3 Divers lost on the Spiegel Grove

[genenaples]

I have dove on the Grove many times with many different operators. Its a tough dive but with some planning, a safe one if you follow your training. I have penetrated the wreck many times as well, but never going deeper than one or two decks below the bridge deck. Most rooms off the hallway have escape holes cut in. And the hallways have perm guidelines. Does anyone know yet how deep these divers were? It sounds like they were fairly deep inside if it took a couple of days to recover their bodies. Condolences to all involved.,

 

[Former FLL Now MSP Diver]

http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/2007/03/three_die_in_florida_scuba_acc.html

Here's an interesting quote from the article "But fellow divers who knew the men said they may have had good reason not to use lines, which can easily tangle or tear on a ship's rusty edges."

I can understand that may happen, but this can't possibily be a proper reason not to use a line when inside a wreck? And especially surprising since two of the divers were instructors.

Marc

 

[DeepBound]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but isn't the New Jersey wreck penetration school of thought in favor of progressive penetration and familizarization rather than using reels? Or is that ancient history?

The point is the divers didn't use any dive reels (as from what the Monroe County Sheriff's Office said) and to me that is 80% cause of death, who do you sue for not bring any dive reels? They all should have KNOWN! I MEAN FREAKING COMMON SENSE helllo? not to be outgoing but what is the deal with that?

Always descending,
C.H.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

Progressive penetration and familiarization may only be done when one has access to the wreck incrementally over time. On a vacation lasting two or three days, this would not likely be the preferred method.

Sheck Exley's "Basic Cave Diving" (first edition copyright 1979) rule #1 is "Always use a single, continuous guideline from the entrance of the cave throughout the dive".

Lines do not tangle inside wrecks for divers who know how to deploy them. The requirement for a guideline out remains as true today as it was in 1979, particularly when exploring a cave/wreck you have never been inside (to any new significant penetration).

FWIW. YMMV.

 

[dave4868]

You know, the biggest lesson I take away from this, and Donathan's death, is that I hope I will always be scared of certain things underwater. I think fear is useful; it makes you careful, and keeps you conservative. As I look forward to getting some cave training, I need to remember that it's good to be a little scared.

During my Rec Triox class last weekend, I thought again and again, as I was listening to the instructor, that one of the keynotes of GUE is that they are risk averse -- Which is a strange thing to say about an organization that does the dives they do. But they are powerfully risk averse, which is why they developed the system them have, and why it is so very conservative compared with other systems in some places.

I'd just as soon stay risk-averse. Neither do I want to die in a cave, nor do I want to put somebody else at risk to recover my body. I'll stay scared, thank you.

You've distilled the main lesson from this accident perfectly. Thank you.

That's what I gained from it also. I try to maintain a healthy respect for the hazards of diving, but sometimes I let my guard down.

Let's continue to speak generally, since we don't know how the victims made their fateful decisions, whether they were narced at the time, or whether lack of a dive plan was a factor that opened the door to bad decisions, etc.

What kind of attitudes can sway one's judgment to the point of abandoning training and common sense?

Is it primarily overconfidence? Bravado? Passivity and lack of assertiveness?

From time to time, I reflect on several bad choices I've made in my diving history, thankful that the dice didn't roll against me.

Bravado is a particularly easy trap to fall into.

When I see it in myself, I really have to smarten myself up quick and get serious again.

If I have a buddy and see it in him, it's even more of a worry about whether I'm getting honest answers in the dive planning or whether the buddy is going to endanger both of us when overwhelmed during the dive.

It's a recipe for disaster.

Dave C

 

[pir8]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but isn't the New Jersey wreck penetration school of thought in favor of progressive penetration and familizarization rather than using reels? Or is that ancient history?

Its not a stupid question because there are still some who dive that way. I'm not necessarily one of them but thats the way they are trained. I really don't want to see legislation restricting us.

 

[J.R.]

The tone should be; three of our community died on a pleasure dive and that, under any circumstances, is entirely unacceptable.

Hold the phone...

"unacceptable" to whom? Sad... yea, I'll agree. Unfortunate... yea. Condolances... OK. But "unacceptable"?

With respect, you seem to be taking somebody's personal choice and institutionalizing it where no "institution" exists. As I have noted before, diving is a risky sport as we're performing our 'recreational activity' in a hostile environment that is repleate with things that can an will kill you.

Even if your are diving as safely as possible, accidents happen and things go wrong and people die. Its the way it is.

My comprehension of high risk sports is that to understand and accept the potential risks is the first step toward becoming a 'safe' diver. Somebody, much earlier in this thread, made a comment about some cave divers (if I recall the post correctly) were extremely 'risk adverse'... I find absolutely noting unusual about this. The intelligent diver does everything they can to understand and to minimize risk... but does so with the understanding that it is absolutely and completely impossible to eliminate it.

... there are simply too many uncontrollable factors to make it safe. Ignoring or minimizing the 'controllable' element simply amplies the inherently present risk factors.

Folks... if we want to improve dive safety, the FIRST thing to do is drop the idealizim... when I'm diving my first concern is for my own safety... THEN and only then will I tend to YOUR safety. I may love ya' as a friend on the surface where air is plentiful and we are in our element... but there are good friends I wouldn't dive with on a bet. If I do dive with them and things go wrong... MY FAULT and ONLY "my fault". My opportunity to save my life begins on the surface before I put on my gear. Every step I take past that point increase the risk factors. It's simple...

Many years ago I tried to volunteer for the SEALS. Well... to make a long story short, I couldn't get in because I was 'color deficient' in my eyesight. When I protested this fact a rather kindly (but LARGE) SEAL Chief said to me, "Son... let's put it this way. If we send you out to blow up a bridge some night... and you inadvertently put a red wire where a green wire is supposed to go... well, we don't mind if you kill yourself, we just don't want you taking seven other guys with you."

There in lies all the wisdom in the world about risk management.

So... let's drop the bravado and parental attitudes. THEY chose their path... I doubt if it was a 'spur of the moment' thing... it was contemplated, planned and the plan was put into motion. For all I know they did "plan their dive and dive their plan"... it might have (technially) been a good plan... it might not have been.

The dive op didn't kill them.... SG didn't kill them... diving didn't kill them. What did them in was the choices they made. MAYBE they've done it before... maybe they got away with it before... maybe it was the law of averages that caught up... I don't know... I don't care.

The simple fact is... whatever plan they had, whatever experience they had, whatever other qualifactions they may have brought to the party... in the final analysis it was insufficient and consequences ensued.

What I take away from this is three basic points...

1: Diving is dangerous...
2: No plan is flawless
3: My choice of hobbies (if continued) can be terminal

Yes... I feel sorry for them and their families... but its the nature of the sport when the envelope is pushed beyond...

Maybe its time for NAUI and PADI to stop trying to make diving a 'touchy, feely marketable product' and call it like it is... a risky activity that can kill you. As they say, "There are old heros... and there are bold heros... but no old AND bold heros."

Sorry for the semi-rant... but I DO feel sorry for these guys... they lost their lives because *something* went wrong... and I think we're missing the real message of their deaths.

 

[BKP]

Hold the phone...

"unacceptable" to whom? Sad... yea, I'll agree. Unfortunate... yea. Condolances... OK. But "unacceptable"?

With respect, you seem to be taking somebody's personal choice and institutionalizing it where no "institution" exists. As I have noted before, diving is a risky sport as we're performing our 'recreational activity' in a hostile environment that is repleate with things that can an will kill you.

I believe the context shakey put that in (and the context within which I agreed) was that each incident, if preventable, needs to be reinforced in training to avoid recurrence ("preventable" being the operative word). We all know we engage in something that can have unavoidable (and terminal) consequences -- and thankfully, it's *our* choice as to whether or not engage...

 

[J.R.]

I believe the context shakey put that in (and the context within which I agreed) was that each incident, if preventable, needs to be reinforced in training to avoid recurrence ("preventable" being the operative word). We all know we engage in something that can have unavoidable (and terminal) consequences -- and thankfully, it's *our* choice as to whether or not engage...

Fair enough... and thanks for the response.

... but I'm reminded of an old saying that says, "Practice makes *better*... not *perfect*."

The problem with dramatic phrases like "unacceptable" is that they are phrases I find more useful before a dive occurs not after the consequences of a poorly planned/executed dive are reaped.

... and all the training, rules, proceedures, etc. will never trump the human element of choice... and *choice* is strongly influenced by the one element of diving that I don't think has been discussed but is, in my opinion, a critical element in dive planning... simply "attitude".

The attitude with which one dives has more to do with the judgement process than all the training and technical knowledge out there... I don't think its a coincidence that DAN's accident review showed the two highest risk groups in diving as the "very new" and the "very experienced"... Risks do not decrease with experience... rather the ability to deal with risk increases with experience. When risk is ignored or minimized... it's potential for less than optimal consequences increases.

... training is good... mindset is equally critical.

But it is my honest opinoin that most poor decsions do NOT arrise out of technical issues but rather emotional or psychological ones.

 

[Thalassamania]

Maybe its time for NAUI and PADI to stop trying to make diving a 'touchy, feely marketable product' and call it like it is... a risky activity that can kill you.

In my mind that's the essence of the overall industry problem, but it does not relate to this incident, these guys knew better.