Canadian Diver in Critical Condition - Yongala wreck dive mishap

[scuba_katt]

I'll refer you back to the last sentence in my post.
The Yongala is not a hard dive. It's people's crappy skills that make it hard.

I can't help but think you're being a bit harsh. As someone who crewed a boat going there, you would know that the wreck lies on the ocean floor with very little protection from extremely strong currents that occur fairly frequently. I too have dived the Yongala more times than I can count, but I still would not be so arrogant to call it an easy dive and blame people's "crappy skills" for difficulties they may encounter.

Ask any seasoned diver in Townsville and they would all tell you the same thing. The Yongala is definitely an advanced dive because of its depth and the current. Diving the length of the wreck is the easy part, it's entering the water and attenmpting to descend in the strong near-surface currents that cause most problems... the exertion used by unfit or inexperienced divers can make them suck their air too hard and panic before they even get within 50ft of the wreck.

Anyway, back to the point of my original thread, I am yet to hear of any change to the diver's condition, but I will post any news as it comes through. We're all hoping for some good news soon.

Regards

 

[TSandM]

the exertion used by unfit or inexperienced divers can make them suck their air too hard and panic before they even get within 50ft of the wreck.

Wouldn't this pretty much fit nadwidny's definition of people with inadequate skills?

 

[Wayan]

Wouldn't the ability to make a 100' descent/ascent make an AOW certification, not just an OW cert, necessary or at least preferable?

Certification has nothing to do with experience, know a lot of people with open water who are way more experiences in the water that others with AOW or even rescue.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

I'll refer you back to the last sentence in my post.
The Yongala is not a hard dive. It's people's crappy skills that make it hard.

You didn't address my point; you criticize the low level of competency of OW courses, but a dive to 100 ft is, by definition, beyond the competency of an OW diver.

Is there no responsibility of the crew of dive boats to check the competency of their customers for a given site? In this case, it's very simple: if you have no AOW card or higher, you either dive with a professional or you don't dive to 100 ft. What is the purpose of having these certification levels if people ignore them?

We don't know the experience of this diver --- accidents happen to the best divers, for all we know she had a heart attack --- but we do know the level of Tina Watson, it was OW with zero dives beyond that. Letting her dive with her non-professional husband on a 100 ft dive was inconsistent with guidelines for her certification.

Perhaps letting people dive beyond their abilities reflects on the crappy skills of some people who work dive boats, not just on the crappy skills of the divers? Personally, I would be a little wary of someone who worked a dive boat and who viewed a 100 ft wreck dive in a strong current as "not hard" unless someone had "crappy skills". Such machismo might induce people to dive sites beyond their abilities (come on, it isn't hard! or are you too crappy for this site?!).

Scuba divers are a diverse group, from novices to pros, good to bad. What is "hard" for one diver may be "easy" for another. It isn't just a measure of crappiness, but a measure a diver's unique mix of fitness, experience and skills at the time of a given dive. How is someone new to a site, or to diving like Tina Watson, to know what is a "hard" dive? Where does a new diver go for guidance regarding their ability to dive a site? Should she listen to her husband, who never did the dive and whose motives were unclear? Should she listen to Scuba Diving magazine (which rates it beyond her experience), or should she listen to some cynical expert who thinks it's a piece of cake for any diver who isn't "crappy"?

In medicine, I was always wary of a surgeon who considered any operation "easy". There isn't an operation, or a dive site, that can't bite the best of us in the kiester.

 

[sonic_nc]

Some days I would definately class the yongala wreck as one for relatively experienced divers, definately not one for those new to diving. The currents can be very strong down there, even strong enough to rip a mask off sometimes - not good in 25 meters of water. And if those new to diving wish to dive it, then proper supervision, with low ratios is needed.
One of the reasons why there have been so many incidents at the Yongala is because they get a high volume of backpackers come through, who have just learnt to dive in Airlie Beach or Cairns. Trying to save money, they have hunted around for the cheapest courses - which are normally high student to instructor ratio courses, and hence not really conductive to learning.

 

[Valwood1]

I used Yongala Dive in 2005 and have nothing but good things to say about that operator. The predive briefing was thorough, and included a diagram/picture of the wreck, showed where we would enter, how the dive would proceed, etc. The crew was attentive and safety-conscious. We were required to surface with 750 PSI (supposedly, a QLD requirement but I don't know). The dive boat tied up to a buoy that is anchored at the wreck, and we descended down that line to the wreck. Visibility at the site varies from, probably, 80' to 35'.

 

[nadwidny]

You didn't address my point; you criticize the low level of competency of OW courses, but a dive to 100 ft is, by definition, beyond the competency of an OW diver.

Depends on the diver. Most are competent enough. Some aren't. Some shouldn't even be in the water.

Is there no responsibility of the crew of dive boats to check the competency of their customers for a given site?

Adults have to be able to make adult decisions. It's part of being a grown-up and not just playing one.

In this case, it's very simple: if you have no AOW card or higher, you either dive with a professional or you don't dive to 100 ft.

If you think the AOW card is a sign of competency then you are sorely mistaken.

What is the purpose of having these certification levels if people ignore them?

You're new aren't you? Here's a secret; the purpose of having these levels is so that.... The Agencies can Make Money!!!!

Perhaps letting people dive beyond their abilities reflects on the crappy skills of some people who work dive boats, not just on the crappy skills of the divers?

The crew is there to assist if requested and provide information so that the adult can make a decision for themself and their suitability for the activity. The crew are not nannies.

Personally, I would be a little wary of someone who worked a dive boat and who viewed a 100 ft wreck dive

The Yongala is a reef dive. An artificial one but it's a reef dive none the less. And the 100 is a maximum, most of the dive can be done above 70. It's no different than diving a reef or a pinnacle.

in a strong current

Not always strong or even present and not as strong as some make it out to be.

as "not hard" unless someone had "crappy skills".

It's the truth. The Yongala is not a hard dive unless the diver has bad skills. Every day thousands of people of every level from shiny-eyed beginner to crusty seadog, pull off the same profiles in the same or worse conditions in Cozumel or Caymans or wherever.

Such machismo might induce people to dive sites beyond their abilities (come on, it isn't hard! or are you too crappy for this site?!).

You are reading way too much into my post.

Scuba divers are a diverse group, from novices to pros, good to bad. What is "hard" for one diver may be "easy" for another. It isn't just a measure of crappiness, but a measure a diver's unique mix of fitness, experience and skills at the time of a given dive. How is someone new to a site, or to diving like Tina Watson, to know what is a "hard" dive? Where does a new diver go for guidance regarding their ability to dive a site?

Well for starters the agencies recognize that they produce a some crappy divers so in recognition of that they make a blanket recommendtion during basic OW training what they recommend new divers should or shouldn't attempt and spell it out on a consistent basis during training.

Should she listen to her husband, who never did the dive and whose motives were unclear? Should she listen to Scuba Diving magazine (which rates it beyond her experience), or should she listen to some cynical expert who thinks it's a piece of cake for any diver who isn't "crappy"?

Sounds like in this case she should've listened to her training.

In medicine, I was always wary of a surgeon who considered any operation "easy". There isn't an operation, or a dive site, that can't bite the best of us in the kiester.

This isn't surgery. It's diving.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Surgery or diving, dead is dead.

Your opinions speak for themselves, let others judge.

 

[dave4868]

From 7/28/2008 OurBrisbane.com:

Woman injured in shipwreck dive | ourbrisbane.com

Woman injured in shipwreck dive

28 July 2008 - 1:13pm | Source: ABC
A 31-year-old Canadian woman is believed to have suffered an air embolism after a scuba diving incident on the Yongala shipwreck in north Queensland.

The woman collapsed shortly after returning to the surface from a dive on Friday afternoon and is being treated by the Townsville hyperbaric unit for an air expansion injury.

She remains in a serious but stable condition in intensive care.
The general manager of Dive Queensland, Col Mckenzie, says the Yongala is one of the top 10 dive sites in the world and a mecca for divers.

"The Yongala is a difficult dive and I think people just don't appreciate those difficulties and think their own personal skills are better than they are and that's what leads to a lot of these incidents," he said.
​

The last line is a useful way of describing the nature of a "difficult" dive....Didn't even need to use the phrase "crappy skills" to express it.....

Dave C

 

[TSandM]

I just had a very interesting conversation with my husband about this thread. I asked him what characteristics of a 100 foot wreck dive would make him call it a difficult dive. He came up with cold water, low viz, and strong current. So then I asked him what skills a diver would need to cope with those conditions, and he said good buoyancy control, good buddy skills, and situational awareness.

I then asked him if he considered that those skills were "advanced" diving skills, and he said yes.

I think Brian is right.