U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old Yesterday, 10:28 PM
 
33,163 posts, read 16,949,047 times
Reputation: 18007

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
It is not settled. Nothing is settled yet.
You're a marine surveyor with a USCG master's license? No?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 10:33 PM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
5,553 posts, read 2,243,781 times
Reputation: 7294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
You're a marine surveyor with a USCG master's license? No?
LOL, and you are?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:39 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
1,468 posts, read 1,429,454 times
Reputation: 1011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
LOL, and you are?
Isn't a bit early to start with the conspiracy theories? My money is on human beings in impossible situations so far.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:26 AM
 
10,119 posts, read 4,748,740 times
Reputation: 13253
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffrow1 View Post
Actually I am nitox certified and have over 300 dives, though not on nitrox obviously. I was certified in high school and am 60 years old. As they say "when sex was safe and diving was dangerous".

That still doesn't change the fact that nitrox requires you analyze your tank because the specific mix determines the max operating depth and you apparently didn't know that and thought the max depth was always 105'.


Wow, you were certified in nitrox 40 years ago? By whom? Agencies didn't accept it and start teaching it until the mid 90's. 300 dives in 40 years sounds like a once-a-year vacation diver.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:04 AM
 
21,455 posts, read 17,042,509 times
Reputation: 40006
[quote=Cloudy Dayz;56123522]I haven't see that anywhere. Can you give me a link?[/quote


It’s in the links that have been posted in the last couple of days, including the one were you responded with “I’m still not convinced“.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/06/us/...-coast-18.html

Now since we know you don’t look at any of these articles with an open mind, you might as well start now scouring it for points to keep your assumptions and arguments alive. Doesn’t make any difference however, there are 1 million articles stating how the crew try to save the passengers, but you’re just gonna come back and say so why would they tell the truth? Again, I’m not sure why am bothering LOL.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
13,350 posts, read 5,106,731 times
Reputation: 5930
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
That still doesn't change the fact that nitrox requires you analyze your tank because the specific mix determines the max operating depth and you apparently didn't know that and thought the max depth was always 105'.


Wow, you were certified in nitrox 40 years ago? By whom? Agencies didn't accept it and start teaching it until the mid 90's. 300 dives in 40 years sounds like a once-a-year vacation diver.
The point was that nitrox requires little oxygen on board. It appears you agree. Practically if you spend your time in 20 to 30 feet there would be little reason to use nitrox. Getting bent is simply not a significant problem. So it would be maintaining a deeper depth that was desired. And yes I know you can get bent at 10 feet. But you generally have to work at it.

There is one interesting thing being reported. This is a claim that there was a big safety failure in failing to have a "roaming night watchman". This is ascribed to various "law enforcement". I was not aware of such a requirement though my dive boat experience is virtually all as a diver and day trips. But there is no source I can find anywhere that lists the statute or regulation. So does anyone know where this purported requirement comes from?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:52 AM
 
10,119 posts, read 4,748,740 times
Reputation: 13253
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
The point was that nitrox requires little oxygen on board. It appears you agree. Practically if you spend your time in 20 to 30 feet there would be little reason to use nitrox. Getting bent is simply not a significant problem. So it would be maintaining a deeper depth that was desired. And yes I know you can get bent at 10 feet. But you generally have to work at it.

There is one interesting thing being reported. This is a claim that there was a big safety failure in failing to have a "roaming night watchman". This is ascribed to various "law enforcement". I was not aware of such a requirement though my dive boat experience is virtually all as a diver and day trips. But there is no source I can find anywhere that lists the statute or regulation. So does anyone know where this purported requirement comes from?

Yes, I agree nitrox does not typically require O2 as every liveaboard I've seen uses a membrane system. There is certainly a "sweet spot" (I'd say 60-100) for nitrox. No need for nitrox if you are shallower than 30' (I seldom bother if less than 50') since your NDL is virtually unlimited and getting bent is almost always an ascent rate issue. But hitting the deeper limits of rec around 120-130' requires a leaner mix of nitrox, which is certainly doable but the vast majority of nitrox used is standard 32 or 36. I typically use 27 when diving the Oriskany.



As for watchman, I had not known about a "roaming" requirement but there must always be a captain awake and on duty. I crew on a boat and the one job I would not want is night captain because it is dark and quiet and solitary. And typically very limited internet if any, at sea. I think they need to up the requirement to two crew on duty at all times, to minimize the risk of one falling asleep.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
13,350 posts, read 5,106,731 times
Reputation: 5930
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
Yes, I agree nitrox does not typically require O2 as every liveaboard I've seen uses a membrane system. There is certainly a "sweet spot" (I'd say 60-100) for nitrox. No need for nitrox if you are shallower than 30' (I seldom bother if less than 50') since your NDL is virtually unlimited and getting bent is almost always an ascent rate issue. But hitting the deeper limits of rec around 120-130' requires a leaner mix of nitrox, which is certainly doable but the vast majority of nitrox used is standard 32 or 36. I typically use 27 when diving the Oriskany.



As for watchman, I had not known about a "roaming" requirement but there must always be a captain awake and on duty. I crew on a boat and the one job I would not want is night captain because it is dark and quiet and solitary. And typically very limited internet if any, at sea. I think they need to up the requirement to two crew on duty at all times, to minimize the risk of one falling asleep.
I generally like standing night watches. On most boats I will take the last night watch or even the last two as I like it out there. I almost always would celebrate the sun with a cold beer. Actually the only time I ever drink beer. I even like it in bad seas and high winds. Nothing is more interesting than trying to find the smooth path through 20 foot seas.

Mind you this is all semi to tropical. Though the colder climates would also be ok with suitable gear.

In some ways I was built for small boats. I can sleep almost instantly in any kind of sea. Tie myself to a bunk and I am gone. But I wake up quickly and easily and have no propensity to fall asleep when I do not wish to.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
5,553 posts, read 2,243,781 times
Reputation: 7294
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
They tried to save the passengers, even from the water, Then they went to get help. Again I have not read one single account that states officials are questioning the crew's account or their actions.
That says nothing about them trying to save the passengers after they jumped in the water. They picked up the other crew members and then took off, to go call 911. Which is totally ridiculous in itself. They had already radioed the Coast Guard before they got in the water. Calling 911 at that point was pointless. All the 911 dispatchers could have done was relayed the same information to the Coast Guard, they had already given them. They went back to look for survivors, only after the Coast Guard told them to. I'm sorry but I believe that is inexcusable. They should have never left the boat, until help arrived.

Quote:
"At that point, due to heat, flames and smoke, the crew had to jump from the boat," Homendy said.
Some crew members swam to a skiff on the back of the boat, picked up the other crew and they made their way to a nearby vessel to call 911, Homendy said.
"At that point, they left the vessel and turned back to the Conception in the skiff to try to rescue any survivors," she said.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
13,350 posts, read 5,106,731 times
Reputation: 5930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
That says nothing about them trying to save the passengers after they jumped in the water. They picked up the other crew members and then took off, to go call 911. Which is totally ridiculous in itself. They had already radioed the Coast Guard before they got in the water. Calling 911 at that point was pointless. All the 911 dispatchers could have done was relayed the same information to the Coast Guard, they had already given them. They went back to look for survivors, only after the Coast Guard told them to. I'm sorry but I believe that is inexcusable. They should have never left the boat, until help arrived.
They have a guy with a broken leg. And the Grape Escape was only 400 yards from the Conception. So for all intents and purposes they remained in the immediate vicinity of the Conception.

Note that the passengers on the Conception were not tourists or such. Doubt any of them would be in trouble floating a few hours.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top