Posted by MHK on September 05, 2001 at 12:22:56:
In Reply to: Re: Proper OOA/comments posted by Ken Kurtis on September 05, 2001 at 12:01:17:
Ken,
As far as the Yukon example goes I used that for a very specific reason. I argued vehemntly that the Yukon is beyond the scope of recreational limits and was slammed for even thinking of advancing that line of reasoning. I even thought it was reckless and irresponsible for Dale Sheckler to run a front page photo of the girl with her head sticking out of a porthole with her snorkel and all her dangly gadgets hanging out the porthole. I was told ad nausem that the Yukon is recreational and that I was using scare tactics.. Now it seems you guys want to reverse course again, when it doesn't fit the agenda..
Be that as it may, Ken this is one of the philosphical disagreements that I hope we can work through because while I don't always agree with you, I do believe that you have your heart in the right place, and Ken as you mentioned , assuming no equipment failure, he made a bad decision. But in this case you did have an equipment failure, so it wasn't a bad decision.. But that aside, if you train from the beginning to get the signal back from the OOA diver and he does in fact give it, that provides useful information.. It tells you he cognizant of the happenings.. Conversly, absent a signal, you [ which you probably are anyway] on heightened alert.. I agree that the donor is in control, however, it is not always practical for the donor to be in total control.. The method that I described is applicable in every environment and in my view, as evidenced by this weekends fatality, getting to the upline is preferable as opposed to an open ocean free ascent.. While clearly speculation, it's a safe bet that had these guys used the upline they could have controlle the fall back down to 140', which ultimatley killed the OOA diver and embolized the donor...
Later