The following paragraphs are quotes taken from OffShoreDiversforum.com. Some are excerpts from longer threads. These are not the words of Mike Carson and belong to the poster signified by their user name. The quotes are posted verbatim and have not been edited, or changed in anyway. These quotes address safety concerns within the commercial diving industry.

Posted by DiveDiva on 12/13/2008, 9:52:35, in reply to "Who does the Navy MK 21 annual inspections?"

Hey WET, you might want to moesey over to <www.supsalv.org> and take a look at the headings under diving, especial any that have to do with ANU (authorized for navy use) equipment. Yes that is a KM helmet in their logo.

Posted by Wet on 12/13/2008, 10:50:31, in reply to "http://members.boardhost.com/offshorediver/msg/1229183555.html"

Thank you for the link, it also looks like the KM 37 ns is an approved replacement for the MK21 as of 2007.

Posted by DiveDiva on 12/13/2008, 13:47:31, in reply to "Re: www.supsalv.org"

But WET you missed the most important point. If you go to the website, then click on ooc3Diving, then click on ANU list, then scroll to the bottom of the page there are to items hyperlinked.

The first NAVSEA Instruction 10560.2B Procedures for the Evaluation of Diving Equipment for Authorization for Navy Use (ANU) Purpose.

See page 4, item 7, section one. It talks about the enter long process involved in getting equipment recognized for navy diving use including helmets.

So yesterday when people were whining about KM having a no bid contract with the Navy, I said couldn't happen under GSA bid procedures. I stand corrected, if you are the only bidder who happens to be recognized by ANU, then you're the only bid GSA is going to except. I apologize for my mistake yesterday.

The second hyperlink, ANU list. Gives you the equipment#, item/stock #, manufacturer, designation/number and comments on every piece of diving equipment authorized for Navy use. See pages 12 and 24.

So like I stated yesterday it's an open bid system. Ya'll just have to know how this system works.

Posted by Wet on 12/13/2008, 14:11:52, in reply to "Re: www.supsalv.org"

I was looking at the whole of the site, thanks again for the direction. I had noticed the list of approved items and the vendors and also the 'checklist' for gaining approval. What i had trouble locating was the date of first approval, reasoning was I wanted to see if the 17 had been used by the navy prior to approval when the mk12 had performance issues due to the cold water in the flight 90 crash. Just a triviality at this point, I know, but an interesting curiosity to satisfy.

Thanks again.

Posted by DiveDiva on 12/13/2008, 14:19:34, in reply to "Re: www.supsalv.org"

Since OOC is a joint military and civilian operation, I'd be more interested to know who the 20-30 civilian members are.

You do know that NEDU falls under the OOC, right?

Posted by Wet on 12/13/2008, 14:47:34, in reply to "Re: www.supsalv.org"

I wrote them and asked, most specifically on OOC3 policies. Be interesting to hear the response, if any.

Posted by diverdetails on 12/13/2008, 15:50:26, in reply to "Re: www.supsalv.org"

Very Wet,

Another example of your lack of knowledge. An articulate gentleman like you should look carefully at history in depth. Since you have selected diving as your subject, best you start learning about it. You should curb your seemingly astute ramblings and ask better questions rather that passing judgement and evoking wishes negative to the rest of us.

The U.S. ARMY divers had SL 17s (NEDU tested and Army approved) and their "barges" (not allowed boats then) were the divers you were looking at in that recovery.

In addition to the Corps of Engineers, the U.S Army has many dive teams. They, along with the Marines, all work together with Navy divers on projects.

Posted by DiveDiva on 12/13/2008, 16:28:10, in reply to "WET"

Actually there were a total of 82 divers from various Navy, Army and Coast Guard units from the surrounding area that were used in the rescue and recovery operations.

The divers recovery the bodies, etc. then turned them over to the 464th Medium Boat (LCM)Transport Co. From Alexiandria. The Army Reservists had the grime task of bagging and tagging.

Posted by Wet on 12/13/2008, 19:38:02, in reply to "WET"

Yeah, I know I give you a boner, just admit it. While your sudden raging hard on disturbs me, and doesn't interest me in the least I do find something interesting about your post.

You reacted to my question as though I had made a statement. You also responded that the 17 was NEDU tested and Army approved at the time; was it approved by the Navy at that time? Not that it really matters, I was just curious.

Just to clarify in case the viagra like effect I seem to have on you has somehow reduced the o2 saturation in your bloodstream and made you a bit hypoxic: A squiggly line with a dot under it at end of a sentence quantifies an inquiry, or a question, you know, a request for supply of information it's called a "question mark". Not a comment, they end with a simple dot or "period" and have totally different definitions, connotations and many other things ending with -tions. I know that being a walking priapism can be very uncomfortable, especially when it affects such a big dick, but please read things more carefully! I don't want you to try and hurt my feelings again, 'cause gosh, you know how much your opinion means to me! Now don't sue me, not that I know who I am posting to, just some anonymous guy, right?

Posted by DiveDiva on 12/13/2008, 17:04:41, in reply to "Re: www.supsalv.org"

not 100% sure but I think the Army divers were using the SL-17 before the Navy went to the MK-21. I was still a little girl on daddy's knee back then. Some of you old timers may remember.

Of course it might be easier to just call down to Ft. Eustis, VA and ask what helmet they were diving in the 70s and 80s. I think the Army's
still using the KM SL-17K.

Posted by DiveDiva on 12/13/2008, 17:45:01, in reply to ""slippery when WET""

Nothing I've said anywhere on this site is an industry secret. The information is readily available to anyone who takes the time to look for it. It's not secret or hidden, it's right under your noses, you just never took the time to look.

Posted by Wet on 12/13/2008, 20:52:24, in reply to "Re: "slippery when WET""

Never took time to look 'cause of naivety. Definitely am enjoying catching up, almost feel cheated, I wish my dad was a sat diver back in the day, probably have more a clue of some of the historic aspects of the industry I work and love.

Like I'd know if someone got their first molds off others for free from their days of the Ocean Systems preceding their move to New Orleans, or weather it was something they made for themselves.

Posted by diverdetails on 12/13/2008, 21:28:05, in reply to "Re: "slippery when WET""

??Best not to get into punctuation and vocabulary. Takes away from the subject matter. Besides, it appears you have me beat there. It all on depends weather it rains or not. Or is it whether?

Samuel Langhorne Clemens once said, "I never liked a man who could not spell a word more than one way." Or something like that.

Posted by Wet on 12/13/2008, 22:53:46, in reply to "WET"

Samuel Clemens is the man, no argument there.

I have had some misconceptions though, especially where the military contracts are concerned. If someone else bothered to do it, they could, as long as the criteria, lots and lots of criteria, where satisfied. I'm sure other hats would've met them, but most guys hate the paperwork and you have to be willing to tangle with the paper tiger to play the military game, sorry Bev, looks like I owe you a sincere apology for talking out of my sphincter in that regard.

The dates are pretty irrelevant, but an interesting triviality was that the hat got adopted by the army first. I wonder if the fortune spent on the MK12 contract held up the navy's acceptance or adoption of the superlite. Like it or lump it the SL-17 was a much better hat than the MK12 helmet was.

I feel that my main gripes have been overshadowed by the emotionality involved in some of my posts.

Bev, my issues are with some of your practices, not you personally, I don't know you so I probably should keep business as business and add an apology for any shitslinging that was out of line. Sorry.


I can't feel bad about my legitimate concerns though, no matter the lack of decorum in their presentation.

Admit it, Ben Miller, Les Gorski and others made you step up your game, they made you innovate and advance. This practice of forcing out competition strikes me as wrong, it will plateau equipment innovations and have a stagnating effect on the industry. Trademark infringements? Bully! You're gonna push some poor fool over the edge one day, and a man who's lost everything, with nothing left to loose is more dangerous than someone with Mossad training.

Additionally the QC sucks man! Postings by my colleagues have gone into more explicit detail, re: snoopy material, zip ties ect. But yet you want to make it so aftermarket stuff, even if you know it is of higher quality, will make a hat fail an inspection? Sorry man, but the inspections should be performed by an independent source, anything else smacks of corruption. These independent inspectors should be certified by the coast guard, or USN, not by you. Face it if GM, Ford or Dodge was in charge of defining conditions of auto inspections instead of the states legislature, it'd be... well, like it is with you. You can bet your ass that everyone knows it ain't right, and it's just a matter of time before someone pushes the issue with the courts.

Sorry for the stuff that was unprofessional, I usually pride myself on my etiquette. I'd hate to have the important parts of my message lost on you because of the juvenile trivialities that I should be above spouting like a dolt. But for the rest, c'mon pull your head out of your ass, you aren't so rich that you don't know Bullshit when you smell it... or make it.

Posted by diverdetails on 12/14/2008, 0:09:02, in reply to "To get back on point...humble pie

WET,

You are not my "target" I sort of feel a kinship with you. I also love diving, all of it.

But, using your skill with words you should be sure of truth, not what you have heard, prior to pulling the trigger.

As to military contracts:

The first requirement for selling the military any type of equipment is that they must have a need for it.

The second requirement is that your equipment will meet their need.

The third requirement is that the future/potential users in the military agree they need it.

The forth requirement is that your equipment is supplied to them for testing.

The fifth requirement is that your equipment passes their unmanned tests that are done to assure the gear is up to the job.

The sixth requirement is that your equipment undergoes and passes manned testing and is approved

NOT JUST TESTED, BUT TESTED AND APPROVED.

The seventh requirement is that your manufacturing facility meets all the requirements to do "Mill-Spec" projects. Not just Mil-Spec like criteria but full on inspected and approved facility with lock down and guard provisions.

The eighth requirement is that your organization meets the financial and many other requirements of the DOD.

The ninth requirement is that you must supply the DOD with all the paperwork they want, including drawings, manuals, QA documentation, etc.


Then you must agree to support the equipment for at least 20 years.

From the start of this process until the delivery of the first items is from seven to fifteen years. Anyone can do it. Go for it.