> 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?

Hell no. Only evidence I have is heresay and inadmissible in all courts except
for our court of discussion.

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.

Those would certainly be exceptional sites.


>
> 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.

So for them it was definitely an exceptional site. An EXCEPTIONAL briefing
MIGHT have made them think twice about attempting the dive. Of course, it's
possible they did get an exceptional briefing and did it anyway. Bad choice if
that's the case.


>
> 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.

Yep. No doubt a bad choice or series of bad choices where made. We know the
outcome of those choices, but don't know for sure that they are the only ones
that made bad choices. I arrived at the screwed up conclusion as soon as i read
the first report. I then began to wonder if the outcome could have been
different, if other choices had been made outside of the choices the two divers
made.


>
> 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.

I agree that that is what he said. His delivery might not have been as
sensitive as it could have been under the circumstances though.


>
> 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.

My arguments and speculation are by someone that has never dived in Cocos or on
a liveaboard. Were I to do that tomorrow, I would expect  those I am paying for
transportation to share their considerable knowledge of these locations in an
effort to make my trip a safer more enjoyable one. Just good business sense
IMO. I'm a long way down the road from kiddy briefing's but I can guarantee you
that I listen to evey one given in the effort to learn just a little more
before I throw my ass over the edge. Once my ass is hangin' in the air though,
it's all on my dime.


>
> 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.

Solid advice that pertains to us all.


>
>
> >>
> >> >         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.

Nah, I wouldn't EXPECT you to share your knowledge about Cocos diving. I WOULD
expect the operationa and their DM's to do so. For me it would just serve to
back up the information that I had gathered before I got there.


>
> You should have at least wait till the part where it says:
>
>          LET THE BUYER BEWARE
>
> and about jumping off the plane.   ;-)

Ain't jumpin' off any plane that I have not at least set fire to bfore I have
to jump. :-)


>
> 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.

Somebody's gotta argue. That's why I forwarded the post over to start with.
Might as well be us.....

This dead horse is pretty much all pulp now anyway.. :-)


> >
> >--
> >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.

Haven't heard a lot blame here, just some question about what could have
possibly been done to change the outcome. All hingsight for my part....


>
> ElPezNeuvo.


__
Mike Wallace
34 47.534
086 34.132