You mean like hiding your assets to keep from having them seized in a lawsuit?
Ask OJ.
Good lawyers will find your stuff. Hiding assets in the 7 figure range isn’t as easy as it would be for people like me, hiding my hundreds.
Rob Stewart and Third Dive
- Thread starter wedivebc
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
You mean like hiding your assets to keep from having them seized in a lawsuit?
Ask OJ.
Good lawyers will find your stuff. Hiding assets in the 7 figure range isn’t as easy as it would be for people like me, hiding my hundreds.
At least you have hundreds. In my case I have over a 100k of my own dive gear in the garage, but can barely afford the gasoline to go diving every weekend.
Michael
Michael
ThatDogDontHunt
Oscar Meyer Weiner
You mean things like their house and car and golf clubs and favourite slippers?
Corporations are very different from individuals.
I hear you. 6+ rebreathers, open circuit gear, tanks, wetsuits....it adds up quickly! Luckily I’m rich (or at least my ex-wife says I am).
Thanks for the heads-up... I didn't realise Jill and I were quoted in Rob's article.
Something to consider when thinking about our responses was the question we were asked. The dives in question -- I understood -- were in excess of 68 metres.
Another consideration is what we answered. Indeed, how each of our answers was framed.
For me -- and it was just my opinion -- a dive beyond 68 metres with a rebreather and bailout bottles and a camera in a current (it's called the Gulf Stream), is hard work. ESPECIALLY since I was told the ascents were not the customary Gulf Stream drifts, but pulling back up a static line.
Of course, I am twice the victim's age, and that counts for something. (An interesting point from many aspects.) From my perspective, two dives like that conducted within a few hours of each other carrying that gear load, would require a pretty huge incentive. Three I would never attempt.
As others have mentioned, I have done and will probably do again, three deep dives in a working day. However, I would lay good odds they will be in a cave with little to zero current and any camera kit being carried will be a paralenz and a small lighting tray.
As for the "evidence" as Sotis asked for in Rob's documentary, when Rob and I spoke about this incident I cited community best practice. I've been involved with writing standards for technical programs in the past, and more so now at RAID, and the evidence I'd offer Sotis and that I offered to Rob was the singular lack of support in technical agency training standards for three dives beyond 68 metres in a working day... not 24 hours... but a working day. It simply isn't kosher.
We can do as we wish outside of training... well, most are free to... but there is also the gravity of that wavy, shadowy, string-theory like demarcation line between fine and foolish for an instructor diving with a student. He or she is expected to behave in a manner that will not throw discredit on the agency, etc., etc. Which some individuals, perhaps the one being interviewed on screen in Rob's film, seem to feel translates into a bit of a buzz-kill.
However, in this particular case, the end result was a huge cluster ****, and probably serves as a bit of a learning experience for all involved, n'est pas?
Subfiend
Contributor
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 364
- # of dives
- I just don't log dives
When the Medical Examiner was deposed in the lawsuit following Rob Stewart's death, he testified that he reached his hypoxia conclusion based on his assumption that the divers were out of oxygen when they reached the surface and they had nothing to breathe other than their hypoxic diluent. He also testified that he never reviewed the dive profile data obtained from Stewart's rebreather controllers by NEDU and the U.S. Coast Guard before he issued his final report. This data showed that Stewart was manually adding oxygen to his rebreather on the surface, his ppO2 never dropped below 0.6, and he closed the loop and breathed air for the last two minutes he spent on the surface. The case is now over and the evidence obtained can be discussed publicly.
Attachments
bubblemonkey2
Contributor
It's a shame how much confusion arises without any data.
Triple dives to 60+ metres on "10/20" with GF 90/90
This may be on the edge of survivable, even without any [other] mistakes?
Triple dives to 60+ metres on "10/20" with GF 90/90
This may be on the edge of survivable, even without any [other] mistakes?
Subfiend
Contributor
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 364
- # of dives
- I just don't log dives
The actual diluent was 10/50.
uwxplorer
Contributor
I am sure I have seen that when looking at the original documents, but I did not remember the 10/20 entered mix and the GF.
Hard to blame that on a typo when programming the SW, so I suppose the idea was to minimize the He penalty built in the deco algorithm? On top of a GF 90/90? And a 75 ft/mn ascent rate on a third dive?
What could possibly be wrong...
About 3 mins of BT and a 5 min deco stop while still nearly fully loaded with gas from the previous dive at 90/90. No wonder Peter lost consciousness too. The whole "plan" is just nuts all for a very replaceable anchor.
Similar threads
