Belize: Death of Corey Monk

[pilot fish]

Good idea

I would think a passive device with some programmed triggering criteria would work best. The devices I've seen on the web all last for months if they aren't triggered, and then can transmit constantly for a month or more.

Basically, there would be no noise unless a diver caused at least one of the triggering conditions to be met. I think it would make the most sense if the criteria could be set after the factory, or perhaps have several different models for different situations. Recreational criteria might be something like this:

1) 3 hours after being submerged
2) Below 250 feet
3) No air and still submerged

Obviously, programmability and or different versions would be necessary for tech diving applications.

 

[Waterskier1]

Thanks, never heard that before. I think you'll find the same standards apply everywhere. Whether they're enforced? - now that's another matter.

Enforcement will take the form of discontinuance of satellite monitoring and aircraft reporting starting next year. Any of these Class A/B models that you already have, won't be any good either. Again, that is true for USA, I am not sure what, if any, monitoring other countries are/will be doing.

As far as all this regulation on Scuba and its’ associated equipment, it sounds like some are looking for a scapegoat; someone to place blame upon when they do something wrong. I think maybe we should take some personal responsibility for our actions. If you think that the risk of diving is too great, then either get additional training to reduce your perceived risk, or discontinue diving. But please don’t use your personal risk threshold to mandate what all the rest of us are allowed to accept.

 

[z3r0c00l]

"Me: That’s where one o’ them newfangled gadgets like a depth gauge or computer can turn out to be downright handy. Not to mention the common sense to consult them from time to time during a dive.

It’s been reported, but not verified, that the diver in this incident had neither gauges nor working computer, so I’m sorry if my remark sounds flippant in light of what happened to him."

Or air bubbles, or sediment in the water. It is plenty possible to dive without guages. Would be hard to drop to 180 feet and not notice it. If you clear your ears 28 times, that is a good hint.

 

[pilot fish]

"Me: That’s where one o’ them newfangled gadgets like a depth gauge or computer can turn out to be downright handy. Not to mention the common sense to consult them from time to time during a dive.

It’s been reported, but not verified, that the diver in this incident had neither gauges nor working computer, so I’m sorry if my remark sounds flippant in light of what happened to him."

Or air bubbles, or sediment in the water. It is plenty possible to dive without guages. Would be hard to drop to 180 feet and not notice it. If you clear your ears 28 times, that is a good hint.

If this poor diver did a solo night dive without depth gauge or working puter, that, to me, is reckless. I find it real hard to believe that a diver at his level would do that, alone no less?

 

[MikeFerrara]

I find it real hard to believe that a diver at his level would do that, alone no less?

I don't.

 

[Gale68]

Or air bubbles, or sediment in the water. It is plenty possible to dive without guages. Would be hard to drop to 180 feet and not notice it. If you clear your ears 28 times, that is a good hint.

Yah, no kidding. This line of discussion came from an earlier poster who said you can get to 180 fsw and not even know it (whoopsie!). How bad of a diver do you have to be to not notice having descended two or three times your intended depth, with or without gauges?

I've met divers who think nothing of diving without gauges or computer, just sort of flying by the seat of their pants, even deep, even on unfamiliar dive sites. I think that's nuts, but it's not my place to tell them what to do.

Do divers who take those kinds of risks have a right to expect rescuers to come to their aid if they screw up? No less than a snowboarder who ignores warnings and ends up buried in an avalanche, or an avid climber who falls trying to break a record. Sometimes I resent our tax dollars being spent to rescue idiots who bit off more than they could chew in one way or another, and in an ideal world, there wouldn't be so many people jaywalking or getting on their jet-skis after they've had a few brew-skis, or otherwise pushing their luck at taxpayer expense. However.... We're all in this together, and as a community of humans, we share a vested interest in taking care of each other, even those among us who take unnecessary risks.

Someone mentioned ROV searches awhile back. There are ROV systems that can go extremely deep, and some are used for search and recovery with occasional good results. The problem is, it's a very expensive proposition to mobilize those kinds of resources to find someone who's already dead. I have a friend who works with a non-profit organization that, among other things, searches for the remains of missing boaters and divers, using side-scan sonar, ROVs, etc. But their work is on a local level, and not many areas have access to those kinds of resources, and the money to make use of them. Whether scuba diving or fishing or falling off a cruise ship, the loss of a loved one at sea often does end up this way, with no certain answers about what really happened.

 

[pilot fish]

I don't.

You should.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I've met divers who think nothing of diving without gauges or computer, just sort of flying by the seat of their pants, even deep, even on unfamiliar dive sites. I think that's nuts, but it's not my place to tell them what to do.

On the other hand, I've seen divers (who know the site) at the local 25 ft deep quarry decide not to dive because they forgot their computer or it wasn't working. Whether it's "nuts" or not depends on the site.

 

[MikeFerrara]

You should.

Maybe you could explain why?

 

[ianr33]

You should.

Are you the Thought Police as well as the Scuba Police ?