BDSC
Contributor
Possibly but they said it was such low visibility not sure what he could have really seen.
Bad News From Santa Rosa Blue Hole
- Thread starter reddiver970
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Possibly but they said it was such low visibility not sure what he could have really seen.
I'm not actually sure we can say with any certainty that the original plan was to stay outside, and that this was unexpectedly changed.
This information appears to have come from the same source that has mentioned panic, getting lost and other information that is not substantiated, and doesn't fit with what we know of the divers previous history and skill set.
Until we hear from a direct source such as one of the dive team or surface support what the plan was, and that it was changed, I think it would be safest to treat this as speculation, albeit resulting from hearsay from someone who may have go this from one of the dive team.
I know this information came from the police spokesperson, but in my experience (32 years police including time as a senior investigating officer) it is uncommon for the spokesperson, or even the senior officer rolled out to talk to the press to have actually spoken to witnesses themselves.
The comments attributed to Gallegos, about Shane going in against the plan, does not fit with what Young told the Tribune that they were looking for tunnels and both went through a restriction and in to a chamber, no mention there of any change of plan.
It is at least second hand and of dubious accuracy.
P.
This information appears to have come from the same source that has mentioned panic, getting lost and other information that is not substantiated, and doesn't fit with what we know of the divers previous history and skill set.
Until we hear from a direct source such as one of the dive team or surface support what the plan was, and that it was changed, I think it would be safest to treat this as speculation, albeit resulting from hearsay from someone who may have go this from one of the dive team.
I know this information came from the police spokesperson, but in my experience (32 years police including time as a senior investigating officer) it is uncommon for the spokesperson, or even the senior officer rolled out to talk to the press to have actually spoken to witnesses themselves.
The comments attributed to Gallegos, about Shane going in against the plan, does not fit with what Young told the Tribune that they were looking for tunnels and both went through a restriction and in to a chamber, no mention there of any change of plan.
It is at least second hand and of dubious accuracy.
P.
Last edited:
kaptken1392
Registered
I have dove Santa Rosa 3 times in my past years. Water temp varies from 58F in the winter to a balmy 66F at the surface. I would expect dry suits and gloves would be the norm. I'm also assuming this because I'm guessing their dive would have had more than a 30 min planned bottom time. I have ZERO experience at cave diving and what little I know about the techniques and equipment used would barely fill a tiny thimble.
My first dive there was 1976, after the OSU students died.
I can remember looking down into the "passage". It was very narrow. Not inviting to me.
The water was very clear unless the silt got stirred up and then the viz would drop dramatically.
Very unfortunate that another diver has lost their life there.
My first dive there was 1976, after the OSU students died.
I can remember looking down into the "passage". It was very narrow. Not inviting to me.
The water was very clear unless the silt got stirred up and then the viz would drop dramatically.
Very unfortunate that another diver has lost their life there.
We who were there have been asked not to participate in forums any more until an official report is published. I am simply going to provide a link to the map the team created of the Blue Hole, including the cave. That map is on a public web site and can be accessed by anyone, so I figure there is no problem with showing you where it is.
I will also correct a misunderstanding. Shane was not told to stay out of the cave. He was told to stay on the outer side of the second restriction, which is the lower red X on the map at about 180 feet. The end of the cave shown on the map is the end of the cave. It does not go any further.
http://www.santarosabluehole.com/map/santarosamap4000.pdf
I will also correct a misunderstanding. Shane was not told to stay out of the cave. He was told to stay on the outer side of the second restriction, which is the lower red X on the map at about 180 feet. The end of the cave shown on the map is the end of the cave. It does not go any further.
http://www.santarosabluehole.com/map/santarosamap4000.pdf
ucfdiver
Contributor
I try to stay out of accident analysis threads on scubaboard because a wide variety of experience and diving knowledge comment on them, leaving the audience with questionable information. It's sad because the tech diving sections have more discussion than cave diver forum and thedecostop do these days, so maybe cave fatalities should get moved to those sub forums-- I'm not sure.
Anyways, I've gotten some information that I think would help clear up a lot of the speculation in this thread. Those of you who have seen my postings in cave diving accidents in the past know that I typically bite my tongue until I get the story a reliable source close to the event. I don't post my suspicions or narratives without explicitly stating that this is an assumption.
Here are the facts I've been told.
1) Shane was never told to stay outside of the cave, he was told to avoid the second restriction at 185ft, and the cave only goes for around 45ft after that.
2) The buddy crossed paths with him in a narrow passage on the exit.
3) They exited together almost the entire time until the end of which they became separated.
4) They obviously were not connected by a line as stated in a news article-- they were following the line in low vis exiting.
5) Shane was observed panicing.
Anyways, I've gotten some information that I think would help clear up a lot of the speculation in this thread. Those of you who have seen my postings in cave diving accidents in the past know that I typically bite my tongue until I get the story a reliable source close to the event. I don't post my suspicions or narratives without explicitly stating that this is an assumption.
Here are the facts I've been told.
1) Shane was never told to stay outside of the cave, he was told to avoid the second restriction at 185ft, and the cave only goes for around 45ft after that.
2) The buddy crossed paths with him in a narrow passage on the exit.
3) They exited together almost the entire time until the end of which they became separated.
4) They obviously were not connected by a line as stated in a news article-- they were following the line in low vis exiting.
5) Shane was observed panicing.
Last edited:
I. Was asked to look at this accident by a friend, and have decided not to speculate further. I have about thirty years of professional safety experience, including fatality investigations, and can say definitively that there is not enough information to arrive at any conclusions on this accident. We will never have access to his CCR, so that will remain unknown. I would ask that speculation cease too, as we simply do not know. And, you know, it's okay not to know, and to say so too.
My thoughts and prayers go out to Shane's family and friends, and to all involved with this project.
SeaRat
My thoughts and prayers go out to Shane's family and friends, and to all involved with this project.
SeaRat
Last edited:
BDSC
Contributor
One of the reasons this forum exists is to speculate as to what might have happened, especially since in many of these types of accidents you can never really know for certain what actually caused the death. Most likely we will never know for sure what happened here but if talking about what might have happened could make some sort of difference down the road to someone else, it's well worth it.
Agreed, but here is how that kind of discussion should go. Do any of you CCR users ever practice removing the CCR underwater to get through an obstruction? If so, tell us the hazards of doing so, and whether it could be accomplished in limited visibility.
SeaRat
Note: this does not pertain directly to this particular accident.
Read the Special Rules for this Forum. Speculation is permitted as long as it is identified as such.
Please read what I posted to BDSC. Yes, speculation is allowed. But so little is known here, and some will be unknowable, that speculation could be hurtful to the family. That is my concern. Any ideas on my question concerning CCR use?
SeaRat
SeaRat
Similar threads
