Twelve divers missing in Red Sea

[mania]

However, I do think that the point is clear: SMBs will not be seen unless someone is looking for them. They are useful in making divers visible to a rib searching for them, but will probably not be noticed if they come up unexpectedly 200 m from a boat. Which is what happened to the Oyster.

That's exactly what i wanted to show. I'm not an optician so I have no idea what sees better - human eye or a camera (from a stupid blond woman point of view I know humans do wear glasses to see better, cameras don't). But i also know that you have to take into the account such conditions as sun, its' reflexes on the sea etc. So SMB may be less visible than somebody thinks. I posted these photos mainly to say that Oysters staff may had problems with seeing divers - and they were far away from the boat, where nobody expected them to be so was probably not even looking.

Sorry but this so called study has no scientific basis what so ever and seems removed from daily fact.

Did I ever say this was a scientific study?
Mania
PS. Again - I still think that it was mainly their fault - as I said before many people think Red Sea is an aquarium. It's not. It's a dangerous place.

 

[String]

Hey String, why are you giving Mania a hard time about a non scientific test?? I think that was a very informative set of photos, and although you cant put numbers to it, it certainly makes the yellow bag look better than the red sausages IMO.

Quite simply because the test proves or states nothing of value and could in fact be dangerous.

It isnt informative, its misleading.

A camera vs the human eye is not easy to compare and as a result draws quite unbelievable conclusions based on flawed methodology. It also contradicts similar better controlled tests performed by search and rescue professionals. It also contradicts the daily experience of anyone thats ever had to provide surface cover for divers using DSMBs.

 

[vjongene]

PS. Again - I still think that it was mainly their fault - as I said before many people think Red Sea is an aquarium. It's not. It's a dangerous place.

Here I disagree. The divers did not do anything foolish or wrong. If anyone was at fault under water, it was the divemaster who took them into the blue. They could not have guessed that the conditions weren't safe for such an excursion. Also, the rib handlers (and the crew in general) do have a responsibility to keep track of where their guests are.

 

[String]

I still say safety is the individuals responsibility. If the brief was to remain on the reef when you are taken off the reef in a strong current the divers should have deployed a delayed marker buoy immediately.

 

[mania]

I still say safety is the individuals responsibility.

Absolutly agree with you.
Mania

 

[Santa]

I am very glad they were found with relatively little permanent harm done. What terrible experience that must be, floating at night and lost in a huge body of water.

Is anyone else tired of reading the following attached to every salt water problem resulting in someone being in the water for some period of time? "Five British divers are recovering today after they were rescued from the shark-infested waters of the Red Sea."
I am talking about the term "shark-infested"? I sometimes think that if someone were lost in the Great Salt Lake, someone, somewhere would include "shark-infested" in the first line or two of the article.

With you all the way. It's just cheap dramaturgy. Most serious water enthusiasts are trying to get a realistic grip on what is dangerous in which situations and what is not - which can be difficult and expensive at best since nothing beats hands-on experience. This kind of thing is just Low-end Discovery fear mongery.

Still, I understand how the actual divers in the situation might have felt under the circumstances. That incessant "what if ....."

Santa

 

[Santa]

Here I disagree. The divers did not do anything foolish or wrong. If anyone was at fault under water, it was the divemaster who took them into the blue. They could not have guessed that the conditions weren't safe for such an excursion. Also, the rib handlers (and the crew in general) do have a responsibility to keep track of where their guests are.

If you've ever been in an emergency situation - or have had a close call you know how difficult it can sometimes be to pinpoint the exact sequence of events that led to that situation. Simple plans can be knocked over by complex chains of events and it's very real-time when it happens.

It's just difficult to debate in a meaningful way if we don't know every little detail. Often it's the details that complete our understanding of an event and the media, which is the source of this one as I understand it, are notoriusly generalístic (unless of course they're debating some presidents sexual habits).

I'd postpone judgment a bit.

Sinerely
Santa

 

[do it easy]

... they just go to ScubaBoard to regroup.

I love it when old posts come back...

 

[rjchandler]

I'd postpone judgment a bit.

Sinerely
Santa

Aw shucks why?? You've already held off fer a year

 

[hamilton]

... may have been re-awakened as the story was just broadcast on UK television this evening (as part of a 'holiday disasters' series) (http://www.packageholidayundercover.co.uk/)

The one upside of surfacing away from the reef is the reduced chance of being mown down by any of the other boats at the dive site... was at Shark/Yolanda reef a few weeks back, and there were 5+ boats milling around on the surface, and upto 8kts of current between the two reefs....