 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / April 2007Triple Fatality Spiegel Grove
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl- 316deadlydive,0,52143.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines KEY LARGO -- Three divers died on Friday while diving on the Spiegel Grove ship wreck, the Monroe County Sheriff's office said. In an e-mailed statement, Becky Herrin, spokeswoman for MSO, said the three men were part of a four-man team that was diving on the popular wreck from the commercial dive boat Scuba-do. All were reportedly advanced certified divers and planned a penetration dive into the sunken wreck. That's when something apparently went wrong. ``These wrecks can be very confusing inside,'' Herrin said. ``There's a lot of places to go wrong. None of the four divers were immediately identified but Herrin said all were from New Jersey. They were not related, but were friends traveling together. Herrin said the four divers dove on the Spiegel Grove wreck the day before. They did a penetration dive at that time as well, she said. Here's what Herrin said happened on Friday: One of the divers was stationed at the entrance of the and the other three went inside. The release did not say how deep the divers were. The ship was sunk about 5 miles off Key Largo in the Atlantic. The diver left outside the wreck began to run out of air, according to detectives. He surfaced safely. Two divers from another boat went down to look for the others. They surfaced with one diver who was in distress. That diver was taken on board a Coast Guard vessel where CPR was performed. Paramedics met the boat at shore and transported the victim to Mariner's Hospital where he was pronounced dead. The two other divers did not surface and initial searches of the wreck failed to locate them. Just after 2 p.m., a dive team from Key Largo Fire Rescue that was searching the wreck located their bodies inside. According to detectives, the bodies are so deep inside, it will be difficult to recover them. More divers from that team will be deployed to the wreck on Saturday and will make another attempt at recovery. Names of the divers were not released pending notification of next of kin. The USS Spiegel Grove was a Navy Landing Ship Dock that was sunk to create an artificial reef off Key Largo in 2002. The vessel is 510 feet in length and 84 feet wide. When it was sunk it went down on its side. In 2005, underwater currents caused by Hurricane Dennis shifted the ship upright into its present underwater berth. The highest point of the ship now sits 40 to 60 feet below the surface. Revised link: /http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/miami/sfl-316deadlydive,0,4480880.story?c oll=sfla-news-miami >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >------=_NextPart_000_00A5_01C767FC.E6692B20-- MIME this > Revised link: > > /http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/miami/sfl-316deadlydive,0,4480880.story?c oll=sfla-news-miami > <http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/miami/sfl-316deadlydive,0,4480880.story?c oll=sfla-news-miami> Sat AM update http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-cdivers17mar17,0,6755181 .story >> Revised link: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-cdivers17mar17,0,6755181 .story More PADI training deaths. "At least 57 diving deaths in the United States and Canada were reported to the Divers Alert Network in 2006, with a third of the dead identified as technical divers, according to data compiled by the network, a non-profit that promotes dive safety." I see the horrific scuba shorty classes that everyone decried has lowered the already miniscule number of diving deaths by 40% or so. It's a miracle that any of them make it to their 5th dive alive. Wonder how many 10-12 yr olds we've lost.  SignaturePopeye "Best thing for him, really, his therapy was going nowhere." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:48:32 -0400, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >>> Revised link: >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Wonder how many 10-12 yr olds we've lost. Come on Popeye, you know Dam well if they start croaking 10 to 12 year olds the liberals will be screaming for TSA employees on every dive boat On Mar 17, 7:48 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> Revised link: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > www.finalprotectivefire.com I didn't see where it said they were PADI trained, or had done their initial training through one of those horrific scuba shorty classes. I read that they "were very experienced and certified to dive shipwrecks" and "had additional training that earned each of them the title of 'technical diver'." What am I missing? i.e. what does this have to do with a PADI weekend course? kari > On Mar 17, 7:48 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > What am I missing? Another ten year long argument. Poor Kari. On Mar 17, 1:40 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Mar 17, 7:48 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Poor Kari. Thanks, Doug. That was very helpful. kari > On Mar 17, 1:40 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks, Doug. That was very helpful. Its kind of a running inside joke So why did the diver die? a) he was PADI trained, and PADI has lowered their standards. Google rec.scuba with PADI lowered standards b) he wasn't DIR, s it was just a matter of time. Google rec.scuba and look for the DIR debates. Just search for DIR. c) he normally dives DIR, but he wasn't following rule xx on that dive, which made him non-DIR, which is why he died. d) he was divng solo. e) he had a snorkel f) he has a spare air. etc. SignatureDennis On Mar 17, 4:18 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > On Mar 17, 1:40 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > -- > Dennis You know, the thing about inside jokes is that if you are not inside, you might not "get" the joke. Why, when one of those non-inside people asks a simple question, would the response need to be sarcastic? Why not do what you did, and just answer the question? It wasn't hard for you, why is it so hard for Doug? Thanks anyway. kari > On Mar 17, 4:18 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> >> > > > What am I missing? >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > sarcastic? Why not do what you did, and just answer the question? It > wasn't hard for you, why is it so hard for Doug? I did answer the question, and, it wasn't hard at all. I invested a lot of time in you previously, bringing you up to speed, to have it described by you as a waste of -your- time, and I see no need to repeat that. > Thanks anyway. You're welcome. <snip> > > sarcastic? Why not do what you did, and just answer the question? It > > wasn't hard for you, why is it so hard for Doug? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have it described by you as a waste of -your- time, and I see no need to > repeat that. Ah. That explains it. :-) Dennis On Mar 17, 9:11 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > <snip> > > > sarcastic? Why not do what you did, and just answer the question? It [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Dennis Maybe to you it explains it. I am just a driving-challenged, gun hating Canadian. Who on earth could explain it to me? And heaven forfend - why bother to try? I *still* don't get it. :-) > On Mar 17, 9:11 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: <snip> > > Ah. That explains it. :-) > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I *still* don't get it. :-) Well, I'd be happy to try, Kari. SignatureDennis On Mar 17, 10:16 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > Dennis I appreciate that. Thank you. kari > On Mar 17, 9:11 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> >> > > sarcastic? Why not do what you did, and just answer the question? >> > > It [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > hating Canadian. Who on earth could explain it to me? And heaven > forfend - why bother to try? A profundity. > I *still* don't get it. :-) All evidence to the contrary. >> On Mar 17, 4:18 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > have it described by you as a waste of -your- time, and I see no need to > repeat that. But, did you signal before you got up to speed? You may have changed lanes there, without notice. And, you know how it is now--you turn on the blinkers and everyone politely moves so you can change lanes, you know, how it used to be. ;) Dan >>> On Mar 17, 4:18 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > blinkers and everyone politely moves so you can change lanes, you know, > how it used to be. ;) Dan <cough> :-) On Mar 17, 6:34 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Mar 17, 4:18 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > >> > > > What am I missing? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > You're welcome. Well, I don't get it. I asked what this particular incident had to do with PADI weekend course. I am sorry you so obviouly wasted your time with me. I don't recall telling you what you've ascribed to me, above. I am certain you can now post your evidence, and I look forward to it. It will refresh my ailing memory, and perhaps, even answer the question that I did ask you. And I wasn't thanking you. All I got from you was sarcasm. That was for the poster who responded with an answer instead of a useless retort. Why is it so difficult for you to just converse? kari > On Mar 17, 6:34 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> >> > > > What am I missing? >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Well, I don't get it. Uh-huh. > I asked what this particular incident had to do > with PADI weekend course. I caught that. > I am sorry you so obviouly wasted your time > with me. Not as sorry as I am. > I don't recall telling you what you've ascribed to me, > above. I am certain you can now post your evidence, and I look > forward to it. GAGS your name as author, Rec.scuba as the group, and the words "waste" and time". Always search by date. No offense, but, I'm carrying enough Canadians now, and no space is available. > It will refresh my ailing memory, and perhaps, even > answer the question that I did ask you. > > And I wasn't thanking you. All I got from you was sarcasm. I know. I was further being sarcastic. It's a special skill I was well endowed with hereditarily, and have honed to a laser-cut keen in this very venue. > That was > for the poster who responded with an answer instead of a useless > retort. How many useless retorts are you up to in this conversation, now? >Why is it so difficult for you to just converse? Sweet Pea, with upwards of 22,000 posts on Usenet, I don't find it difficult to converse at -all-. So it's probably a different paradigm of the conversation that you're missing. On Mar 18, 6:22 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Mar 17, 6:34 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > >> >> > > > What am I missing? [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > I caught that. So why didn't you just answer my question? > > I am sorry you so obviouly wasted your time > > with me. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > GAGS your name as author, Rec.scuba as the group, and the words "waste" > and time". Okay. I've done this. The only thing that is relevant is a post in "A rational approach..." thread. And if you think that what I said is that all of your "education" was a waste of time, perhaps you ought to reread my words. That isn't what I said, and it's spelled out rather clearly there. > Always search by date. > > No offense, but, I'm carrying enough Canadians now, and no space is > available. I was not asking you to carry me, or engage in one of your endless to- and-fro conversations. I was just asking a question - and one that seemed rather simple to me. > > It will refresh my ailing memory, and perhaps, even > > answer the question that I did ask you. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > How many useless retorts are you up to in this conversation, now? I'm way behind you. I just asked a question. > >Why is it so difficult for you to just converse? > > Sweet Pea, with upwards of 22,000 posts on Usenet, I don't find it > difficult to converse at -all-. No, there was a very brief period of sunny days, when you actually ditched the sarcasm and we had a conversation. > So it's probably a different paradigm of the conversation that you're > missing. The paradigm of the conversation that I am missing may be this: the "insiders" at rec.scuba are not interested in having conversations with people that they do not consider part of the clique. When someone makes an honest effort to just ask a question, perhaps without benefit of the thousands of posts that the insiders have made previously, the clique rebels and responds derisively. Why don't you just make that part of the RS TOS? "We are only going to talk about guns and the second amendment, and otherwise engage in bashing Canadians and PADI. If you want to talk about diving, go somewhere else. Oh and by the way, if you're not with us, you're agin us." That about right? > The paradigm of the conversation that I am missing may be this: the > "insiders" at rec.scuba are not interested in having conversations [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That about right? No. This was, just a very few posts ago, a diving thread. It's not the "insiders" here that have steered the thread away from diving and into a rant about lawyers and "insiders". If the short-attention-span crowd wants to have side conversations about irrelevant subjects, no big deal. It happens on every newsgroup. The core participants, the real clique, will still be found in the diving related threads discussing diving related subjects. Join us if you want. esg > > The paradigm of the conversation that I am missing may be this: the > > "insiders" at rec.scuba are not interested in having conversations [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > esg I do keep trying. > On Mar 18, 6:22 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> I caught that. > > So why didn't you just answer my question? We've covered that at length. >> GAGS your name as author, Rec.scuba as the group, and the words "waste" >> and time". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reread my words. That isn't what I said, and it's spelled out rather > clearly there. Post a link, but, by your description, that's not it. It was when you were packing for vacation. >> Always search by date. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I was not asking you to carry me, or engage in one of your endless to- > and-fro conversations. Actually, that's -exactly- what you were asking. BTW, I take back half the bad things I -ever- said about Canadians. I was in Quebec all today... Talk about the -a.shole- of North America... > I was just asking a question - and one that > seemed rather simple to me. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I'm way behind you. I just asked a question. I'd say that depends on your perspective. Surely, with Dennis's input, you could have brought yourself up to speed. Instead, you seem to nag like a wife. It's definitely a useless retort in my book. >> >Why is it so difficult for you to just converse? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, there was a very brief period of sunny days, when you actually > ditched the sarcasm and we had a conversation. Which you described as a "waste of time". Is there an echo in here? >> So it's probably a different paradigm of the conversation that you're >> missing. > > The paradigm of the conversation that I am missing may be this: the > "insiders" at rec.scuba are not interested in having conversations > with people that they do not consider part of the clique. Wrong. We're all conversing with you. Furthermore, I'd be the first to describe you as a regular. > When > someone makes an honest effort to just ask a question, perhaps without > benefit of the thousands of posts that the insiders have made > previously, the clique rebels and responds derisively. That's -one- perspective of what happened. Inaccurate at the very least, since, Dennis, a regular cliquey insider, answered you, directly contradicting your description. >Why don't you > just make that part of the RS TOS? There isn't one. It's just pure Darwinism here. > "We are only going to talk about > guns and the second amendment, and otherwise engage in bashing > Canadians and PADI. I talk about diving all the time. Several times last week. If it's -all- we talked about here, this place would be as dead as Uk.rec.scuba, or Equipment or Locations. There again, you're showing a -very- narrow minded view. Also, I'm a staunch supporter, ney, -champion- of PADI, and was counter-bashing, once again reflecting on the accuracy of your perspective. And, Hey. Some of my -best friends- are Canadian... ;-) > If you want to talk about diving, go somewhere > else. Oh and by the way, if you're not with us, you're agin us." Only on gun control. No Quarter. None given. None expected. > That about right? If you say so. Most Canadians seemta got their story, and they're stickin' to it. On Mar 18, 7:35 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > I was in Quebec all today... > > Talk about the -a.shole- of North America... Quebec City? It's one of my favourite cities. In July. > On Mar 18, 7:35 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In July. That explains it. This is March. Oh, and the country is magnificent. Ranks right up with western Montana. It's all the French people... On Mar 18, 6:35 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Mar 18, 6:22 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > >> I caught that. [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > > Most Canadians seemta got their story, and they're stickin' to it. Our own thread? I suppose I should be honoured. To some of your points (please let me know what I've missed): here's the link (I don't know how to shorten it - live with it)- http://groups.google.ca/groups?as_q=waste+time&num=100&scoring=d&hl=en&as_epq=&a s_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=rec.scuba&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=kari&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_ qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=18&as_maxm=3&as_maxy=2007&safe=off and here's the relevant (to me) paragraph - "Well, despite the fact that many folks here seem to think this is vitally important, nowhere on my list of things to do is "read rec.scuba." Yet, here I still am... that is what I mean by wasting time. Not that there is nothing useful for me here, just that there are other things I should be doing instead, that are rapidly moving from the 'important' into the 'important and urgent' space. Fortunately (maybe unfortunately, we'll see) the list is almost complete, with plenty of time to spare, so I appear to have a bit more time to waste." If you think that me having much more important and urgent things to do than play around on the internet translates into "everything Doug tried to tell me was a waste of my time" that is unequivocally incorrect. Is that what you think I said? Is that our sticking point? Re me asking you to "carry another Canadian" - maybe I don't understand what that means. Re Quebec - only been there once, for french fries and french onion soup. Walked across the bridge from Ottawa into Hull, where I was amused by the sign reading "Civilization -->" They are of course, referring to the museum, but it was still funny. Re Dennis' input - his input did answer my question. And if you'll recall, I then asked HIM why it was so easy for him to answer, and seemed so difficult for you. Re nag like a wife. Well, at least if I'm nagging you I'm getting it out of my system without getting it all over my husband. That seems like a win-win-win for all of us. I may be a "regular" but it seems I've got a long way to go before I become an "insider" - as I seem to STILL not get why you say "Poor Kari." Dennis is a "cliquey insider" and yes, he did respond in a helpful way. As ESG pointed out, I was on a rant. By "clique" in that sentence, I obviously meant (and should have said) "Doug." Here's what I think has happened, upon further reflection and after reading this post. I think you were (once again) being sarcastic in the post that started all of this. I interpreted your sarcasm incorrectly, and instead thought you were PADI bashing. I then asked a question - a sincere one - to which you responded with more sarcasm. Dennis tried to explain it to me, but I still didn't get it, because I did not hear the sarcasm in your original post (by original I mean the one that lead us to here). Am I getting closer? If that's not closer, then please continue to try and enlighten me. And if I am closer, then screw you for telling me that I should have been able to bring myself up to speed. If that's the case, then I simply made the mistake of thinking you'd made a real post - not a sarcastic barb. That's just me, trying to see the best in you. Had you answered "I was being sarcastic" or as Dennis did, or anything along those lines, that would have sufficed. Oh, and one more thing: > > That about right? > > If you say so. The first is a question. The second implies it was a statement. There is a difference, you know. Difference between asking you and telling you. I was asking (hence the ?) not "saying so." Kari SignaturePopeye "Best thing for him, really, his therapy was going nowhere." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com > On Mar 18, 6:35 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 153 lines] > > Our own thread? I suppose I should be honoured. I had to take my short attention span out of that other speculative, dead thread. > To some of your points (please let me know what I've missed): This is what you said. After that, it was spin. http://tinyurl.com/create.php http://tinyurl.com/23voaz "I will be 'scurrying' again, it seems. And I say 'again' because it seems that despite your earlier "rescind" I've said something in the meantime that you didn't care for, causing you to reverse your position. I say 'scurry' because I have some things to do before I go, and am just wasting time here in rec.scuba..." See how much of my time you're monopolizing? And we're not even into the PADI thing yet. Thank god you're not getting into a to-and-fro conversation with me, as you noted. > here's the link (I don't know how to shorten it - live with it)- > http://groups.google.ca/groups?as_q=waste+time&num=100&scoring=d&hl=en&as_epq=&a s_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=rec.scuba&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=kari&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_ qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=18&as_maxm=3&as_maxy=2007&safe=off [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Re me asking you to "carry another Canadian" - maybe I don't > understand what that means. I'd say you're grandly missing the point. > Re Quebec - only been there once, for french fries and french onion > soup. Walked across the bridge from Ottawa into Hull, where I was > amused by the sign reading "Civilization -->" They are of course, > referring to the museum, but it was still funny. I got a DOT stop there yesterday, and some -really- attractive miserable bitch wandered around my truck for an hour and 15 minutes (only Americans stopped in that time, I note), and had a fit because everything was in order. At long last, after searching the truck, going after my logbook, customs paperwork and permits with a fine tooth comb, she couldn't find, of all things, the -vin- number of the trailer, and started acting like she wanted it unloaded. At that point, I flatly told her to f.ck off, and asked for her supervisor. I mean, it's not like she had a gun... I asked if she "spreckenzied Americanski" just to piss her off (it worked), ("I spick gud da englaise) and she called in a supervisor, apparently from home. The supervisor spent 10 minutes on my stuff, made one phone call, probably to customs, and let me go. It was a shakedown, and, not the first I've had in Canada. > Re Dennis' input - his input did answer my question. And if you'll > recall, I then asked HIM why it was so easy for him to answer, and > seemed so difficult for you. And like I've repeatedly stated. I did answer you, and it was easy. A number of times now, still quite easy. Answering now, -very- easy. > Re nag like a wife. Well, at least if I'm nagging you I'm getting it > out of my system without getting it all over my husband. That seems > like a win-win-win for all of us. Whoooo Hoooo, what a re-ward. -There's- a Futile John perspective if -ever- I saw one. You may want to re-think that from -my- point of view... > I may be a "regular" but it seems I've got a long way to go before I > become an "insider" - as I seem to STILL not get why you say "Poor [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Am I getting closer? You tell me- you're describing your own actions. > If that's not closer, then please continue to try and enlighten me. Now, we're back to "I can only carry so many Canadians". I'm done enlightening you. Very. > And if I am closer, then screw you for telling me that I should have > been able to bring myself up to speed. Here's a tantalizing hint- GAGS "pile o' bodies", maybe with "PADI standards".. > If that's the case, then I > simply made the mistake of thinking you'd made a real post - not a > sarcastic barb. That's just me, trying to see the best in you. Thanks, but I don't need a mom, either. > Had > you answered "I was being sarcastic" or as Dennis did, or anything [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There is a difference, you know. Difference between asking you and > telling you. I was asking (hence the ?) not "saying so." Thanks for lining me out on that. FYI, if you ask the question, and I say "if you say so", it means, -I- don't say so. It would further indicate that I may not even agree with the question. On Mar 19, 3:52 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: <snipped> > I'm done enlightening you. Then I guess we're just finished here. > On Mar 19, 3:52 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Then I guess we're just finished here. I know women whose first language is not even English..........ahhh, never mind! ;0) LD. <snip> > I'd say that depends on your perspective. > > Surely, with Dennis's input, you could have brought yourself up to speed. > > Instead, you seem to nag like a wife. And, lacking wife, I'm somewhat drawn to nagging ;-) <snip> Dennis > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And, lacking wife, I'm somewhat drawn to nagging ;-) You gotta catch that win-win-win thing to believe it. > <snip> > Dennis > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And, lacking wife, I'm somewhat drawn to nagging ;-) Wanna borrow mine??? LD. > BTW, I take back half the bad things I -ever- said about Canadians. > > I was in Quebec all today... > > Talk about the -a.shole- of North America... You were there *all* day? Damn, how many of them surrendered to you? >> BTW, I take back half the bad things I -ever- said about Canadians. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You were there *all* day? Damn, how many of them surrendered to you? Two, fer sure. It's not like they were armed. > And I wasn't thanking you. All I got from you was sarcasm. That was > for the poster who responded with an answer instead of a useless > retort. Why is it so difficult for you to just converse? <scorch-marks-as-it-goes-over-your-head> On Mar 18, 7:50 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM- gmail.com> wrote: > > And I wasn't thanking you. All I got from you was sarcasm. That was > > for the poster who responded with an answer instead of a useless > > retort. Why is it so difficult for you to just converse? > > <scorch-marks-as-it-goes-over-your-head> Thanks for your input. I think I've made it exceedingly clear that I didn't get it, and in fact still don't. How clever of you to pipe up now, and let everyone know that it went over my head. > Thanks for your input. I think I've made it exceedingly clear that I > didn't get it, and in fact still don't. How clever of you to pipe up > now, and let everyone know that it went over my head. Hi sweetheart, As a lover of Canadians, I feel it is my duty to explain to you Doug's hidden cliquie message in his original statement regarding PADI. The one that has you in such a twist. Here on rec.scuba, man people will come and lament the day that PADI lowered their training standards to such horrible levels that SCUBA diving has become a death defying act populated by untrained newbies sure to die horrible deaths in a watery grave. Doug is not one of those people. Douglas takes the eminantly reasonable position that PADI trains most of the divers in the free world today, fully %80 of them, and possibly more. He takes the position that given that undisputed fact, our shores should be awash with the rotting corpses of these poor, poor PADI newbs. Yet, by perusing accident reports and data, Doug has made a startling discovery. Most dive accidents happen to "technical" divers, or divers with certifications well beyond PADI OW. So, his quip was commentary that here again, we have an accident not by some undertrained PADI death newb, but by big macho "expert" divers. Now, will you quit your whining, sweetie? It's giving me a headache. Loves! >> Thanks for your input. I think I've made it exceedingly clear that I >> didn't get it, and in fact still don't. How clever of you to pipe up [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Loves! I love you, Dude. :-) Did you catch that "Husband -doesn't- get nagged, she -gets- to nag, I get to get nagged -at- " win-win-win" thing? I love being a winner. On Mar 22, 4:20 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > Did you catch that "Husband -doesn't- get nagged, she -gets- to nag, I get > to get nagged -at- " win-win-win" thing? I missed that part. But I've lived it, so I get the gist. *shivers* > I love being a winner. And handsome! "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.oneil@gmail.com> sputtered: > Most dive accidents happen to "technical" divers, or > divers with certifications well beyond PADI OW. IOW, arrogant morons like r.s. regulars. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Here on rec.scuba, man people will come and lament the day that PADI > lowered their training standards to such horrible levels that SCUBA > diving has become a death defying act populated by untrained newbies > sure to die horrible deaths in a watery grave. > Doug is not one of those people. Neither is anyone else still participating in this group. Doug is, quite possibly, the only one that has taken the position that anyone that lives through diving, must be adequately trained. The rest of us recognize other levels of incompetence when we see them. Lee > Doug is, quite possibly, the only one that has taken the position that > anyone that lives through diving, must be adequately trained. The rest of > us recognize other levels of incompetence when we see them. PADI's "Mastery of Buoyancy Control", illustrated: <http://www.huntzinger.com/dive/headless.jpg> -hh >> Here on rec.scuba, man people will come and lament the day that PADI >> lowered their training standards to such horrible levels that SCUBA [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > anyone that lives through diving, must be adequately trained. The rest of > us recognize other levels of incompetence when we see them. You're still missing the point. Hugh seems to have lost his temper. I didn't say they weren't incompetent. I didn't say they were well trained. I didn't even say some of them aren't spastic. I just said, if 99.999999999% are alive, it must be adequate. Hugh has provided me with the numbers that prove my point. I'll get back to it as soon as I get stopped, or maybe Sunday. "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > Hugh seems to have lost his temper. Temper? No. Maybe patience. > I didn't say they weren't incompetent. > > I didn't say they were well trained. > > I didn't even say some of them aren't spastic. My impression was that this sort of performance standard was being ignored; I'll try to dig up which phrase gave me this impression. > I just said, if 99.999999999% are alive, it must be adequate. 1 in 1 trillion? :-) > Hugh has provided me with the numbers that prove my point. It depends on what you think your point is. From my perspective, the numbers are adequate to show that the risk of death in diving is worse than 1 in 1 million...probably around 5 per 100,000 per year. Which then means we need to compare this risk to other risks to see if it meets the public's perception of "Acceptable". The public's level of acceptable risk - - for those things that they believe that they can't control - - is even lower than 1 in 1 million. The contradiction to all of this is that the public then turns a blind eye to other risks that are objectively worse, such as driving an automobile (1 in 6000/year), for a variety of what appear on the surface to be illogical reasons. By US Army safety standards, a material item that has a risk of worse than 1 in 1 million of seriously injuring (or killing) a soldier requires a high level of approval (General Officer) in order to be approved for fielding. In layman's terms, this means that a 1 in 1 million risk is considered unacceptable by the Army, despite the fact that it is for use when someone is shooting at you! It all comes down to the question of who gets to decide what the acceptable risk is, and if the activity in question falls above or below that value. -hh > "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > driving an automobile (1 in 6000/year), for a variety of what appear > on the surface to be illogical reasons. Or maybe not. Was thinking about this one on the way home...12K miles/ year at 40mph would work out to roughly 300 hours behind the wheel - the driving risk then works out to (1/6000) per 300 hrs, which would be (1/(6000*300)) per hour, or a 1 in 1.8 million risk per hour of driving. If we swag a typical dive as being an hour, this would mean that the typical dive fatality risks that we see of ~5 per 100K dives (assuming this is correct) would be significantly more dangerous than "per unit hour" of driving. Even if we say that there's roughly 3 million 'active' divers and each does around 25 dives/year, that works out to very very very roughly 75 deaths/year for 75 million dives, or a 1 in a million risk. Agaiin, assuming a 1 hour dive, then diving's not quite twice as dangerous as driving a car. All just off-the-cuff, 'envelope quality' swags. Will have to look at this more closely tomorrow. > By US Army safety standards, a material item that has a risk of worse > than 1 in 1 million of seriously injuring (or killing) a soldier [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -hh -hh Agaiin, assuming a 1 hour dive, then diving's > not quite twice as dangerous as driving a car. Would that be an average? or for everyone? > Agaiin, assuming a 1 hour dive, then diving's >> not quite twice as dangerous as driving a car. > > Would that be an average? or for everyone? You could ask Futile John Francis about driving in a car. In 60 years, he's never been killed. In fact, in traffic, he drives his car like a fighter jet. > You could ask Futile John Francis about driving in a car. > > In 60 years, he's never been killed. > > In fact, in traffic, he drives his car like a fighter jet. Correction in order. Like a trainer. Curtis >> Again, assuming a 1 hour dive, then diving's >> not quite twice as dangerous as driving a car. > > Would that be an average? or for everyone? I don't quite understand what you mean. My intent was to merely compare the grouped ("all participants") averages between the two activities. It would be quite difficult to try to compare individuals. There is some information by which we could start to look at identifiable subgroups. For example, novices in both activities tend to have higher accident frequency rates, so the average risk for their subpool would arguably be higher. By roughly how much, I don't know, as I haven't looked at the numbers that way to see about finding that particular answer...but to venture a SWAG based on my personal perceptions of likely data trends, I'd put Novices in the range of 2x-5x higher risk, although there's shortcomings in making such an oversimplified summary declaration that may be making this sound deceptive. It needs work on scrubbing its assumptions and limitations. -hh > >> Again, assuming a 1 hour dive, then diving's > >> not quite twice as dangerous as driving a car. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > averages between the two activities. It would be quite difficult to > try to compare individuals. that makes sense and it does answer the question I was trying to ask... > There is some information by which we could start to look at > identifiable subgroups. For example, novices in both activities tend > to have higher accident frequency rates, so the average risk for their > subpool would arguably be higher. Wouldn't the subpool of "technical d(r)ivers" also have a higher incident than average? And among the "average divers" I'd be curious how one defines that person. Is there a number of dives that moves one into the "safer" category? or a level of training? A particular mindset? etc. I'm sure that some of us here are more likely to suffer an injury than others - we can't all be at the top of the curve... I'm just curious what would contribute to those, among this group of "average"divers. > By roughly how much, I don't know, as I haven't looked at the numbers > that way to see about finding that particular answer...but to venture [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > may be making this sound deceptive. It needs work on scrubbing its > assumptions and limitations. Yeah, and I'm no statician. :-) > -hh > > My intent was to merely compare the grouped ("all participants") > > averages between the two activities. It would be quite difficult to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Wouldn't the subpool of "technical d(r)ivers" also have a higher > incident than average? Maybe, maybe not. The only real assumption we can make about technical divers is that they're more likely to be incurring a more difficult dive...ie, higher risk. Typically offsetting that risk is higher levels of training, skills and experience. However, for one of the deceased, he was only originally certified in 2000 and had "over 300" (ie, less than 400) lifetime dives, and which by presentation would have had to have included all of his "rec" experience base. As such, we don't know if this was his 3rd Tech dive or his 300th, although the latter is, naturally, preposterously unlikely. And overall, we don't know how much of the likely higher risk is being offset by likely higher skills/practices in risk management & mitigation. Its another "N variables, too few equasions to solve" sort of problem. > And among the "average divers" I'd be curious how one defines that > person. Is there a number of dives that moves one into the "safer" > category? or a level of training? A particular mindset? etc. Simplistically, I'd SWAG it as ~3 years experience, under the rationale that I recall that someone someplace once claimed that the 'average diver' only stays active in the sport for 5 years before effectively dropping out (so 3 years would be the midpoint), plus when you look at the DAN fatality statistics, the first and second years have high numbers which would appear to suggest that they are the period of highest statistical risk. Oh, and because people appear to get 'safer' after this trial-by-fire period, either through hands-on experience or more training, that the initial training being offered today isn't doing that great of a job at addressing & mitigating the risks present. > I'm sure that some of us here are more likely to suffer an injury than > others - we can't all be at the top of the curve... I'm just curious > what would contribute to those, among this group of "average"divers. And part of that 'some of us' is the segment of aging divers who aren't as fit as we used to be, but we're probably not very willing to admit that. It appears that a lot of the fatalities amongst the "average" set are probably more due to general health factors, where diving becomes a relatively strenuous physical activity, which becomes an impetus for congestive heart failure, etc. However, the DAN statistics might tend to not exactly agree, since they report that the average age has gone up by 6 years within the past 5 years, which means that our gap vs. the average hasn't been widening. Of course, that also raises the question as to why the average age is going up so quickly, as this would generally suggest a steep decline in younger people taking up diving as a new hobby, given that there are reports that the market is shrinking (which functionally forstalls the alternative explnation, namely an explosion in growth of bluehairs taking up diving). -hh The statistics make sense, but they also remind of my former boss who reasoned that if you could live to 100, you would almost be immortal since you see very few obits for anyone over 100 years old. Unfortunately he died just after his 50th birthday, and I still miss him and his sense of humor. >> > My intent was to merely compare the grouped ("all participants") >> > averages between the two activities. It would be quite difficult to [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > >-hh > "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > acceptable risk is, and if the activity in question falls above or > below that value. hh But that is ARMY. In the Marines they ask for volunteers... Dan >> Doug is, quite possibly, the only one that has taken the position that >> anyone that lives through diving, must be adequately trained. The rest >> of us recognize other levels of incompetence when we see them. > You're still missing the point. > I just said, if 99.999999999% are alive, it must be adequate. And I just said that you don't have to be dead to be poorly trained. Those that can't put their equipment together aren't dead, but they are poorly trained. Those that can't clear their mask consistently don't all die, but they are poorly trained. Those that don't have any significant control over buoyancy aren't dead, but they are poorly trained. Lee >>> Doug is, quite possibly, the only one that has taken the position that >>> anyone that lives through diving, must be adequately trained. The rest [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > die, but they are poorly trained. Those that don't have any significant > control over buoyancy aren't dead, but they are poorly trained. Here's a flash for ya. I never said -squat- about being -poorly- trained... All that coral crunching isn't even a meager point in this argument. > Doug is, quite possibly, the only one that has taken the position that > anyone that lives through diving, must be adequately trained. The rest of > us recognize other levels of incompetence when we see them. Well I'm gonna go with "any landing you walk away from" here. I think the analasys will show that it isn't stoopit noobs getting washed up on the beach. >> Doug is, quite possibly, the only one that has taken the position that >> anyone that lives through diving, must be adequately trained. The rest >> of >> us recognize other levels of incompetence when we see them. > Well I'm gonna go with "any landing you walk away from" here. I > think the analasys will show that it isn't stoopit noobs getting > washed up on the beach. Then the only training necessary to meet your standards is breath continuously during the dive, don't exceed your computer's no deco limit and don't run out of air while you're still underwater. Even PADI teaches more than that. How many hundreds of dollars do you think they deserve for the course? Lee > Then the only training necessary to meet your standards is breath > continuously during the dive, don't exceed your computer's no deco limit and > don't run out of air while you're still underwater. Fundamentally, yes. Diving isn't overly complex, and if you follow those guidelines, you can pretty much do it safely for years, and enjoy yourself the whole time. The missing pile of bodies that should flow out of the mass of divers that fit this profile is evidence that all the extended training some insist makes for safer divers is simply uneccesary. Dive certification does not teach one to dive. It never has. All agencies OW course sucks, but it is sufficent to keep you from killing yourself. The only way to learn to dive is to go diving. > Even PADI teaches more than that. How many hundreds of dollars do you think they > deserve for the course? They deserve whatever they can squeeze out of the market. > Dive certification does not teach one to dive. It never has. All > agencies OW course sucks, but it is sufficent to keep you from killing > yourself. The only way to learn to dive is to go diving. At least two of them once did. I imagine that they've followed the PADI path as well . . . make that I'm pretty sure they have. Lee >>> Doug is, quite possibly, the only one that has taken the position that >>> anyone that lives through diving, must be adequately trained. The rest [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > more than that. How many hundreds of dollars do you think they deserve > for the course? ESG, IIRC, once, -accurately- said he could teach a monkey to dive if he could get it to clear its ears. > ESG, IIRC, once, -accurately- said he could teach a monkey to dive if he > could get it to clear its ears. No, I didn't say that but I wouldn't disagree very much. There are a couple dogs here in SoFla that scuba regularly (though not solo) and roughly 8,500 Homo sapiens with the intellect of frons oysters that safely scuba. I think certifications, including advanced courses, are a great way to learn the tricks and develop the skills but they are not the only alternatives. esg >> ESG, IIRC, once, -accurately- said he could teach a monkey to dive if >> he could get it to clear its ears. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > esg Yep. I agree. There are other ways. Never got a card (till recently) more than my original OW C-card from the YMCA (in 1968 by the way--whee, I'm old!) but managed to survive and went to a drysuit and nitrox without benefit of "formal" training. I did study and actually took advice from those already using the gear or the gas. Worked for me! Dan > On Mar 17, 4:18 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > > > >> "El Stroko Guapo" <omg...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:OpRKh.13517$tD2.5315@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > > > What am I missing? > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > You know, the thing about inside jokes is that if you are not inside, > you might not "get" the joke. Why, when one of those non-inside Indeed. :-) > people asks a simple question, would the response need to be > sarcastic? Why not do what you did, and just answer the question? It > wasn't hard for you, why is it so hard for Doug? > > Thanks anyway. You're welcome. Dennis > http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-cdivers17mar17,0,6755181 .story If it is that difficult to get to the bodies, perhaps they should consider using a surface supplied air rig for it... It doesn't sound like they're all that far back in the ship... Well, at least not as far as some people manage to when they screw up in caves... > If it is that difficult to get to the bodies, perhaps they should > consider using a surface supplied air rig for it... It doesn't sound > like they're all that far back in the ship... Well, at least not as > far as some people manage to when they screw up in caves... I think it's more that those guys don't have much, if any, experience doing that kind of work. There are divers who specialize in that kind of recovery. SignatureArt Greenberg artg at eclipse dot net > I think it's more that those guys don't have much, if any, experience > doing that kind of work. There are divers who specialize in that kind of > recovery. Plus, they're probably trying to do the recovery on a single 80 cu-ft tank... Take the chance of running out of air out of the equation and the dive gets a bit easier... You might be running into a deco obligation, but that's better than running *out of* air... Plus, you've got your air hose to follow back to the surface so getting totall lost is a lot more difficult... OK, technically, you still can get lost in that you might not be where you want to be, but at least you can find your way *back*... >> If it is that difficult to get to the bodies, perhaps they should >> consider using a surface supplied air rig for it... It doesn't sound [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > doing that kind of work. There are divers who specialize in that kind of > recovery. Get Gimbel to cut a hole. >>> If it is that difficult to get to the bodies, perhaps they should >>> consider using a surface supplied air rig for it... It doesn't sound [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Get Gimbel to cut a hole. ***** (five stars) On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:39:01 -0400, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in rec.scuba: >>> If it is that difficult to get to the bodies, perhaps they should >>> consider using a surface supplied air rig for it... It doesn't sound [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Get Gimbel to cut a hole. Is he still alive? > On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:39:01 -0400, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in rec.scuba: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > Is he still alive? If he had a Barrets he would be. >> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:39:01 -0400, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in rec.scuba: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > If he had a Barrets he would be. Another non-American anti-gunner starting a gun thread, contrary to Futile John's previous allegations. >>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:39:01 -0400, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" >>> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in rec.scuba: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Another non-American anti-gunner starting a gun thread, contrary to > Futile John's previous allegations. would a mingun legal in 50 states been better? I blame the strick gun laws, PADI and split fins on these deaths > "Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in >>>>>news:12vo5ldedgru174@news.supernews.com... >>>>>>> If it is that difficult to get to the bodies, perhaps they should [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > would a mingun legal in 50 states been better? I blame the strick gun > laws, PADI and split fins on these deaths Sshhhhhhhhhh. I'll have to explain all that to everyone. :-) But you may be right... >>http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-cdivers17mar17,0,6755181 .story > > If it is that difficult to get to the bodies, perhaps they should > consider using a surface supplied air rig for it... It doesn't sound > like they're all that far back in the ship... Well, at least not as > far as some people manage to when they screw up in caves... Penetration on surface supply is a bitch. For starters, ya need multiple hose handlers, one everywhere there's a bend or more than a 20' run. The old timers used dynamite to get into the deep/narrow spots. I don't know how competent the Monroe County sheriff's divers are, but I've seen a lot of county/city divers that I wouldn't send to recover a weightbelt. In the shallows. esg > Penetration on surface supply is a bitch. For starters, ya need multiple > hose handlers, one everywhere there's a bend or more than a 20' run. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I've seen a lot of county/city divers that I wouldn't send to recover a > weightbelt. In the shallows. Usually the city/county divers are for recovering bodies from cars or drowning victims from the bottoms of lakes... Not really that complicated of a dive, although the visibility in most of the country is probably pretty crappy... Depth is also not that big of a deal usually and as such, an 80 cu-ft tank is probably more than enough for them... I suspect that same sort of configuration might be a bit lacking in a recovery operation on the Spiegel Grove... >> Penetration on surface supply is a bitch. For starters, ya need multiple >> hose handlers, one everywhere there's a bend or more than a 20' run. The [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >suspect that same sort of configuration might be a bit lacking in a >recovery operation on the Spiegel Grove... I don't know of any lakes in Monroe County. I would think the county divers there would be pretty good divers but I doubt many of them penetrate wrecks very often. Also, the city/county divers up here where I live are generally very good technical divers. They dive in poor to no visibility and in very cold waters and in the case of the Mississippi and St. Croix rivers, heavy currents, especially in the Spring. They don't even do recovery dives during that time. They just wait a few months for the body to surface downstream. <snip> Over on: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259210,00.html They say, "Shortly after they started the dive, the boat captain notified the U.S. Coast Guard that four divers were missing. One of the men surfaced because he started to run out of air, authorities said" Sounds a bit strange... Did he not know that they were doing the dive or just not giving them enough time to complete it? > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sounds a bit strange... Did he not know that they were doing the dive or > just not giving them enough time to complete it? If they were out of air, then I'd assume that the dive was pretty much over, no matter what the Capt. determined would be enough time to complete the dive, "shortly after", or 'longly after'. http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/nation/16925885.htm Bodies of two divers recovered in `risky' mission By Cammy Clark McClatchy Newspapers (MCT) KEY LARGO, Fla. - The bodies of two divers trapped overnight in the bowels of a sunken Navy ship were recovered during two "risky" missions Saturday, said Chief Sergio Garcia of the Key Largo Fire and Rescue. Garcia said a team that included 14 expert divers retrieved the deceased men on two separate dives spaced three hours apart. "Both recoveries went flawless," Garcia said. "Garcia said. "It went just as we had planned." The two victims trapped inside the ship, 135-feet deep, were identified as Jonathan Walsweer, 38, a Wall Street stockbroker and Scott Stanley, age unknown, a co-owner of a carpet store. Both were from Westfield, N.J., according to the Monroe County Sheriff's Office. A third diver, Kevin Coughlin, 51, a real estate entrepreneur of Chatham Borough, N.J., also died during Friday's accident. He was found in distress Friday afternoon by two divers from another boat. Those divers brought him to the surface. From there, the Coast Guard took him to shore. CPR was performed the entire way, but Coughlin was pronounced dead at Mariner's Hospital. The fourth diver, Howard Spialter, 52, a lawyer and former municipal judge of Westfield, N.J., had surfaced safely when his air supply began to run low. He had remained outside the ship, according to the police report. The sheriff's office is investigating the accident, which local dive captains have called the worst in Keys history. Three others have died at the Spiegel Grove, but all in separate accidents. The recovery team met Saturday morning at a diving shop in Key Largo owned by Captain Rob Breser, the leader of the mission. Thirty-five people from about six agencies, including the Coast Guard, participated in a 90-minute briefing on the tricky recovery, Garcia said. Two expert technical divers, the same ones who found Stanley's and Walsweer's bodies in the pump room of the ship, dove 90 feet to an opening in the ship. From there, Garcia said they had to dive another 45 feet deep (about four stories) and then travel 90 feet laterally to the bodies. "It's definitely risky with the depth of the dive, the darkness and the confinement of the small space," Garcia said. "Only one person can fit in there at a time. And there are lots of parts on which they can get hung up." The divers also have to try not to stir up the silt that can hamper visibility. And at that depth, the divers could stay at the bottom only about 30 minutes before having to surface. Several safety divers, including experts from local dive shops, were on hand in case anything went wrong. "This is a part of the ship experienced divers try to avoid," Garcia said. "We're having our divers go into a place that is not the best place to dive. We don't want any more casualties." The three deceased divers were among a group of four friends from New Jersey who had chartered the Scuba-Do boat to take them diving to the Spiegel Grove, a 510-foot ship that had been sunk six miles off the coast of Key Largo in 2002 to create an artificial reef and recreational dive site. The four divers were reportedly all experienced and all had dove the shipwreck the previous day. But on Friday, they ran into trouble when they tried to do an extremely difficult "penetration" dive inside the massive ship that is the length of nearly two football fields. --- © 2007, The Miami Herald. Visit The Miami Herald Web edition on the World Wide Web at http://www.herald.com Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. Click here to find out more! Click here to find out more! <snip> Damn... The lawyer survived... >http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluis |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message