaced it was a fair distance from the boat. Now in the
Maldives conditions are rather forgiving, so it wasn't a problem. I
wouldn't like to surface that far from the boat in the UK for example.
Without local knowledge, it wasn't easy to know exactly where on the
reef we were. If you've dived a site before then patches of coral and
formations look familiar, and you use this to navigate. Maps are a
very poor substitute.
>Why on earth would I lie about my gas status? I have no death wish. My buddy
>and I plan our dives and turn the dive when the plan calls for it. Your
Why would you lie? Plenty of reasons including peer pressure, the fact
that you don't want to look bad in front of someone whose younger than
you or that you want to make your dive last as long as possible.
I've dived with people who, towards the end of a dive, would just
answer a query about their air with an OK signal before turning away.
Closer inspection has revealed they've got less air than we were told
to be back on the boat with.
If you're going to dive with people you don't know, and if you travel
a lot it can be unavoidable, you have to assume the worst.
>If I can be allowed to link this back to the original topic:
>
>The thrust of this entire line of discussion is RESPONSIBILITY. The WKPP diver
>in question failed to honor his responsibility, and narrowly escaped with his
>life. We cannot know why it happened. But the suggestion that the solution,
>particularly in advanced diving where the diver is expected to be very skilled
>and teamwork and personal responsibility are so very important, is to
>relinquish some or all of that responsibility to an appointed overseer is
>ludicrous.
I don't think that the WKPP should have to be checking each other
gauges. At that level they really ought to be responsible for their
own actions. I also don't agree with some of the posts in the past by
WKPP members where an incident has happened and they have blamed the
instructor entirely despite the fact that a reasonably advanced
student should have know better.
I do think there is a difference between an overseer, and diving with
a guide with local knowledge. Looking after, dare I say incompetents,
is one role for a DM. Guiding dives is a different one, as is dive
marshalling and providing surface cover.
Jason
wrote:
>could go for free. They awarded me an OW certification after four very short
>dives in an artificial lake, where if I wanted to go deeper than 28 feet, I'd
I can't remember what the OW depths are, so they may be permissible
under PADI standards.
>have needed a shovel. The awarded me an AOW certification without my ever
>having gotten near a boat, and never going deeper than 35 feet. At least that
>was in salt water.
But that certainly isn't. You should have reported them. And if
they're still doing that, they should be reported now. You can't blame
the system if people aren't adhering to it. You must have known at the
time that you hadn't done the course properly.
>After about 50 dives, only a few in local (NJ) waters and off boats, I finally
>came to the realization that I didn't know enough about diving here to do it
>safely. I sought out and located a *real* instructor, and took an advanced
>wreck class. That's where I began to learn about these things.
So did you ever do a rescue course? I would say that it is definitely
one of the better courses, unlike AOW which I think is easily the
worst course PADI do.
Jason O'Rourke
>
>But what's the difference? You've based your entire dive plan on
>information I've told you. If I did the map completely wrong, then
>you're in trouble. If I did croak during the dive, you would abort it
Why would I be in trouble? So your map sucks, who cares? I still know
where I went down, where the boat is or will be, and which way the current
is going. On most dives, that's all I need to know. Most of the DM
briefing is beneficial for heading to the most interesting parts of the
dive, not in doing it safely. If I have to rely on the DM for that I'm in
bad shape.
I'm sure that English divers are familiar with the art of UW navigation.
--
Jason O'Rourke j...@best.com www.jor.com
'96 BMW r850R
last dive: March 27th, Gerstle Cove, Sonoma. 18 mins @ 20ft max (viz = 18")
Dan Bracuk
his initial scuba courses
> You can't blame the system if people aren't adhering to it. <
Two of the things that Art mentioned were that his open water checkout dives
were rather shallow and that he was able to complete his advanced course
without diving from a boat. I am not an instructor so I won't pretend to
know what the certification requirements are, but neither of these two
points seems all that unreasonable. Perhaps some of the various instructors
in this ng can tell us what their particular agencies say about these two
points (min depth on OW Certification & Boat Diving for Advanced).
Art Greenberg
> On 19 Apr 1999 19:43:40 GMT, ple...@dont.spam.me (Art Greenberg)
> wrote:
> >Suppose you croak mid-dive, and I'm unfamiliar with the site. Very bad.
>
> But what's the difference? You've based your entire dive plan on
> information I've told you. If I did the map completely wrong, then
> you're in trouble. If I did croak during the dive, you would abort it
> immediately and hopefully perform a bouyant lift on me. I might not be
> dead.
The difference is, I get to evaluate the information you've given me before
getting in the water. I can base my plan in part on how confident I am of the
information you dispensed. Also, I will not be tempted to follow you someplace
that you're familiar with but failed to tell me about.
Here's an example, albeit somewhat extreme, but it may help to get my point
across:
I'm in a cave diving class. At this time, I have not graduated and I am about
to attempt my first jump - using my jump spool, I will join the main permanant
line to the permanant line in a side tunnel. This dive is all about technique,
and all that is planned is for the team to execute the jump, and once all of
the team has gathered on the other side, turn the dive. We are all familiar
with the main tunnel, having dived to and beyond this jump on the main line in
previous dives. Our gas consumption is good, and should easily allow this
drill.
Everything goes as planned. I ran the jump line, and signalled the other team
members that it's okay to cross. I move ahead to make room for them along the
line, and wait. Once we're all there, the instructor points ahead, rather than
back, and signals "ok?".
Now, we've all looked at maps of this cave, but have not looked off the main
line as we have not planned to dive off it as yet. We do not know that this
side tunnel runs more or less parallel to the main tunnel, and a few hundred
feet ahead there is another jump back to the main line. And we have not yet
seen that jump from the main line.
If we agree to go forward, rather than as planned, we are now in "trust me"
territory. We have not followed the protocol for determining if we have enough
gas to do this circuit, and we have no idea where this tunnel leads. If we
follow the instructor, and he is disabled or separated from the group, we are
not in a position to know if the shortest route out is to go ahead or to turn
around. We are quite possibly in serious trouble if something more goes wrong.
> Why is relying on someone in water to provide extra safety worse than
> relying on them to give a proper briefing? After all, on some boats,
> you're relying on the DM to count you back in. If they leave you on
> the reef, you're probably dead.
If I don't see what I expect to see based on the briefing, I can call the dive.
If I am tempted to say, "heck, he must know where he's going", now I am in
completely unfamiliar territory and entirely dependent upon him to return to
the boat. Sure, in open water with no deco obligation and in the absence of a
ripping current, I can just surface and deploy my marker. But why should I
expose myself to that possibility?
> >No. If you're able to give a decent briefing, I don't need you leading me
> >around. If you know the site as well as you say you do, you ought to be able to
> >give a damned good briefing. If the site is particularly tricky or complex, and
>
> At the end of the day all the maps in the world are not as good as
> previous knowledge of a dive site. It can be difficult to know exactly
> where you are is the underwater topology looks the same.
I see I'm not getting through to you. I hope the example just given is enough.
If it isn't, I guess I will have to admit I haven't the communication skills
required to make myself clear. I give up.
> I had a bit of a cockup on a dive a few years ago in the Maldives. We
> were drawn a map and given a briefing. The plan was to go along an
> outer reef towards a channel opening. When we got to the corner we
> were supposed to swim out into the blue water a bit because there
> would be an inward current into the channel. Then we were supposed to
> stay at the mouth of the channel and look out for sharks, tuna etc.
>
> So we got in and there were about 12 of us and one DM. So I didn't
> follow the DM because I don't like diving in herds. We weren't under
> any obligation to follow, just dive the same plan.
>
> The problem was that it was quite difficult to tell where the channel
> started. One patch of coral wall looks much the same as any other and
> the reef curved in and out in places anyway. So we were too close to
> the reef near the channel. The current pulled us in and we had a
> rather exciting drift down the channel.
>
> When we surfaced it was a fair distance from the boat. Now in the
> Maldives conditions are rather forgiving, so it wasn't a problem. I
> wouldn't like to surface that far from the boat in the UK for example.
>
> Without local knowledge, it wasn't easy to know exactly where on the
> reef we were. If you've dived a site before then patches of coral and
> formations look familiar, and you use this to navigate. Maps are a
> very poor substitute.
Poor maps are a very poor substitute. One very familiar with a dive site should
be able to produce a very good map. I enter the dive armed with enough
knowledge and understanding to evaluate the situation and decide for myself
whether or not to continue. It is my choice, and mine alone.
> >Why on earth would I lie about my gas status? I have no death wish. My buddy
> >and I plan our dives and turn the dive when the plan calls for it. Your
>
> Why would you lie? Plenty of reasons including peer pressure, the fact
> that you don't want to look bad in front of someone whose younger than
> you or that you want to make your dive last as long as possible.
If you're speaking about the population in general, fine. In *my* case, though,
I prefer to think I will not be led astray by such silliness. My life is way
too important to me to let peer pressure get me to do something I would not
ordinarily do. And I certainly would not risk my life just to have my dive
last a few minutes more.
> I've dived with people who, towards the end of a dive, would just
> answer a query about their air with an OK signal before turning away.
> Closer inspection has revealed they've got less air than we were told
> to be back on the boat with.
>
> If you're going to dive with people you don't know, and if you travel
> a lot it can be unavoidable, you have to assume the worst.
Ordinarily, I don't dive with people I don't know. The few times I have, I
employed an even more conservative dive plan than my usual, and I worked out
the details with my dive partners before entering the water. In all cases
(admittedly few), the dive went as planned.
> I don't think that the WKPP should have to be checking each other
> gauges. At that level they really ought to be responsible for their
> own actions.
IMO this really ought to be the case at *every* level.
> I also don't agree with some of the posts in the past by
> WKPP members where an incident has happened and they have blamed the
> instructor entirely despite the fact that a reasonably advanced
> student should have know better.
Agreed.
> I do think there is a difference between an overseer, and diving with
> a guide with local knowledge.
Agreed.
Art Greenberg
> On 21 Apr 1999 12:08:33 GMT, ple...@dont.spam.me (Art Greenberg)
> wrote:
>
> >could go for free. They awarded me an OW certification after four very short
> >dives in an artificial lake, where if I wanted to go deeper than 28 feet, I'd
>
> I can't remember what the OW depths are, so they may be permissible
> under PADI standards.
>
> >have needed a shovel. The awarded me an AOW certification without my ever
> >having gotten near a boat, and never going deeper than 35 feet. At least that
> >was in salt water.
>
> But that certainly isn't. You should have reported them. And if
> they're still doing that, they should be reported now. You can't blame
> the system if people aren't adhering to it. You must have known at the
> time that you hadn't done the course properly.
No, I didn't. There was no listing of course requirements or agency
standards made available. Shame on me for having not looked into that
myself beforehand. A mistake I have not repeated.
> >After about 50 dives, only a few in local (NJ) waters and off boats, I finally
> >came to the realization that I didn't know enough about diving here to do it
> >safely. I sought out and located a *real* instructor, and took an advanced
> >wreck class. That's where I began to learn about these things.
>
> So did you ever do a rescue course? I would say that it is definitely
> one of the better courses, unlike AOW which I think is easily the
> worst course PADI do.
I have not. If I did, I would have to make an effort to practice the skills
learned frequently in order not to loose them, and thus be more dangerous to
someone else's well-being than if I had never taken the course. I am not yet
ready to make that committment.
Jason O'Rourke
>> So did you ever do a rescue course? I would say that it is definitely
>learned frequently in order not to loose them, and thus be more dangerous to
>someone else's well-being than if I had never taken the course. I am not yet
>ready to make that committment.
I don't agree with this, Art. Most of the skills taught in rescue are
common sense or one step beyond with the goal of avoiding the accidents in
the first place. Even if half of the skills erode with time, you're a
better asset to the others around you. CPR is the one exception that you
should stay current on to use, but if no one else is around that can even
guess how to do it, you're still a better bet for the victim's life.
Jason
wrote:
>Jason wrote in response to some statements from Art Greenberg who described
>his initial scuba courses
>> You can't blame the system if people aren't adhering to it. <
>
>
>Two of the things that Art mentioned were that his open water checkout dives
>were rather shallow and that he was able to complete his advanced course
>without diving from a boat. I am not an instructor so I won't pretend to
>know what the certification requirements are, but neither of these two
>points seems all that unreasonable. Perhaps some of the various instructors
He also mentioned that he'd not dived below 35 feet. The deep dive is
one of the two compulsory dives.
I agree that there is no reason why you can't do your courses without
going near a boat. However, if you're planning to go boat diving, I
don't think it makes much sense to do all your training in lakes.
Jason
>Why would I be in trouble? So your map sucks, who cares? I still know
>where I went down, where the boat is or will be, and which way the current
>is going. On most dives, that's all I need to know. Most of the DM
On most dives you'd probably be right. On others it can get a bit more
interesting, like when there are a couple of currents that meet.
Places like the Maldives can have very strong currents that can catch
out people who aren't used to them no matter how many dives they've
done elsewhere.
>I'm sure that English divers are familiar with the art of UW navigation.
Actually we don't do an awful lot of navigation to be honest. A
typical days diving would be something like this:
1st dive at a wreck : a weighted line with a buoy is thrown overboard
onto the wreck. The boat doesn't anchor. Then as the tide slackens
off, everyone has to enter the water reasonably quickly in pairs and
go down the shot line without pulling on it or it comes out of the
wreck. Then do your dive on the wreck, which typically means around
the outside as a lot of our wrecks are broken up. Then at the end
stick up your delayed SMB and go up the line. The tide has usually
started to run again by now, so you're heading off at a couple of
knots. When you come up to the surface, you're relying on the skipper
to have seen your SMB and to be nearby.
2nd dive a drift: enter the water in pairs, each pair with a surface
marker buoy. Drift with the tide. Skipper keeps the buoys in sight and
stops arseholes in yachts and speedboats from running your buoy down.
So, all in all, not a great deal of navigation called for, though
plenty of other skills required that aren't really required in other
parts of the world.
Jason
wrote:
>> But that certainly isn't. You should have reported them. And if
>> they're still doing that, they should be reported now. You can't blame
>> the system if people aren't adhering to it. You must have known at the
>> time that you hadn't done the course properly.
>
>No, I didn't. There was no listing of course requirements or agency
>standards made available. Shame on me for having not looked into that
>myself beforehand. A mistake I have not repeated.
Well the course book does tell you what the course entails and what
constitutes a deep dive.
>> So did you ever do a rescue course? I would say that it is definitely
>> one of the better courses, unlike AOW which I think is easily the
>> worst course PADI do.
>
>I have not. If I did, I would have to make an effort to practice the skills
>learned frequently in order not to loose them, and thus be more dangerous to
>someone else's well-being than if I had never taken the course. I am not yet
>ready to make that committment.
I agree that you should practice rescue skills and that first aid
qualifications should be regularly renewed. However, even rescue
skills that are rusty are better than nothing.
For example, one of the things you learn is a bouyant lift. If your
buddy falls unconscious underwater, you should use their BC to lift
them to the surface, where you will probably have to perform
artificial respiration.
Now bouyant lifts are risky things. If you do it too fast, you could
give the casulty something like a lung expansion injury. But if you do
nothing, they're dead anyway. Nothing you do wrong can possibly make
them any worse.
Unless both you and your buddy have rescue training, how can you be
self sufficient? If something goes badly wrong, you don't have the
skills to deal with it, and you really would be better off being
looked after by someone who has those skills, like a you know what.
Getting back to the original story of the WKPP diver who fell
unconscious, I believe that it was JJ who skipped his deco obligation
and resuscitated him. If he hadn't the guy would be dead.
I personally think that, if you're going to do deco diving in buddy
pairs or teams, you have to be prepared to skip your deco obligation
to save your buddy. If you've got a lot of deco to do, then you ought
to have safety gas divers available, but if you're not prepared to
skip 20 mins deco to save someone's life, then you shouldn't be doing
deco diving, or you should be diving solo.
I don't see how you can be prepared to do deco diving, but not
prepared to learn the essential skills to look after your buddy.
Art Greenberg
> On 22 Apr 1999 11:59:55 GMT, ple...@dont.spam.me (Art Greenberg)
> wrote:
> >
> >No, I didn't. There was no listing of course requirements or agency
> >standards made available. Shame on me for having not looked into that
> >myself beforehand. A mistake I have not repeated.
>
> Well the course book does tell you what the course entails and what
> constitutes a deep dive.
Hmmm. I do not remember seeing that in my SSI book. As I recall, the first time
I saw a listing of skills was on a special page in the ultra-expensive SSI
logbook I was required to purchase. Its in the form of a checklist - you know,
"skills I demonstrated in my checkout dives".
It has been a while, and I'll readily admit that my memory of this could be
faulty (I'm loosing brain cells at an alarming rate - I can hear them scream as
they go down). I'll have a look, and if I remembered incorrectly, I'll post a
correction.
> >> So did you ever do a rescue course? I would say that it is definitely
> >> one of the better courses, unlike AOW which I think is easily the
> >> worst course PADI do.
> >
> >I have not. If I did, I would have to make an effort to practice the skills
> >learned frequently in order not to loose them, and thus be more dangerous to
> >someone else's well-being than if I had never taken the course. I am not yet
> >ready to make that committment.
>
> I agree that you should practice rescue skills and that first aid
> qualifications should be regularly renewed. However, even rescue
> skills that are rusty are better than nothing.
>
> For example, one of the things you learn is a bouyant lift. If your
> buddy falls unconscious underwater, you should use their BC to lift
> them to the surface, where you will probably have to perform
> artificial respiration.
I've already learned how to raise things using a lift bag, both attended and
otherwise. That would certainly apply in this case. What I have not learned is
proper body position for the diver being raised. I have CPR training, but I
have no idea how best to apply that on the water.
> Unless both you and your buddy have rescue training, how can you be
> self sufficient? If something goes badly wrong, you don't have the
> skills to deal with it, and you really would be better off being
> looked after by someone who has those skills, like a you know what.
Nah.
> Getting back to the original story of the WKPP diver who fell
> unconscious, I believe that it was JJ who skipped his deco obligation
> and resuscitated him. If he hadn't the guy would be dead.
Correct.
> I personally think that, if you're going to do deco diving in buddy
> pairs or teams, you have to be prepared to skip your deco obligation
> to save your buddy. If you've got a lot of deco to do, then you ought
> to have safety gas divers available, but if you're not prepared to
> skip 20 mins deco to save someone's life, then you shouldn't be doing
> deco diving, or you should be diving solo.
No argument. What's that got to do with rescue training?
> I don't see how you can be prepared to do deco diving, but not
> prepared to learn the essential skills to look after your buddy.
I did not say I wasn't prepared to learn those skills. I did say that I'm not
of the opinion that those skills in very rusty form would be useful. Your
input has inspired me to review that opinion.
Mike Zimmerman
Art Greenberg <ar...@nospameclipse.net> wrote:
There is a difference btw violating a dive plan and crossing into a
"trust me" dive.
The circuit in question (Little River?) only becomes a "trust me" dive
when you exceed your turn pressure. Up until that point you have a
continuous guideline to the exit. At any point you can still turn that
dive and head back out if you reach turn pressure before the jump back
onto the main line. You still have responsibility for yourself.
Now if someone took me to the end of that line and wanted me to jump
back to the main line and exit without retracing the circuit, I'd just
as likely give the exit signal... going BACK the way we came back in.
The new way _might_ get us out.. the way we came in WILL get us out.
Point being, I as a diver still have control of keeping track of my
location and knowing the way OUT. Nothing "trust me" about it.
It might ruffle some feathers, but any instrcutor who does not respect
that you turned the dive should be dumped IMO.
Any time I jump in the water, I'm relying only on me. Briefing information
is nothing more than a suggestion of what I may encounter so that I may
set a tentative dive plan. Modifying that plan (as needed) underwater
to suit the conditions of reality, and keeping track of how to get
back out of the water are up to me. Of course its nice when the information
turns out to be correct... but you have to be prepared in case it
isn't.
Regards,
Mike
--
Mike Zimmerman < zim...@aur.alcatel.com > Alcatel Network Sytems, Ral, NC
'99 1.8T Black Magic [\] NC Diving: http://users.vnet.com/scuba/
A is A. Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it.
Dan Bracuk
>> He also mentioned that he'd not dived below 35 feet. The deep dive is one
diving, I don't think it makes much sense to do all your training in lakes.
<<
I had also noticed the 35 ft comment but did not mention it because no
clarification was required on that specific point. Regarding your second
statement, speaking from the
perspective of someone who learned to dive in Cold Lake, Alberta,
http://www.town.coldlake.ab.ca/location.htm, with a club with no boat owning
members, sometimes you have to play the cards you were dealt.
Art Greenberg
> There is a difference btw violating a dive plan and crossing into a
> "trust me" dive.
>
> The circuit in question (Little River?) only becomes a "trust me" dive
> when you exceed your turn pressure. Up until that point you have a
> continuous guideline to the exit. At any point you can still turn that
> dive and head back out if you reach turn pressure before the jump back
> onto the main line.
Right, a point I omitted. Thanks for pointing that out. And no, no specific
location intended, and not a true story. Purely hypothetical.
> You still have responsibility for yourself.
The thrust of this entire line of discussion. I have been taking an extreme
position, perhaps, by saying not only am I responsible for myself and
my teammate herself, but that I prefer not to have anyone other than my
teammate(s) participate in planning and executing our dives. I don't have
a DM hovering over me while I do wrecks in the North Atlantic, why should
I tolerate that during purely recreational profiles in tropical water?
> Now if someone took me to the end of that line and wanted me to jump
> back to the main line and exit without retracing the circuit, I'd just
> as likely give the exit signal... going BACK the way we came back in.
> The new way _might_ get us out.. the way we came in WILL get us out.
>
> Point being, I as a diver still have control of keeping track of my
> location and knowing the way OUT. Nothing "trust me" about it.
> It might ruffle some feathers, but any instrcutor who does not respect
> that you turned the dive should be dumped IMO.
>
> Any time I jump in the water, I'm relying only on me. Briefing information
> is nothing more than a suggestion of what I may encounter so that I may
> set a tentative dive plan. Modifying that plan (as needed) underwater
> to suit the conditions of reality, and keeping track of how to get
> back out of the water are up to me. Of course its nice when the information
> turns out to be correct... but you have to be prepared in case it
> isn't.
Agreed. The extent to which the plan is modified once in the water is a
function of the comfort level of the team, which in turn is determined by the
comfort level of the most conservative team member.
One who makes a habit of always leaving the plan and related decisions up to
the DM is never going to learn this. Might be appropriate for vacation divers,
but not for me.
Thanks Mike.
Jason
wrote:
>Hmmm. I do not remember seeing that in my SSI book. As I recall, the first time
>I saw a listing of skills was on a special page in the ultra-expensive SSI
>logbook I was required to purchase. Its in the form of a checklist - you know,
Oh, sorry, I sort of assumed you were talking about PADI when you
mentioned AOW. Over here they're pretty much the only agency with a
course with that name.
>> I personally think that, if you're going to do deco diving in buddy
>> pairs or teams, you have to be prepared to skip your deco obligation
>> to save your buddy. If you've got a lot of deco to do, then you ought
>> to have safety gas divers available, but if you're not prepared to
>> skip 20 mins deco to save someone's life, then you shouldn't be doing
>> deco diving, or you should be diving solo.
>
>No argument. What's that got to do with rescue training?
What's the point in putting yourself at risk by skipping your deco if
you don't have the skills to revive them on the surface anyway?
>I did not say I wasn't prepared to learn those skills. I did say that I'm not
>of the opinion that those skills in very rusty form would be useful. Your
>input has inspired me to review that opinion.
As I said, if they're dead anyway, whatever you do isn't going to make
them worse. You should practise CPR regularly and getting a good
rhythm is important, but even if you do it badly, it's better than
nothing.
vi...@sonydnse.com
ar...@nospameclipse.net wrote:
> I've already learned how to raise things using a lift bag, both attended and
> otherwise. That would certainly apply in this case.
Well, as I see it, raising a casualty with a CBL is rather different from
lifting half a boat with a lift bag. May I humbly suggest that you have a
re-think on this?
> What I have not learned is
> proper body position for the diver being raised.
I think there are more important facets to the skill...
> I have CPR training, but I
> have no idea how best to apply that on the water.
It would be a good idea to find out - AV on the surface is not too difficult
(knackering, maybe, but fairly simple) BUT it is (slightly yet significantly)
different to AV on land. It will take you half an hour to learn it.
HTH
Vic.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mike Zimmerman
is for each person to think how they would react.
You are underwater and your instructor is apparently asking you to
deviate from plan, and perhaps even enter a "trust me" situation.
Its a tough thing to say no.
Safe diving,
Art Greenberg
> In article <slrn7hv15g...@pralix.sarnoff.com>,
> ar...@nospameclipse.net wrote:
> > I've already learned how to raise things using a lift bag, both attended and
> > otherwise. That would certainly apply in this case.
>
> Well, as I see it, raising a casualty with a CBL is rather different from
> lifting half a boat with a lift bag. May I humbly suggest that you have a
> re-think on this?
Okay, my ignorance is showing. Kindly outline the differences.
> > What I have not learned is
> > proper body position for the diver being raised.
>
> I think there are more important facets to the skill...
>
> > I have CPR training, but I
> > have no idea how best to apply that on the water.
>
> It would be a good idea to find out - AV on the surface is not too difficult
> (knackering, maybe, but fairly simple) BUT it is (slightly yet significantly)
> different to AV on land. It will take you half an hour to learn it.
Thanks. My only objection to rescue training had nothing at all to do with my
perception of the level of difficulty in learning or use or its usefulness in
the field. Rather it is that, once trained, I would feel obligated to set aside
time to practice those skills so as not to be less than useless if and when I
am called upon to use them. I have decided that there is no merit to that
arguement, and that the value of the skills obtained is high enough to warrant
the additional effort. I practice all sorts of skills during my dives, and I
do from time to time make dives specifically for the purpose of practice. It is
easy enough to do a few more dives a year for this purpose.