Catalina Diver died today w/ Instructor

[Bubbletrubble]

Dr. Bill, I think you are a true asset to ScubaBoard and the SoCal diving community. I have learned a great deal from your posts here and I respect you immensely.

I read your recent article which was posted in the Marine Life and Ecosystems forum. In decrying the uninformed speculation that surrounds dive accidents, you cite as supporting evidence a discussion in which I participated -- on this very A&I thread. I submit that your recount of this discussion is, at best, a gross misrepresentation of what was actually written in the posts. For this reason, I will quote the original discussion:

I have to apologize to everyone. For some reason, I was under the impression that the victim was taking part in an AOW or deep specialty course. I deduced this based on: (1) the "deep sea certification" language in the news report and (2) the info regarding max depth (about 65 fsw).

After re-reading the facts and posts in this thread, I think that it's quite possible that the woman was doing her Basic OW training. If that's true, wouldn't exceeding a depth of 60 fsw be a breach of PADI standards?

That would be a minor violation of the maximum depth limit, but you have to remember that the source of that depth information was the same source as the term "deep sea certification." It could be a case of the reporter asking someone how deep the water was there and writing that reply. It may not mean the diver actually reached that depth.

No apologies needed. I was told she was doing the deep portion of AOW.

Assuming that the depth was actually 65 feet, and this was Dive 1 of the open water course, then the standard vbiolation would be pretty significant. The max depth for Dive 1 is 40 feet.

I'd like to point out that these posts (Posts #38, #41, #42, and #43 of this thread) were made within a time frame of less than one hour...at a time during which many of the facts surrounding the incident were unclear. Clarification of the AOW status of the class was made very expeditiously, especially considering the format of an Internet forum. I invite you to re-read the thread if there is any doubt that this was the case.

In denouncement of this discussion, you wrote in your Dive Dry with Dr. Bill article:

As happens in this era of rapid telecommunications, the news was out on ScubaBoard very quickly. Because my computer was still not functioning, I had to wait til Tuesday to log on from the library. I was very disturbed by some of the comments posted by some members. These individuals apparently did not read the prior posts that contained factual information about the incident, and went on to speculate about "possibilities" totally unrelated to what actually happened. This reminds me of today's "news" broadcasts which too often seem to speculate with ninsufficient facts. Having personal knowledge of the incident and the individuals involved, I had to reply to the unfounded speculation.

One individual asked why the instructor had taken a student past the maximum permitted depth for an open water student, and thereby violated agency standards. This individual had not absorbed the fact that the student was in the AOW class where a deep dive (often to 100 ft) is part of the certification. Another asked why the instructor had not "donated" their regulator when the student signaled they were OOA. The instructor had no chance to because prior to that she had been holding onto the diver to slow her too rapid ascent, and once the signal was given, the student immediately bolted to the surface and the instructor couldn't ascend at that rate without further risking her own life. Such uninformed speculation (or WAGs as I referred to some of it) can be very hurtful to the instructor involved or to the family and friends of the deceased. I think back to some of the wildly unfounded speculation about why I left the Conservancy, and how some of it was v ery hurtful to me.

I'd like to point out that I had read and "absorbed" the facts that had been presented earlier in the thread. Reviewing the posts proves this.

Furthermore, I find it ironic that the second example which you provide -- discussion about whether the instructor checked the OOA divers SPG instead of or before providing her an alternative source of air -- was instigated by your post relating facts of the incident. After reading your account, RikRaeder posed a very pointed question regarding the sequence of events. In later posts, you addressed this issue by emphasizing that you were not present at the time of the incident and pointing out that it is possible that the instructor attempted to provide an alternative air source but sharing air with the OOA diver was prevented by her rapid, uncontrolled ascent to the surface. This, I thought, was a very reasonable explanation.

You have requested that people refrain from "uninformed speculation" or WAGs. I ask that you refrain from twisting the words of the people who participate on this Internet forum in order to make a point in your "Diving Dry" column.

I don't expect people to actually read this long-winded post, since it's in blatant violation of the three-finger rule. They may even chalk it up to the baseless Internet rantings of a wanton SB speculator. That's OK with me. The few that take the time to read the original posts might see things differently.

In light of this post, I hope that you consider revising the content of your article. Whether you decide to or not, I'll still be a fan of your work.

I bear no ill feelings toward you, and I do not intend for this post to be inflammatory. I just wanted the opportunity to set the record straight.

 

[Leejnd]

Bubbletrouble - I just wanted to tell you that I read your entire post -- all 73 fingers of it. And I completely understand where you are coming from.

I too have a great deal of respect for Bill. And I get, and agree with, the ultimate point he was trying to make in his article. I read every word of his article, and have read and enjoyed many of his past articles.

But I have to agree that he chose the wrong examples. There WERE some instances of the type of groundless, insensitive speculation that occurred early in that thread. I think he probably could have done some more homework and chosen better examples to make the points he wanted to make in his article.

I will chalk this up to his likely just not having the time to go back and read the entire thread to find better examples. As a writer, that's...ahem...a bit sloppy. And if I were you, I too would feel a bit resentful that my posts were twisted to make a point that could have been made with out making me look bad.

Bill - I hope this won't make you un-friend me on Facebook!

 

[merxlin]

Bubbletrouble- I may have added to this confusion inadvertantly because of my wording. When I said:

Originally Posted by merxlin
No apologies needed. I was told she was doing the deep portion of AOW.

What I meant was you shouldn't apologize because your initial understanding was correct: she was in fact in an Advanced Open Water class (AOW). I thought that was made fairly clear (although maybe not specifically until I commented) early on, particularly with the subsequent discussion about when in AOW you should be doing the Deep Dive portion. I have no idea where the idea that she was a basic Open Water (OW) student came from, as it was not mentioned anywhere, except someone stating that if she was a basic Open Water student it would be a violation of the standards. You yourself summarized the events quite well in post #33

OK. We've established that max depth was around 65 fsw. The incident occurred during initial descent. The dive was part of an AOW or deep diving specialty class (instructor was present).

I'm curious what in the previous posts made you question what it appeared you already knew?

 

[Bubbletrubble]

Bubbletrouble- I may have added to this confusion inadvertantly because of my wording. When I said:
What I meant was you shouldn't apologize because your initial understanding was correct: she was in fact in an Advanced Open Water class (AOW).

@merxlin: I understood what you meant. If anything, your post clarified things to anyone who was reading the posts.

I thought that was made fairly clear (although maybe not specifically until I commented) early on, particularly with the subsequent discussion about when in AOW you should be doing the Deep Dive portion. I have no idea where the idea that she was a basic Open Water (OW) student came from, as it was not mentioned anywhere, except someone stating that if she was a basic Open Water student it would be a violation of the standards. You yourself summarized the events quite well in post #33
I'm curious what in the previous posts made you question what it appeared you already knew?

At the time, I "knew" nothing...for certain. After making post #33, I re-read the previous posts in the thread and the newspaper article. Up until post #38, no one had explicitly stated that it was an AOW class. We had already discussed the danger of doing the Deep dive of AOW as Dive #1, but I was trying to be careful about the info that I was disseminating regarding the incident in question -- and the implication was that we were discussing AOW policy because the incident in question occurred during an AOW class. As you and I both know, all levels of scuba instruction are conducted at the Casino Point UW Park. I merely stated the possibility that it was a BOW class. I was second-guessing what I had posted in #33. I hope this explains things...

 

[Jax]

Umm. . . I might have missed something in catching up -- do we KNOW what happened in fact, yet? besides that she ascended from 60, refused air at 15', and then bolted?

 

[Bubbletrubble]

Umm. . . I might have missed something in catching up -- do we KNOW what happened in fact, yet? besides that she ascended from 60, refused air at 15', and then bolted?

Have you read this thread yet? We could re-hash everything, but it might be best if you reviewed the posts by Dr. Bill and Ken Kurtis. And FWIW, I don't think that it was ever established that she "refused air at 15'." Dr. Bill was kind enough to pass on some info from the instructor involved, but as he pointed out...that only qualifies as secondhand info.

 

[Jax]

Have you read this thread yet? We could re-hash everything, but it might be best if you reviewed the posts by Dr. Bill and Ken Kurtis.

I did. But we still don't have the facts, right? There are not yet medical findings to indicate the why she bolted.

 

[Leejnd]

Jax, we probably won't get "the official facts" here on SB. All we ever really get are news reports (usually written by some boneheaded reporter who knows nothing about diving and writes things like "oxygen tank" and "deep sea certification"), second- and third-hand reports from people who heard something from somebody, and if we're really lucky, some reports from other divers who were there.

We will never see the coroner's report, or the autopsy results, or the police report, or any of those types of documents that might actually be considered "facts."

This particular thread happens to include way more information than many other accident threads, because we have the benefit of people who actually were there (on Catalina) when it happened (though not on the dive itself), and who know the instructor and have passed on some of what they learned.

That's about as close to "facts" as you are ever gonna get in here. If that's not good enough, you might try doing a google search for news reports...but frankly I'm more inclined to believe what I read in here from divers whom I know something about, and trust.

 

[Jax]

Okay -- I thought maybe the family would have announced if she died of a heart attack or something. Thanks.

 

[diverrex]

I think Dr. Bill's article was right in line. There is speculation that may be useful for a learning experience. But there is also speculation that just clutters up and confuses things, like I submit was all the speculation about what class she was in.

And 5' feet past the 60' standard in a OW class is no big deal, come on give me a break.