Why a snorkel?

[NudeDiver]

In the effort to save a single diver, the boat potentially ends up losing 20 in the open ocean. Interesting decision.

I can just imagine the lawsuit that results from that one.

So, all of you would simply let the victim die while waiting on the CG (who might be busy elsewhere) or the other divers to resurface.

Yes. At worst, the diver dies because of his/her own fault. At best, it's not necessarily his/her own fault, but certainly not the fault of the 20 other divers either. Either way, why should they be penalized?

So, how long do you wait for the divers to surface? Twemty minutes, forty, an hour?

Until they are back on the boat. You don't just willingly leave a man (or woman) behind.

Yes, it's a complex decision and it merits a lot of thought. How do you weigh the life of someone who will probably die against the possible danger to twenty other divers hanging on a float? Beats me...

Quite easily. One person MAY die, or 20 people MAY die. That's an easy choice.

In the end, somebody has to make a decision. That would be the Captain.

Yeah, maybe, if it is a Navy ship. On a dive boat, I would have no problem telling Captain Lardass where he could put his captain's hat if he tried to leave my friend/buddy/wife/daughter/son/mistress in the water while the boat makes an hour ride back to shore. I would be more than happy to begin that mutiny. Might get some use from my dive knife too.

why should he, conversely, have a diver on his boat who will not comply with his procedures? I think your scenario is win/win.

For one, because it's a stupid procedure, and hardly standard. In any case, I agree with you IF this policy is made known before any money changes hands, and certainly before the boat leaves the dock. But once the boat is underway, announcing such a bizarre policy is just not acceptable.

Leaving divers offshore is negligent. There is a duty of care to EVERYONE and simply leaving the scene where you could have 3,4,5+ other incidents AND have the prospect of divers drifting and going missing in my view is near criminally negligent.

I wonder if the morons who developed this policy have ever heard of the Alexander Holmes Trial (1842)

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning.

First Mate Francis Rhodes, Alexander William Holmes, and another seaman commanded the large lifeboat. The passengers were still dressed in their night clothes and suffered terribly in the cold Atlantic weather, which was made worse by a pelting rain. The two lifeboats stayed together through the night but separated the morning of the 20th because the captain, George L. Harris, thought there was a better chance of rescue if the two boats took different directions. Rhodes said that his boat was overcrowded and that some people would have to be thrown overboard to keep it from capsizing. Captain Harris said, "I know what you'll have to do. Don't speak of that now. Let it be the last resort." Throughout the day of the 20th and into the night, the rain and the waves worsened. The boat began to leak and fill with water, despite constant bailing. Around ten o'clock that night, Rhodes cried out in despair, "This work won't do. Help me, God. Men, go to work." Holmes and the other seaman began throwing people overboard. They threw 14 men and two women into the freezing water. They chose single men only, spared the married men on board, and threw the two women overboard only because they were sisters of a man already thus ejected and had demanded to be sacrificed with their kin. None of the crew was thrown out.

As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action.

Verdict: Guilty
Sentence: 6 months in prison and a $20 fine

SIGNIFICANCE: In the Alexander Holmes trial, the court held that self-preservation was not always a defense to homicide.

 

[NudeDiver]

String, your arguments are baseless and pedantic as usual. Why don't you find something to back up that wildly inflated opinion of yours?

I don't generally like String's posts and attitudes - but in this case, I think my post concerning the Alexander Holmes trial has him covered.

 

[Slonda828]

I don't generally like String's posts and attitudes - but in this case, I think my post concerning the Alexander Holmes trial has him covered.

Nude, your reply would cover him, if we were debating the hazarding of a vessel. He and I are discussing why he thinks people shouldn't use a snorkel .

 

[shoturtle]

Been stuck in chop waiting for pick up. 20 min. The snorkel made the wait alot more comfortable. I like to go back on my reg when I climb back on the boat, just in case a wave is strong enough to rock me off the ladder, which has happen in 8 foot swells. I just swim right back to the ladder without any lost of breath to try to get on the boat again. The snorkel on a 20 minute wait allow me to save my air for the boarding in the chop.

 

[NudeDiver]

Nude, your reply would cover him, if we were debating the hazarding of a vessel. He and I are discussing why he thinks people shouldn't use a snorkel .

Oh, I see. I thought you were responding to post #88. Well - nevermind. Carry on!

 

[Slonda828]

Oh, I see. I thought you were responding to post #88. Well - nevermind. Carry on!

It's all good, I knew what you meant. We have that veteran's telepathy .

 

[J.R.]

Fourty-two

(Sorry... had to spell it out because if ya' just type "42" the board won't let you post... just discovered that there is a "minimim message length" of 5 characters... wierd... anyway... 42 is the answer... Doug Adams sed' so...)

 

[String]

String, your arguments are baseless. Why don't you find something to back up that opinion of yours? Show the board where it says in anything official that a snorkel is useless. That is your position, so defend it with something other than your opinion.

Prove to me its useful. Otherwise you can use the same argument for anything. Prove why a kitchen sink is useless on a dive. Prove why taking a stuffed animal is useless on a dive and so on. There is no situation ever on a dive where a snorkel can come in handy. There are situations where snorkels are dangerous, can and have caused minor or more serious incidents.

While the articles I have linked to do not say that a snorkel makes you safer, they all advocate having a snorkel to use, hence they advocate the use of a snorkel while diving.

Would appear your ability to understand basic text is limited. None of the articles state that. The first one mentioned NOTHING about snorkels and diving. It just says learn to snorkel. The other 2 are about using a snorkel for in-water AV. Nowhere do they recommend this over other courses of action. If you are worried about having to perform in-water AV and squeamish about direct contact then take a pocket mask which has been proven to be far more effective.

So in summary, a snorkel is worthless on a dive, its potentially dangerous and if the only thing you can find that suggests you might want one by way of articles is AV that argument is shot immediately by just taking a pocket mask.

 

[Slonda828]

String,

Obviously you have nothing to back your opinion up. That's what I was looking for, thanks.

 

[J.R.]

... so... attempting to play mediator here (... as opposed to a moderator)... what if we stopped calling a snerkel a snerkel and started calling it an:

"Alternate surface breathing apparatus to facilitate biosystem oxygenation during surface transit in a face-down position optomized for sea-state variance"... ???

Want one now???