On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:14:43 -0500, Mike Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>On 26 Jun 2003 at 14:01, Reef Fish wrote:
>> >>no uncertain
>> >>terms they should be told that they should not dive those conditions
>> >>if they are not fully prepared for them. After that, when the fins
>> >>hit the water it's the diver's ass.....
>>
>> This is usually done on exceptional sites.
>
>Usually done? What would their reason be for not giving an advanced full
briefing.
Do you have ANY evidence that there wasn't adequate briefing in that
particular site? Exceptional briefing are done only on exception
sites such as the first time the Manullita site is dived in Cocos,
or the DIrty Rock is dived there, or the Passes in Tahiti that MAY
have currents up to 10-12 kts.
The site in question is NOT exceptional in any sense of the word
other than the fact that these two divers didn't come back.
When you eliminate all the improbables, dear Watson, the only
conclusion you can arrive at is that these divers SCREWED UP.
It's THEIR FAULT or God's fault if they had heart attacks.
Can't blame it on the DM or the boat or anyone else.
That was what Hasson essentially said. I see absolutely no evidence
to the contrary.
The pseudo arguments and speculations are ALL by those who have
NEVER dived in Cocos. Some NEVER dived any liveaboard, and are just
not familiar with Cocos, current diving there, and try to equate
what happened with briefing in a kiddy Open Water-I uncertified
student dive.
Sorry Mike. It's ain't that way, and it'll never be that way.
Just don't dive on liveaboards that are beyond YOUR experience
and capability. That's all. I don't necessarily mean YOU, Mike.
>>
>> > Moreover, I think it's incumbent upon the dive operation to
>> > give
>> >potential customers information on the difficulty of the dive before
>> >those customers are sitting in diesel fumes on a pitching sea where
>> >self-estimation of diving abilities might soar. Of course, it's
>> ultimately
>> >always the diver who is responsible for himself... God doesn't say,
>> >"Hmm, seems like the operator's fault; you, Mr. Diver, get out of the
>> >casket,
>> and
>> >you, Mr. DM get into the casket," but there's something wrong with an
>> >operation that doesn't fully inform its potential customers of all
>> >the facts about the dives prior to putting those divers in the boat.
>> >Personally, besides transportation, the facts are what I want most
>> >from a dive operation, and the earlier the better.
>>
>> All sound good and well AFTER the fit has already hit the shan.
>>
>> In the case of Cosos, that operation has been around for over 15
>> years. I have warned divers in 1992 what you want the operation and
>> DM to warn on EVERY site and every dive?
>
>You arent' a DM for the operation, although your warning would certainly
be another
>source of information for me if I were diving this site for first time.
You jumped the gun even before I finished. There are TONS of info
around about Cocos diving. I am just one of many who wrote about it.
You should have at least wait till the part where it says:
LET THE BUYER BEWARE
and about jumping off the plane. ;-)
There it is:
>>
>> Have you heard of teh expression "Let the Buyer Beware." ?
>
>>
>> That is ALSO the RESPONSIBILITY of the DIVER. To do some research and
>> ask some questions before you believe someone who says: here's a
>> parachute -- jump, when you have no experience in such.
>
>Absolutely, and then he should back up that information with good sound
local
>information.
So what the hell are we arguing about? All evidence (to ME) seemed
to point to the probable cause (no one will EVER know) that the
divers didn't have the skills, didn't do the homework, didn't
do lots of other things they could've done, which would have made
them at least SURVIVORS with "tall tales" on how they survived
and let other learn something from it.
>
>--
>Mike Wallace
>Huntsville, Alabama
I just don't buy the EXCUSE of always blaming SOMEONE ELSE, when
there is no evidence that someone else was at fault.
ElPezNeuvo.
|
