2 Dead, 2 Injured in German lake

[boulderjohn]

From the details we do know a poorly planned and executed dive. Running out of air, not being able to deal with a simple air share- sounds alot like improper weighting. These are the type of accidents that should not be happening.

You say that the dive was poorly planned but we have absolutely ZERO information about the plan. Without any reason to think otherwise it's entirely conceivable that the plan was fine but that something happened during the dive that took them off the plan.

I am going to have to agree with Japan-diver on this one. I think that the fact that two people ran out of gas on the dive with no indication of a catastrophic loss of gas is indicative of a plan that did not include enough gas for the intended profile.

I would also like to talk about the loss of depth. Failure to control buoyancy during an air share is an extremely common problem, which is why it is a focus in early technical dive training. Everyone in my early technical training was already an instructor, yet we experienced rapid gains or losses in depth during air shares until we really learned to control it.

When I did my cave training, I realized after a while that when we entered a section of the cave with a relatively low ceiling and a hard, rocky floor, there was a good chance the instructor was going to introduce a failure like an OOA emergency. That was because of the possibility that at least one diver was going to lose buoyancy control and either shoot up or down. In my class for full cave certification, I had to wait for two different buddies to peal themselves off the ceiling and come back down to me after an air share. If we had not been using 7 foot hoses for donation, I would have been there with them. If we had not had a hard ceiling above us, I would have been fighting to keep from going to the surface with them. Keep in mind that people don't get into a full cave class until they are very experienced and have already demonstrated pretty good technical skills.

It would therefore not surprise me at all to find that the loss of depth during the air share was an unintentional accident caused by a lack of appropriate training.

In the quote above, the divers said they "went through all technical aspects that are necessary to perform a dive like this safely." I would say that they went though the technical aspects they knew about to perform the dive safely. The circumstances suggest that a little more training in gas management and a little more training in the skills related to air shares would have been beneficial.

In summary, please don't underestimate the amount of training it takes to make dives like this safely.

 

[Lemna]

I think that the fact that two people ran out of gas on the dive with no indication of a catastrophic loss of gas is indicative of a plan that did not include enough gas for the intended profile.

According to an eyewitness, one victim was retrieved with 65 bar in his tank, the other with an empty tank.

That's why there's speculation that one person had an accident, compounded by a number of problems/decisions/... and a deviation of the dive plan, ultimately leading to the death of a second diver.

 

[Diver0001]

I am going to have to agree with Japan-diver on this one. I think that the fact that two people ran out of gas on the dive with no indication of a catastrophic loss of gas is indicative of a plan that did not include enough gas for the intended profile.

Actually, John, I'm going to stop you right there.

I think you'd be well advised to go back through the posts carefully.

For one thing there is ZERO information available about the intended profile aside from the fact that it was planned as a deep dive. How deep and how long is a complete unknown.

Secondly, one person ran out of gas, not two. Evidently, the first diver who died still had air in his tank. It's unknown why this is the case. The actions of his buddy are subject to some speculation but it was the buddy who actually ran out of air but how this happened is unknown.

etc. etc. These cases always attract a lot of speculation but if you strictly look at the facts we have available, we know almost nothing of the dive and therefore I don't think it's fair to jump to conclusions.

R..

edit: one thing I do feel confident about is that the second diver's death could have been avoided.

 

[Ayisha]

It sounds like there were problems dropping weights on both dead divers. The first to die might have had a medical event but when his buddy could not get him up, he went for help - running OOA, bringing the other diver down to help the first dead diver, then becoming the second to be unable to drop weights.

I don't think we've read anything about problems dropping weights on two divers - only one. The translations say that Bart and Fred saw Nico lying lifeless but there is no mention of any rescue attempt on Nico. Bart and Fred both tried unsuccessfully to remove Fred's weights and BCD, at which point they lost contact and Bart rocketed. So there is mention of only one diver's weights that could not be removed - Fred's.

The no-autopsy ruling is surprising.

I think so too. And ruling out anything seems premature... Hopefully they do investigate appropriately.

 

[nakatomi]

Finally there are some interesting and conclusive facts.

This is a short summary from a text just posted an hour ago on the facebook wall by the owner/tenant of the dive site.

For the official version see: Tauchbasis Kreidesee Hemmoor | Facebook

- Both of the victims were very experienced, one of them an instructor, the other a rescue diver
- Maximum depth of the dive was 50 meters, along a ledge in front of the drop-off at E5
- The divers were using single 12l tanks containing air
- The victims were diving neoprene wetsuits
- Everyone had cold-water compatible regulators with two separate 1st stages
- The tank of victim1 contained 65bar and the valve of his primary 1st stage was shut
- The tank of victim2 was empty, both of his valves open
- Both of the victims had their backup 2nd stages (or octopusses if you like to call them that) mounted on very short hoses and the wrong way around. Basically the way they were mounted, the buddy could breathe off of them, but when used by the diver himself, they would be upside down with the exhaust under the nose

The official theory is that one of the divers probably encountered a free-flow. Upon changing to his backup regulator, he would have breathed a water/air mix (due to the regulator being in the upside-down position).
As a result, the diver could have changed to the backup regulator of his buddy.
Stress and panic could have resulted in another free-flow eventually emptying the tank of victim2.

Due to the fact that the two divers were using wetsuits, they would have lost much of the suits buoyancy at 50 meters. Also since the inflator of victim1 was attached to the first stage that was shut off, he would be unable to use the inflator to create positive lift. Since they did not drop their weights, they were unable to ascend to the surface.

So much for this theory, which makes a lot of sense and sounds conclusive.

N.

 

[Blue Sparkle]

I have a beginner-type question: How do you end up with backup second stages that are upside down? I'm trying to visualize it and figure out if there was any reason (?) they had them that way on purpose (can't think of why, but...).

1) Do some regs have a provision to mount the incoming air hose on either side? Sort of like refrigerators where you can change the handle/hinge around?

2) If not, did they somehow have these regs coming around from their left shoulder instead of the right?

I can't quite figure out why/how this would be done on purpose or could happen accidentally, but it may be obvious to those more experienced than I am.

Blue Sparkle

 

[Diver0001]

Thank you very much for this update.

A couple of comments/questions (see below)

- Maximum depth of the dive was 50 meters, along a ledge in front of the drop-off at E5

How was this determined?

- The tank of victim1 contained 65bar and the valve of his primary 1st stage was shut

This is highly irregular. Is there a theory as to how this could have happened?

- The tank of victim2 was empty, both of his valves open

Both valves? was he using a Y or H valve?

- Both of the victims had their backup 2nd stages (or octopusses if you like to call them that) mounted on very short hoses and the wrong way around.

In the 1980's this was the most common configuration. It should be familiar to most old-timers. It eliminated the twist in the hose during air sharing resulting from the contemporary configuration. Evidently these divers were using and older style config.

The official theory is that one of the divers probably encountered a free-flow. etc etc blah blah blah.

Is there any evidence for this or is it just a theory?

they would have lost much of the suits buoyancy at 50 meters.

I'm still very curious if there is any EVIDENCE that they were diving at 50m aside from the fact that this is where the bodies were found..... don't forget, this is a wall dive and the wall extends from 50m all the way to the surface. I'm not saying they couldn't have been diving at 50m but without clear evidence to the contrary I will continue to resist the assumption that since the bodies were found at 50m that this is were they intended to be diving.

Also since the inflator of victim1 was attached to the first stage that was shut off, he would be unable to use the inflator to create positive lift. Since they did not drop their weights, they were unable to ascend to the surface.

This is, obviously, highly irregular. Has it been established beyond doubt that the 1st stage of this diver was turned off during the incident at hand? If so this could be a very important clue.

So much for this theory, which makes a lot of sense and sounds conclusive.

Really? To me it only raises more questions.

R..

 

[Diver0001]

I have a beginner-type question: How do you end up with backup second stages that are upside down?

Read the above post. 20 years ago this config was the norm, as mentioned.

R..

 

[Jax]

Rob, if they both had single tanks, then they had to have "H" or "Y" valves. s

Freeflow dictates valve shutdown, does it not?

For "very experienced divers", they don't seem practiced in safe dive planning or emergency drills. If one accepts the official theory, that is.

 

[nakatomi]

The depth of 50m and the exact location of the dive were confirmed by the divers of the other buddy teams.

According to the divers, the were not diving along the wall, but over a ledge that extends in front of the wall and slopes down to 50+ meters.

Unfortunately I don´t have any more answers, it´s all in the facebook link posted above.