240m dive in Sra Keow: Trip report

EBT

Well said morten.

Integrity is a concept thats under-valued and apparently "marketing" seems to go the other way. Still, Cedric has at least cleared the record up. I guess now what its enforced is the need for hard proof of peoples claims, probably no bad thing.


/Z

__________________
Eagles May Soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines!

Rebreather World Terms of service
Real diving t-shirts for real divers

schford

Yup well Said Morten.

If people post on Rebreather World about something that did or did not happen then any one else who is a member can comment - this site is not elitist and we are all peers on here.

__________________
Bailout and Kit Management account for Murphy's Law

The only bad question is one you did not ask and later wish you had.

Use of Rebreather World is subject to the Rebreather World Terms & Conditions of Use

AM

It doesn't work like that. False reporting by an Instructor cannot go unchallenged by the wider audience. We are all trainees at some point and have a vested interest in the integrity of those purporting to offer diving education.

Everyone is impacted when false claims are made regarding equipment capability. If a manufacturer chose to make his benchmark of the equipment's depth rating based on apparently reliable diver testing then EVERYONE is impacted by that.

The same goes for decompression algorithms. Furthermore, if there are known dangers in respect of collapsed lines then that needs to be reported with the proper honour and respect that one would hope our fellow divers have for each other.

It is not just the domain of the dive team to comment on the issue when in fact the dive was falsely reported worldwide. The whole diving community is impacted when dive reports are found to be inaccurate. When reported dives can no longer be believed, then it impacts those who have to find tangible means of providing empirical evidence to back up their claims.

Suggesting that only people within a certain "group" should comment is endorsing the very nature of a "hierarchy" in diving - that being the standard one may wish to operate on, then at the very least, those in the "group" should conduct themselves with honour and integrity!!

As for the top 100 divers that is utter, utter nonsense. A man whom did not complete the dive he claims, along with another man whom (with the greatest of respect) only became cave certified last year, cannot expect to lay claim to such a title. You are suggesting that the validity of people's opinions on the issue of dishonesty should be measured on their diving ability - a frankly, ludicrous proposition.

A person whom makes their living from diving must expect to be challenged when electing freely to present the diving community with erroneous data.

Regards

AnneMarie

__________________

Philip Greenwood

On this point Dave I would respectfully have to disagree with you. For a test pilot to be dishonest about a flight or a test. You need not be a test piliot to suggest or to say "prove it", or ask for the data. Such data may be used by other pilots or engineers to expand the test profiles of any other related aircraft, aircraft structures or flight envelope.

DrMike raises some valid and serious issues here and states on a similar thread in the DecoStop forum that he in fact laid the line to the 186M mark, on a previous dive in this cave. Please correct me if i'm wrong, DrMike.

IMO the jury is stiil out on who did what and what was subsequently represented as having been done. If factual misrepresentations were made, the various parties should have the chance to amend them. Then everyone can move on.

A jury member need not be a pilot to decide that a pilot was the cause of an accident. All they need is the pertanant facts. As well as an understanding of how the facts relate to the relevant issues at hand.

Mr. Verdier is well respected and well respected by me. He had the chance to clear up this matter when he became aware of DrMike suggestions. His response was (in this thread March 10th).

"Interesting Discussion... I slightly modified the title of my trip report." IMO Mr. Verdier has chosen to sidestep the valid points that many members here raise. Points of future dive planning, the performance of dive equipment used, all of which is aside from the performance of the individual divers.

Dave, you yourself, suggested that Mr. Verdier "set the record straight on the reports". For which Mr. Verdier has not done. He did modify the title of the trip report and attributed the deepest part of the dive to his partner Ben. Rightly so.

What he has not done, is corrected his representations that the Meg rebreather, other dive equipment, decompression tables, etc. has been personally tested by him on this dive to 240M. Or set the facts straight from his point of view. Or state once and for all that they are correct, in fact, now.

__________________
Phil

Dave Sutton

Guys....

Just let the mans actions speak for himself. He'll either give us the report or he will not. I'm FULLY immersed in the Honor Code as anyone (as my profession dictates).

Just to brush up on that, here it is and why it is important. The short paragraph about the use of technology that can cause harm is a preface to a very short statement that says it all:






For all the intrinsic excellence of our technology, experience demonstrates that its successful employment in battle continues to depend upon the integrity, courage, commitment, and professional excellence of those called upon to bring it to bear. With ruthless efficiency and finality, the awesome violence of modern warfare distinguishes forces filled with these attributes from those rendered hollow by their absence. The pace of the conflict will afford us little, if any chance to profit from our mistakes.

Military systems, which often operate under extreme duress, are greased with the oil of absolute truth and fidelity. You don't learn that when you get to the fleet; you take it to the fleet. This may seem to be a harsh standard, but it's not that difficult to understand what your obligations are. Officers are required to observe and comply with the Naval Officer's Code of Conduct. Personal Honor is a cardinal feature of a naval officer's character. Fraud, deceit, dishonesty, collusion, or academic unfairness is incompatible with such character and will not be tolerated.


I live according to that code, and expect nothing less from my associates. So with that said, I am as dissapointed as anyone. I also don't believe in jumping on the pile when a man is down. Give him a chance to pick himself up. Leave him some room to retrieve his honor. He either will, or he won't. By piling on, we may not give him the chance. I'd prefer to see him stick around, so let's not drive him off. Give him some sea-space. It's called diplomacy. I think that proof will always be needed from now on for anything he claims, as honor, once lost, can never be fully regained. Nobody doubts that. DrMike is the real-deal, and so is Ben. I don't need data from them, their word is enough for me. That's called being a Gentleman, one who is taken at his word. Sadly there are few left.



Best to all,

Dave

AM

__________________

Dave Sutton

The point is that those with honor know who those without it are. They don't need to know more.


Dave

AM

Ha Ha, I'm only pulling your leg now, lighten up

__________________

Dave Sutton

"Clean 'em up, Green 'em up and Start the Music..."

(Translated: Drop external tanks, armament panels to "weapons free" and start the electronic jamming....) We know your coordinates....


Don't anyone make me the defender of anyones honor but my own. Cedric is a big boy, give him space to defend himself.
Appreciate not being quoted as saying otherwise.


Back to diving now, who's going this weekend? Cover is coming off EXPLORER tomorrow and we're scraping her for launch. Spring is here... (almost).


Dave

AM

You made yourself his defender. Nobody quoted you as saying anything other than what you said in your posts.

The bottom line is, it's not up to you, or indeed anyone else, to remove the fundamental right to freedom of speech, nor indeed to invalidate people's comments by virtue of your perception of their diving merits.

That said, I shall abide by the "code of honour" and pour myself and my fellow alcoholics another glass of wine now

Nighty night

__________________