Mike Wallace wrote:

> > It explains it as well as I think anyone is likely to be able to.  I
> > understand what you mean without fully understandnig what it's like.
>
> It's is hard to explain. Most folks just don't understand why we would
> ever do it. Most times, I don't know why either.. :-)

Don't know or just can't explain?  I think anyone that's ever done any
rescue of pretty much any kind knows what you mean.  We can't explain it
either.

> Probably can't due to liability reasons. We went though a period of
> time that problems were had with the chain of evidence in recovery
> situations. We have gotten around this by becoming "certified" by
> state and local agencies to become a part of the chain when we are
> used to recover it.

Interesting.  I had not considered chain of evidence, probably because all
those I know are direct employees of an enforcement agency, i.e. police
officers.  I assumed that being enlisted to assist in a recovery, presumably
under the supervision of someone officially authorized, would do the trick,
sort of like the old "I hereby deputize you" stuff from TV westerns.  Now
that you mention it, I can see where this would be a problem.

> That is common. We are insured both through workmen's comp and
> through private insurance provided by our home agency while we
> are training or on a mission. They do this because we are volunteer
> and consider it a bargain rather than having to pay for the service.

I'm sure it is a bargain.

> Good support is hard to come by. You might discuss with them
> starting in a surface support role and let it develop from there.

Not a bad idea.  I may explore this a bit.  I got the impression that my
friend would not find it comfortable to try and integrate a non employee
into the process and, if I'm right, I certainly won't push.  He is a police
officer full time and a dive team leader part time.  He's got more than
enough stress without my adding to it.

Lee