Posted by MHK on September 25, 2000 at 13:50:08:
In Reply to: Re: Update on La Crescenta fatality posted by Gerry Smith on September 25, 2000 at 13:20:50:
Posted by Gerry Smith on September 25, 2000 at 13:20:50:
But I think "steven" and to some degree "EINS" made the important point - that Mike picked a bad example to prove his pro buddy point. The chance that a buddy would have waited patiently for the diver to test the air before removing his reg would seem pretty slim to me. Therefore IN THIS VERY SPECIFIC CASE, this was probably one of the instances where a buddy would have only guaranteed a second fatality.
A couple of points, while for certain I have been trying to raise the buddy awareness issue, I want to point out that it was the Sheriff dept. that concluded a buddy would have saved him. And I did in fact omit ( not intentionally ) that according to Mark, there was not enough room for 2 people to have stood up so it would have been therefore unlikley that both people could have died, and I think more importantly, had a buddy been there more than likley the body would have fallen on the buddy due to the tightness of the area and he could have reacted.
Obvioulsy no one was there so there is a fair amount of speculation, but given the facts and the fact that the Air Force is pushing for answers pretty hard, it's likley that we'll find the air was toxic and it's very unfortunate that we lost a good man in 4' of water...
By extension of my arguement is that the Sheriff and the Air Force seem to be leaning toward the fact that a buddy would have saved him, I just happen to be pointing out the same issue at this time on this forum..
Post a Followup