Accident & Incident Discussion - Northernone - aka Cameron Donaldson

[divezonescuba]

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.

What is/was his level of certification?

 

[MichaelMc]

Claims that a loss proves that 'the mortal risk boundary appears to have been crossed' is playing VERY loose with causality and random factors in accidents!

National or local rules about where, how, and with whom to dive may have as much to do with supporting the dive industry as with safety. And it is not clear that where Cameron was was covered by those rules. Regardless, they are indirect, not direct, reflections of risk factors.

 

[Coztick]

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.

It is also apparent from Cameron's posts that he is well aware of his abilities and limitations in striving to be an even more accomplished and safer diver.
One of my favorites was his play by play account of diving to 140 or 150 fsw without aid of a bcd. Pretty sure no agency is gonna condone that. He would also practice CESAs from nearly 200fsw to 60fsw rather than surfacing.
I think he has full cave training as well as being a ccr pilot.

 

[Akimbo]

He would also practice CESAs from nearly 200fsw to 60fsw rather than surfacing.

My first PM from Cameron was on free ascent techniques that was part of my basic Scuba training in 1962 and later in the US Navy. We also discussed diving without a BC, which didn't exist when I was trained. Truely a very thoughtful and inquisitive mind.

 

[Mr. Manfrenjensenden]

One good question is are the risk factors additive, multiplicative, exponential, non-linear or a complex algorithm of the former?

Most of what you cite is or likely is a nonlinear system. The problem that we have is our brains default to linear thinking and linear approximations of nonlinear systems. It's just the way we're constructed, and it works great most of the time because generally a linear extrapolation works, which of course reinforces improper thinking. When it doesn't work, though, it can mean our expectations for how a system might behave are massively off.

The point is......if having done a risky dive successfully makes you think that was OK, and you do it again because now you think it must be a bit less risky than you thought....THAT is normalization of deviance. Having done some risky dive "hundreds of times" makes it seem like it is not as risky as you thought it was. But the dive hasn't changed, only your perception of the risk. It is Russian Roulette...and each time you spin and just go click you are NOT entitled to think, "Hey, that's not so bad! Let's do it again!"

I've always thought the best way to drive this point home is Bertrand Russell's lesson of the chicken: "The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken."

 

[MargaritaMike]

The UV18 (unless the motor has been mod'ed) has a stronger motor (more winding) than the old UV26 but it's still heavy at 70+ lbs and lacks power compared to the newer DPVs. In high flow caves, you can expect to achieve crawling speed. Against strong currents, it's no match unless going sideways.

As to safety, ocean currents, to me, is the most unpredictable and risky element of diving. All else pales in comparison. Always carry tall SMB and two reels, at a minimum. I also carry a foldable snorkel, an air horn, a light to attach to the SMB. Drysuit pockets help carry this stuff. Redundant buoyancy (in wetsuit) is advised, and if possible, carry one of those locator devices. Murphy will come visit. It's not a question of if but when.

Currents, while somewhat predictable in the waters of Cozumel, can be widely different on the same site from one day to the next (I have experienced this personally) and can vary at different depths. What I have learned from experience AND this incident is to never be complacent about the currents. What the currents were at the time and depth and location during specific moments of Cameron's dive will always be unknown. What I DO know is that Cameron was aware of this potential variance and apparently felt he was capable of dealing with it.

While some people will say that I couldn't carry anything else with me, I will add a PLB and possibly a VHF radio to my splash gear based on this incident. I'm not sure what I can do for redundant buoyancy, but it always should be considered.

I have also taken away the fact that my personal risk tolerance needs to be constantly examined and adjusted based on a multitude of factors at the time of pre-dive planning.

As far as what we can learn from what happened in this specific event that can keep all of us safer, I don't know that there's much, because we simply don't know what happened, and as Ray keeps pointing out, we're all just speculating. But what I can say that I've taken away is that I will buy more safety gear like a PLB, I will get more training, and I will be even more vigilant about understanding what kind of risks I'm assuming on any given dive. What has happened makes me want to give a bad dose of randomness even less of a chance of causing a serious negative outcome for me.

Amen! All of us should, at least for a moment, determine which "recommendations" we are willing to stretch and which are hard and fast rules.

 

[Protondecay123]

Claims that a loss proves that 'the mortal risk boundary appears to have been crossed' is playing VERY loose with causality and random factors in accidents!

National or local rules about where, how, and with whom to dive may have as much to do with supporting the dive industry as with safety. And it is not clear that where Cameron was was covered by those rules. Regardless, they are indirect, not direct, reflections of risk factors.

But there is peril in ignoring the local knowledge that sets the foundation for those rules, much less the small degree of analysis to see why those rules came into effect. Perhaps The local authorities in Cozumel noticed an increase disappearance of divers who dove from the shore to get to the wall versus increased recovery from boat divers caught in currents along the wall? Perhaps having a boat with additional personnel actually made the diving safer and saved lives rather than more cynical reasons? Maybe PADI, NAUI and other agencies setting a limit of 130 fsw for recreational diving makes diving safer and brings awareness to the risks going beyond those depths rather than profiteering or something more cynical? And as far as solo tech diving goes, all anyone has to do is look on this form and see the fatal results. And if anyone doesn’t think they are covered by rules like that, look at the results here and why we are having this discussion. Maybe there is some giant Kraken waiting in the depths of the Coz channel to randomly grab highly skilled divers? Or maybe there’s a situational mortal threshold that’s not crossed by following those “rules” and mitigating the associated risk.

 

[BRT]

The point is......if having done a risky dive successfully makes you think that was OK, and you do it again because now you think it must be a bit less risky than you thought....THAT is normalization of deviance. Having done some risky dive "hundreds of times" makes it seem like it is not as risky as you thought it was. But the dive hasn't changed, only your perception of the risk. It is Russian Roulette...and each time you spin and just go click you are NOT entitled to think, "Hey, that's not so bad! Let's do it again!"

I get what you are saying but this is a normal part of diving. The first time we can't really believe that we can inhale under water. After hundreds of dives we think nothing of it. That does not mean we will get another breath out of our regulator. Spending an hour underwater IS deviance.

 

[Steve_C]

Marie. The risk factors are cummulative. As pointed out additive may not be a good word. Also there is often a threshold effect. A friend who worked at. Boeing told me that most modern plane accidents require several factors to crash. By themselves each might not be important but at some point there can be disaster when they work together.


Humans are humans and not perfect. There is a long list of instructors and other experienced divers who slip up once and that is it or nearly it. Not saying that Cameron did anything wrong. Just that being an experienced instructor does not rule out a mistake having been made. May make it less likely but does not rule it out.

 

[RayfromTX]

The problem with the tone of some of the posters in this thread and others in this forum is that it discourages the free sharing of information that is known. That is the purpose of the special rules. Lion Fish eater and I have shared the only real information that comes from an eyewitness and it was somewhat discounted and the wild speculation and accusations continued. I can think of no person that has actually dived with Cameron that is making these oddball claims and the claims of breaking standards and diving dangerously are, as is so typical here, coming from rather inexperienced members and/or members that habitually end up in conflicts because of their abrasive posts.

When we post here or in any forum we should familiarize ourselves with the rules of that forum. They are there to make your experience here richer and more enjoyable. To think that they were made up on the fly to protect this diver because he is a beloved moderator is paranoid and indicates that not only have the rules not been read but that the terms of service have not been read either. It is those same members that have been claiming that Cameron was breaking rules. Of course that is also incorrect because the claims are made without knowing what his training is and even what agency standards represent.

There are divers here that have dived with Cameron. They won't share their experiences diving with Cameron except to say that he was an excellent diver that was very intelligent and thoughtful and could get himself out of most any problem that we are discussing. The fact that we won't share all that we know here is the reason for the special rules and evidence that they fail to accomplish their mission. What we are left with is enforcing not speaking ill of the dead.

Speculation is expected. Blaming the deceased or their dive partners has not and will not be allowed. If you think about it, that's the only way it can work. Otherwise these threads will be not much more that an ignorant and false news report such as the one posted here. The quote of German in that article on the other hand is exactly in line with my personal experiences. I quote it here.
"Germán Yánez Mendoza, diver and spelunker of the island, said he knew the Canadian and knew of his diving skills, not only in the sea, but in caves on the island. He is a highly trained diver, very experienced and in excellent physical condition who used to use two tanks."