ageddiver:
This has been an interesting (eye-opening) thread for me. I never saw my participation here as defending the actions of the parties involved, but rather bringing the necessary facts to the table so any discussion would at least be relevant. If you follow the thread from the beginning, you'll see that almost every initial fact was wrong - from the wreck to the diver's actions (breathing from the wrong bottle). I've also tried to answer some of your questions, Kat, concerning the experience level of the divers with both the conditions and with the equipment. These aren't opinions I'm offering, they are facts based on training records and dive logs.
While I don't take offense at any of the questions being raised here, I am surprised that when facts are presented the same questions persist here. I can't disagree with you when you say that asking questions can be helpful in learning, but I do want to point out that the questions being discussed now are heavily influenced by the writer's opinion and not on the facts of this particular incident. I'll refer to one of Kat's statements below as an example:
"And I do not believe the technology is sufficiently advanced at this point to encourage frequent diving in inclement conditions, no matter how advanced a diver is."
It's one thing for you to form an opinion on an issue (in this example CCR's and what the definition of inclement is) and then test it against reality to see if it fits by asking questions. But it's another thing to try to fit reality to your opinion when the facts in this particular case either don't support it, or haven't been determined. And that's what you're doing now.
Again, no offense taken or offered, and I apologize to Don for the cowboy reference - I honestly didn't see the picture before I used it.
It's one thing for you to form an opinion on an issue (in this example CCR's and what the definition of inclement is) and then test it against reality to see if it fits by asking questions. But it's another thing to try to fit reality to your opinion when the facts in this particular case either don't support it, or haven't been determined. And that's what you're doing now.
SeaKat's reply:
Not precisely, with all due respect. You made reference to my choice not to engage in RB at this point, in an offhand manner that wasn't entirely necessary, IMHO.
As a scientist by training, it's my nature to ask questions, no matter how offensive they may be to others of dissimilar proclivities and opinions.
One develops a hypothesis, asks questions to "test" it, before advancing the concept to to theoretical status.
Unfortunately, some folks jump the gun and assume because something is already 'operational', it has been fully tested and evaluated. Sadly, as with medicine, some things are "tested" through "on the job use," as may (or may not be) the case with RBs in the recreational dive community. The jury is still out on that one, methinks.
And so, I ask questions about these devices, not because I have an inherent prejudice per se, but because I have not seen sufficient "evidence" to suggest that this equipment is "ready" for more pervasive use. One of you indicated, somewhat prematurely I thought, that there was an "equipment malfunction" in this case, and then indicated that the equipment was going to be located and analyzed. That seems to me to be an attempt to "fit reality to opinion" as much as anything else. Making such judgments before having analyzed the equipment is inherently a comment based upon the personal opinion that it WAS the equipment that failed. While it might be the case, no one knows that yet.
To your point about visibility. Thirty feet for those of us accustomed to viz a handwidth from one's mask is, indeed, very good. However, it can also lead to a false sense of security.
I had excellent training in Northeastern waters. It made me a better, more efficient and conscientious diver FOR THOSE WATERS. I've been diving more recently, however, in warmer waters with different conditions. And there are differences. It's "real ocean" out there too, with issues, while similar to our cold/murky water conditions, so to speak, all its own.
Diving wrecks is an inherently dangerous process. Diving with "exotic" equipment, if you will, equipment adds to the risk. Diving in conditions, no matter how "tame" they may seem, adds yet another dimension to the mix: over confidence, even complacency.
I am NOT suggesting at this point that these divers were either of those things. I AM suggesting, however, that all factors, no matter how painful they may be to those of us who have personal acquaintence with the people involved, must be considered.Whether we like them or not.
The bottom line is still this: diving has risks. RBs add an additional layer of risk, still being "tested" as it were. Diving in waters and conditions, or at sites with which we are unfamiliar adds yet another layer. And add to that the fact that as we become more experienced, we risk the added factor of over confidence and complacency (DAN stats support that statement), it is, indeed, a many headed animal.
I also, as a Northeastern trained diver grow admittedly weary of hearing my colleagues from that region diminish divers without that experience, due to the relatively "tame" conditions faced in more temperate conditions. Swift currents abound in some of the more temperate conditions too, along with high seas and interesting, if you will, navigational challenges. Diving in more temperate conditions should not be considered "junior diving" as it seems many of my Northestern colleagues are wont to suggest at times. Clearly, serious injury and accidents occur in ANY dive environment.
Again, I do not wish to offend anyone here. But asking questions is natural,healthy, and inherently useful. It's why many of us participate in these forums: to learn.
One of the things I continue to learn is that this medium does not allow for the 85% non verbal aspect of communication to modify the written word in the manner that avoids this kind of potential confrontation.
Sad, but true. Across the table, this discussion would have been resolved no doubt in the light it was generated: an attempt to learn,understand, sympathize, empathize.
Not to attempt to wrest one's ideas away from him, or her, in the cold light of personal opinion sans objectivity.
My error in this matter was not reading every single post on the subject prior to entering the discussion. I committed, it seems, the ultimate faux paux by refering to the incident on the Grove, incorrectly, as I had just been told by a dive operator a few days ago, on Key Largo, that it was INDEED the Grove involved in the incident. That seems to have generated some angst on the part of some of you, and a rather weary "For the last time"....etc etc.
Bear in mind that not all of us have time, sadly, to read every single post: four pages now, because we have lives outside of SCUBABOARD (sadly....grinning here). Yes, it would be nice for all of us to read every single word before replying.
But human nature being as it is, that's not likely for most of us.
We do the best we can to learn in any environment, no matter what the constraints.
At least, we don't stop trying, nor do we discourage others from doing so, if we are truly interested in learning, and helping our colleagues in any way we can.
