Bahamas: Missing Female Diver

[Thalassamania]

Hawaii JuJitsu KoDenKai - MizuJitsu - Scuba & Water Safety Course

At one point the Divemaster had hands-on with the victim, regardless of how far above the victim she may have been when the issue was recognized.

Therefore, I don't think the outcome can be entirely said to be caused by buddy separation.

During the hands-on episode, whatever actions the DM took, they were ineffective at fighting off an aggressive victim. Why the victim was aggressive is really only speculation at this point.

Short of this sort of training:
Hawaii JuJitsu KoDenKai - MizuJitsu - Scuba & Water Safety Course

I don't see how - at 140', on the way down fast, with someone venting their BC as you attempt to fill it - your basic DM is going to resolve that before both of them are heading south of 180'-200'

140 fsw is over 5 ATA and soon they would be passing through 6 ATA. Dropping someone's weights at 6 ATA is not going to produce the sudden bouyancy that I suspect some of you believe. Further up during the ascent? Yes. But at 165' and falling? No.

And one of the first rules of rescue is "don't lose someone in the attempt, providing two bodies to recover instead of one".

Feel free to disagree. YMMV.

Doc

I think I already explained how a DM could handle the problem without having to first become a submersible Shaolin. Course looks interesting I may give it a try on my next trip to Honolulu.

Can we start a thread to vote on whether Deep Stops and Thal should Roshambo over it, South Park style?

Naw ... my approach is more that of Butch Cassidy, "first let's get the rules straight." Maybe I'd just throw the match and win by losing.

 

[mikemath]

I think a key contributing factor to this death has been identified, the 20 foot depth separation created between the diver and the DM. This delayed the action by the DM (they had to get down to the diver), and created less distance to the "maximum depth of safe rescue" the DM had unconsciously or consciously determined (140 feet). Some very experienced posters have asserted that a private DM paying appropriate attention would not allow this to happen, and I have no reason to doubt this. Given that this separation occurred, it sounds to me like the DM applied her best efforts, but it's possible the outcome could have been different without the separation.

I'm wondering to what extent communication could have been a contributing factor as well. It seems likely that the diver did not understand what the DM was trying to say. The thumbs-up/ascend signal is one I've seen misinterpreted as "good?/good." by new students. Putting myself in the diver's shoes, seeing what I perceived as an "everything's good" sign, and then perceiving that I was being "attacked" by someone would certainly get my adrenaline pumping. Replace the "thumbs up" with an "ok" sign and you'll see what I mean. Getting back to preventative lessons from this incident, how would you communicate the severity of the depth situation to a novice diver at 80 feet?

I'm thinking if the ascend sign failed, I would point to my depth gauge and indicate that they should do so, and motion "60". Failing that, I would try "you follow me". Physical confrontation would be my last resort. I remember how angry I was on my ~15th dive when I was electing to hover a couple feet above our group to examine something in the kelp, clearly in control of buoyancy, and another diver (who I didn't know at the time but turned out to be an instructor) grabbed my fin to pull me down to their level. Communication instead of physical intervention would seem to be preferable due to less possibility of escalation.

 

[Cave Diver]

I'm wondering to what extent communication could have been a contributing factor as well. It seems likely that the diver did not understand what the DM was trying to say. The thumbs-up/ascend signal is one I've seen misinterpreted as "good?/good." by new students. Putting myself in the diver's shoes, seeing what I perceived as an "everything's good" sign, and then perceiving that I was being "attacked" by someone would certainly get my adrenaline pumping. Replace the "thumbs up" with an "ok" sign and you'll see what I mean. Getting back to preventative lessons from this incident, how would you communicate the severity of the depth situation to a novice diver at 80 feet?

I'm thinking if the ascend sign failed, I would point to my depth gauge and indicate that they should do so, and motion "60". Failing that, I would try "you follow me".

If they aren't correctly understanding a thumbs up by this point, would you have realistic expectations they'd understand "60" or "follow me?"

I'm not saying it shouldn't be tried, but at what point do you cease attempting to communicate and actually act?

 

[Doc Intrepid]

"Getting back to preventative lessons from this incident, how would you communicate the severity of the depth situation to a novice diver at 80 feet?"

Following on what CD said, at 80 feet you have a couple options:
1. Point at your depth indicator.
2. Lift their (computer) and point at their depth reading.
3. Lift their (computer) and point at their time remaining.
4. Get their attention and give them the "question mark" signal, followed by the bird, meaning "W-T-F?"

But this didn't happen at 80'. It happened at 140' and falling...

There may be other more effective response actions you could take, to be sure, but in terms of communications, as you're falling between 140' and 165' on a single 80 with a combative victim your communicatory options are limited...

 

[mikemath]

If they aren't correctly understanding a thumbs up by this point, would you have realistic expectations they'd understand "60" or "follow me?"

I'm not saying it shouldn't be tried, but at what point do you cease attempting to communicate and actually act?

It seems very context-dependent, and I guess I'm more interested in general principles than this particular incident. This incident provides a good chance to apply theory to an actual incident and run through possible outcomes. If they were 80 feet and getting deeper by the second there's more urgency than if they're stable at 80 feet just seemingly enjoying the scenery. While 80 feet is beyond the recommended depth for the OW certification, it doesn't pose an immediate threat beyond more rapid air consumption (120%) and shorter NDL (30 mins instead of 55). Similarly, being on a wall is far different than having a physically-imposed max depth withing recreational limits.

My ulterior motive is I'm working towards my DiveMaster certification and may well end up with a similar situation. I'd like to know what experienced divers and instructors feel is the boundary between trying communication versus physically intervening.

 

[stevejaz]

Dan, in rereading my post it does come off as a bit personal, not my intention and I apologize. I freely admit that I am biased but am trying to objectively analyze the situation and at the same time applying what I know of the operation, site, and my limited experience with them.

With that said, my own instructor knocked them for some of their practices and they worked there! One of which being poorly maintained equipment as we had a reg failure and a BC failure when I was there, all caught in pre-dive inspections.

Some of what you have said is contridictory to eye witness accounts. Specifically whom Mr. Wood was diving with and I believe with out going back and looking, you said all of their personel were well trained and good at what they do (I'm paraphasing here).

My point being that if you know all of the personel that it does potentially subconsciously bias you. Not saying that anything you say is incorrect and I'm sure to the best of your knowledge you are just relaying the facts. But, if I'm a DM that just lost somebody due to lack of diligence, am I going to slant the story a bit even subconsciously as I'm sure they are in shock as well?

However, by no means do I want to infer anything about the DM involved, as stated, this may have been totally our of their control and they were predestined to fail.

As for their safety record, that's great, but as we may be witnessing here, failure to follow procedures just once may have catostrophic results.

It does sound as though she shouldn't have been where she was and having witnessed divers in that same location that weren't qualified to be there first hand, I suspect these aren't the only two cases of this happening.

As for your posts, please continue as they are insightful, me opposing some of your input is only meant to insight thought with a common goal.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[mikemath]

There may be other more effective response actions you could take, to be sure, but in terms of communications, as you're falling between 140' and 165' on a single 80 with a combative victim your communicatory options are limited...

I think we agreeing on that point. It seems from the on-site reports that the physical interaction led to the descent below 80 feet (due to the combative reaction of the victim). Because of that, I'd like to determine if the physical intervention by the DM was premature or whether other dive professionals believe feel this is DM intervened in a way any reasonably competent divemaster would be expected to act.

 

[Cave Diver]

I'd like to know what experienced divers and instructors feel is the boundary between trying communication versus physically intervening.

Response dependent. If the diver is in no immediate danger, acknowledges communication and responds accordingly then physical intervention is unneccessary. On the other hand, if theres and imminent threat, lack of response, etc. then it's time to act.

It is much better to be anticipatory than reactionary. Staying aware and anticipating problems is much better than having to react with a physical response.

 

[Thalassamania]

I think we agreeing on that point. It seems from the on-site reports that the physical interaction led to the descent below 80 feet (due to the combative reaction of the victim). Because of that, I'd like to determine if the physical intervention by the DM was premature or whether other dive professionals believe feel this is DM intervened in a way any reasonably competent instructor would be expected to act.

No, she needed to have had complete control of the situation and clearly did not. I would expect leadership level personnel to have had a hand on the tank valve or be holding hands for the entire dive, especially when not over a hard bottom.

 

[mikemath]

No, she needed to have had complete control of the situation and clearly did not. I would expect leadership level personnel to have had a hand on the tank valve or be holding hands for the entire dive, especially when not over a hard bottom.

Interesting--that's unexpected for me as a standard operating procedure for supervising a newly certified diver. I'm probably betraying my Northern California experience bias again, but I haven't seen that sort of direct control applied to new divers. How widespread is this practice and what is the experience level you would require of a diver before observing them from nearby instead of in direct contact?

Also, it hasn't been clear from the posts, but it's possible this DM was responsible for both the victim and her husband. Should you link hands with both?