Cozumel Incident 9/4/11

[halocline]

Also, 400' was definitely not the plan, I believe it was 300' or thereabouts. So now you need to come up with an arbitrary number between 167 and 300 where "recreational" ends and "technical" becomes the only way to do it. Is that 168? 219? Pick a number, any number. They're all equally useless.

I'm sorry, but this is just indefensible. To imply that there is no difference between 131 and 300 ft, or even 219 ft, is absurd, and you know it. You're just arguing semantics, unless you really believe that its appropriate to dive to these kinds of depths without technical (meaning decompression) training and equipment. Nobody would sensibly argue that recreational diving protocols are appropriate at decompression depths solely because the involved divers have a higher "personal limit."

 

[Crush]

I'm sorry, but this is just indefensible. To imply that there is no difference between 131 and 300 ft, or even 219 ft, is absurd, and you know it. You're just arguing semantics, unless you really believe that its appropriate to dive to these kinds of depths without technical (meaning decompression) training and equipment. Nobody would sensibly argue that recreational diving protocols are appropriate at decompression depths solely because the involved divers have a higher "personal limit."

halocline, I began to compose a similar response about an hour before you made your post. I chose to cancel the post since I believed that it would serve no purpose. FWIW, I am with you 100% on this one.

The synopsis of my post was that, if the recreational limit of 140 ft is arbitrary and indefensible, then the following agencies need to be notified so that they can correct these errors in their educational materials: PADI, NAUI, ACUC, ...

 

[Ayisha]

130 feet was chosen as a recreational limit by various agencies across the board because it is pretty much a "magic number" whereby dive time is short, gas consumption is faster, and especially that nitrogen narcosis sets in at a greater level. I read some articles with some supporting numbers on this "magic number" a few years ago and they were compelling.

 

[Mossman]

I have to take issue with two points in particular; 1) I think you are confusing 'free climbing' and climbing high altitude without oxygen. Free climbing is rock climbing without protection; it has nothing to do with high altitude or bottled O2. 2) There certainly is a logical, cut-and-dried, useful line between recreational diving and technical diving. Recreational diving is diving within environments that allow immediate access to the surface. Technical diving is diving in environments where you do not have that access. Very simple, easy to understand, and useful to divers for evaluating dive behavior.

Someone else used the term "free climbing", but you're right, I've too have always understood it as climbing without rope. What I'm talking about is light climbing, where people leave the overnight gear behind for a summit, preferring to keep to a small pack for speed and hope to make it up and down without some calamity requiring an overnight stay. Summitting high peaks without oxygen is another parallel with stupid diving as it's more dangerous to forego the use of oxygen just as it's more dangerous to forego the use of helium on deep dives.

Your distinction between technical and recreational dives is pretty standard, but has many loopholes. For instance, on my last trip to Cozumel in June, I did a recreational dive through Devil's Throat that resulted in 8 min of mandatory deco. Was this a recreational dive or a technical dive? On that one, I may have been the only diver of six that was actually technical trained in the least, but no one died fortunately. Lots of Europeans consider small deco obligations like that a standard part of what they consider recreational diving.

Regardless of what you want to "label" this dive, it still is stunning to me that dive professionals would willingly attempt to dive this deep on a single tank of air. 300ft, 400ft, what's the difference? It's still FAR beyond any reasonable depth appropriate for single tank, air diving. I know that the divers involved are well respected and liked by lots of people on this forum, and I truly hope that they recover and that this incident helps to keep other from attempting something similar.

I apologize in advance if my comments hurt anyone's feelings who might be personally involved.

Clearly they thought it was reasonable. Some people think 167' feet is reasonable. Some people think 200'+ is reasonable, and apparently these very experienced divers who had done deep dives before thought 300'+ was reasonable.

 

[rigdiver]

Another "Magic Number" was the 60'/min ascent rate. The math calculation was much slower. It was changed arbitrarily to match the seconds in a minute so it would be easier for tender's hauling up heavy hard hat divers. Also, ther were no surface interval or rnt tables. These were "gifts" from the USN. Navy diver's made one dive per day.

Bill

 

[halocline]

Clearly they thought it was reasonable. Some people think 167' feet is reasonable. Some people think 200'+ is reasonable, and apparently these very experienced divers who had done deep dives before thought 300'+ was reasonable.

It's impossible to know what was in the minds of these divers. I suspect that if someone asked them, before the dive, whether 300ft+ on a single tank of air was "reasonable" they might have said no. Perhaps they thought, as some professionals do, that their experience would allow them to plan a dive that is not "reasonable" in general. There's simply no way to know.

 

[Mossman]

It's impossible to know what was in the minds of these divers. I suspect that if someone asked them, before the dive, whether 300ft+ on a single tank of air was "reasonable" they might have said no. Perhaps they thought, as some professionals do, that their experience would allow them to plan a dive that is not "reasonable" in general. There's simply no way to know.

No, I believe they thought it was reasonable given their lack of precautions. If they really thought it would be unreasonable dangerous, they would have skipped the dive or found some ways to mitigate their risk.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Clearly they thought it was reasonable. Some people think 167' feet is reasonable. Some people think 200'+ is reasonable, and apparently these very experienced divers who had done deep dives before thought 300'+ was reasonable.

... and given the outcome, apparently they were mistaken ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Bombay High]

What has become of the divers ? Is there any report on their condition or recovery ?

 

[DandyDon]

What has become of the divers ? Is there any report on their condition or recovery ?

Well, the Mexican citizen DM who rescued the owner is paralyzed from the waist down but still receiving treatment in Cozumel.

The American owner who narced and continued dropping was flown to Miami and is on a ventilator. The news on Facebook is not good but always hopeful.

The American frequent visitor sometimes referred to as the boyfriend was flown to Miami and was walking last I heard. He is the one who did not drop to greater depths like the other two, fortunately - as they all shared his air on the ascent.

I guess that sums up the current state if I have it right.

I went deeper than I should have once, really enjoyed the narced feeling and in my drunken state was tempted to go down more - but the Op owner clanged his tank so I ascended. I could have been on that ventilator for weeks, or worse.