Bahamas: Missing Female Diver
- Thread starter danclem
- 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
I just did a rescan of the thread to check some facts. To summarize some things for the late entrant and those going back and forth on things:
The "trouble" started with the DM at 60' and the victim at 80'. The claim is that the victim was below and the DM was unaware until signaled by another diver. The DM attempted tank banging and then followed when the victim didn't respond. Contact was made by 100' and the DM and victim remained in contact to 140', at which point the DM ceased to attempt rescue. During the contact, the victim is said to have resisted assistance and pushed away the DM. People have been talking about initiating a rescue at 140', but that's not the case here. The rescue was initiated in the 80-100' depth range and lack of effective action allowed it to continue to 140'.
By the accounts, a pair of divers were at 60' and told the DM that she had lost contact with her buddy. Someone claimed visibility in the range of 100'. That being the case, that pair of divers were in position to see what went on between the DM and the victim. Whether or not they stayed in position or watched the events unfold has not been presented, nor have that pair of divers posted here. There may be eye witnesses to the whole event, but we don't know.
The question of the DM's role remains a question to me. Two parties say that the DM was specifically hired to buddy with the victim. Another says that the DM was hired by the victim and her husband jointly. I tend to believe the former, but the DM may have thought she had responsibility for the husband as well, or that catering to both might improve their enjoyment of the dive as well as her tip.
There is also some question as to whether the DM was hired for this job by choice, or required by the dive operator. The question has been asked and assumptions were made that it was a requirement, but no answer has been given.
The age of the victim was given as 68 in one place, and MEG DIVER said he thought she was around 50. I don't know that anyone has come back to conclusively resolve that question.
The "trouble" started with the DM at 60' and the victim at 80'. The claim is that the victim was below and the DM was unaware until signaled by another diver. The DM attempted tank banging and then followed when the victim didn't respond. Contact was made by 100' and the DM and victim remained in contact to 140', at which point the DM ceased to attempt rescue. During the contact, the victim is said to have resisted assistance and pushed away the DM. People have been talking about initiating a rescue at 140', but that's not the case here. The rescue was initiated in the 80-100' depth range and lack of effective action allowed it to continue to 140'.
By the accounts, a pair of divers were at 60' and told the DM that she had lost contact with her buddy. Someone claimed visibility in the range of 100'. That being the case, that pair of divers were in position to see what went on between the DM and the victim. Whether or not they stayed in position or watched the events unfold has not been presented, nor have that pair of divers posted here. There may be eye witnesses to the whole event, but we don't know.
The question of the DM's role remains a question to me. Two parties say that the DM was specifically hired to buddy with the victim. Another says that the DM was hired by the victim and her husband jointly. I tend to believe the former, but the DM may have thought she had responsibility for the husband as well, or that catering to both might improve their enjoyment of the dive as well as her tip.
There is also some question as to whether the DM was hired for this job by choice, or required by the dive operator. The question has been asked and assumptions were made that it was a requirement, but no answer has been given.
The age of the victim was given as 68 in one place, and MEG DIVER said he thought she was around 50. I don't know that anyone has come back to conclusively resolve that question.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,791
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
Can you cite a case?
What has not been clarified yet, are the circumstances under which the DM was hired by or imposed upon the diver.
(Some areas of speculation follow);
If an issue with the 68 year old lady was "discovered" that warranted a DM, and the operator imposed the DM requirement, then both the DM and the diver may have had short notice of this relationship and both may have been "miffed" with the idea. Whilst it has not been said with certainty, it appears as though this was not a choice made by the diver or the DM. In theory if you are paid to to the job you are hired, but in reality, it may have been the operator that put the requirement out there telling the couple that the wife could not dive without a DM and the DM just doing what they were told.
Regarding the prior stroke issue; Surely if it was the stroke history that was cause for a DM being required, then the operator should have required an MD check not a DM checking (the dive).
Sadly, it seems that our avenues of speculation are running out and that additional information is required.
Best Regards
Richard
(Some areas of speculation follow);
If an issue with the 68 year old lady was "discovered" that warranted a DM, and the operator imposed the DM requirement, then both the DM and the diver may have had short notice of this relationship and both may have been "miffed" with the idea. Whilst it has not been said with certainty, it appears as though this was not a choice made by the diver or the DM. In theory if you are paid to to the job you are hired, but in reality, it may have been the operator that put the requirement out there telling the couple that the wife could not dive without a DM and the DM just doing what they were told.
Regarding the prior stroke issue; Surely if it was the stroke history that was cause for a DM being required, then the operator should have required an MD check not a DM checking (the dive).
Sadly, it seems that our avenues of speculation are running out and that additional information is required.
Best Regards
Richard
Thailand about a month ago. You draw your own conclussions if the now deceased diver while mask clearing panicked and 13 year experienced instructor, whom has not been located and assumed deceased as well is a result of a panicked diver.
You might also want to consider how could such a thing happen to such an experienced instructor if real rescues were as easy as you have voiced your opinion on in the recent White Star Quarry incident.
Start with pg10 on this thread in which the missing divers were first reported.
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/thailand/272070-lks-pattaya-bash-thread-10.html
Then seperate thread on the accident.
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/thailand/284686-samaesan-diving-accident.html
John
Last edited:
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,791
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
I have investigated well over 2,000 diving fatalities, this is the first such case I've heard of and it has no factual basis in terms of what happen to the rescuer, only speculation on the part of many who are hardly qualified to do more than speculate on the internet.
Report starts at post #91. Page count may not be accurate depending on individual page viewing settings.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,791
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
I read the threads and as far I can tell we are still without a single demonstrable example of where a rescuer was done in by the victim.
Well, what I think we can say is that there's always a safety margin when you dive. Things like low visibility, extreme cold, and strong currents reduce the margin. There's less of a safety margin the deeper you descend. Among the long list of things that would reduce a diver's safety margin, engaging in a rescue would be one. Engaging in a rescue definitely increases the risk to the rescuer between the physical contact, the unpredicability of a panicking target, and the sharing of resources that a rescue may entail. How much additional risk there is depends upon the circumstances and the training/competency of the divers involved.
It is certainly possible that the act of attempting a rescue could eliminate the last of the safety margin with disastrous results to the rescuer. If this never happened, there wouldn't be a diving commandmant telling rescuers that their safety comes first and not to become a second victim. That's certainly not the same thing as a victim actively causing the death of the rescuer, but I wouldn't be so confident that it hasn't ever happened just because we don't have a documented event. It certainly seems a feasible situation.
One might suggest that any rescuer done in by the resistance of the target to rescue made a mistake to allow it to occur. I can't argue with that as it is beyond my skills and experience.
It is certainly possible that the act of attempting a rescue could eliminate the last of the safety margin with disastrous results to the rescuer. If this never happened, there wouldn't be a diving commandmant telling rescuers that their safety comes first and not to become a second victim. That's certainly not the same thing as a victim actively causing the death of the rescuer, but I wouldn't be so confident that it hasn't ever happened just because we don't have a documented event. It certainly seems a feasible situation.
One might suggest that any rescuer done in by the resistance of the target to rescue made a mistake to allow it to occur. I can't argue with that as it is beyond my skills and experience.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,791
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
It has occurred, with fair frequency, in swimming rescues (of swimmers). I know of no instance in which it has occurred during a scuba rescue. I believe that the "no two victim" warnings go way back into the days when many of the folks coming into diving were your more experienced water people, beach lifeguards especially. They brought this traditional beach lifeguard warning along with them, without rethinking the very different dynamics of a scuba rescue, where a victim is underwater and is rather strongly focused on getting to the surface.
Frankly, the suggestion that the rescuer is in any danger from the victim (except being dragged to the surface) seems very unfeasible to me.
Last edited:
Similar threads
