HalcyonDaze
Contributor
I didn't assume anything. I was simply pointing out that your assumption was a bit of a stretch in logic. There's no good reason to assume that the victim and buddy had the same gas in their cylinders.
You stated "If we assume..." and then went on to imply that since the buddy made it to 160 feet without ill effects, we could conclude something about the gas in the victim's cylinder. Regardless of the relationship between victim and buddy, there's no reason to assume they were using the same gas.
I will agree with you that conservative planning of a third dive on air should require a shallower depth than might have been reached on the first two dives. So if the dive was planned conservatively and if the dive plan was followed, then we could expect oxygen toxicity risk would have been mitigated.
The only thing we can conclude with certainty is there are a lot of "ifs."
Exactly. At this point, we have a very few known facts and some items that have been reported in posts on this thread which may be true or may be simple hearsay. At this point I'm choosing to go with a null hypothesis of proper dive planning being followed rather than assuming the deceased pushed the limits in one or more ways. Given what has been stated about him in this thread and elsewhere, the former seems more likely than the latter.
What happens in a lot of these A&I threads, as boulderjohn posted earlier, is the desire to find some clear root cause of the accident:
But in the world of accident and incident discussions, people insistently believe there must have been a preventable cause, and they search for it. They look for every possible clue of what the diver did wrong, or what the buddy did wrong. They keep waiting for more information. They keep demanding more information. But more information will never come.
In one thread a few years ago the information that the diver had died of a cardiac event of some kind was indeed released, and several people still insisted something must have gone wrong on the dive. Heart attacks don't happen without some triggering event, they said. Well, the truth is that people have cardiac events without triggering events all the time. The second most common time to have one is when you are asleep. The most common time is after breakfast.
A lot of the posts in this thread seem to assume that something had to have gone wrong in order for this event to happen - exhaustion, exceeding MOD, bad dive planning, etc. So if we're going to discuss those, why not lay out what would have had to happen before any of those scenarios came into play? Then we'll at least know what information is needed to support a particular hypothesis rather than blindly speculating - for example, whether or not the deceased had done both prior dives or whether there was heavy current that day.