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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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?


>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.