Accident & Incident Discussion - Northernone - aka Cameron Donaldson

[Dan]

Midweek a diver on CCR discovered damage to the reef at 50 meters down current from where they had separated at 22 meters. It was reported that it looked like anchor damage but of course that was not a place for an anchor and the depth is far too deep for anchorage by any boat that would have been in that area. Boats don't anchor in that area even shallower because of the curr

I wonder whether the stiff down current might have pushed his DPV & crushed onto the reef. The sudden impact knocked his head onto the DPV. He became unconscious and tumbling with his uncontrolled DPV to the abyss.

 

[lionfish-eater]

They usually use the scooter to get out to and return from the edge of the wall.
Bonnie was able to wait at the top of the wall for an extended period of time looking for bubbles.
She knew she had to swim in to shore and complete her deco.
She was able to swim in and make all required stops.
She completed 30 min at 10 feet and exited the water with two empty tanks.

They normally have one full tank left when doing this dive.

They had done the same dive the day before.
On that dive Bonnie went with Cam over the wall. They spent about 5 min to a Max of about 140 before returning to the top of the wall.

They dive everyday.
They have residual loading and do extended Deco to be safe.

The calculations that people are running are not relevant.

They had plenty of gas to complete the planned dive.

I am ok with my air consumption and I used two tanks to their one.

 

[boulderjohn]

They dive everyday.
They have residual loading and do extended Deco to be safe.

This will no doubt be a surprise to many people, but regular diving like this makes you less prone to DCS issues. Dr. Neal Pollock mentions this as one of the factors to consider in managing decompression stress in this video.

It has been more than a decade since I heard a presentation on this topic from a representative of DAN, but as I recall, she said that 80% of all DCS cases happen on the first day of a planned dive trip, and of those 80%, 80% happen on the first dive.

 

[johndiver999]

And yet the result is here and here we are having this discussion. Solo technical dive with a ripping current. Unusual DPV mount, going below recommended recreational depths solo is dangerous even if you are a multi-agency instructor. If you go back to the original thread the dive plan decribed shore diving in a 6 knot current, leaving the dive partner at 70 few to descend to 120-150 fsw for 5-10 minutes. That dive plan at its maximums would have a decompression obligation whether you have a scooter, cave certified, or multiagency instructor or not. You can look at the dive charts and see. One poster from Coz said the current was ripping at 6 knots that day. Plus the risk of nitrogen narcosis as pointed out by PADI’s technical director. Its seems that frequently in the A&I section we read a lot about technical dives. On your own, you are free to do what you want and can rationalize/normalize what you like. It’s your life, do what you will. But clearly in looking at this incident you can see that multiple guidelines and recommendations were exceeded particularly with the conditions.

I don't want to sound overly confrontational, but so what? So he engaged in the use of air deeper than people recommend, yes he was solo and yes he was diving in current and yes he was going into deco.

People are NOT lost by breaking some standards or guidelines, they are lost because they screw up and/or something happens to them medically or environmentally.

If he was diving to around 150 feet and was carrying redundant gas and was alone, those are not considered unreasonable decisions by a lot of people. Certainly he had done it hundreds of times and was able too return each time. There is no doubt that he would acknowledge that this type of diving brings about increased risks, but I'm sure he understood them and felt they were worth it. If he was diving 275 or 300 feet on these excursions - then I would say that this ventures into the "unreasonably dangerous" zone, but from what we have heard, the dive profile was what I consider "reasonably aggressive".

I've not seen any information that leads me to believe that this somewhat moderate exceedance of standards is a causative factor. If a guy has a heart attack while driving his car 10 mph over the speed limit, do we make a big deal about his speed?

His planned dive is certainly relevant to discuss and may help us understand what challenges and problems might develop and what constraints are imposed by the gear and conditions he willingly placed himself into, but I really don't think that we learn much from this terrible accident by just emphasizing that: "see he broke standards".

I just don't view that as a worthwhile frame of reference in this particular situation.

 

[RayfromTX]

David
That is true and yet these threads are more about covering all the possible ways that something could have gone wrong. In the absence of proof, guesses take wing. It isn't like some of the counterfactual guesses and theories are not possible in some remote statistical nook or cranny. Most though are just irrelevant to this event. The fact that the guesses are wrong doesn't mean that they won't make someone think about their own diving and abilities and make adjustments to their risk profile.

For Cameron this dive was perhaps a laid back walk in the park. For me it would be a completely different matter. I had hoped to be able to join him on cool dives someday. I've done some rather memorable dives with him but at my level not his.

If the discussion helps others to avoid issues that Cameron and Bonnie didn't actually face on this dive then that is worthwhile in the context of an A&I thread on scubaboard. I may get a chuckle at the ideas but I remember that these threads have helped me in the past.

I will repeat that these threads are almost never helpful in determining actual causes. There are special rules in place about not assigning blame and that tone has been used here a couple of times. It isn't helpful to anyone but some are more evolved socially than others and we all are subject to enlightenment over time.

David thanks for getting that info.

 

[tursiops]

Certainly he had done it hundreds of times and was able too return each time.

People keep saying this, but it is not an acceptable defense against criticism; however, it is a rather good example of Normalization of Deviance.

 

[johndiver999]

Yes, people can criticize his (and his mother's) exceedance of "standards", but do we have any good information to show that this was causative?

Saying it was normalization of deviance or stepping over the 130 (or is it 100) ft boundary, may be factual, but is it relevant and helpful in this context? I personally think this is an excessively simplistic viewpoint, even if it is factually correct.

 

[boulderjohn]

So he engaged in the use of air deeper than people recommend, yes he was solo and yes he was diving in current and yes he was going into deco.

The ONLY part of that list of actions that would not be standard for a mid-level tech dive for MOST agencies is the part about being solo. It all sounds over the top for a recreational diver, but he was not a recreational diver. His training was well past that.

 

[Pedro Burrito]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

The PLB discussion has been moved to: PLBs Can Save Your Life

Thank you for your continued interest and discussion about PLBs.

---

 

[Marie13]

People keep saying this, but it is not an acceptable defense against criticism; however, it is a rather good example of Normalization of Deviance.

Thank you for posting this. I had been thinking this for several days.

Just because someone did this type of dive many times before and got away without any issues, doesn’t mean it was okey dokey. Said diver just got lucky. Until the day he was unlucky.