On 26 Jun 2003 at 15:12, Reef Fish wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:03:08 -0400, Don Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >Anyway, what I found most interesting from the very limited
> >information available was the following:
> >
> >>In fact, the only thing both men agree on is the Coast Guard's
> >>discovery
> >of
> >>Rubin's air tank some 28 miles from the dive site, and at least one
> >>of
> two
> >>inflatable locator devices, known as "sausages."
>
>
> >If the investigation indicates that the sausage was deployed then it
> >is reasonable to conclude the diver was on the surface and waiting
> >for pick- up.
>
> That part is obvious.  Some time DURING their drift when they were
> still alive.

He could have inflated at depth and then never reaced the surface.


>
> The Japanese who died in Palau were adrift for several DAYS, with air
> and sea searches before they perished.  We know how long they drifted
> because one of them had the presence of mind wo record what happened
> in a DIARY.
>
>
> >Reports of insufficient fuel aboard the tender(s)now becomes much
> >more important evidence.
>
> Important evidence for WHAT?

Lack of proper safety planning on the part of the operator comes to mind for me.


>
> Here's where you jumped to the unwarranted and wrong conclusion.
> In Cocos, drifting to somewhere OUT OF SIGHT is not uncommon.

All the more reason to make sure the chase boats are working and have sufficient
fule on board.


>
> Keep in mind the air searches in Palau.  You could have TONS
> of fuels in the skiff (which is a physical impossibility) and
> still not find the victims if they surfaced too late or in
> the wrong place because they got disoriented.

But if you have the tools available, you can make the effort, assuming that the tools
are operational.


>
> The skiff has plenty of fuel for ordinary, everyday searches
> of the kind, to go back to the mothership for more fuel if
> necessary.

Apparently some of the folks that were there don't think so. They indicate fuel as an
issue in the skiff(s).


>
> The fuel in the tenders is not even a part of the equation,
> for ANYONE who has ANY knowledge about that type of diving and
> how those operations work.

Then why have the skiffs on board if they are not going to be used in an emergency.
If they are there and operational and available, why not have them as part of the
emergency plan?


>
> I wonder why they don't hire you as their attorney, with such
> deep knowledge about scuba diving, liveaboard diving, and
> rescue operation on a tender?


Regardless of his knowledge about diving, liveaboard diving or rescue diving, he
appears to have reasonable common sense to me. Good thing for an attorney to
have IMO.

Mike


>
>
> >Watch this space. :)
> >
> >Dive Safe,
> >
> >/Don
>
>
> If Darwin's warning and the lessons of SELF reliance and SELF
> responsibility don't sink in, how about try "God help those
> who help themselves"?
>
> ElPezNeuvo.


--
Mike Wallace
Huntsville, Alabama