Cozumel Incident 9/4/11

[DandyDon]

Rule 4 also includes "...no blamestorming..." Everyone knows better than to drink/use and dive. Not only can we not find possible proof of rumored uses, it would serve no real purpose even if we could. The docs may have done blood tests that include such info, but we'll never know.

I will certainly agree with stop the hinting about such. Click Report if you see it.​

 

[MMM]

Rule 4 also includes "...no blamestorming..." Everyone knows better than to drink/use and dive. Not only can we not find possible proof of rumored uses, it would serve no real purpose even if we could. .[/INDENT]

Not everyone knows better than to drink/use and dive. The op I use tells all new divers at our SI that if you order a drink, then you are done diving for the day. I assume he does this not to hear his voice but because he has actually had divers do so.

And I disagree that if it were to be uncovered related to this dive, it would serve no real purpose. It would speak to the state of mind and reinforce what others said earlier on in this thread about the safety mindset/risk tolerance of the op.

And there are other ways assessing whether someone is under the influence besides blood tests: behaviour, voice, etc. Police use these all the time as do all of us when we decide that someone, who is acting weird is drunk or otherwise. It may not be conclusive but it has weight.

Of course everyone knows by now this was a stupid, stupid dive. But if there are more facts to emerge that will explain the behaviours or decisions made, then bring them on. Broad hints throughout this thread would lead one to believe that there is more to be said than has not been said.

 

[tadawson]

Not everyone knows better than to drink/use and dive.

If you actually hold a C card, there is zero excuse. That has been beat to death in cert programs for decades . .

- Tim

 

[scubawife]

If you actually hold a C card, there is zero excuse. That has been beat to death in cert programs for decades . .

- Tim

Really? I've never had it mentioned in any of the my courses. In my experience it's just presumed that it's an understood thing.

There are LAWS prohibiting drinking and driving and there are still millions of DUI convictions annually. Everyone knows they exist and still people make the decision to drink and drive.

Don't kid yourself. People do drink and dive. They also get stoned and dive... are hungover and dive... dehydrated and dive...take cold, allergy and decongestant meds to dive, etc., etc. It's all good until that one dive that your luck runs out and you pay for your poor judgement.

 

[DandyDon]

Really? I've never had it mentioned in any of the my courses. In my experience it's just presumed that it's an understood thing.

There are LAWS prohibiting drinking and driving and there are still millions of DUI convictions annually. Everyone knows they exist and still people make the decision to drink and drive.

Don't kid yourself. People do drink and dive. They also get stoned and dive... are hungover and dive... dehydrated and dive...take cold, allergy and decongestant meds to dive, etc., etc. It's all good until that one dive that your luck runs out and you pay for your poor judgement.

No, I've never heard it in a course either. Indeed, I wasn't aware of how strict the feelings are when I started and once had a beer at lunch on my second dive trip, with no afternoon dives planned - but we had a night dive, and some of those on the boat (we had a group lunch) were pissed.

So okay, maybe that suggestion does need to be shared more in the sport - but I still don't see it in this thread. Reliable info is not available and while I saw some gossip posted before it was deleted, we have no evidence to discuss - and "behaviour, voice, etc. Police use" would hardly be indicative from divers with spinal cord injuries even if that was available.

 

[gypsyjim]

Why are we back to innuendo being posted as "fact" in this thread? If such facts were true, by now I am fairly certain that we would have heard more than 4th had rumors, and snide innuendo.


As pointed out above:
Special Rules for Accidents & Incidents Forum

(6) If you are presenting information from a source other than your own eyes and ears, cite the source.

To do any less is simply useless rumor-mongering and does not belong in this thread.

 

[c0r3yz]

Really? I've never had it mentioned in any of the my courses. In my experience it's just presumed that it's an understood thing.

There are LAWS prohibiting drinking and driving and there are still millions of DUI convictions annually. Everyone knows they exist and still people make the decision to drink and drive.

Don't kid yourself. People do drink and dive. They also get stoned and dive... are hungover and dive... dehydrated and dive...take cold, allergy and decongestant meds to dive, etc., etc. It's all good until that one dive that your luck runs out and you pay for your poor judgement.

Knowing better and acting appropriately are two completely unrelated things. Just because someone fails to act appropriately, doesn't mean they weren't taught how to act appropriately. Regardless, like others have said, any alcohol or drug use cannot be presented here as fact, so it is irrelevant in the course of this discussion. The purpose of this thread is to analyze the situation through the available facts so that we can hopefully learn from it and do so in a civil manner.

The lessons to take away here is that bounce dives to great depths can be very dangerous, getting narced at depth with no bottom in sight can be dangerous, diving without a plan can be dangerous, and making a dive without the appropriate safety measures in place can be dangerous. Any one of these things can lead to very serious injuries, if not death. It's a miracle that these individuals made it out of the water, let alone alive.

 

[Mike]

The lessons to take away here is that bounce dives to great depths can be very dangerous, getting narced at depth with no bottom in sight can be dangerous, diving without a plan can be dangerous, and making a dive without the appropriate safety measures in place can be dangerous. Any one of these things can lead to very serious injuries, if not death. It's a miracle that these individuals made it out of the water, let alone alive.

Let's not forget what I think is the single most broken rule in diving - not staying close to your buddy. Had Opal and her dive buddy remained within close proximity of each other there would have been no need for Gabi to have had to go another 100 ft deeper to have rescued her.

 

[WSOPFAN]

Rule 4 also includes "...no blamestorming..." Everyone knows better than to drink/use and dive. Not only can we not find possible proof of rumored uses,it would serve no real purpose even if we could. The docs may have done blood tests that include such info, but we'll never know.

I will certainly agree with stop the hinting about such. Click Report if you see it.​

It would serve no purpose as the part of any discussion in the A&I forum to know if a diver/divers were under the influence?? REALLY? .....................Speechless.......

Report posters who are trying to get all the facts from this story?.........again.....speechless...

 

[Ron Lee]

Let's not forget what I think is the single most broken rule in diving - not staying close to your buddy. Had Opal and her dive buddy remained within close proximity of each other there would have been no need for Gabi to have had to go another 100 ft deeper to have rescued her.

This is very important. You have a woman and two guys. One is an employee of the woman who is loved by all. The other guy is reported to be her "boyfriend." Certainly he would be watching her intently whenever they got to a point where it became risky. Actually both guys should be watching her closely.

Plus you have a planned depth of 250' - 300'. Would you not slow down around 240' to assess each persons condition before going deeper? If fine at 250' then drop to perhaps 275' to see if all is well before trying 300'? If I were doing it I would be vertical (heads up) by 250' and stay that way while in an area that is new and hazardous.

Given these two factors that would have all three close together, how does the woman drop lower without being stopped soon?